Tel: +998977838464

No. 9 (2026)
Marketing

Scientific articles

DEVELOPING PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENHANCING UZBEKISTAN’S INTERNATIONAL IMAGE AND TOURISM COMPETITIVENESS: GAP DECOMPOSITION, INSTRUMENT COVERAGE, AND THE RANKING OF INTERVENTIONS BY IMPLEMENTATION DISTANCE

DOI 10.67668/mj/2026iss9/2098 Pages 629-642

Published 2026-09-07

Authors
Gofurjonova Musharrafkhon Shekhratjon kizi
Affiliation
Tashkent State University of Economics image/svg+xml
Marketing jurnali — 2026-yil sentabr, 9-son
PDF Google Scholar Google Scholar

Abstract

Articles that develop practical recommendations normally list them. This one ranks them, using coefficients estimated in four companion studies on the same panels, and reports what the ranking exposes. Three constructs organise the work: gap decomposition, which locates the competitiveness shortfall along the chain from governance to revenue; instrument coverage, introduced here to record which links of that chain carry an estimated coefficient and which do not; and implementation distance, which scores how far each candidate intervention is from being executable. The decomposition finds that Uzbekistan is at the benchmark median on how tourists rate its heritage, at 99.6 per cent, and exactly at it on arrivals per signature event, at 100.0 per cent, while standing at 47.2 per cent of the median on articulated engagement and 39.0 per cent on receipts per arrival. The competitiveness problem is therefore not one of product quality. Of the seven links in the chain, six carry estimated coefficients and one does not, and the one that does not is the link from arrivals to receipts, where the measured gap is 2.615 billion USD per year. Ranking the quantifiable interventions gives a clear first choice: shortening every approval chain to two steps raises international attention by an estimated 30.5 per cent with no recurring cost, which is 51 per cent of the effect of doubling every site operating budget at none of its 2.02 million USD annual expense. The three interventions that can be quantified, taken together, are worth an estimated 251 million USD a year. That is one tenth of the gap for which no instrument exists. The article’s principal recommendation follows from that ratio rather than from any of the individual estimates.

Keywords

tourism competitiveness, nation image, policy prioritisation, instrument coverage, implementation distance, intervention ranking, Uzbekistan

References

  1. Anholt, S. (2007). Competitive Identity: The New Brand Management for Nations, Cities and Regions. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230627727
  2. Cameron, A. C., & Miller, D. L. (2015). A practitioner’s guide to cluster-robust inference. Journal of Human Resources, 50(2), 317-372. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.50.2.317
  3. Chalip, L. (2004). Beyond impact: A general model for sport event leverage. In B. W. Ritchie & D. Adair (Eds.), Sport Tourism: Interrelationships, Impacts and Issues (pp. 226-252). Clevedon: Channel View
  4. Crouch, G. I. (2011). Destination competitiveness: An analysis of determinant attributes. Journal of Travel Research, 50(1), 27-45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287510362776
  5. Dwyer, L., & Kim, C. (2003). Destination competitiveness: Determinants and indicators. Current Issues in Tourism, 6(5), 369-414. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500308667962
  6. Fan, Y. (2006). Branding the nation: What is being branded? Journal of Vacation Marketing, 12(1), 5-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356766706056633
  7. Hjalager, A.-M. (2010). A review of innovation research in tourism. Tourism Management, 31(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.08.012
  8. Kotler, P., & Gertner, D. (2002). Country as brand, product, and beyond: A place marketing and brand management perspective. Journal of Brand Management, 9(4-5), 249-261. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540076
  9. Manski, C. F. (2013). Public Policy in an Uncertain World: Analysis and Decisions. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674067547
  10. Moscardo, G. (1996). Mindful visitors: Heritage and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2), 376-397. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(95)00068-2
  11. OECD & Joint Research Centre. (2008). Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264043466-en
  12. Ritchie, J. R. B., & Crouch, G. I. (2003). The Competitive Destination: A Sustainable Tourism Perspective. Wallingford: CABI. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851996646.0000
  13. Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., & Tarantola, S. (2005). Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques as tools for the quality assessment of composite indicators. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A, 168(2), 307-323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2005.00350.x
  14. Scharpf, F. W. (1988). The joint-decision trap: Lessons from German federalism and European integration. Public Administration, 66(3), 239-278. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1988.tb00694.x
  15. Tilden, F. (1957). Interpreting Our Heritage. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press
  16. Tsebelis, G. (2002). Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400831456

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.