Is tourism beneficial to developing countries?

The income doesn't always go to the locals

Question: Is tourism beneficial to developing countries?
Position‹2 of 2: No, tourism is detrimental to developing countries
Argument‹3 of 4›: The income doesn't always go to the locals

Major companies take away the income that would be going to the local people.

The argument

The argument is that tourism revenue in a developing country is not the same thing as revenue for that country, because the businesses that capture most of it are frequently based elsewhere. When a location becomes a popular destination, big-name companies, often Western-based, move to take advantage of the economic capital generated by visitors, supplying the hotels, the tours and the airlines through which most tourist spending passes. The consequence is a mismatch between where money is spent and where it ends up. A visitor who pays for a flight, a hotel room and an organised excursion may spend a considerable sum within the country and still direct almost all of it to foreign-owned firms, whose profits return to their home countries rather than remaining with the locals who live in the area. The destination supplies the attraction, the setting and much of the labour, while the returns accrue to the intermediaries positioned between the visitor and the place. Proponents argue that visitor behaviour reinforces this pattern rather than correcting it over time. Tourists are more likely to book with companies whose names they already know, which are by definition the international operators rather than local ones, so the familiarity that guides an unfamiliar traveller's choices systematically favours foreign-based firms. Local businesses are left competing for the smaller share of spending that falls outside those bookings. The final step concerns what the arrangement costs the host country. Accommodating tourists is not free: it requires infrastructure, services and public spending directed toward visitor needs. Where the resulting revenue leaves the country, the destination is pouring out precious money to sustain an industry whose proceeds it does not retain, which means the sector can grow while the local economy is drained rather than built. On this account tourism prevents advancement in development instead of financing it.

Premises

[P1]When a place becomes a popular destination, large, often Western-based companies move in to provide the hotels, tours, and airlines, sending much of the profit back to their own countries rather than to local residents. [P2] Tourists also tend to book with familiar foreign brands over local ones, so the destination country pours out precious money to accommodate visitors while little of the income reaches locals, stalling its development. [C] Because the income doesn't always go to the locals, tourism is detrimental to developing countries.

Counter-arguments

We don't know exactly where the money goes. Companies may contribute to the locals, and tourists may contribute to local businesses more often than we think. The distribution is different for every country, especially in a day and age where people have access to rating systems such as Yelp.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] The presence of large businesses will not necessarily mean money will not go to locals.