IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rcitxx/v22y2019i13p1617-1637.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Platform coopetition in the tourism industry: conflicts and tensions caused by the closure of Booking.com in Turkey

Author

Listed:
  • Ebru Tekin Bilbil

Abstract

In March 2017, as a result of a precautionary interim decision made by the courts based on the case relating to ‘unfair competition practices’, Booking.com closed its platform for inbound tourism in Turkey and ceased operations. This was the first instance of an online booking platform halting access for inbound bookings for the domestic market. This platform-based relationship involves both cooperation and competition, and thus this paper identifies this relationship as platform coopetition. Based on the governance network theory and employing a case-study approach, the Booking.com case is examined from the viewpoint of tourism coopetition from two perspectives: industry-wide and agent-specific. The paper provides an analysis of these perspectives and the past and on-going process of Booking.com’s platform closure. The constitutive dynamics this case endangers the coopetitive environment of the tourism industry and thus creates destructive uncertainties, especially for small hotels. This analysis also reveals the issues in terms of political representation for digital service platform companies.

Suggested Citation

  • Ebru Tekin Bilbil, 2019. "Platform coopetition in the tourism industry: conflicts and tensions caused by the closure of Booking.com in Turkey," Current Issues in Tourism, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(13), pages 1617-1637, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rcitxx:v:22:y:2019:i:13:p:1617-1637
    DOI: 10.1080/13683500.2018.1461199
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13683500.2018.1461199
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13683500.2018.1461199?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rcitxx:v:22:y:2019:i:13:p:1617-1637. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rcit .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.