Are all-inclusive holidays wrong?

I'm currently sat in the lobby of a large American-owned hotel in Cancun, Mexico, which is densely stacked with similarly massive internationally owned establishments, alongside chains like McDonalds and Hooters (where I was surprised to see lots of families with young children dining.)

I'm insulated from the sweltering heat (in fact shivering in Baltic blasts of air-con) and left wondering,what exactly is Mexican about this place except for its location? I'm really lucky to be here of course, it just strikes me as odd that people should travel thousands of miles to be surrounded by all the same stuff we have back home. My friend and I are actually considered 'adventurous' by other guests, not because we have raided some Mayan tombs, avoiding blow dart spitting statues and the rest, but because we caught the local bus to the Walmart to get some supplies.

Whilst the Americans make an easy target (I could say something about them being too chunky to miss but won't) us Brits are just as guilty of longing for familiarity transposed to warmer locations; how else does one explain the Lineker's Bar chain, the Eastenders outlet in Calais or the proliferation of British style boozers all over the med that overflow with inebriated sunburnt Brits bellowing at each other. When Mark Twain said "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness" he can't have been thinking about booze Britain on tour, behaving in a more jingoistic and bigoted manner than we would ever act at home.

This month First Choice Holidays announced it was now the 'home of all-inclusive' holidays and will only sell all-in packages in response to families wanting to travel on a budget. A great move in this economic environment and part of me wishes we'd gone in that direction and then I could have avoided the supermarket trips, but then realised we'd have had no real reason to ever leave the compound.

It seems like the all-inclusive deals will exacerbate the tendency to cower behind the compound walls because if all drinks and meals are included it is unlikely people will want to step out and sample the local fare because they'll effectively be paying for two meals. It's unfortunate that local bars and restaurants will cease to benefit from the massive re-development of their countries, as one of the arguments for globalisation is that everyone benefits from a trickle down of wealth from the more developed nations to those on the road to prosperity. Doesn't the all-inclusive close the loop on tourist spending?

The Encyclopedia of Tourism concurs describing how 'enclave tourism' offers very few economic benefits to the (sometimes third world) host country, especially as companies like Club Med are part of vast multinationals who siphon profits abroad. It also describes how the gated-community school of travel offers virtually no 'host-guest interaction', that it is unlikely that this form of travel will help overcome the prejudice and bigotory Twain mentions. In fact it may serve to emphasise it, take Sandals resorts in Jamaica and the Caribbean where they offer a butler service, meaning the only local you're likely to come in contact with, aside from the people at the check-in desk is your man-servant!

It's also notable that Sandals don't seem to promote any trips into Kingston or chances to soak up the local culture. According to the Encyclopedia of Tourism this modern day form of segregation "...has led to resentment by the local population and by the broader national community. Except for low-level resort staff and wealthier residents the local population is banned from the resort complex."

If globalisation is to benefit the world and tourism is going to help redistribute wealth around the globe we'll have to risk the ride into town and be prepared to feel foolish because we can't speak the local lingo. And even if we get ripped off from time to time we'll be the richer for it as we'll have better stories to tell and may have learnt something new, or bought better souvenirs in the meantime. Now to the pool.