Rethinking global tourism rankings

Global rankings are frequently seen as impartial scorecards — subtle yet powerful judges of performance. This is especially evident in tourism, where such indices exert an outsized influence on perception, policy direction, and investment decisions

Global rankings carry quiet but formidable influence. They shape how countries are perceived, where capital flows, and which policy choices are prioritised. In tourism, few instruments are as widely followed as the World Economic Forum’s Travel & Tourism Development Index (TTDI). Governments track it closely; investors rely on it as a proxy for credibility, and the media amplifies its findings with little interrogation.

Yet, for all its authority, the index raises an important question: does it truly measure comparative performance, or does it reflect structural advantage?

A closer reading of the 2024 rankings suggests a pattern that is difficult to ignore. High-income economies occupy 26 of the top 30 positions, with Europe alone accounting for 19. These are countries that already dominate global tourism, contributing over three-fourths of tourism GDP and nearly 70 per cent of post-pandemic growth. The index, rather than disrupting this concentration, appears to mirror it.

What is presented as benchmarking, therefore, risks becoming a reinforcement of existing hierarchies.

The explanation lies, in part, in the architecture of the index. The TTDI assigns equal weight to 17 pillars, treating a wide range of variables as though they evolve on similar timelines.

In reality, they do not.

Indicators such as air connectivity, rail density, hotel capacity, and urban infrastructure are the product of decades-or often centuries-of sustained investment. Advanced economies naturally perform strongly on these parameters. When such legacy-heavy indicators are given equal importance alongside recent reforms or policy innovation, the outcome becomes predictable. Countries that began with an advantage continue to retain it.

The result is a framework that tends to privilege historical accumulation over recent momentum.

India’s position offers a useful lens into this dynamic. Ranked 39th, above the global average and leading among comparable economies, it has nevertheless slipped since 2019, despite significant improvements in aviation capacity, digital infrastructure, and tourism assets.

The signal is subtle but important. Progress is recognised, but it does not always translate into upward movement.

Overlaying this structural issue is another challenge, which is scale. Nearly fifteen indicators within the TTDI rely on per capita metrics. For a country of India’s size, this creates an inherent statistical disadvantage. Even as infrastructure expands rapidly in absolute terms, per capita ratios appear modest when compared to smaller nations. This effect is further accentuated by the use of standardised population estimates, which may not fully capture the most recent demographic dynamics, leading to scores that reflect arithmetic compression rather than actual capability.

The methodology also draws significantly on perception-based surveys, particularly from business respondents. These perceptions are often anchored in benchmarks set by advanced economies. Countries operating within different cost-to-quality equilibria are therefore assessed against standards that may not fully reflect their context. The result is not necessarily a failure of performance, but a mismatch in expectations.

Even pillars that appear inherently neutral, such as natural and cultural resources, are influenced by factors beyond intrinsic value. Visibility plays a critical role. Digital footprint, branding strength, and global discoverability shape outcomes as much as the richness of the resource itself. Heritages that is less amplified globally risks being undervalued, irrespective of its depth.

Perhaps the most complex dimension is the inclusion of variables that lie outside the immediate domain of tourism policy. Credit ratings, passport mobility, globalisation indices, and UNESCO listings are shaped by broader geopolitical and economic factors. Yet, they feed directly into tourism rankings, further tilting the balance towards countries with longstanding structural advantages.

Taken together, these elements create a system where progress is visible but not always sufficiently rewarded. Countries like India are acknowledged for their strengths and trajectory, but moving significantly higher in the rankings often requires factors that take decades to build-such as deep infrastructure, global brand recall, and institutional maturity.

This is not a critique of the index as much as it is a case for its evolution.

If global rankings are to remain relevant in a rapidly changing world, they must increasingly distinguish between structural advantage and policy effort, between scale and efficiency, and between perception and performance. Doing so would make them more reflective of contemporary realities and more useful as tools for policymaking.

For emerging economies, including India, there is also an opportunity to engage constructively in this recalibration by ensuring that global frameworks capture not just where countries stand, but how they are progressing.

Because ultimately, the question is not simply about rank. It is about whether the metrics we rely on are aligned with the outcomes we seek.

If they are, rankings can serve as valuable guides. If not, they risk becoming elegant reflections of the past rather than meaningful indicators of the future.

If global rankings are to remain relevant in a rapidly changing world, they must increasingly distinguish between structural advantage and policy effort, between scale and efficiency, and between perception and performance

The writer is the Additional Secretary & Director General, Ministry of Tourism, Government of India; Views presented are personal.