Pros and cons of all-inclusive resorts

A frequent critique of all-inclusive resorts is that they do not help the local economy or that they damage the local environment. People who hold this view usually cite the fact that most resorts are located in relatively remote areas away from major local population centres, making it hard for the people staying there to see any local sights or patronize local business, especially since they have after all paid up-front for their food and drink at the resort but would have to pay separately for anything they eat or drink elsewhere. They also say that most resorts are owned and run by large multinational corporations, such as Club Med, Sandals, Beaches or SuperClubs Resorts (which is actually a collection of several resort chains including Hedonism Resorts and Breezes Resorts) thus diverting money away from local companies.

Proponents of all-inclusive resorts point to the fact that these resorts usually bring large numbers of visitors to the country, who must travel through local airports and towns to arrive at the resort. They also state that the resorts provide jobs in areas that are economically impoverished and away from the major centres.

Resort popularity can sometimes drive up property values to such a degree that the resort workforce cannot afford to live near their workplace, causing the creation of nearby bedroom communities. This phenomenon is especially prevalent near ski resorts in the American West, and resorts in otherwise impoverished nations. A classic example being Cayo Coco in Cuba where the hotels are placed on an island 27km from the mainland and the working population brought onto the islands each day from apartment blocks on the mainland by bus.