Perlukah penutupan operator hotel asing untuk mem-proteksi operator hotel nasional/lokal?
Gagasan “menutup” operator hotel asing biasanya muncul saat pelaku lokal merasa ruang pasar makin sempit—misalnya karena dominasi merek internasional pada segmen tertentu, akses distribusi global, dan daya tawar terhadap pemasok serta tenaga kerja. Namun, keputusan ekstrem seperti penutupan perlu ditimbang dengan kinerja sektor perhotelan dan peran pariwisata bagi ekonomi nasional. Data okupansi memberi sinyal bahwa industri masih dalam fase pemulihan-penguatan: sepanjang 2024, Tingkat Penghunian Kamar (TPK) hotel berbintang Indonesia tercatat 52,57%, naik dibanding 2023 (51,27%)—artinya kapasitas terisi rata-rata baru sekitar separuh setiap malam, sehingga kebijakan yang mengganggu permintaan/jejaring pemasaran berisiko menekan pemulihan.
Dari sisi makro, pariwisata (termasuk efek rantai pasok dan investasi) punya kontribusi yang signifikan sehingga perubahan kebijakan pada operator hotel dapat berdampak lebih luas daripada sekadar “siapa yang mengelola hotel.” Laporan WTTC Economic Impact 2023 mencatat total kontribusi Travel & Tourism terhadap PDB Indonesia pada 2022 sebesar IDR 772.265,9 miliar (3,9% PDB). Di level kebijakan, ini berarti langkah proteksionis yang memicu penurunan investasi, kualitas layanan, atau konektivitas pasar internasional dapat merembet ke penerimaan daerah, UMKM pemasok, dan lapangan kerja yang terkait pariwisata.
Secara ilmiah, operator hotel asing tidak selalu identik dengan “kepemilikan asing”; sering kali mereka hadir melalui kontrak manajemen, waralaba, atau kerja sama operasional yang memindahkan standar layanan, teknologi reservasi, dan akses jaringan pelanggan global. Literatur akademik tentang ekspansi jaringan hotel global menunjukkan keputusan ekspansi/FDA dipengaruhi konfigurasi jarak geografis-budaya dan tingkat perkembangan ekonomi negara tujuan—yang pada praktiknya dapat membawa transfer pengetahuan manajerial, sistem, dan proses. Studi di Journal of Business Research (2016) menelaah pola keputusan investasi/ekspansi jaringan hotel global, yang relevan untuk memahami bahwa “kehadiran operator” sering terkait strategi investasi dan jaringan, bukan sekadar kompetisi harga.
Di sisi lain, kekhawatiran pelaku nasional/lokal juga valid: tanpa pagar kebijakan, ada risiko “value capture” (nilai ekonomi lebih banyak tertarik ke luar), tekanan pada operator lokal yang belum punya akses distribusi internasional, hingga homogenisasi produk yang melemahkan identitas destinasi. Namun data pasar menunjukkan hotel independen/lokal masih porsi besar; misalnya laporan riset pasar (2025) menyebut independent hotels memegang sekitar 62,85% pangsa pada segmen tertentu di pasar hospitality real estate Indonesia—mengindikasikan ruang kompetisi tidak sepenuhnya tertutup, tetapi persaingan kemungkinan tajam di kelas menengah-atas dan destinasi utama.
Karena itu, secara kebijakan publik, penutupan total operator asing cenderung kurang proporsional dibanding opsi regulasi yang lebih presisi. Kerangka investasi berkelanjutan dari lembaga internasional menekankan pentingnya mengarahkan investasi agar manfaatnya menyebar, bukan menahannya—terlebih saat arus FDI global turun (UNCTAD mencatat FDI global turun 2% pada 2023 menjadi sekitar US$1,3 triliun). Alternatif yang lebih “ilmiah-kebijakan” untuk melindungi operator nasional/lokal adalah: kewajiban kemitraan dan penguatan SDM lokal (training, jenjang karier), aturan local procurement dan integrasi UMKM, batasan yang jelas pada struktur fee/royalti agar tidak menggerus devisa, insentif fiskal untuk brand lokal naik kelas, serta standardisasi mutu/sertifikasi agar persaingan berbasis kualitas (bukan sekadar kekuatan merek). Dengan desain seperti ini, proteksi terjadi melalui peningkatan daya saing lokal—tanpa mematikan arus pengetahuan, jaringan permintaan, dan investasi.
JS BUDI – dari berbagai sumber | Dosen pada GM-CLASS Institut STIAMI, Jakarta Pusat | Founder Koran Pariwisata Indonesia
=======-
Is the Closure of Foreign Hotel Operators Necessary to Protect National/Local Hotel Operators?
The idea of “closing” foreign hotel operators typically emerges when local industry players perceive a narrowing of market space—such as the dominance of international brands in specific segments, superior access to global distribution channels, and stronger bargaining power vis-à-vis suppliers and labor. However, extreme measures such as outright closure must be carefully weighed against the performance of the hospitality sector and the broader role of tourism in the national economy. Occupancy data indicate that the industry remains in a phase of recovery and consolidation: throughout 2024, the average room occupancy rate of star-rated hotels in Indonesia reached 52.57%, increasing from 51.27% in 2023. This implies that, on average, only about half of available capacity is occupied each night, suggesting that policies disrupting demand or marketing networks could jeopardize the ongoing recovery.
From a macroeconomic perspective, tourism—including its supply-chain and investment multiplier effects—makes a substantial contribution to the economy, such that policy changes affecting hotel operators may have repercussions far beyond the question of “who manages the hotel.” The WTTC Economic Impact Report 2023 recorded the total contribution of Travel and Tourism to Indonesia’s GDP in 2022 at IDR 772,265.9 billion, equivalent to 3.9% of GDP. At the policy level, this indicates that protectionist measures which reduce investment inflows, service quality, or international market connectivity may cascade into lower regional revenues, reduced activity among MSME suppliers, and employment losses across tourism-related sectors.
From a scholarly standpoint, foreign hotel operators are not synonymous with “foreign ownership”; they frequently operate through management contracts, franchising arrangements, or operational partnerships that transfer service standards, reservation technologies, and access to global customer networks. Academic literature on the expansion of global hotel chains shows that foreign direct investment and expansion decisions are shaped by configurations of geographic and cultural distance as well as the level of economic development in host countries—factors that, in practice, facilitate the transfer of managerial knowledge, systems, and processes. A study published in the Journal of Business Research (2016) examined investment and expansion decision patterns of global hotel networks, underscoring that the “presence of operators” is often driven by investment strategy and network effects rather than simple price competition.
At the same time, the concerns of national and local operators are legitimate. In the absence of appropriate policy safeguards, there is a risk of “value capture,” whereby a disproportionate share of economic value flows abroad, increased pressure on local operators lacking access to international distribution channels, and product homogenization that weakens destination identity. Nevertheless, market data indicate that independent and locally operated hotels still constitute a significant share of the market. For example, a 2025 market research report notes that independent hotels account for approximately 62.85% of market share in certain segments of Indonesia’s hospitality real estate sector, suggesting that competitive space is not entirely foreclosed, although competition is likely to be intense in the upper-middle and premium segments and in primary destinations.
Accordingly, from a public policy perspective, the total closure of foreign operators appears disproportionate compared with more targeted regulatory options. International frameworks on sustainable investment emphasize the importance of steering investment so that its benefits are broadly distributed rather than restricting it—particularly in a context where global foreign direct investment flows are declining (UNCTAD reported a 2% decrease in global FDI in 2023 to approximately USD 1.3 trillion). More policy- and evidence-based alternatives to protect national and local operators include mandatory partnership arrangements and local human capital development (training and career pathways), local procurement requirements and MSME integration, clear limits on fee and royalty structures to prevent excessive foreign exchange outflows, fiscal incentives to support the upgrading of local brands, and quality standardization and certification to promote competition based on service excellence rather than brand power alone. Under such a framework, protection is achieved through enhanced local competitiveness—without undermining knowledge transfer, demand networks, or investment flows.
JS BUDI – compiled from some sources
