Cheap to Visit, Expensive to Afford A Cross-Country Analysis of Travel Costs, Purchasing Power and Local Affordability
This paper demonstrates that the ranking of countries by travel cost varies drastically depending on whether one measures nominal USD expenses, local purchasing power, or income-based affordability, revealing that poorer nations are not necessarily more expensive to visit but are less affordable because travel prices do not scale down with lower local incomes.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
The question "Where is it cheapest to travel?" seems simple enough, but the answer changes completely depending on who is asking. For a tourist holding a wallet full of dollars, the question is about the price tag: how many dollars does a hotel room, a meal, or a bus ticket cost right now? For an economist looking at how much a country's money can actually buy, the question is about purchasing power: if everything else in that country is very cheap, does a slightly expensive hotel still feel expensive? And for a local resident trying to plan a vacation, the question is about affordability: even if the price tag is low, is that price within reach of their monthly paycheck? These three perspectives usually live in separate worlds, with travel guides focusing on the first, economists on the second, and development planners on the third. Rarely are they compared side by side to see if they tell the same story.
A researcher at the Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur decided to bring these three worlds together. By gathering data on airfare, hotels, food, and local transport for seventy different countries, and then mixing that with official records on local prices and average incomes, the study created three distinct rankings for a standard one-week trip. The first ranking lists countries by their raw cost in US dollars. The second adjusts those costs to account for how expensive or cheap life is in that specific country. The third ranking asks a different question entirely: what percentage of an average local worker's monthly income would they need to spend to take that same trip?
The results reveal a striking disconnect. The countries that look cheapest to a foreign visitor are often the most expensive for their own residents to visit. For instance, Nigeria appeared as the cheapest destination for a dollar-holding tourist, with a representative week of travel costing just two hundred sixteen dollars. Yet, for a local resident, that same trip would cost nearly two months' worth of their average income, placing Nigeria in the least-affordable half of the list for local affordability. Conversely, Norway, which ranks as one of the most expensive places to visit in raw dollars, is actually the most affordable for its own citizens, who would need to spend only about sixteen percent of a month's income to take the trip.
The study found that these three ways of measuring "cheap" do not line up. Knowing how much a trip costs in dollars tells you very little about whether a local person can afford it. In fact, the data shows a clear pattern: in poorer nations, travel prices are not unusually high compared to other goods; rather, local incomes are simply so low that even modest travel costs become a massive financial burden. In richer nations, high travel prices are easily absorbed by high wages. The research also showed that adjusting for local price levels helps explain why some countries feel cheaper than their dollar price suggests, but this adjustment still does not predict whether a local resident can afford the trip. That ability depends almost entirely on income, not on how travel prices compare to the cost of bread or fuel.
This divergence matters because it changes how we understand the travel industry and economic development. A backpacker optimizing a budget will naturally gravitate toward the countries that top the dollar-cost list, such as India, Vietnam, and Nigeria. However, for policymakers trying to encourage domestic tourism or understand the economic strain on local families, those same countries appear as places where travel is effectively out of reach. The study concludes that calling a destination "cheap" is an incomplete statement unless it specifies who is paying. For the foreign visitor, the world is full of bargain destinations; for the local resident in those same places, the same destinations can represent a financial impossibility. The research suggests that the gap between a cheap price tag and a local's ability to pay is not a flaw in the travel market, but a reflection of the wider economic reality where income levels have not kept pace with the cost of leisure.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.