In recent years, the government has repeatedly emphasized its commitment to creating a civil service that is low-cost, structured, competent and free of unnecessary bureaucracy. However, this vision continues to be undermined by entrenched interests, political appointments and lobbying by powerful groups. A striking example of this contradiction is the establishment and subsequent trajectory of the Tourism Development Center (TDC).

Mongolia first established such a center under the auspices of the Ministry of Environment and Tourism in January 2017. The initiative was led by then-Minister D.Oyunkhorol, who spearheaded the effort to address a longstanding institutional gap in the tourism sector. At the time, the government issued a decree citing the underwhelming results of previous tourism development policies and programs. These failures were largely attributed to the absence of a dedicated state body with specialized functions in tourism planning and implementation. The newly created center was given a clear mandate: to act as a professional body responsible for executing sectoral policies, assisting the ministry, and ensuring the effective implementation of tourism-related projects and programs funded by the state budget. With Mongolia’s rich natural landscapes, unique nomadic heritage and growing interest from international tourists, the potential for sustainable tourism was immense. The center was expected to serve as a model of targeted governance and results-driven management.

However, over time, the original purpose of the TDC has become increasingly diluted. Political appointees, administrative reshuffles and lobbying by private interest groups have compromised its independence and efficiency. Instead of operating as a lean, professional body, the center has been weighed down by overlapping functions, unclear accountability, and growing bureaucratic layers, precisely the challenges it was designed to overcome.

In effect, the center became a state-owned enterprise that operated not as a facilitator of government policy, but as an entity entirely beholden to ministerial control, tasked with executing politically convenient operations while shielding ministries from direct accountability. Far from fulfilling its intended role of implementing tourism policy and supporting the sector’s growth, the organization increasingly became a competitor to the private sector. Rather than complementing private enterprise, it began to initiate its own projects, often overlapping with or undermining the efforts of businesses already operating in the field. As a result, the center came to be viewed by many in the tourism community not as a driver of development, but as a bureaucratic obstacle.

This widespread discontent culminated during the 2024 revision and public discussion of the Tourism Law. Researchers, sectoral experts and private tourism operators unanimously proposed the dissolution of the center, citing its inefficiency and disruptive presence. Then-Minister of Environment and Tourism B.Bat-Erdene conveyed these concerns to the relevant authorities. Responding to this, the government issued Resolution No. 36, officially dissolving the center in January 2024. However, in a surprising turn of events, the Ministry of Culture, Sports, Tourism and Youth has recently moved to re-establish the very same institution, this time with a broader structure and presumably greater reach. This decision came slightly more than a year after the center’s formal dissolution, effectively reversing Resolution No. 36.

To put the timeline into perspective: the decision to dissolve the TDC was made by the Cabinet led by then-Prime Minister L.Oyun-Erdene on January 25, 2024. Remarkably, the decision to revive the institution was approved by the same Cabinet on February 19, 2025, just days before the first anniversary of its dissolution. In the intervening period, the ninth parliamentary elections were held, and responsibility for tourism was transferred from the Ministry of Environment and Tourism to the newly formed Ministry of Culture, Sports, Tourism and Youth. Given this shift in ministerial oversight, it is not appropriate to attribute the decision to re-establish the center solely to former Minister of Tourism and Culture Ch.Nomin. Rather, the move appears to reflect institutional inconsistency and a deeper issue of fragmented governance where strategic vision is often replaced by short-term, politically expedient decisions. In a sector as dynamic and economically promising as tourism, such reversals in policy not only breed uncertainty but also erode trust among private investors and industry professionals.

Just three months after the government approved the re-establishment of the center, a new resolution was passed on May 7, outlining additional measures related to the management of this state-owned economic enterprise. The decree officially placed the center under the authority of the Minister of Tourism and Culture and revised its regulatory framework. In line with this directive, Head of the State Property Policy and Regulation Department B.Tsengel was tasked with approving the center’s organizational structure and staff limits, and appointing a director through an open selection process. Moreover, former Minister of Tourism and Culture Ch.Nomin was instructed to allocate funding for the center’s operations within the framework of the approved 2025 state budget.

Currently, preparations are reportedly underway to launch the center with a staff of 30. But what may appear on paper as a technical administrative step is being met with significant resistance from experienced tourism professionals who have worked in and shaped the industry over decades. These experts, deeply familiar with the sector’s potential and pain points, view the decision not only as a policy failure but as a betrayal of public trust. The outrage is understandable. After operating for seven years and consuming public funds without delivering measurable improvements to the sector, the TDC was dissolved by government Resolution No. 36 in 2024. Its dissolution was widely welcomed by industry stakeholders who saw it as a bloated, underperforming body that hindered rather than helped tourism growth. Now, just over a year later, its revival is being perceived as not only unnecessary, but damaging, particularly at a time when the government itself has called for fiscal discipline, structural reforms and a reduction in redundant public entities.

Reinstating a dissolved institution in the midst of an economic downturn, when budget cuts and austerity measures are being urged across all levels of government, sends a contradictory and deeply concerning message. It raises serious doubts about the coherence of public policy and casts a shadow over the government’s commitment to transparency and efficiency. Critics argue that the decision reflects more than just poor judgment; it smacks of opportunism. Some insiders believe the move is part of a broader effort by certain individuals or interest groups to gain control over the newly established Tourism Training Center, a state initiative with significant budget implications. This interpretation, though speculative, has gained traction due to the opaque nature of the decision-making process and the absence of meaningful consultation with industry stakeholders. Whether or not this theory proves accurate, what is undeniable is the erosion of public confidence. In the end, those most affected are the tourism professionals and entrepreneurs working tirelessly to grow a sector that has enormous potential but limited institutional support. Their frustration is not only justified, it is a warning. If public policy continues to be driven by short-term interests and behind-the-scenes maneuvering, Mongolia risks not only stagnating in tourism but losing the trust of those who could help lead it into the future.

As part of its “Visit Mongolia Year” initiative, the government, working in partnership with the government of the Republic of Korea, launched a state-of-the-art TDC last month. The goal is clear: to elevate the quality, accessibility, and professionalism of services within the “smoke-free” tourism and hospitality sector, which has long been touted as one of Mongolia’s key pathways to economic diversification. However, controversy has quickly emerged over reports that the newly re-established TDC will be tasked with managing, organizing, and administering the new training facility. This development has fueled criticism from within the tourism community, where skepticism over the TDC’s revival remains high.

When asked for clarification, the Department for Tourism Policy Implementation Coordination did not deny the reports. A ministry representative confirmed that the center is indeed planned to be housed in the Yarmag-based facility inaugurated in June. “However, the building has not yet been officially transferred to the appropriate parties or renovated,” the official added, declining to provide further details.

The lack of transparency, and the apparent handover of a crucial training resource to an institution many regard as ineffective, has drawn sharp criticism from sectoral experts and researchers. One industry researcher, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointedly remarked, “Instead of spending so much money from the state budget on paying salaries for 30 staff, renting office space, and administrative costs for an institution that adds little value, the government and the Ministry of Tourism would do better to address just one of the many chronic infrastructure problems in the sector. At the very least, they could use that funding to support and empower tourism specialists in the 21 provinces, local areas that carry the real burden of our tourism industry but have been neglected for years.”

Indeed, the view from the countryside is often overlooked in centralized policymaking. Local tourism professionals and civil servants across provinces face persistent challenges: underfunding, poor infrastructure and minimal support despite playing a frontline role in delivering the country’s tourism experience. Many observers argue that increasing salaries, providing proper training, and incentivizing regional staff would yield far more tangible benefits than reviving a bloated central organization with a checkered track record. The decision to place the TDC at the helm of the new training facility raises deeper questions about the government’s long-term strategy. Is this truly about improving human capital in the tourism industry, or about providing a fresh home and new purpose to an institution whose relevance is still widely contested?

So, the tourism sector in Mongolia is once again sounding the alarm over the government’s controversial decision to revive the TDC, an institution that, until recently, had been dismantled following years of widespread criticism and inefficacy. For many in the industry, the move feels like a bitter undoing of hard-won progress. For example, a seasoned tourism entrepreneur who helped build digital platforms that brought thousands of international tourists to Mongolia expressed deep disappointment, “The efforts and hard work that the industry spent years fighting to dissolve this organization are gone.” Another stakeholder reacted with sarcastic disbelief, “What kind of supreme god is the TDC, how many times can it be ‘reborn’?”

These remarks capture the frustration now gripping tourism professionals, many of whom feel that their voices are being ignored. Despite near-universal opposition within the sector, the Ministry of Culture has pressed forward with plans to re-establish the center, seemingly impervious to public concern. As one industry saying goes, “The state should not take over the work of the private sector and interfere in front of it.” This principle holds particular weight in the tourism sector, which intersects with numerous industries and thrives best under minimal government intervention.

Of course, the dissolution of the center in 2024 was based on this very philosophy. In its place, a public legal entity, the Tourism Professional Association, was created under the Ministry of Tourism. This organization was designed not only to safeguard the interests of tour operators, agencies, service providers, guides and interpreters, but also to serve as a legal and effective conduit for implementing some state functions, while ensuring a balanced partnership between the state and the private sector. The Tourism Professional Association operates within clearly defined legal boundaries, offering guidance, methodology, and sectoral support without competing with private businesses. It was seen as a model for collaborative governance in the “smokeless industry”. Now, the return of the defunct center has thrown this progress into question. Not only does it risk duplicating existing structures, but it also raises fears that public funds will once again be channeled into an institution with a poor performance record at a time when every tugrug counts.

Critics argue that Mongolia already lacks a diverse and robust landscape of both state and private organizations dedicated to tourism. Among those that do exist, there is arguably only one capable of delivering effective training, guidance and professional methodology to a national training center: the Tourism Professional Association. The decision to entrust these responsibilities to the TDC, therefore, appears both redundant and counterproductive.