Indigenous Peoples, Poverty, and Self-Determination in Australia ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Indigenous Peoples, Poverty and Self-DeterminationOnly systematic research can answer such questions definitively, 19but I see little theoretical basis for believing the U.S. resultsare inapplicable to these other situations. Specific developmentoutcomes obviously depend on other factors as well, however,and the translation of these results into practical policy initiativesin other countries will require careful consideration of specificIndigenous situations. At least three issues appear to be important:the economic circumstances of various Indigenous peoples; theproblem of identifying appropriate units of collective authority;and the willingness of mainstream societies to tolerate differenceand invest in Indigenous capacities. I consider the first two ofthese here and the last in the concluding section of this paper.Economic circumstancesWithin-country variation in economic resources and opportunitiesobviously has major impacts on the development potential ofIndigenous peoples. To pick an obvious and extreme U.S. example,Indian and Eskimo nations located in remote regions of Alaska oron very small land bases face narrower economic opportunity setsthan those faced by Indian nations located near large metropolitanareas or on large land bases. Similarly, variation in human capitalcan affect the ability of Indigenous peoples to take advantageof certain kinds of opportunities—or at least delay action inresponse to those opportunities while human capital investmentsare made.Such variation is apparent in all four countries. Many First Nationsin Canada have been left with minuscule land bases, or are locatedfar from markets and transportation systems. Many AustralianAboriginal communities are remote. The circumstances of Maoripeoples likewise vary across the country. Some groups have higherlevels of education or labor force experience than others.19. Such research has begun in Canada and finds evidence of similar relationships.See Jorgensen et al. (forthcoming); also Chandler and Lalonde (1998),and Moore, et al. (1990).20
CornellSuch variation does not negate the U.S. results; it is apparent in theU.S. as well. Self-determination, self-governance and appropriateand effective governing institutions create an environment inwhich sustainable development becomes possible, but the natureand extent of development and of its impact on the communitydepend on what each Indigenous nation or people has to workwith and on the specific decisions it makes. What the U.S. caseindicates is that economic assets—whatever they may be—arefar more likely to be productive where Indigenous nations havedecision-making power and the institutional capacity to back itup.The social unit of authorityBut where should decision-making power and institutionalcapacity be located? Self-determination and self-governancerequire subjects, in the grammatical sense: someone has to do thedetermining and governing. In which social units do the rights toself-determination reside? Within which social units should theinstitutions of self-governance be built? Who, in these processes,is the “self ”?In all four countries, one of the most prominent results of a centuryor more of colonialism, land expropriation, ethnic cleansing,imposed population movements, assimilationist programs, andrelated settler-state policies has been the transformation ofIndigenous group boundaries, many of which already were porousand dynamic long before European contact. Some collectivitiesdisappeared while others were mixed or fragmented; someboundaries were invented out of whole cloth while others weresolidified out of pre-existing relationships.While these processes were common in the United States, theparticular form they have taken there has provided, in most cases,unusual clarity about the identity of the “self ”. Despite urbanizationand intermarriage among American Indian groups, tribal societieshave continued to exist and, in some cases, thrive on Indianreservations. While warfare, colonialism, and assimilationistprograms came close to extinguishing the Indian land base,21
Page 1 and 2: Joint Occasional Papers on on Nativ
Page 3 and 4: CornellIndigenous Peoples, Poverty
Page 9 and 10: CornellObviously the differences ar
Page 11 and 12: CornellCommonalitiesAlthough there
Page 13 and 14: CornellThe present inquiry, while p
Page 15 and 16: CornellCentral governments, on the
Page 17 and 18: Cornellstark discrepancy between In
Page 19 and 20: Cornellusual economic factors such
Page 21 and 22: CornellThe meaning and role of self
Page 23 and 24: Cornellis needed. Those nations mak
Page 25: CornellThe U.S. government had inad
Page 29 and 30: CornellBern and Dodds discuss the s
Page 31 and 32: Cornellgroup identities and boundar
Page 33 and 34: CornellThe overall policy implicati
Page 35 and 36: CornellReferencesAnaya, S.J. 1996.
Page 37 and 38: Cornell-----. 1995. ‘Where does e
Page 39 and 40: CornellHarvard Project on American
Page 41 and 42: CornellJorgensen, M., and J. Taylor
Page 43 and 44: CornellNative Nations Institute for
Page 45 and 46: CornellWakeling, S., M. Jorgensen,
Page 47 and 48: Joint Occasional Papers on Native A

Indigenous Peoples, Poverty, and Self-Determination in Australia ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?