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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Indigenous Peoples, Poverty and Self-Determinationargument for self-determination. But what the U.S. data show isthat there is an economic argument for it as well, not only fromthe point of view of Indigenous peoples but also from the point ofview of central governments and mainstream societies. They, too,have something to gain.Poverty, after all, is expensive. Its costs come in at least two forms.First, the attempt to alleviate Indigenous poverty through socialservice provision is an expensive strategy, tending to consist ofpalliatives instead of cures and, therefore, to be never-ending.Second, poverty is expensive in lost resources, trapping humanbeings in dependency instead of helping them contribute to theirown and other societies. The U.S. data are notable in this regard,indicating that self-determining Indigenous nations not only aremore likely to build economies that support their own peoples, butin the process also spin off significant benefits to non-Indigenouscommunities through jobs, expanded vendor business, reducedwelfare rolls, and the like. Economically, self-determination is awin-win proposition.If central governments reject the rights-based argument for selfdetermination,one hopes their economic self-interest will leadthem to reconsider. As my colleague Joseph Kalt and I have writtenelsewhere (Cornell and Kalt 1998), the U.S. record is clear: ifcentral governments wish to perpetuate Indigenous poverty, itsattendant ills and bitterness, and its high costs, the best way todo so is to undermine tribal sovereignty and self-determination.But if they want to overcome Indigenous poverty and all thatgoes with it, then they should support tribal sovereignty andself-determination, and they should invest in helping Indigenouspeoples build the governing capacity to back up sovereign powerswith effective governments of their own design.28
CornellReferencesAnaya, S.J. 1996. Indigenous Peoples in International Law. NewYork: Oxford University Press.Armitage, A. 1995. Comparing the Policy of AboriginalAssimilation: Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Vancouver:University of British Columbia Press.Arthur, W.S. 2001. ‘Indigenous autonomy in Australia: Someconcepts, issues and examples.’ Discussion Paper no. 220/2001.Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, AustralianNational University.Ballara, A. 1998. Iwi: The Dynamics of Maori Tribal Organizationfrom c. 1769 to c. 1945. Wellington: Victoria University Press.Barcham, M. 2000. ‘(De)constructing the politics of indigeneity,’in D. Ivison, P. Patton and W. Sanders, eds., Political Theoryand the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. pp. 137-51.Barro, R. 1991. ‘Economic growth in a cross section of countries.’Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106: 407-43.Barsh, R.L., and R.L. Trosper. 1975. ‘Title I of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975.’ AmericanIndian Law Review 3: 361-95.Beavon, D., and M. Cooke. 2001. ‘Measuring Aboriginal wellbeingin four countries: An application of the UNDP’s HumanDevelopment Index to Canada, the United States, New Zealand,and Australia.’ Presentation to the Population Association ofAmerica, Washington, DC, March 29-31.Behrendt, L. 2001. ‘Indigenous self-determination in the age ofglobalization.’ Balayi: Culture, Law and Colonialism 3: 1-7.29
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 and 26: CornellThe U.S. government had inad
Page 27 and 28: CornellSuch variation does not nega
Page 29 and 30: CornellBern and Dodds discuss the s
Page 31 and 32: Cornellgroup identities and boundar
Page 33: CornellThe overall policy implicati
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?