JOPNA

Since the 1970s, federal American Indian policy in the United States has been aimed at promoting self-determination through self-governance by federallyrecognized tribes. This policy has proven to be the only policy that has worked to make significant progress in reversing otherwise distressed social, cultural and economic conditions in Native communities. The policy of selfdetermination reflects a political equilibrium which has held for four decades and which has withstood various shifts in the party control of Congress and the White House. While Republicans have provided relatively weak support for social spending on Indian issues when compared to Democrats, both parties’ representatives have generally been supportive of self-determination and local self-rule for tribes. Analysis of thousands of sponsorships of federal legislation over 1970-present, however, finds the equilibrium under challenge. In particular, since the late 1990s, Republican congressional support for policies of self-determination has fallen off sharply and has not returned. This calls into question the sustainability of self-determination through selfgovernance as a central principle of federal Indian policy.

View Report (PDF)

View Report (PDF)

The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) is nearly silent regarding its potential application in Indian Country. But by the mid-1990s, the ESA had proven to be a source of serious concern for Indian tribes. In 1997, as the culmination of months of negotiations between agency officials and tribal representatives, the Secretaries of the Interior and of Commerce jointly issued Secretarial Order 3206 (SO 3206), entitled “American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act.” The order sought to harmonize the federal trust responsibility to tribes and the statutory missions of the Departments of the Interior and Commerce in implementing the ESA. This paper considers whether the order has lived up to its promise of true bilateralism between the United States and sovereign tribal governments regarding their rights vís-a-vís the ESA process. It reviews the key requirements of the ESA, pertinent executive orders, and SO 3206 itself. It analyzes government-to-government relations in several cases of “final rule” critical habitat designation and through a review of scholarly literature. Further, it discusses the difference tribes can make by creating and implementing their own habitat management plans, as alternatives to designation of critical habitat on Indian lands, and by actively partnering with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Conservation Service. The author concludes that while SO 3206 has not yet lived up to its full promise, it is making a difference by assisting federal land managers and sovereign tribal governments in building stronger working relationships while protecting the environment.

View Report (PDF)

View Report (PDF)

Indigenous economic development takes multiple forms. One of the most common ways that indigenous peoples attempt to meet needs for revenue, employment, and services is through nation-owned enterprises. These are hugely diverse, ranging from timber companies and gaming operations to telecommunications enterprises and convenience stores. The record of such efforts is mixed: as with businesses everywhere, some succeed and others don't. This paper examines how the actions of Native nations themselves can either undermine or strengthen their own enterprises, drawing on extensive research carried out by the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development at Harvard University and the Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management, and Policy at the University of Arizona. Of course many of the things that determine business outcomes lie beyond the control of the nations that own the businesses. The paper focuses on five factors that indigenous nations can control but that sometimes are ignored in the effort to build successful, nation-owned businesses: clarity about enterprise goals; effective management of the politics-business connection; the purpose, power, and composition of enterprise boards of directors; independent and reliable resolution of disputes; and the need to educate the community about enterprise goals and activity. Using real-world cases, the paper explores how the actions by indigenous nations in each of these areas can have a significant impact on business performance.

View Report (PDF)

A revolution is underway in Indian Country as American Indian nations increasingly take back control over their own affairs and take responsibility for reshaping their futures—efforts that are leading to unprecedented economic success and the alleviation of poverty. Significantly, this success does not appear to be tied directly to the Native nations' asset bases or market locations. Instead, it is tied to their invention of a new approach to economic development, which the authors term the “nation-building approach.” This paper compares the “standard approach,” long supported by the U.S. government and by some Indian nations, to the nation-building approach. The two approaches are very different, and they have led to dramatically different outcomes. The standard approach has four leading characteristics. It is short-term and non-strategic; it lets outsiders set the development agenda; it treats economic development as fundamentally an economic problem, ignoring its political dimensions; and it views indigenous cultures as an obstacle to development. Decades of effort using the standard approach have produced little change in indigenous socioeconomic conditions. In contrast, the nation-building approach puts genuine, decision-making power in indigenous hands; it backs up that power with capable institutions of self-governance; it matches those institutions to indigenous political culture; it has a strategic orientation toward long-term outcomes; and it is guided by public-spirited leadership. Over the last twenty-five `year`s, this approach has begun to produce significant improvements in reservation socioeconomic conditions.

What do governance and government mean? This paper-one of a series of papers commissioned by the British Columbia Regional Vice-Chief of the Assembly of First Nations-defines governance and government and describes the critical role both play in human communities. It also examines what effective self-governance involves and how self-governing systems can be built, and it draws distinctions between self-administration-sometimes mistaken for self-government and genuine self-government. Drawing on a large body of research on governance and development among indigenous nations in Canada and the United States, the paper considers the implications of these issues for First Nations and for federal governments. The paper concludes with a discussion of the specific tasks facing First Nations and Canada in making Aboriginal self-government a reality.

View Report (PDF)

Both research and the experience among Native nations daily drive home the conclusion that the so-called “nation building” approach holds the keys to self-determined social, political, and economic development for indigenous communities. This approach emphasizes the critical role of asserting rights of self-rule and backing up those assertions with governing institutions that are legitimate in the eyes of the people and efficient in their operation. This study examines the question of why is it that some Native nations seize upon the nation building strategy and take effective control of their futures while others do not. We find that foundational change in a community arises when the external and internal conditions a people face interact with their interpretations of their situation, producing a new, shared “story” of what is possible, and how it can be achieved. The keys to changing a community's“story” are found in proactive decisions to alter internal and external situations, acquire concrete knowledge of the feasible, build on the community'scultural assets, and exercise leadership—especially in educating the people in a new vision.

View Report (PDF)

This study of Class II gaming operations in Oklahoma finds that tribal governments are translating revenues and employment opportunities from gaming into positive social investment. The tribes' successes offer a striking example of gaming operations accomplishing their principal intent, namely socioeconomic self-determination for Indian nations.

 

View Report (PDF)

This study of Class II gaming operations in Oklahoma finds that tribal governments are translating revenues and employment opportunities from gaming into positive social investment. The tribes' successes offer a striking example of gaming operations accomplishing their principal intent, namely socioeconomic self-determination for Indian nations.

 

View Report (PDF)

[Excerpt from Executive Summary]

The Native peoples of Alaska have governed themselves for far longer than either the State of Alaska or the United States. Indeed, their rights of self-government are properly defended as basic human rights that are not unilaterally extinguishable by these other governments. Yet, today an assortment of questions are being raised about key aspects of Alaska Native self-governance. Among these are questions such as: What form should Native self-government take? What powers should it include? In which communities or groups should those powers be vested? Additional questions are being raised about how the delivery of social services to Alaska Natives is organized. Who should be responsible for service delivery, and what form should service delivery take?

View Report (PDF)