Creating American Indian Tribal Economic Development
American Indian Disability Technical Assistance Center
March 2004
American Indians living on the Nation's more than 300
reservations are among the poorest people in the United
States (Cornell and Kalt, 1992). American Indians with
disabilities comprise approximately one-fourth of the population
in Indian Country, whether in urban or reservation communities.
Most live on one form or another of fixed income, whether it be
Social Security or welfare, and therefore, comprise a significant
proportion of the Indian poverty statistics across the nation (Dwyer, 2000).
Considering
these facts, it is not surprising that the status of employment opportunities on
Indian
reservations is dismal.
Studies show that unemployment commonly exceeds 50
percent
and in some areas that figure jumps to over 90 percent. According to Joseph P. Kalt
(1996), the director of the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic
Development,
"On American Indian reservations such as the Northern Cheyenne in Montana or the
Rosebud Sioux in South Dakota, the economy subsists overwhelmingly on
governmental
transfer payments." The following is based mainly on Kalt's September 17, 1996
testimony
before the United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.
Although poverty and joblessness on Indian reservations are a fact, there are
exceptions. A number of reservations have managed to break the cycle of poverty
and federal economic dependence. Examples include the Choctaw of Mississippi,
who are
now the fourth or fifth largest employer in the state of Mississippi. In
Arizona, the White
Mountain Apache have found economic success with forest products, skiing,
recreation,
and other enterprises. The tribal members of the Flathead Reservation of Montana
have
an economy based on agriculture, tourism, and recreation. Unemployment there is
lower
than anywhere else in rural Montana (Cornell and Kalt, 1998).
Contrary to many experts' opinions on solutions to tribal economic development
by
way of resource management and development, Kalt (1996) states, ". . .having
resources (natural, human, or financial) is not a guarantee of successful
economic
development, as indicated by what the relatively successful tribes have been
able to
accomplish. It has been shown that successful tribes are not always the ones
that own
favorable natural resources, or the ones that have educated tribal members, or
that have
been able to gain financial capital."
If resources human, natural, or financial do not guarantee successful economic
development in Indian Country, then what does? According to Kalt's research,
"The
relatively successful tribes in the U.S. all have three indispensable
ingredients in common.
These are: (1) sovereignty, (2) capable governments, and (3) a match between the
type of
government a tribe has and that tribe's cultural norms regarding legitimate
political power"
(Kalt, 1996).
A necessary prerequisite for economic development on American Indian
reservations
is the exercise of tribal sovereignty. Kalt calls it "de facto sovereignty,"
which he
defines as "genuine decision-making control over the running of tribal affairs
and the use of
tribal resources." State governments, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and
other federal
agencies, in the past have maintained control of the economic decisions on
Indian
reservations. Assertive tribes have shown that the practice of de facto
sovereignty places
tribes in the proverbial driver's seat. The Flathead, Mescalero Apache, Cochiti
Pueblo, and
Mississippi Choctaw are proven examples of what tribes are capable of when they
replace
outside source decision-making with their own tribal decision-making. Research
has
shown that tribes that continue to be guided by outside decision-making,
continue on in
poverty and federal economic dependence (Kalt, 1996).
Accountability for economic decisions on Indian reservations has traditionally
been
carried out by the BIA. In the past, the BIA has shown that protecting a budget
and
expanding authority has taken precedence over any initiative that tribes might
have
benefited from. The results are wasted resources, mismanagement, and lost
opportunities
that tribes have endured. In another example of tribes exercising de facto
sovereignty, Kalt
refers to an analysis performed by Matthew Krepps of MIT's Sloan School of
Management.
Krepps (1992) analyzed the performance of 49 tribes that chose to replace the
BIA's
management of their forest product industry under the federal P.L. 638 program,
which
empowers tribes to take over management of their own resources from federal
agencies.
What Krepps discovered was that the tribes that exercised their sovereignty
under P.L. 638
increased the productivity of their timber output, and as a result increased
their profits by
4.5 percent. Kalt states emphatically that, "There are no successful cases where
federal
planning and management has produced sustained economic development in Indian
country. The only thing that is working is self-determination, i.e., de facto
sovereignty."
The second ingredient used in creating an economically successful tribe,
according to Kalt, is capable government. In Indian country, ". . .capable governments:
efficiently
make and carry out strategic choices and policies; provide a political
environment in which
investors large or small, tribal members or non-tribal members feel secure; and
mobilize and sustain the tribal community's support for its institutions and for
particular
development strategies."
Historically, tribal governments have relied on the federal government to fund
its
programs and day-to-day operations. This relationship has fostered over
dependent tribal governments that are reduced to being dispensers of federal
funds to their
various programs. In order for tribes to break this dependency, tribal
governments need
formalized rules and policies that clearly ". . .define the rights and
responsibilities of all
affected parties: When can the tribal council overrule the land office? When can
public
debate be cut off? What right of appeal do applicants have, and to whom? What is
the
power of the tribal council vis-a-vis the judiciary? The tribe that fails to
answer these kinds
of questions with clear and hard-to-change rules and laws invites the kind of
conflict and
instability that raises roadblocks to development."
The last ingredient for the making of an economically successful tribe,
according to
Kalt (1996), is a cultural match between the type of government that a tribe has
and
the tribe's beliefs of what constitutes legitimate power within the tribe. The
U.S. federal
government established IRA constitutions1 which emphasized a strong chief
executive and
one house legislature. Before coming under the control of the federal
government, many
tribes where governed by large councils. For example, the Ogala Lakota of the
past, "had
a large council that appointed multiple executives and an independent judicial
society."
They currently are struggling under their IRA form of government. In contrast,
the pre-reservation Mescalero and White Mountain Apache's government was based on one
charismatic leader who chose his own council which was very similar to the IRA
form of
government. Taking this fact into consideration, it is not surprising that they
are relatively
successful following the IRA constitution. It is clear that the tribes that
begin taking a
proactive role instead of the traditional reactive role to the management of
their
governments are the tribes that begin to empower themselves to move beyond the
script
written for them.
Involving Members with Disabilities
Tribal members with disabilities are also interested in securing employment.
Tribal
economic development can help create opportunities by supporting Tribal
Vocational Rehabilitation programs, supporting and encouraging individuals with
disabilities
through loans and in-kind support, and mentoring individuals that choose to be
self
employed.
Another very important consideration for tribes when they begin moving in the
direction that the Harvard Project has shown time and again to be successful, is
for
tribes to acknowledge and utilize their tribal members with disabilities.
Acknowledgment
can come in the form of encouraging and supporting tribal members with
disabilities to
participate in community planning, including tribal members with disabilities in
tribal
business and enterprise decisions, and encouraging self-advocacy in tribal
government by
members with disabilities.
1The act was intended to protect the tribes' lands
and to allow the creation of legal structures designed to help tribes govern
themselves (Canby, 1988).
Resources
Tribal Vocational Rehabilitation offices can be contacted via the web at:
http://www.canar.org/map.shtml.
References
Canby, W.C., Jr. (1988). American Indian Law in a nutshell. St. Paul: West Publishing Co.
Cornell, S. and Kalt, J.P. (1998). Sovereignty and nation-building: The development challenge in Indian country today. John F. Kennedy School of Government: Harvard Project on American Indian Development. Retrieved October 13, 2003 from: http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/hpaied/pubs/pub_003.htm
Cornell, S. and Kalt, J.P. (1992). Reloading the dice: Improving the chances for
economic
development on American Indian reservations. In Cornell and Kalt's What Can
Tribes
Do? Strategies and Institutions in American Indian Economic Development. Los
Angeles: American Indian Studies Center, University of California. Retrieved
October
13, 2003 from: http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/hpaied/pubs/pub_002.htm
Dwyer, K. (2000). American Indians and disability. RuralFacts, Research and
Training
Center on Rural Rehabilitation, The University of Montana Rural Institute.
Kalt, J.P. (1996). Testimony presented before the United States Senate Committee
on
Indian Affairs, 106th Congress. Harvard Project on American Indian Development,
Harvard University.
Support for this fact sheet was provided by a cooperative agreement (#H235K000002) with the U.S. Department of Education's Rehabilitation Services Administration. It was written by Hank Scalpcane with editing and formatting help from Kathy Dwyer.
