Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative Assessment: Lessons Learned for American Indian Community and Economic Development

Abstract

Economic development interventions often do not account for the social, cultural, and political differences among populations being served. Factors that make economic development projects successful in Native American communities are not well known or adequately studied. Drawing on a capital asset framework and the governance hypothesis advanced by Cornell and Kalt, the authors analyze how six Pacific Northwest tribes applied Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative funds to diverse projects, which strategies were successful, and why. The data presented show that culturally congruent, community-based projects that meet multiple tribal goals are particularly successful. The authors discuss the necessity of investing in tribal cultural, institutional, and social capital, the value of efficient tribal bureaucracy that maximizes the benefits of sovereignty, the particular importance of building outside entities' understanding of tribal legal and cultural differences, and how the initiative interfaced with existing tribal structures. They offer lessons learned for tribal economic and community development.

Escaping social-ecological traps through tribal stewardship on national forest lands in the Pacific Northwest, United States of America

“…Evaluating and scaling up initiatives such as the WKRP and other examples that support tribal stewardship will be challenging because they are being implemented idiosyncratically across diverse social-ecological contexts, and they have to overcome the web of factors that reinforce the trap. However, a previous initiative designed to promote community well-being and ecological sustainability under the Northwest Forest Plan, the Jobs-in-the-Woods program, appeared comparatively successful where projects had strong support from tribal institutions (Middleton and Kusel 2007).…”

“How far do you have to walk to find peace again?”: A case study of First Nations' operational values for a community forest inNortheastBritishColumbia,Canada

“…First Nations look for many values in forestry operations, very few of which can be met under conventional industrial forestry regimes (Beckley, ; Bombay, ; Booth, ; Graham and Wilson, ; Lewis and Sheppard, ; Merkel, ; Michel and Gayton, ; Middleton and Kusel, ; NAFA, 2002a; 2002b; Parsons and Prest, ; Sherry et al ., ; Smith, ; Treseder and Krogman, ; Wyatt, ). While some First Nations will make the choice to accept industrial forestry requirements, many are looking for some form of compromise that would permit timber extraction, the protection of ecosystem integrity and the enhancement of cultural values.…”

“…For most, however, becoming involved in commercial forestry is a complex endeavor. Substantive institutional barriers (Beaudoin, ; Graham and Wilson, ; NAFA, ; Ross and Smith, ; White‐Harvey, ;Wilson and Graham, ; Wyatt et al ., ) and substantial social and cultural obstacles (Beckley, ; Bombay, ; Booth and Skelton, ; Collier and Hobby, ; Lewis and Sheppard, ; Merkel, Michel and Gayton, ; Middleton and Kusel, ; Parsons and Prest, ; Sherry et al ., ; Smith, ; Treseder and Krogman, ; Wyatt, ) limit First Nations' full participation in commercial forestry ventures. First Nations retaining their cultural way of life face considerable challenges when considering commercial forestry operations, as most industrial methods do not effectively (if at all) integrate cultural traditions, customs, and practices.…”

The Mazama returns: the politics and possibilities of tribal land reacquisition

“…But this has changed since at least the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, which transferred management authority from governmental agencies such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs to tribes (Middleton and Kusel 2007), forming the "era of self-determination" (Rasmussen et al 2007). Self-determination has been linked with land reacquisition, in part a response to tribal sovereignty struggles focused on "how to maintain or regain control over resources, especially land" (Hibbard, 2006: 88).…”