different demographic structures geographic …...geographic distribution affects complexity in a...

Based on the descriptive analysis above (as well as more detailed econometric analysis),Biddle(2015)arguedthatpolicyfailureinremoteAustraliainparticularislikelytobedueinparttonottakingintoaccountthecontingentrelationshipbetweenincomeandwellbeing.Specifically,hearguedthat:

by focusing on income at the household level, [policy] does not take intoaccountthemuchweakerrelationshipbetweenthesemeasuresofincomeandwellbeing in remoteareascomparedtonon-remotepartsof thecountryandthe non-Indigenous population. To the extent that behaviour is affected bywellbeing, policies in remote Indigenous communitiesmay need to focus onthingsotherthanoratthevery least inadditionto incomethathaveamoredirect relationship. Ultimately though, the weaker relationship betweenincomeandwellbeingneedstobefactoredintothedesignofpolicyand,moreimportantly, in the evaluation of what works and what does not work toachievelong-termchangesinoutcomes.’

If we force policy interventions that emphasise particular approaches, such as towardemployment, but ignore the other contributors to ourwellbeing (such as connectedness)thenbegsthequestionarewereallyimprovingindigenouswellbeing.

Australianpolicy toward remote communities – emphasises employment as anenablerofwellbeing,butignoresconnectednesstocountryandhowthataffectsindigenouswellbeing,fromanindigenousperspective.Exampleofapplyinga“universalnorm/truth”aspolicy,butignoringthesemioticcomplexityaboutthewellbeingconcept.

5.4 Differentdemographicstructures

<<<Toadd>>>

5.5 Geographicdistribution

Geographic distribution affects complexity in a number of ways. One is intrinsic, in thatnations’ populations migrate outside of traditional territories, posing challenges togovernance of their people (i.e. do they cater for just the ones on country, or for theirpopulationsoutsidetheirnation’sborders?).

The second layerof complexity is extrinsic, in that tohave sustainable communities, thenhavingathrivingeconomycanbedifficult,especiallyinruralandremoteareas.

• Proportion of indigenous people living away from their traditional territories (NZ:Census,2013–can’tfindsummaries,butcanfindcasestudyexamples)

• Proportion of indigenous peoples in cities/ urban locations (NZ: Census 2013 –perhapsuseRykspaperforMāori)–notethattherearepeoplewhohavetraditionalterritoriesinurbanareas

Nativetitletoremoteness–isthisuseful?Source.

5.6 Dynamicandevolvingidentities

Culturesarealwaysevolving,andthis is thesamefor indigenouscultures.Non-indigenouscultures,particularlyEurocentricones,oftentreatindigenouspeoplesandculturesasbeingstatic,particularlyfrozenintime–usuallyatthetimeofcolonisation.Thisisoftenseenbynon-indigenouspeopleasindigenouspeoplesbeingprimitiveandthattheirculturescannot

adoptnewtechnologiesornewwaysoflivingiftheyaretoremainauthenticallyindigenous.Examples of this are also seen in legal examples, such asMāori having customary fishingrights to species that were fished prior to colonisation [EXPAND A LITTLE, AUSTRALIANEXAMPLES?]

Forindigenouspeoples,itcanbethatweentrenchourselvesinclassicalorromanticnotionsofwhatourculturesare[REFERTOCHE’SINTERVIEWSOMEWHERE].Whiletheseviewsareunderstandableinlightofexperiencesofcolonisationandoppression,culturesevolve–theyevolvewhentheyareexposedtonewsystems,waysofbeingandtechnology.Wecontendthat the issue isbothofunderstanding theprinciples (rather than the rules) thatmakeusdistinctly(ratherthanauthentically)indigenous,andproactivelydecidinghowwedevelopinExamplesofproacticechangesincultureincludetheuseofsocialmedia.SomeMāorihaveusedSkypeandFacebooktorelayvideooftraditionalfuneral(tangihanga)practicestootherfamilymembersaroundtheworldwhocouldnotattendthefuneral–whichissignificantlydifferent traditional and more common cultural practices regarding kanohi ki te kanohi(face-to-face)principles,reconnectionwithtraditionallands(ahika),thepotentialpresenceof food around funeral rites according to the separation of sacred and commonplacepractices (tapu and noa). Another example is the more proactive use of social media tocreateconnectednessasavirtualplaceofmeeting(marae).[Examples/sources]

Identity is inextricablyconnectedtoculture[SOURCE].Beingabletoconnectwithourownindigenous cultures is vital to understanding and operating within our own systems.AccordingtoStatisticsNewZealand,17percentofMaaoriwhosaidthattheywereofMāoridescentdidnotknowtheiriwi(StatisticsNewZealand(2013),2013CensusQuickStatsaboutMāori). In a cultural sense, Māori use pepeha, a series of phrases that identifies andconnects themtoparticular cultural locators, suchas their tribe, subtribe,mountain, riverand waka (canoe), as a key indicator of knowing where they are from. According to TeKupenga, theMāoripost-Censal survey,onlya thirdofMāoriadults (39percent) knewallaspectsofthepepeha(StatisticsNewZealand(2014)Takumaraee).

Theabilitytoconnecttotraditionallands,countryandcultureisalsoimportant.Forsomeitis represented by an ability to affiliatewith ones nation. Respondents in theMāori post-Censalsurvey,indicatedthat71percentofMāoriadultsknewtheirancestralmarae(wherethe traditionalmeetinghouse is located),andof those,only89percenthadbeen to theirmaraeatsomepointintheirlife(StatisticsNewZealand(2014)Takumaraee).Howeveronly34percentorMāoriadultshadvisitedtheirancestralmaraeinthepreviousyear.

Influences by ethnic groups, cultures and ways of life also play a part. From an intrinsiccomplexity point of view, this can be in the form of miscegenation – which potentiallyinfluences people and families values and cultural practices [SOURCE]. Miscegenationprovides a basis for multiple or hybrid identities to emerge, based on the evolution ofpersonal and family values. For Māori, the highest 49 percent of the Māori descentpopulationalsohas Europeanethnicity. In some communities, therehavealsobeenhighrates of miscegenation with Pacific Peoples – 8 percent of Māori affiliate to one of thePacificPeoplesethnicgroups.Thisdynamic is also increasing,with23percentofMāori inthe0-14agegroupaffiliatingtomorethanoneethnicity,comparedonlythreepercentofMāori aged 65 years and over. If we follow this theorem then the exposure to multiple

culturalvaluesandpractices,particularlywithinfamilyunitsincreasesthepotentialforwaysof being and ways of doing things to change. This is evolution, rather than diminishedauthenticity.

Figure3–PercentofMāoriwhoidentifywithothermajorethnicgroups,NZCensus2013

Languageasanexampleofculturalevolution?Shifts inuse– incorporationofotherwordsinto language, changes in meaning, creation of new languages? Examples: Māori use oftransliterations,howkiiwaha/ idiomhasshifted(e.g.tumeke,keirunganoaatu,koiakeiakoe).Dolanguagestatsfeaturehere?Indicatorasconnectiontoculture,culturalknowledge,etc,butnotsomuchintermsofshiftsinlanguageduetoco-evolutionandneworderpartsofcomplexitytheory.

Within education research, there is a large body of research that focuses on competingidentitiesandthedifficultiesofminoritystudentstryingtoengageinmainstreameducation.IntheUS,thishasbeenreferredtoasthe‘FearofActingWhite’(Austen-SmithandFryerJr2005). Onemissing insight from standardmodels of Indigenous education used by policymakersisthepotentialeffectofself-efficacyoneffortinschoolorothereducationalsettingsandoneventualcompletion.AccordingtoBandura(2009:1)‘self-efficacyisconcernedwithpeople’sbeliefs in theirability to influenceevents thataffect their lives.Thiscorebelief isthe foundation of humanmotivation, performance accomplishments, and emotionalwell-being.’ Furthermore, Garcia and Cohen (2012) state that even controlling for ability‘Studentswith lowself-efficacy…aremore likely thantheirpeers togiveup,persevere inineffective strategies, experience negative emotions, and fail to return to their originalperformancelevelfollowingfailure’

Whileitisdifficulttomeasureself-efficacyinacross-culturalsetting,thereareanumberofquestions in Wave 1 of the 2009 Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) thatcapture the confidence that a student has within the school environment. Specifically,students are asked to choose whether they strongly agree, agree, disagree or stronglydisagreewith30 statements related to ‘My school is a placewhere…’ FollowingBandura(1997), the following six variables are used to create an index that broadly captures self-efficacy:

• Ihavelearnttoworkhard;• IachieveastandardinmyworkwhichIconsidersatisfactory;• Ialwaysachieveasatisfactorystandardinmywork;

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

European

Pacificpeoples

Asian

MiddleEastern/LaunAmerican/

Otherethnicity

Percent

Ethn

icgroup

• Iknowhowtocopewiththework;• IknowIcandowellenoughtobesuccessful;and• Iamasuccessasastudent.

Theindexofself-efficacyiscreatedusingprincipalcomponentsanalysisandisscaledtohaveameanofzeroandastandarddeviationofoneacrosstherelevantsampleof15yearolds.Intotal,therewere842Indigenousstudentswhoansweredallsixofthequestionsrelatedtoself-efficacy.Themeanvaluefortheindexforthisgroupwas-0.258,oralittleoveronequarter of a standard deviation below the mean value for the 11,403 non-Indigenousstudents in the sample (0.019). This difference is statistically significant at the 1 per centlevelofsignificanceandholdswhenothercharacteristicsarecontrolledfor,indicatingthat,attheageof15,Indigenousstudentshadsignificantlyandsubstantiallylowerlevelsofself-efficacythannon-Indigenousstudents.

Thisobservationfitswithresearchonminoritygroupsinothercountries(GarciaandCohen2013) and raises the potential for stereotype threat and other psychological factors toimpact on themeasured outcomes of Indigenous students and their school results beinglower thantheircognitiveandnon-cognitiveabilitymightsuggest.Furthermore, it isquitepossible that educational interventions that target Indigenous students might have theeffect of making this Indigeneity salient thereby having the counter-productive effect ofreinforcingthenegativestereotype.ThisisparticularlylikelytobethecaseinurbansettingswhereIndigenousstudentsmakeupasmallproportionofthestudentbody.

5.7 Reductiontoasingleindigenousormainstreamnorm

Asnotedearlier,indigenoussituationscanbereducedfromaseriesofdynamicsystems,toone indigenousnorm.Thishappens inNewZealandwhere commonalitiesbetweenMāoriare so similar that they subtle differences in worldviews, values, language and culturalpractices can be overlooked. However, the reality is that each iwi has its own histories,values,dialectsandculturalpractices.NewZealandpolicy cancater from thesevariances,butitisimportantthatlegalandpolicyframeworksareabletoprovideforthesedynamics,ratherthanreducethestandardtoauniversalistnormasiftheywereahomogenouswhole.Part of the reason for this is that government treats the indigenous relationship onebetween the Crown andMāori, when the relationship was originally signed between theCrown

These variances in indigenous Australia are more obvious, with over 250? nations andlanguagegroups,eachwiththeirownvalues,culturesandperspectives.CANTHESAMEBESAID OF AUSTRALIA OF POLICY APPROACHES THAT TREAT INIDIGENOUS AUSTRALIA AS AHOMOGENOUSGROUPWHEREGREATERATTENTIONTODIVERSITYISNEEDED.

From an indigenous point of view, this can be viewed as extrinsic complexity, where theindigenous system, and the agents and behaviours with that system, are being forced toadapttoexternal influences.Duringthisprocess, the indigenoussystemadaptsandaneworder is created, particularly as parts of the indigenous system co-evolves (e.g. actors,agents,identity,culturalprinciplesandculturalpractices).Wecanseethishappeningwithinindigenousidentitypolitics,forexample,particularlyinthestrugglesregardingauthenticity:what is indigenous? Are urban indigenous people still indigenous? Is it about biophysical

characteristics, or cultural characteristics?What happenswhen cultural practices change?Are they still authentically indigenous? These types of questions arise because theindigenoussystemevolves,andtheactorsandagentswithinthesystemarecomingtotermswithhowthatsystemisdefinedoncechangesemergeoncethesystemhasfoundawaytoadapt, yet somewhere between the original indigenous systems, the external influencesfrom the colonising system, and a new order created from the co-evolution of thosesystems.

Even though we discuss the indigenous system in this way, we are also reducing“indigenous” to a universalist idea of what indigenous is, means and looks like.When intruth,thereareaseriesofoverlappingsystemsthatcomprisewhatwecommonlyrefertoindigenousinapolicysense.

Eachofthesedifferentsystems(orevensubsystemsnestedwithintheindigenousone)havetheir own world views, cultures, languages and gnoseological and semiotic complexities.When indigenouspolicy reduces these to aparticular approach, or general policy reducesthebroaderapproachtoanassumeduniversalnorm,thenthisrisksthatoutcomeswillnotcatertoothebehavioursofeachofthesesystemsorsubsystems.Forpolicytobeeffective,then understanding the systems, the agents within those systems and the behaviours ofthoseagentsisimperative.

5.8 Limitedaccesstoknowledge

Theliteraturereviewsthisparticularcauseasbeingalimitationonagentsoractorstofullyinteractwitheachotherbecausetheyhavelimitedknowledgeorinformation,whichaffectstheir behaviours (Biggiero, 2000). In this indigenous context, this is the lack of data to beabletoeffectivelygoverntheiraffairsandtoparticipateinothergovernancesystems.

5.9 Fragmentationofanddisconnectionfromgovernanceoverresourcesandpeople

It is difficult for indigenous people to govern themselves and their affairs when theirgovernance structures are fragmented, or are disconnected from resources that influencetheir wellbeing. Colonisation disconnected not only the ability to govern the physicalresources,butalsothemeaningfulconnectiontothoseresourcesthroughstories,historiesandculturalpractices.

InNewZealand, colonisationdissolved theexistinggovernancestructuresandprinciples–particularly through landconfiscationsanddisconnection from landandwater,andbyde-legitimatingexistingMāorilaws.Throughavarietyofmeans,theNewZealandgovernmentdisconnectedMāorifromtheirlandsthroughNativeLandCourtprocesses,

(Insertsource)

5.10 Expectations to comply with the values, rules and norms of both dominant andindigenoussystems

5.11 Jurisdictionaloverlap

Jurisdictional overlap comes in two forms: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic in this sense iswhereindigenousnationshaveoverlappingboundarieswitheachother.

TheWaikatoRegionalCouncil inNewZealandmapbelow (Figure x) showsanexampleofthis.IwiboundariesinNewZealandoverlapeachother.Themapshowstheirunderstandingof the boundaries for Iwi Authorities, governance bodies that represent iwi interests. Themap shows how the interests of these different authorities significantly overlap, creatingsignificant complexity for government in this area. However, this is something thatgovernment, at local, regional and central levels, must understand this dynamic and usemechanismsthatcaterforthiscomplexity.

Inasimilarway,TreatyofWaitangiSettlementprocessesprovideaprocessfornegotiatingoverlappingclaims.EXPLAINPROCESS.EXPLAINCRITICISMSOFPROCESS.

(Insertsource)

Ifwewere to consider the conceptual frameabove, thenwe could consider a number offactorsthatareintrinsiccomplexities:

• Distinct nations that are subsystems within the broader indigenous system (e.g.Maori are comprised of multiple diverse nations or systems, rather than ahomogenouswhole);

• Indigenous identities and cultural practices have changed due to changes intechnologyandtotheenvironmentsaroundthem;

• Indigenous identities and cultural practices continue to change due tomiscegenationwithothercultures;

• Indigenous connection with their traditional values, cultures and lands havereduced,impactingthenatureofindigenousidentity;

Ontheotherhand,extrinsiccomplexitiescouldinclude

5.12 Intrinsiccomplexities

Earlierwetalksabouttheintrinsiccomplexitiesofindigenouspeoples,andreferredtoATSIandMāoribeingcomprisedofadiversesetofpeoples, rather thanbeinganhomogenouswhole. There are over 250? ATSI nations and over 145? Iwi Māori that have their owndistinctculturalvaluesandpractices.Whiletheymaysharesomecommonalities,theyeachhave their own particular practices and points of view based on their own histories andtraditions.Fleshoutsomemore.

Gnoseologicalcomplexity

SemioticComplexity

Theroleofevolutionandchange

Whilewepositaviewabout“what is indigenous”wearealsomindfulofotheraspectsofcomplexitytheory–inparticularemergence.Whenwetalkaboutcolonisationasbeingtheimpositionofonesystemonanother,complexitysciencealsosaysthatthisprocesscreatesemergence and a new order. We can clearly identify what makes indigenous peoplesdistinctlyculturesoftheirown,butindiscussingcomplexitywemustalsocaterforthefactthatovertimeindigenousworldviewsandpractices,whilestilldistinct,change.Inonesensethismeans thatperspectives about theworld change (e.g. gnosiological) andperspectivesaboutparticularconceptschange(e.g.semiotic).

As these change, so do behaviours. An example of this is the shifting nature ofconnectednesstocultureandtocountry.Inmoderntimes,wehaveseenmassurbanisationofindigenouspopulationstowardlocationswherejobsareavailable.Thelevelandnatureofconnectednesschangesbecauseindigenouspeopleandtheirfamiliesarenolongerlocatedincloseproximitytocountry.Likewise, thishas impactsonculture:storiesandknowledgeare less likely to be passed on and practices are likely to diminish. However, the culturalprinciplesandstrongsenseofidentitymaystillremain.

RWT:beinghonest,weareweddedtoromanticnotionsofourculture.Wearealsoweddedto academic constructs and interpretations of our culture as rules. If we go back toprinciples,thenourapproachtodevelopmentismoreadaptive.Identifiedthatmorecloselyintegratedwith community than give credit for, and ultimately thatwhat is good for thecommunityisgoodforNR.

6 Discussion:Wheredoesthisdiscussionleadus?

Complexitytheoryreinforcestheideathatcontextisimportantforindigenousdevelopment.Universalistandreductionistapproachestopolicyriskthatpolicycreatesadverseoutcomesfor indigenouspeoplesandcommunities.This isdue for the inabilityofpolicy tocater forparticular nuances in indigenous dynamics, and applies intervention logics that are out ofstep with indigenous world views and perspectives, resulting in perverse outcomes. Ifcomplexityplacesapriorityonthedynamicsandcomplexityofcommunitiesingeneral,thenindigenous communities simply provider a richer set of dynamics with which to considercommunitycompositionandbehaviour.

Indigenous standpoint already emphasises the dangers of universalist and reductionistapproaches.WenoteespeciallytheworksofMarioBlaser,whoadvocatestheLifeProjectsperspective.TalkmoreaboutLifeProjects.

Theimportanceofcontext.

Theimportanceofunderstandingculturalbiasinpolicyintervention.

Theimportanceofagencyandbottomupapproaches.

UtilisingCAStocounterreductionistapproaches.

Culturalrenaissancesasameansofstrengtheningandfortifyingtheindigenoussystem.

Understandingtheplaceofchangeforindigenouspeoples:bothreactiveandproactive.

References

Akerlof,G.A.andR.E.Kranton (2010). IdentityEconomics:HowOur IdentitiesShapeOurWork,Wages,andWell-Being,PrincetonUniversityPress.Austen-Smith,D.andR.G. Fryer Jr (2005). "AnEconomicAnalysisof"ActingWhite"."TheQuarterlyJournalofEconomics:551-583.Biddle, N. (2014). "Measuring and analysing the wellbeing of Australia's Indigenouspopulation."SocialIndicatorsResearch116(3).Biddle, N. (2015). "Indigenous income, wellbeing and behaviour: Some policycomplications."EconomicPapers.Biddle, N. (2016). "Insights for Indigenous Policy from the Applied Behavioural Sciences."AsiaandthePacificPolicyStudies.Biddle, N. andH. Swee (2012). "The relationship betweenwellbeing and indigenous land,languageandcultureinAustralia."AustralianGeographer43(3):215-232.Camerer,C.F.andG.Loewenstein(2004).Behavioraleconomics:Past,present,andfutureinAdvances inBehavioralEconomics.Advances inBehavioralEconomics.C.F.Camerer,G.LoewensteinandM.Rabin.NewYorkRussellSage.Garcia,J.andG.Cohen(2012).Asocialpsychologicalapproachtoeducationalintervention.Behavioralfoundationsofpublicpolicy.E.Shafir.Princeton,PrincetonUniversityPress:329-347.Hardin, C. D. and M. R. Banaji (2013). "The nature of implicit prejudice: Implications forpersonalandpublicpolicy."TheBehavioralFoundationsofPublicPolicy:13-30.Kahneman,D.(2011).Thinking,fastandslow,Macmillan.Koh,T.Y. (2012)."KEYIDEASINBEHAVIOURALECONOMICS—ANDWHATTHEYMEANFORPOLICYDESIGN."BehaviouralEconomicsandPolicyDesign:ExamplesfromSingaporeWorldScientificPublishingCompany,Singapore.Lepenies, P. (2016). The Power of a Single Number: A Political History of GDP, ColumbiaUniversityPress.Mani,A.,S.Mullainathan,E.ShafirandJ.Zhao(2013)."Povertyimpedescognitivefunction."science341(6149):976-980.Mill,J.S.(1836).OntheDefinitionofPoliticalEconomy,andoftheMethodofInvestigationPropertoit.Toronto,UniversityofTorontoPress.Mullainathan,S.(2007).PsychologyandDevelopmentEconomics.BehavioralEconomicsandItsApplicationsP.DiamondandH.Vartiainen.Princeton,PrincetonUniversityPress.Mullainathan,S.andE.Shafir (2013). "Decisionmakingandpolicy incontextsofpoverty."TheBehavioralFoundationsofPublicPolicy:281-300.Mullainathan, S. and E. Shafir (2013). Scarcity: Why having too little means so much,Macmillan.Persky, J. (1995). "Retrospectives: the ethology of homo economicus." The Journal ofEconomicPerspectives:221-231.Sen, A. K. (1977). "Rational fools: A critique of the behavioral foundations of economictheory."Philosophy&PublicAffairs:317-344.Snowden,D.J.andM.E.Boone(2007)."Aleader'sframeworkfordecisionmaking."Harvardbusinessreview85(11):68.Stevenson, B. and J. Wolfers (2013). "Subjective Well-Being and Income: Is There AnyEvidenceofSatiation?"TheAmericanEconomicReview103(3):598-604.Taylor, J. (2006). Population and diversity: policy implications of emerging Indigenousdemographictrends,CentreforAboriginalEconomicPolicyResearch.Thaler, R. H. and C. R. Sunstein (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health,wealth,andhappiness,YaleUniversityPress.Vohs,K.D.(2013)."Thepoor'spoormentalpower."Science341(6149):969-970.

Yap,M. and E. Yu (2016). "Operationalising the capability approach: developing culturallyrelevant indicators of indigenous wellbeing–an Australian example." Oxford DevelopmentStudies44(3):315-331.