|
|
Native Americans Need the Rule of LawBy Terry L. Anderson
But for an administration committed to integrating minorities into the mainstream of the American economy, Mr. Salazar will have to do more than manage natural resources. His department also oversees the poorest of all minorities: American Indians. President Barack Obama courted the Indian vote. During the campaign, he visited Montana's Crow Reservation last May and was adopted into the tribe under the Crow name "One Who Helps People Throughout the Land." There he said, "Few have been ignored by Washington for as long as Native Americans," and vowed to improve their economic opportunities, health care and education. Two vital steps in this direction are to strengthen property rights and the rule of law on reservations. Virtually every study of international development shows that both of these are crucial to prosperity. Indian country is no different. The effect of insecure property rights is evident on a drive through any western reservation. When you see 160 acres overgrazed and a house unfit for occupancy, you can be sure the title to the land is held by the federal government bureaucracy. In contrast, when you see irrigated land in cultivation with farm implements, a barn and well-kept house, you can be sure the land is held in fee simple, whether by an Indian or non-Indian. Land tenure in Indian country is complicated thanks to laws, dating back to the 19th century, which put millions of acres of tribal and individual Indian land under the trusteeship of the Interior department's Bureau of Indian Affairs. These lands cannot be sold, used as collateral, easily inherited, or managed productively. Instead of giving Indians more federal welfare, Mr. Obama has the opportunity to increase their autonomy. It is, after all, their land. Let them manage it, borrow against it, and make it productive. Some tribes have wrested control of the land from the bureaucracy and are demonstrating they can do better. On the Flathead Reservation in Montana, the tribally managed timber program netted $16 million between 1998 and 2005 -- compared to $2.5 million for timber sales managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Also in Montana, the Crow tribe has negotiated a deal for a plant to convert coal to liquid fuels (such as jet fuel and diesel) that could generate revenues of $1 billion. That's $80,000 per tribal member -- not bad for a reservation where per capita income is $7,400. Mr. Obama can also strengthen the rule of law in Indian country. Some reservations were placed under state jurisdiction in 1953: They have a stronger legal system than those with tribal jurisdiction, and they benefit economically. My own research, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, shows that for tribes with state jurisdiction, per capita income grew 20% faster between 1969 and 1999 than for their counterparts under tribal court jurisdiction. All Indians are less likely than whites to get home loans, but the likelihood of a loan rejection falls by 50% on reservations under state jurisdiction. A stable judicial system is crucial for investment, and tribal courts have not provided this. Mr. Obama should set strict legal standards for tribal courts to meet, and if they don't, they should have their legal jurisdiction turned over to state courts. This will sacrifice some tribal sovereignty, but it will help empower Indian economic well-being. Mr. Obama's rallying cry was "change," and that is exactly what he needs to bring about in Indian policy. The first Americans deserve to be freed from the bureaucratic shackles that have made them victims, and allowed to establish property rights and legal systems that can make them victors.
|
SEARCH PERC:
"I like PERC, with which I usually disagree, for its even-handed and respectful discourse." - Steve Dujack, Environmental Forum
Recycling What's wrong with our federal lands? National TV Broadcasting and the rise of the regulatory state Not a walk in the park |
E-mail
Print
Ken Salazar, the new secretary of the Interior, faces the same tough questions as his predecessors: Drill more or drill less? Graze more or graze less? Mine more or mine less? More snowmobiling in national parks, or less? 
Mr. Anderson is executive director of the Political Economy Research Center in Bozeman, Mont., and co-editor of "Self-Determination: The Other Path for Native Americans" (Stanford University Press, 2006).
Comments
Cathy Jarrett - 3 May 2009 00:49- Native American life before Europeans arrived
- A previous poster seems to think that the people who lived here before Europeans came had a utopia.
On the contrary, some of them barely had enough to eat, especially during times of periodic drought. There were wars between different tribes. They also probably helped cause the extinction of quite a few species of animals who used to live here.
The people of southwest Colorado built their homes on steep cliffs with fields of corn and beans on the mesas above. Why did they not build their home next to their fields? The answer is that they built in a place where they could defend their families from other tribes who wanted to attack them. I have also read that human bones have been found in their fire pits. They ate other humans. They also left their homes in about AD1200 due to a long drought. They moved to other areas probably displacing other people.
In the northeast the Iroquois were known for their cruelty and torture of captives from other tribes.
In the early 1800’s before United States citizens began moving west some tribes were already starving due to another drought.
Many tribes stole people from other tribes. Some were treated as slaves. When she was young Sacagawea was taken hundreds of miles east from her Shoshone tribe. She later became the wife of a French trapper and a guide for the Lewis and Clark expedition.
Wherever there are humans there has always been conflict, disease, poverty, etc. This land was never a utopia of peaceful people living in perfect harmony with each other.
Tay Hageman - 3 April 2009 16:44- Rule of Law
- Mr. Anderson,
Consider:
For over 10,000 years the American Indian lived on this land without poverty, violent disease, inflation, pollution, homelessness, overpopulation, rampant crime, global warming, and any number of other ills. These are of the Europeans import and manufacture.
The American Indian needs the american government to leave them alone. They know how to live with one another and the world around them.
The white man doesn't know how to live with itself or the world. Look what 'civilization' has wrought (see the list above).
I suggest you clean up the mess your state and your country are in before you go looking to clean up your neighbor.
So, either you have incompletely and erroneously evaluated the situation or you wish the same ills on the Indian.
It's one or the other.
Tay Hageman
Dr. Michael Roach, PhD - 24 March 2009 10:22- Property Rights in Indian Country
- I would like to see how Mr Anderson accounts for the past impact of the Dawes Act when he asserts the benefits of stronger property rights in Indian Country. I personally do not believe that further checkerboarding of tribal lands is necessarily a good thing.
Jason D. Oberle - 20 March 2009 15:16- Economic Growth in Indian Country
- March 19, 2009
To The Editor:
I am writing in response to the letter written by Terry L. Anderson and printed in WSJ on March 16. Mr. Anderson suggests that “property rights” and “rule of law” are essential for economic growth in Indian Country. In these conclusions I concur. It is with his recommendations I disagree. Mr. Anderson failed to consider many options currently in practice in Indian Country and further failed to consider any relevant historical perspective other than ones which support his arguments to reduce Tribal Sovereignty.
Anderson suggests with a mild tone that “property rights” in Indian Country are victim to old laws which mandate placing Indian land in trust with the federal government thus causing a ‘tragedy of the commons.’ Although, he later illustrates how some Tribes, with tribal lands still in trust but under tribal control, have outperformed the U.S. federal government on similar management or regulatory actions of said property. Then Mr. Anderson goes on to suggest the approach for improving the “rule of law” is the implementation of a 1953 policy which mandated Tribes underneath of states for legal jurisdiction. Where he fails is not to point out that this period of U.S. government Indian Policy was rightly called the “Termination Era.”
Practically speaking this reduction or any reduction of tribal sovereignty would be yet another failure of federal Indian Policy. The majority of academic research which I have encountered in regards to American Indian Economic Development suggests Sovereignty is a critical factor for success. Mr. Anderson’s recommendation is not the correct solution for Indian Country.
Here are a few observations which, I believe, will better fit the issues of “property rights” and “rule of law” in Indian Country. I will start with the “rule of law.” Two solutions for the “rule of law” issues are: 1. Grant tribes the authority to implement the “rule of law” on all trust and reservation lands with parity to state or foreign governments. This is not likely to ever happen, so I move to 2. A practice which is already happening in Indian Country, a waiver of sovereign immunity is included in contracts with firms and individuals as well as a clause to establish legal jurisdiction (state or federal). This gives firms and individuals a credible promise to pay and remedies for failure to do so. Next is the issue of “property rights.” At least one tribe, mine, and likely others provide opportunities for members to obtain long-term (99 year) leases in order to address the issue of “property rights.” This provides individuals the incentive to care for the property or at a minimum an incentive for the individual holding the long term lease to the property to protect it from the ‘tragedy of the commons.’
I have a few other points I want to clarify about Mr. Anderson’s letter before I end my response. First, Mr. Anderson is absolutely correct about the “Obama war cry for “change” and that is exactly what he needs to bring about in Indian policy.” Second, “The first Americans need to be freed from bureaucratic shackles.” Finally, “…they (the first Americans) need the opportunity to be victors” all things which are possible and necessary. Mr. Anderson and I merely disagree upon how changes in policy or policies are to occur. I recommend involving Indian Country in this conversation in order to guarantee the best outcome.
Sincerely,
Jason Oberle,
MPA Candidate 2010
School of Public and Environmental Affairs
Indiana University--Bloomington
http://wwwndnpolicy.blogspot.com/
Add new comment: