RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN ALASKA
The Collected Essays of Patrick J. Dubbs
Another Development in Rural
© Patrick J. Dubbs
In 1975, the Dag Hammarskjold Foundation presented a report to
the Seventh Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly
which focused on a perceived crisis principally, but not exclusively,
in Third World national development and international cooperation.
This report concluded, among other things, that:
The crisis of development lies in the poverty of the masses
of the Third World, as well as that of others, whose needs, even
the most basicfood, habitat, health, educationare
not met; it lies, in a large part of the world, in the alienation,
whether in misery or in affluence, of the masses, deprived of
the means to understand and master their social and political
environment; it lies in the growing feelings of frustration that
are disturbing the industrialized societies.
(Dag Hammarskjold Foundation 1975:5)
It suggests that the solution to this crisis is not a perpetuation
of the status quo or orthodox development strategies characteristic
of and advocated by the industrialized world, but that there needs
to be a "redefining [of] the content and direction of development
(Dag Hammarskjold Foundation 1975:6)." And, the Foundation offered
the concept of "Another Development" as the core around which this
redefinition and redirection could revolve.
In this paper, I suggest that a similar analysis of Alaska's contemporary
indigenous communities located off the road, rail and ferry system,
hereafter referred to as rural Alaska, would result in a similar
conclusion about the efficacy of orthodox approaches to development
in Alaska. Secondly, I attempt to sketch out the concept of "Another
Development". And, thirdly, I attempt to describe how such a strategy
might be employed by small rural Alaska communities in today's
Development in Village Alaska
At the outset, it is important to realize that the developmental
situation in village Alaska today is not simply a post-1959 statehood
and/or post-1971 ANCSA (Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act) phenomenon.
Rather, it represents the culmination of a long standing and deep
rooted pattern of colonial development commencing in the late 1700's
and early 1800's with Russian activities along the Pacific and
southern Bering Sea rims and continuing through today with the
activities of the State of Alaska, the U.S. Federal Government
and a variety of omnibus corporations in most corners of Alaska.
To be sure, statehood and ANCSA have had profound influences on
village Alaska but these influences are part of a larger picture.
In general, orthodox development, at least as it is used here,
is imposed or colonial development. That is, it is initiated by,
implemented under the direction of, and intended to benefit external
entities. In a convoluted way, it is not intended to be "local
development" at all but is intended to develop or further develop
external areas. The nature and needs of indigenous or tribal local
institutions and communities, if they are considered at all, are
viewed as obstacles to this predesigned developmental path and
consequently, they must be either removed or changed to be supportive
of the path.
The specific path followed by orthodox colonial development seems
mostly to be shaped by two related core considerationsthe
production needs of the larger external system, and the ability
to maximize returns to external capital, labor, or managerial investments
in the local context while fulfilling these external needs. Given
the voracious appetite of the colonizing countries' industrial
machines and their complementary consumer market orientations,
it is not too surprising that most examples of orthodox colonial
development are, at least initially, natural resource oriented.
Certainly, colonial invasions of the North were dictated by the
industrial states' desire for northern natural resources and, for
the most part, these desires have remained unabated up to today.
The North or any similar colonial target was not and is not viewed
as a unique homeland, but is viewed simply as yet another place
from which to extract and export resources.
Local development or development in the colony itself, a second
pattern of development, under these circumstances obviously revolves
around and is dependent upon the natural resource development process
in the first pattern. "Trickle-down" outcomes such as economic
rents for the resources, forward and backward infrastructure linkages
to resource activities, employment opportunities within the natural
resource complex, increases in population and local wealth leading
to economic diversification, etc. are viewed individually and collectively
as positive development of the local region. Indeed, these presumed
benefits become the core of the local orthodox developer's world
view which tends to define development in the tradition of western
capitalism as "economic growth" through private sector activities.
/1/ When one looks at development in the North and other sparsely
populated but resource rich remote areas from the perspective of
the external and local " private sector developers", resource export
induced-development seems not only logical in economic terms but
necessary if there is ever to be local level development or economic
growth. Small populations, remoteness from markets and supply centers,
high transportation costs, high costs of living and wages, etc.
all seem to mitigate against the other major private sector strategyindustrial
manufacturing induced development.
While the natural resource extraction/exportation development
strategy has proven highly profitable over time for the external
developers, it also has led to a degree of traditional "economic
growth" or local development in Alaska's major urban areas, especially
those within central Alaska. This second model of development,
local growth of populated urban areas through exports of rural
resources, conforms very closely to orthodox capitalistic development
models which emphasize top-down, large scale, export oriented projects
which theoretically will create trickle-down benefits, especially
cash infusions, leading to local level development. This "growth
through exports" model is most certainly the dominant model in
Alaska today even though there does not appear to be a coherent
statewide strategy for its implementation. /2/
Although the two previously discussed models, in my opinion, never
were primarily intended to be development models for rural communities
in the sense of purposefully attempting to create a particular
rural configuration or outcome, they have had a profound affect
on rural indigenous or Native institutions and societies. These
historical changes have been commented upon by many analysts and
need not be repeated in depth here. /3/ Essentially, they have
resulted from the overlay of the "modern" or western capitalistic
market system, including its various institutions, upon a "traditional" or
non-western subsistence system. The resultant historical montage
features permanent settlements or villages centralized around a
locus of power embodied in western institutions like the school,
church and store. The livelihoods of village residents became dependent
upon access to cash and natural resources in a mixed economy, and
their lives were increasingly drawn into and dependent upon external
social, cultural, political, economic and technological systems.
While there are numerous ways to describe or conceptualize this
emergent historical pattern, I find it most fruitful to describe
it as a Fourth World, or a world fundamentally different from the
typical First, Second and Third "worlds" discussed in most development
literature./4/ This Fourth World is created by a set of historical
relationships between two distinct populationsan invading
and/or settled colonizing industrial state population and a resident
indigenous or tribal population still occupying its traditional
land base. While these relationships are initiated within a traditional
colonization framework, they are maintained by an internal colonization
dynamic through which the indigenous population loses its " . . . sovereignty
and . . . [becomes] subordinate to the wider
society and the state over which they do not exercise any control
(Stavenhagen: 4)." It is a situation in which dependence and dominance
characterize interrelationships or exchanges between the rural
tribal population and the larger external system.
Given this brief, general historical backdrop, one finds that
the situation today throughout village Alaska is not all that different
from the past, i.e, much of what is going on in rural Alaska is
conditioned by natural resource export development models geared
to the needs of external entities outside the State or urban entities
within the state. The needs and desires of local indigenous communities,
at best, are of secondary concern within the export model. Indeed,
one could make a fairly convincing argument that the basic situation
in rural Alaska today simply is an enhancement and not a departure
from past trends. Specifically, population centralization in the
location of "western" institutions, including the recently created
ANCSA regional and village for-profit corporations, has intensified.
For example, in 1970 there were only 16 communities outside of
the major population boroughs with a population greater than 500;
by 1980, there was more than a hundred percent increase in such
communities  (calculated from data presented by Kruse and Foster
1986: 15-19). The commercialization of the economy is such that
dependence on access to cash has become extremely critical for
the livelihood of most villagers even though natural resource dependence
is still the underlying economic base for most communities, and
entanglements with external cultural technologies, institutions
and value systems have become much more pervasive and, in some
There are, however, some significant differences in today's rural
Alaska and they seem to center around the "developmental role" increasingly
played by external government in the rural areas, particularly
the state government, and the "developmental potential", real or
imagined, of the ANCSA corporate structure, particularly the for-profit
With the advent of statehood and the subsequent oil generated
fluorescence of state government, governmental activities in rural
areas have taken on the "trickle-down" developmental cast similar
to that attributed to natural resource development. Government
spending has created numerous direct governmental jobs in rural
areas as well as private sector jobs through activities funded
by governmental funds, particularly general infrastructure construction.
Additionally, government transfer programs have provided individuals
both with direct monetary payments as well as delivered services.
In the main rural regional centers like Bethel, Nome and Kotzebue,
local, State and Federal government is a significant, if not the
most significant, employer and in this regional center context,
government spending, indeed, has seemed to have had some spin-off
developmental effects leading to private sector economic diversification.
In the outlying smaller communities, the import of government expenditures
(direct employment, indirect employment in government funded projects
and transfer payments) is even greater as it is the major source
of cash. For example, Knapp's recent analysis (1987) indicates
that in the Wade-Hampton census district near Bethel, the poorest
census district in the state, government employment provides 72%
of all wages.
Yet, this form of development is obviously a tenuous one dependent
upon adequate governmental revenues to support its continuation.
With the oil glut and subsequent decline in state revenues, it
is becoming increasingly and painfully obvious to many rural communities
that their economic future is still dependent upon uncontrollable
external vagaries and that they are still in a subordinate relationships
to the external system. Unfortunately, as state government spending
diminishes in rural areas, local communities suffer not only from
the loss of services from discontinued or reduced programs and
the loss of jobs and the income associated with those jobs, they
still have to maintain the physical infrastructure constructed
with and previously supported by government funds and/or user fees.
Faced with a declining ability of families to pay for these services
due to shortages of cash and small tax bases, shrinking municipal
budgets are reeling under these physical facility obligations.
In attempting to assess the magnitude of this problem, the State
Department of Regional and Community Affairs conducted a preliminary
survey of 128 small communities in October of 1987 (DCRA 1987).
While the preliminary report of this data is difficult to analyze,
it is clear that most communities had decreased budgets as well
as increased difficulties in getting families to pay for municipal
services. A sizable percentage, up to possibly a third, was or
shortly would be experiencing serious financial difficulties to
the point where they might not be able to fulfill such basic functions
as withholding taxes, making workman's compensation payments, etc..
In addition to service and employment cutbacks, the most common
response to these budget deficits was to increase user fees even
though the inability to collect for these services was already
contributing to the deficit. Most importantly, there has been a
decided trend of out-migration from the small communities into
Alaska's regional and urban centers. Even with the State's recently
announced very modest Rural Community Recovery Package, consisting
of loans from a $600,000 fund to communities who agree to give
the State financial oversight and training responsibilities (Fairbanks
Daily News-Miner 12-29-87), the public sector's "developmental
role" in rural Alaska is going to be significantly reduced, at
least for the immediate future.
The other significant difference in the development scene is the
profit and non-profit corporate infrastructure created by the passage
of ANCSA in 1971. The ANCSA complex has been commented upon by
numerous people but, by far, the most well known and controversial
comments have come from the recently completed investigation of
the Alaska Native Review Commission or, as it is more commonly
known, the Berger Report (Berger 1985). Perhaps because it is one
of the few studies to genuinely incorporate the views of village
residents, perhaps because there is a general, almost universal,
unease when it comes thinking about the actual implications of
ANCSA for indigenous communities, or perhaps because it is critical
of a lot of the orthodox "economic growth" development hopes surrounding
ANCSA, the Berger Report has become the baseline from which to
talk about development in rural Alaska (e.g., see Young 1987).
While covering of a myriad of historical and contemporary issues,
Berger is clearly concerned with indigenous cultures at risk in
the larger and surrounding western industrial context primarily
because their cultural and economic foundation, their land-base,
is at jeopardy. Given such general structural weaknesses in village
corporations as undercapitalization, lack of a profitable local
resource base, a shortage of trained management, and a costly and
time consuming reporting system as well as occasional simple mismanagement
and/or untimely investments, village corporations in most communities,
particularly the smaller communities, have not proven to be the
engines of orthodox development that they were intended to be (see
Berger 1985, Dubbs 1986, et. al.). Land comprises the major corporate
asset of most of these village corporations and in bankruptcy or
takeover situations, these lands are at risk. With the recent downturn
in the general Alaskan economy and the precipitous decline in the
stock market, one would expect more village corporations to experience
serious land- threatening economic difficulties in the immediate
future. Legislation to rectify some of the inherent difficulties
in ANCSA , the so-called 1991 provisions, recently passed the U.S.
Congress and while it does not allow for the communal land saving
provisions of the Berger Report, it is a step forward toward stabilizing
ANCSA, particularly the large regional for-profit corporations.
Whether it will result in these corporations taking a more active
role in the development of their rural components, remains uncertain.
For the most part (NANA being a notable exception), the regional
ANCSA corporations have simply replicated the investment strategies
of other larger western capitalistic corporations and/or the traditional
resource extractionexportation development strategy of the
external colonizers under the assumption that benefits will trickle-down
to their shareholders in the form of increased dividends due to
profitable investments and/or wages from associated employment
activities. These investment and resource activities too are tied
into and dependent upon external systems and while they might prove
profitable in the short-term and could have an impact on the cash
flow in local communities, they probably are not a sustainable
foundation for local development in rural areas. As Berger indicates:
The Native corporations are trickle-down mechanisms, but the
trickle will never be greater than it is now because villagers
are not in a position to make claims on the stream of income
resulting from economic activity. The stream may have been increased
by ANCSA, but very few of the villagers are able to get closer
to it (1985:46)
The government/ANCSA complex seem to form what might be a third
model of development found in rural Alaskathe development
of regional centers intended to provide a locus for external institutions
to extend their webs of dependence and dominance to the surrounding
small, rural communities. The corollary is that local community
development flows from and is dependent upon funds and services
from the regional center and its external sources of funds. The
rapid growth in the number of these centers already has been commented
upon and they seem to display indicators of secondary or trickle-down
growth much like their urban counterparts, albeit due to different
causes and at a much reduced scale. This form of "top-down" rural
development accounts for much of the growth that has occurring
in the small communities in the regional center hinterlands. For
the most part, this "growth" is restricted to wages and basic municipal
infrastructure services such as water, sanitation, health clinics,
roads, fire and police protection, etc. This model and its consequent
pattern of development is extremely dependent upon outside financial
resources and control procedures determining what these financial
resources can and cannot be used for and thus, what can and cannot
be "developed." It is, in reality, closely linked to the previous
two export-models of development.
In sum, it appears that development in Alaska's small rural communities
by both the private and public sectors has been tangential to the
development of Alaska's rural resources and at best, haphazard.
In fact, one could argue that there never has been a true rural
development strategy in Alaska. At best (and one might argue that
what has really happened in rural Alaska has been the creation
of underdevelopment), it clearly has been exploitative development
driven by external entities and geared to meeting or enhancing
external objectives. It has been development which virtually ignores
the subsistence or traditional sector and often, the needs and
desires of local communities. Such a development pattern is very
unpredictable, unreliable and very much subject to externally-induced "boom-bust" cycles.
While this historical path is not without contributions in local
communities, particularly infrastructure facilities that many communities
seem to want, there is little to suggest that there is any sustained
development foundation in rural Alaska outside of traditional subsistence
pursuits for consumption and cash exchanges. There is, however,
a lot to suggest that something is quite "wrong" with the current
situation and that it needs to be changed. In spite of massive
expenditures, rural incomes consistently remain considerably lower
than urban incomes, placing rural residents in a distinctly disadvantageous
position in the surrounding commercial economy, especially one
characterized by high transportation costs (e.g., see Kruse 1984).
The depressing litany of social pathologies involving alcohol,
drugs, violence, accidents and death is found in almost any rural
community. The current severity of these social maladies has been
poignantly and disturbingly conveyed to the entire state in an
Anchorage Daily News ten part series aptly entitled "A People in
Peril" (Anchorage Daily News, January 1988). While this pathological
complex is little understood in terms of cause and effect, there
certainly is suggestive evidence to link it to individuals trying
to cope with developmentally-induced changes in rural Alaska (e.g.,
see Palainkas 1987, Travis 1984, and Young 1987). It appears that
pursuing an "Another Development" strategy in rural Alaska would
be advantageous, especially given the probable decline in state
and federal revenues available to rural regions and the finiteness
and fragility of natural resource export development, as well as
from the point of view of trying to create a more sustainable developmental
path for rural communities as well as reducing the social malaise
in these communities. This need for a change even seems to have
been recently recognized by the State of Alaska in that the Governor,
addressing the state of the rural Alaskan economy, has stated that "We
have learned that economic development initiated by outside communities
or by a distant government has proven unlikely to be a long-term
success or improve the lives of the poor (Fairbanks Daily News-Miner
October 18, 1987: E-9)."
The Concept of "Another Development"
The concept of "Another Development" is a nebulous one in that
it has come to mean any alternative to the type of development
intended by orthodox western capitalism or orthodox centralized
socialism. In its fundamental form, as conceptualized by the Dag
Hammarskjold Foundation (1975),
Development is a whole. Its ecological, cultural, social, economic,
institutional and political dimensions can only be understood
in their systematic interrelationships, and action in its service
must be integrated. . . . the three pillars,
so to speak, of Another Development [areit is] 1. Geared
to the satisfaction of needs, beginning with the eradication
of poverty. 2. Endogenous and self-reliant, that is, relying
on the strength of the societies which undertake it. 3. In harmony
with the environment. . . . Another Development
requires structural transformations (Dag Hammarskjold Foundation
Another Development, in many ways, is a much less complex idea
than conventional development as it clearly starts with a focus
or definition of development that is concerned with the satisfaction
of basic physical and often, psychocultural needs of individuals
such as a sense of security, mastery, control, dignity, etc. It
is "development as if people mattered," or, to put it more directly, " . . . men
and women, human lives, have become the subjects for both development
goals and strategies (Kindervatter: 39)." It is " . . . the
unfolding of people's individual and social imagination in defining
goals, inventing means and ways to approach them, and learning
to identify and satisfy socially legitimate needs (Third System
Project: 72)." "Another Development" does not deny the import of
traditional development goals such as economic growth, infrastructure
expansion, etc., it simply views these as one of many possible
means to attain need satisfaction as opposed to being the exclusive
subject or goal of development.
Its second dimension, endogenousness and self-reliance, clearly
emphasizes an inward as opposed to outer oriented form of development.
. . . relies on what a human group has:
its natural environment, its cultural heritage, the creativity
of the men and women who constitute it, becoming richer through
exchange between them and with other groups. It entails the autonomous
definition of development styles and of life styles (Dag Hammarskjold
Utilization of local resources in locally decided ways for locally
determined ends becomes the path to self-reliant and sustainable
development. Again, "Another Development" does not deny the fact
that there may be a need for exchange linkages with other systems,
it simply does not accept, a priori,
that you must have such linkages. Should such linkages be required,
it does suggest that they be initiated and controlled by local
communities as much as possible.
By stressing harmony with the environment, "Another Development" goes
beyond the mere physical environment to embrace the total physiosocial
environment. Questions of compatibility, appropriateness, resource
utilization, exhaustion and renewability and the like are part
and parcel of fitting activities into the local environment rather
than changing the environment to fit into activities as is so often
the case under other forms of development.
In sum, "Another Development" becomes " . . . not
a cluster of benefits 'given' to people in need, but rather a process
by which a populace acquires a greater mastery over its own destiny
(Goulet: 155)". It occurs " . . . when people
and their communitieswhatever the space and time-span of
their effortsact as subjects and are not acted upon as objects;
assert their autonomy, self-reliance and self-confidence; when
they set out and carry out projects. To develop is to be, or to
become. Not to have. (Third System Project: 72)." It is obvious
that this type of development usually engenders structural transformations
in existing systems.
"Another Development" in Rural Alaska
Before outlining what an "Another Development" strategy might
mean for rural Alaska and how it might be applied, I am making
a few assumptions which should be articulated, for they indubitably
have shaped the direction of this argument. In 1980, the State
of Alaska created a short-lived Rural Development Council which
was charged with developing State policy for rural Alaska in the
sense of providing answers to such questions as "Should rural communities
continue to exist even if there is no viable economic base other
than state support?" or "How far should the State go toward guaranteeing
the survival of rural Alaska?" (Fairbanks Daily News-Miner 11/20/80:2).
In this paper, I am assuming, first and foremost, that Alaska's
small rural communities, with their distinctive life style, are
worth preserving. These communities are the remaining land-based
locus of long standing and rich indigenous cultural traditions
which, if lost, would be irreplaceable. These communities also
present a preferred alternative life style for many Alaskans which
adds a richness to all our lives whether we actually reside there
or not. Secondly, individuals have inhabited these general land
areas continuously for thousands of years in the face of incalculable
hardships and uncertainties, and thus, I assume that these communities
can be preserved amidst today's uncertainties. Thirdly, and closely
connected to the other assumptions, is the assumption that the
future of the world rests upon populations having access to a variety
of viable adaptive forms, including that of Native Alaska subsistence.
The fourth and final major assumption is that, however preferable
or desirable it might seem, a return to the "pure", isolated subsistence
lifestyle is not a realistic alternative for most, if not all,
rural Alaska communities. Consequently, any local development strategy
must take into consideration exchanges with the larger systems.
While the specific integrated "Another Development" concept, at
least as far as I know, has not been advocated for rural Alaska
or the indigenous North, there have been numerous and consistent
calls for a reconsideration and redirection of the current developmental
path from both researchers, Alaska Native leaders and, most importantly,
community members. In many ways, these calls and subsequent actions
such as the formation of the Alaska Native Review Commission, the
Yupiit Nation, Inupiat Ilitqusiat, the Alaska Resource Commodities
Trading and Investment Corporation, and the Alaska Native Coalition
all embody components of a specific "Another Development" strategy
for rural Alaska.
Given the total contextual heterogeneity of Alaska, it is assumed
that there should be a heterogeneous approach to its development.
In this paper, the "Another Development" strategy is directed at
Alaska's small, generally widely dispersed rural communities with
less than 500 people. There are roughly 223 rural communities in
Alaska and 84% of these had fewer than 500 people in 1980 (Kruse
and Foster: 8). These small rural places, however, only constituted
about one-half of the rural population and ten percent of the total
state population (calculated from Kruse and Foster).
Even though this is a fairly well defined and homogeneous grouping, "Another
Development" advocates would argue that each community ultimately
would need to evolve its own strategy based on local contextual
factors as opposed to there being any a priori universal strategy
equally applicable to all rural communities. The ANCSA strategy
of establishing an identical corporate structure for all communities
without regard to context, population and other scalar considerations
would be rejected in this approach.
An "Another Development" strategy for rural Alaska, like elsewhere,
must start with the satisfaction of basic physical and psychocultural
needs of the rural population. In Alaska, this demands that subsistence
be given strategic primacy. The totality of the subsistence system
has sustained generations of Alaska Natives in the rural homelands
for thousands of years and it is capable of doing so today and
tomorrow. This sustenance is inextricably both physical and psychocultural,
and it provides, in my opinion, the single most important anchor
in the lives of rural residents. Yet, this cornerstone of rural
existence is treated, more often than not, as an obstacle to development
or as something that has to be tolerated but not seriously considered.
The subsistence provider, for example, is seldom extolled in rural
school rooms and when he or she is, it is more in terms of a historical
curiosity than as a viable role in today's world. This general
devaluation of subsistence obviously is transmitted to the Native
youth who then are caught in the bind of seeing the activities
of the parental generation devalued and thus not worth pursuing,
but, simultaneously, they are not being provided with the requisite
skills, knowledge and/or opportunity to adequately pursue the "valued
alternative" of wage employment in the commercial economy.
By advocating the reestablishment or strengthening of a subsistence-centered
system, I am not advocating a development based on nostalgia (Stenbaek
1987), fantasy (Eaton 1987), or dangerous singlemindedness (Jull
1985). A subsistence-centered system today is not and cannot be
the isolated, traditional system of the past if, for no other reason,
than the capitalization of subsistence pursuits (Dryzek and Young
1985). Yet, it can be a system based upon traditional cultural
knowledge and values which is harmoniously fitted into established
homelands and which meets many of the basic human needs of its
practitioners. Among other things, such a system would, as it always
has since contact with the industrial state and in contrast to
orthodox export models advocated by that state,
- be based upon a locally generated knowledge base rather
than an imported knowledge base,
- emphasize renewable resource as opposed to nonrenewable resource
- consist of a year round cycle of different activities rather
than a single seasonal or year round pursuit of one activity,
- be geared toward local consumption as well as extra-local production
The "subsistence question" is a complex one and cannot be fully
developed in this paper./5/ However, for a sustainable subsistence-centered
system to exist, it seems that events like the following must occur:
- A subsistence-centered existence must not be considered as
a "second class" pursuit followed by those who cannot make it
in the "world of work". The unique special skills, complex empirical
knowledge of local environments, mutual respect, sharing, resourcefulness,
and "understanding that is both conscious and mystical of the
intricate interrelationships that link humans, animals, and the
environment" involved in subsistence must be recognized as highly
valued traits to acquire and retain (Berger 1985:51). These traits
should be viewed as at least on par with western knowledge and
skills conveyed in the formal school system and, with some creativity,
they could easily provide the foundation for the way schooling
- Rural indigenous individuals will need unassailable access
to renewable subsistence resources in their traditional use areas.
These use areas cut across ANCSA, State and Federal lands and
both consumption and extra-local production subsistence rights
must be guaranteed. While there appears to be a complex State
process now for determining priority consumptive subsistence
rights when there are severe resource limitations, it leads to
too many interpretative judgments based on traditional usage,
consumption versus production, etc. A subsistence-centered system
cannot be founded on an arbitrary and continually negotiated
process, especially one highly responsive to the increasingly
strident recreational demands of non-resident hunters and fishermen
who constitute Alaska's numerical majority. It requires a solid
foundation that will endure over time. For example, exclusive "subsistence
sanctuaries", accessible only to local residents and members
of the scientific community, could be jointly established throughout
much of rural Alaska by ANCSA corporations, the State Government
and the Federal Government.
- Rural indigenous individuals must be involved in the day-to-day
administration and overall policy management of all rural land
and water resources. This is not only logical from a scientific
management point of view given the vast amount of local knowledge
about these resources, it is clear that "Any society which has
a profound and continuing dependence on a set of resources for
its future as well as present well being, is logically bound
to have a strong self-interest in managing those resources in
the best way possible (Freeman 1986:35)." There are numerous
issues involved in local management and many ways this can be
accomplished (see Usher 1986) but, whatever management system
is evolved, it must be as localized as possible both in terms
of its authority and participants, and it must allow for the
local veto of projects which could threaten the subsistence base.
If local communities are to attain a sense of mastery over their
existence, it is absolutely critical that they have real control
over their local environment. Membership on advisory panels or "representative" membership
on statewide bodies simply is not sufficient.
- If a subsistence-centered system is to have a chance, especially
in the contemporary mixed economy, State and Federal government
benefit programs will have to respond to its uniqueness in a
supportive way. As Wolfe (1987:4) states:
. . . qualifying rules for benefit programs should not
require applicants to give up necessary subsistence equipment such
as snow-machines, boats, motors, nets, and rifles or limited-entry
fishing permits. Otherwise, the program will slow down subsistence
activities which are necessary for rural communities to achieve economic
self-sufficiency and a high quality of life. In order to supplement
the mixed subsistence-cash economy, benefit programs need to arrange
rules that exclude subsistence equipment and fishing permits in determining
In the framework of "Another Development", a subsistence-centered
system, such as the one just described, clearly conforms to the "Another
Development" core pillars of need orientation, self-reliance and
control, and total environmental harmony. Additionally, in giving
primacy to a subsistence-centered system, society essentially would
be giving primacy to the long term survival of Alaska's indigenous
peoples. As some residents of Alaska's North Slope Borough have
When the development is gone, the tax bases are gone, and the
jobs are gone, we are determined that our descendants will survive,
just as our ancestors ensured our continuity. This survival depends
on the survival and maintenance of our Arctic wildlife and the
minimal disturbance of the Arctic environment and wildlife habitats.
If we as a culture are not to become a seriously endangered species,
Inuit subsistence traditions must continue and be allowed to
survive (Brower and Stotts: 325).
The Cash Component of A Subsistence-Centered System
In today's world, a subsistence-centered "Another Development" strategy
requires a cash component. In the past three or four years, there
has been a surprising amount of attention paid to the status of
rural northern mixed economies (for example, Dryzek and Young 1985,
Eaton 1987, Marshall 1987, Quigley and McBride 1987, Robinson and
Ghostkeeper 1987, Ross and Usher 1986, Sinclair 1985, Weeden 1985,
and Young 1987). In many ways, these efforts all have concentrated
on alternative ways of focusing and/or organizing these economies
and the following discussion of the "cash component" draws liberally
from these approaches. Oran Young's (1987) paper is particularly
useful in terms of providing an excellent overview of the possibilities
and constraints facing rural Alaskan mixed economies.
In the main, whenever development is mentioned in regard to rural
communities, the first response is inevitably one like "Employment
is the single most critical need in smaller communities and will
be the prerequisite criteria for community support of a business
investment (Eaton:5)," or "This village has decided that rural
development means more jobs for its residents (Marshall:7)." This
often results in a lot of time, money and effort being spent on
devising employment training or business opportunity programs for
local and/or extra-local jobs, usually with very limited success.
Using an "Another Development" framework, one might recast this
as the need by individuals and communities for a means to obtain
cash to meet necessary basic human needs, particularly to carry
out a subsistence-centered strategy, and thereby, broaden the focus
of activity to two interrelated areascash extension and cash
The most obvious starting point in a cash oriented strategy is
cash extension or increasing the local circulation and/or economic
efficacy of the existing cash supply. Given the anticipated declines
in cash inputs into small communities, any extension in the local
use of these inputs would be beneficial. The following are some
of the more obvious ways in which cash can be "extended" in many
small rural communities:
- Direct Import Substitution: Most cash flowing into communities
today flows out for a variety of goods. If some of these funds
can be captured locally, there would be a multiplier increase
in the local circulation of cash which could broaden the local
distribution of cash. Unfortunately, there are severe limitations
in terms of what can be produced and profitably marketed locally
because of small market size, limited access to investment capital,
technological requirements, etc. It seems that most direct import
substitutions would be in the areas of food, clothing, shelter
and heating fuel. These areas are of primary importance in rural
areas and local resources and skills can easily be applied to
their production. Furthermore, this type of production can be
directly and locally controlled.
- Indirect Import Substitution: The highest paid jobs in most
rural Alaskan communities are usually professional jobs, especially
teaching and administrative jobs. But, rural communities seldom
capture much of the cash associated with these positions. The
rural Alaskan situation, in my opinion, very much parallels a
situation described by Quigley and McBride in Canada's Northwest
. . . we have observed (but not been able to quantify) that
local expenditures by non-native professionals in the community tend to be relatively
small compared to the size of their cash incomes, the tendency being for these
people to order in bulk from wholesalers outside the community or purchase food
and goods while on trips to southern Canada, as well as to invest in southern
assets such as real estate (210).
While it might be possible for rural communities to become competitive
with distant wholesalers for some food stuffs and thereby capture some
of the cash paid to professionals, most of these cash assets simply
will not remain in the community because the professionals themselves
do not plan to remain. The obvious solution, which also has implications
for self-reliance and local control, would be to have local professionals
(see Dubbs 1984). There is no reason why local individuals cannot be
trained to occupy all the professional positions in their communities
and these individuals would also form a local core group for helping
the community equitably deal with external structures and systems.
- Altering Consumption Patterns: Reductions in the type and volume
of extra-local discretionary consumption would also provide more
cash to meet basic needs and thereby improve the local quality
of life. One extra-local area that seems to capture a significant
portion of the disposable income in many communities and which
can be greatly reduced is expenditures for alcohol and drugs.
Channeling this money back into families and local enterprises
would have a profound affect on both the economic and social
fabric of most rural communities.
- Repair rather than Replacement: To the extent that the life
of technological items and structures can be efficiently extended
by local repairs rather than being replaced by new items, more
money will remain in circulation in the community. While most
of these repairs could be done by individual owners, there is
a possibility that one or more small, repair oriented enterprises
could be developed, e.g., electronic items. Converting school
shops to community shops would be another way to facilitate local
- Reduction in Facility Operating Costs: Any savings in the operation
of private and public structures would lessen the pressure on
family and community budgets. Through better and more appropriate
designs (Barnhardt and Dubbs 1981), better construction techniques
and simple usage reductions, a considerable amount of cash could
be saved in terms of lower electricity and fossil fuel costs.
Even if these cash extension strategies were successful, the simple
fact remains that most communities still would not have an adequate
supply of cash to meet all its basic human needs. Certainly, there
would be significant improvement but, if a sustainable cash component
is to exist, the existing supply of cash must be expanded, ideally
through the creation of new wealth. As Eaton (1987:4) states:
"Creating new wealth is more than washing each others shirts;
it involves expanding the opportunity to produce or sell. It
involves adding value. It involves increasing the size of the
economic pie, not simply dividing the pie into even smaller portions.
For example, it seems to me that some projects simply reallocate
existing business within a region rather than create new growth."
Most of the work dealing with rural northern mixed economies seems
to emphasize growth related, cash creating activities rather than
cash extension activities, probably because of the difficulties
posed by the seemingly acute shortage of local cash generating
possibilities. They also all tend to concentrate on increasing "export" activities
as opposed to increasing transfer payments, probably because the
former is more consistent with the western capitalistic development
tradition and the latter would be politically controversial. Whichever
cash creation strategy is emphasized, it is important to realize
that "cash creation" directly involves the community in a dependent
relationship with outside entities, and communities will need to
decide to what extent they wish to trade-off self-reliance for
increases in cash inputs. It seems a multifaceted cash creation
strategy would be the best as it would reduce the amount of dependence
in any one sector (Dryzek and Young 1985, The NFE Exchange 1979).
Before discussing specific cash creating strategies, the type,
nature and financing of the involved institutions needs to be briefly
commented upon. Arguments about which should be the preferred type
of institutionprivate firm, public agency, or communal organizationare
widespread and unresolvable outside of a specific context. Eaton
(1987), for example, persuasively argues the private firm perspective
when he states that " . . . development [means]
smaller businesses each making economic sense when taken by themselves;
businesses which provide a product or service at prices which clear
markets and employ local people on a sustained basis without continued
public subsidy (1-2)." Browning Pipestem, addressing the 1985 Tanana
Chiefs Conference, advocated a more communal type of umbrella organization
when he stated that "tribes can have corporations, but corporations
cannot have tribes (quoted by Kowalsky 1985:7)." A novel and somewhat
middle-ground position is reflected in Robinson and Ghostkeeper's
(1987) private firms which are geared to community betterment as
well as entrepreneurial profit and which require some local equity
support. While I am more philosophically supportive of communal
structures for the small communities under question, the exact
types of institutions will need to emerge out of local needs and
be determined by local people. Clearly, a mix of institutional
types is possible and some degree of collaboration between these
institutions is probable.
There appears to be more agreement on the nature of the institution
itself. Weeden (1985) and others argue for institutional elements
very much in the "appropriate technology" tradition, e.g., institutions
operationally sized or scaled to local resources, skills and needs;
labor intensive procedures; low capital requirements; organizational
structures and processes which fit into understood behavior patterns;
processes which upgrade rather than destroy traditional skills
and the like (see Harrison 1983 for further elaboration). While
these institutions necessarily would be engaged in exchanges with
external systems, they would be configured by local needs and values
as opposed to imposed needs and values, and would be under local
control as opposed to external control. For these types of institutions
to be successful, there needs to be an increase in the capacity
of local individuals and communities to manage them. This is not
a problem of talent or ability; local individuals simply need access
to more in-depth training/educational programs and more support
to allow them to participate fully in these programs.
Adequate access to capital has been an endemic problem for individuals
and small communities in rural Alaska. A variety of proposals,
such as McDowell's (1987) "Development Venture Company" , the State
Department of Commerce and Economic Development's "Alaska Regional
Development Organizations Program" (Fairbanks Daily News-Miner
November 14, 1987), and the State Department of Community and Regional
Affairs' "Rural Development Assistance Program" (DCRA 1987), have
appeared recently and, on the surface, programs like these seem
to go a long way toward providing rural Alaskans with access to
adequate capital resources. Another potential provider of individual
and community entrepreneurial capital could be the ANCSA regional
corporations who could move into financing shareholder endeavors.
There seems to be three main cash creating options open to small
rural communities: export activities, extra-local employment, and
- Export Activities: Export activities located in the community
generally will be tied to the surrounding natural resource base
and, as such, will be directly tied to the subsistence-centered
development strategy. While electronic assembly plants and the
like have been mentioned as potential manufacturing efforts,
it seems unrealistic to expect that there will be any light or
cottage industry that does not involve local natural resources
because of locational factors such as high transportation costs
and wage structures.
Any listing of these renewable-resource based activities includes exporting "surplus" subsistence
harvests (commercial fishing, timber, furs, etc.); production of arts,
crafts, clothing and implements from local materials, particularly
high-end crafts (Alaska Department of Labor 1981); guiding hunters
and fishermen; and tourism (see Weeden 1985 for an example of such
These types of activities are far from guaranteed successes. Their
success depends to a great extent on a sophisticated marketing effort
and a reliable and reasonable external demand structure. While these
activities could be done by private entrepreneurs, it seems their fundamental
connectedness to local resources and skill inventories make them "natural
communal" entrepreneurial endeavors which can achieve economies of
scale in utilizing the limited supply of local managerial talent as
well as allowing for labor intensive production procedures which could
be geared to subsistence cycles rather than imposed output cycles.
Profit-sharing wage structures, group decision-making, and other participatory
practices could be used to reinforce the communal nature of these firms.
There simply is no reason why these types of local export industries
need adopt the structure and processes of external institutions if
they are able to accomplish locally determined goals.
- Extra-Local Employment:
- Enclave Employment: Assuming that the historical
natural resource extraction/exportation development pattern
continues in rural Alaska in order to fuel the larger statewide
economy and Lane's projection that "Enclave production
centers engaged in energy and resource development activities
will dot the rural countryside (Lane 1983:36)" is correct,
employment in these centers increasingly will provide a
major source of cash imports into the small communities.
This cash will be of considerable help in supporting the
continuation of a subsistence-centered system and, to the
extent that it can be captured locally, it will deepen
the community's economic base. My guess is that the regional
centers rather than the small communities will be the primary
recipients of any new secondary enterprise developments.
However, employment in enclave production centers is, at best,
a transitional and uncertain strategy. Due to the technological
requirements of many positions in enclave production centers, the
historic lack of training opportunities for rural Alaskans in these
technological areas, and the exclusionary hiring practices of many
firms, many residents of the smaller communities will not find
steady employment in these centers. Those that do find employment
may do so at the expense of maintaining a subsistence-centered
lifestyle because of temporal conflicts between wage employment
and subsistence activities (Young 1987:16-17). More importantly,
the operation of enclave production centers is very much determined
by external demand fluctuations and resource availability (see
Tussing 1984). Enclave employment can be a vital short-term part
of an "Another Development" strategy if it is geared toward the
enhancement of its subsistence-centered base rather than increasing
the web of dependency as, in the long run, the enclaves will tend
to disappear while the small communities will remain.
- Speciality Crews: There is an impressive skill inventory
in most rural Alaskan communities. If this skill inventory
could be combined into focused community speciality crews,
they could pursue specialized extra-local employment as
a crew rather than as individuals. As a crew, they would
have more opportunity to be selective and could better
gear their extra-local cash employment to community subsistence
cycles and cash needs. There already are some precedents
for this in terms of village fire-fighting crews but they
obviously have little control over when they work. Speciality
crews could be organized to carry out small-scale construction
projects, road building, airport construction, etc.
- Increased Transfer Payments:
- Public Sector Transfer Payments: Almost any
form of transfer payments involves an unstable dependency
tie, yet, public transfer payments are significant sources
of cash imports into communities and cannot be ignored.
Potential transfer payments like shared-economic rents
from rural resources (see Young 1987:13-15) are embedded
in the historical political jurisdictions of the State
of Alaska and the Federal Government as well as in fundamental
political philosophies. While they certainly are feasible
in design, they are extremely difficult to establish. Perhaps
if they were not viewed as inappropriate and inequitable "share
the wealth" programs, their chances for passage would be
better. If an increase in transfer payments is to be part
of a cash creation strategy, it might be better to pursue
something along the lines of the James Bay guaranteed income
plan and formulate a "subsistence subsidy" payable to insure
the continuity of a special lifestyle in today's commercial
- Private Sector Transfer Payments: These types of transfer
payments will generally involve ANCSA Regional and/or Village
Corporation dividends paid to individual shareholders.
To the extent that the activities of these corporations
are profitable and the profits are shared with the owners,
there will be a steady source of cash flowing into small
communities. Thus far, the declaration of dividends has
not been widespread and usually has amounted to $1.00 per
share. However, this can have a significant impact, for
example, in a small community of 200, the $1.00 per share
dividend generates a $20,000. cash input.
Before moving on to the next component in our strategy, it is
important to reiterate that in an "Another Development" framework,
cash is a tool, not an end. Individuals in small communities often
will have to make significant trade-offs between the benefits of
cash and the benefits of autonomy.
The Governance Component of A Subsistence-Centered System
A central feature of "Another Development" is the maximization
of local control over events and activities affecting the local
community. As any resident or observer of rural Alaska knows, rural
Alaskan communities consist of a mosaic of cross-cutting and often
conflicting official governing jurisdictions such as Second Class
Municipal Government chartered by the State of Alaska, Indian Reorganization
Act Tribal Councils chartered by the Federal Government or pre-existing
Indigenous Traditional Councils as well as several extra-local
official and quasi-official entities such as Borough Governments,
School Districts and Non-Profit ANCSA Corporations. Additionally,
in many small communities, the Village ANCSA Corporation exerts
a quasi-governmental influence. There is, as Young indicates, " . . . a
compelling need to simplify the confused and redundant political
system . . . (1987:36)." Unfortunately, there
is not a simple solution as each organization affords certain benefits
to the community but at certain opportunity costs and the end is
that there is little local autonomy over anything. A solution to
this problem probably will require a new form of government whose
authority over a local land-base, possibility the Village ANCSA
land units and the proposed subsistence sanctuaries, is recognized
by and provides access to programs of both the State of Alaska
and the Federal Government. This new form also would allow each
community to have one governing body and one community administrative
structure which would smooth and enhance the local technical governance
capacity of most communities both in terms of dealing with internal
and external matters.
The Cultural Component of A Subsistence-Centered System
The primacy of local cultural values is implicit throughout "Another
Development" and it seems to be the area most vulnerable in traditional
development schemes. In rural Alaska, traditional or indigenous
cultural values have been under direct and indirect siege for several
generations and this siege no doubt has contributed to many of
the social difficulties rampant in rural Alaska today. Alone, a
purposeful cultural resurgence, such as a language program or advocacy
of a set of values, probably would not be very effective because
of its unconnectedness with the total lifestyle. As part of a sustainable
and controllable subsistence-centered system, however, a cultural
resurgence could be extremely effective in providing a stabilizing
focus for life in small communities.
The cultural devastation and loss caused by substance addiction,
disempowerment, and impoverishment will be difficult to overcome
but, as part of the "Another Development" process, communities
will need to carefully analyze their present "cultural situation",
decide where they want to be in the future, determine what is necessary
to get there, and then firmly carry-out their program. Processes
like the Inupiat Ilitqusiat or spirit movement in the NANA Region
and the Kipnuk airport visitor search procedure are all incipient
steps in a cultural program for local stabilization.
Last year, the United States Arctic Research Commission concluded
The highest priority research in the health-culture-socio- econmic
component of the Arctic system should be on studies to identify
and resolve the major health, behavioral, and cultural problems
that derive from distinctive characteristics of the Arctic environment
and from increasing resource development, industrialization,
and urbanization (Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee
Unfortunately, there is no simple panacea for the developmentally-induced
problems and conditions facing tribal people today in rural Alaska
or elsewhere. Both research and programmatic attempts at finding
solutions, for the most part, have been externally initiated, discrete
or single-focused and often unconnected to local cultural traditions.
Most importantly, they have generally failed to stem the tide of
human and cultural destruction sweeping rural Alaska. What is most
needed now is action, not more scholarly research.
The comprehensive "Another Development" action strategy advocated
in this paper does not purport to be "the solution" either. Rather,
it suggests a path for smaller communities which, if pursued, could
lead to a solution to a local set of conditions and problems_a
solution in which communities and people, rather than development
and things, are what is important.
1. See Weaver and Jameson (1978) for a succinct comparative
analysis of various approaches to economic development.
2. See Alaska State Chamber of Commerce's 1987 "Report to Alaska's
Economic Leaders" for a detailed articulation of this model.
3. For example, Chance (1984), Jenness (1962), Senungetuk (1971),
and Van Stone (1984).
4. The Fourth World/Internal Colonial perspective is increasingly
becoming part of many analyses of the contemporary north. See,
for example, Anders (1983), Berger (1977 and 1985), Dryzek and
Young (1985), Klausner and Foulks (1982), O'Neil (1986), Paine
(1985) and Ritter (1979).
5. A considerable amount has been published on subsistence.
An interesting perspective on its place in a larger historical
and contemporary context can be obtained from a review of the Transcripts
of the Overview Roundtable Discussions of the Alaska Native Review
Anders, Gary. 1983. The Role of Alaska Native Corporations in
the Development of of Alaska. Development and Change 14:555575.
Alaska Department of Labor. 1981. Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Region
Labor Market Analysis. Juneau: State of Alaska.
Alaska Native Review Commission. 1984. Overview Roundtable
Discussions: Transcript of Proceedings. Anchorage: Alaska
Native Review Commission.
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce. 1987. Report to Alaska's Economic
Leaders. Anchorage: Alaska State Chamber of Commerce.
Anchorage Daily News. 1988. A People in Peril. January
Barnhardt, Raymond J. and Patrick J. Dubbs. 1981. The
Log School: A Case for Appropriate Design. IN The Northern
Community: A Search for A Quality Environment. Ted S. Vinson,
ed. Pp. 143156. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.
Berger, Thomas R. 1985. Village Journey: The Report of the Alaska
Native Review Commission. New York: Hill and Wang.
Brower, Eugene and James Stotts. 1984. Arctic Policy: The Local/Regional
Perspective. IN United States Arctic Interests: The 1980's and
1990's. W.E. Westermeyer and K.M. Shusterich, eds. Pp. 319344.
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Chance, Norman A. 1984. Alaska Eskimo Modernization. IN Handbook
of North American Indians: Arctic (Vol. 5), David Damas,
ed. Pp. 646656. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.
Dag Hammarskjold Foundation. 1975. The 1975 Dag Hammarskjold Report
on Development and International Cooperation. Development Dialogue
Department of Community and Regional Affairs (DCRA). 1987. Preliminary
Report on the Economic Dislocation Survey. Juneau: State
of Alaska. 1987 Rural Economic Development Initiative Announcement.
Juneau: State of Alaska.
Dryzek, John and Oran Young. 1985. Internal Colonialism in
the Circumpolar North: The Case of Alaska. Development and Change
Dubbs, Patrick J. 1984. Development Training in Village Alaska. Education
With Production 3(1):6993. 1986 Organizational Congruence
and ANCSA. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society
for Applied Anthropology, Reno, March.
Eaton, Perry. 1987. Economic Development in Smaller Communities.
Presented at the Annual Conference of the American Association
for the Advancement of Science-Alaska Section, Anchorage, September.
Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. 1980. Panel Set Up to Ponder Villages'
Future. November 20:2. 1987 Cowper Urges Self-Motivation for Villages.
October 18:E-9. 1987 Reaction Mixed to Matching Fund. November
14:16. 1987 Cowper Has Aid Package for Bush. December 29:1 & 10.
Freeman, Milton A. 1986. Renewable Resources, Economics and Native
Communities. IN Native People and Renewable Resource Management:
Symposium Proceedings. Pp. 2937. Edmonton: Alberta Society
Harrison, Paul. 1983. The Third World Tomorrow: A Report from
the Battlefront in the War against Poverty. New York: Pilgrim
Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee. 1987. United
States Arctic Research Plan. Washington: National Science
Jenness, Diamond. 1962. Eskimo Administration: Alaska.
Montreal: Arctic Institute of North America.
Jull, Peter. 1985. The Dangers of Turning Inward: Why Subsistence
is Not Enough. Northern Perspectives 13(4):1112.
Kindervatter, Suzanne. 1979. Nonformal Education as an Empowering
Process. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Center for
Klausner, Samuel Z. and Edward F. Foulks. 1982. Eskimo Capitalists:
Oil, Politics, and Alcohol. Totowa, New Jersey: Allanheld,
Knapp, Gunnar. 1987. The Evolving Structure of the Rural Alaska
Economy. Presented at the Annual Conference of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science-Alaska Section, Anchorage,
Kowalsky, Jim. 1985. A Review of VILLAGE JOURNEY. University
of Alaska College of Human and Rural Development Newsletter 7(2):7.
Kruse, John A. 1984. Changes in the Well-being of Alaska Natives
Since ANCSA. Alaska Review of Social and Economic Conditions
Kruse, John A. and Karen Foster. 1986. Changes in Rural Alaska
Settlement Patterns. Alaska Review of Social and Economic Conditions
Lane, Theodore. 1983. Alaska's Rural Economy. Alaska Native
News 1(11):36 & 36.
Marshall, David L. 1987. Village Residents Must Initiate Own Rural
Development. Alaska Native News 5(6):7 & 16.
McDowell, Peter. 1987. Remarks to the Interior Economic Development
Conference. Fairbanks, August.
O'Neil, John D. 1986. The Politics of Health in the Fourth World:
A Northern Canadian Example. Human Organization 45(2):119128.
Paine, Robert. 1985. The Claim of the Fourth World. IN Native
Power: The Quest for Autonomy and Nationhood of Indigenous Peoples.
Jens Brosted, Jens Dahl, et. al., eds. Pp. 4966. Oslo:
Palinkas, Lawrence A. 1987. Points of Stress and Modes of Adjustment
in Southwest Alaska. Human Organization 46(4):292304.
Quigley, N.C. and N.J. McBride. 1987. The Structure of an Arctic
Microeconomy: The Traditional Sector in Community Economic Development.
Ritter, K_athleen V. 1979. Internal Colonialism and Industrial
Development in Alaska. Ethnic and Racial Studies 2(3):319340.
Robinson, Michael and Elmer Ghostkeeper. 1987. Native and Local
Economics: A Consideration of Economic Evolution and the Next Economy. Arctic
Ross, David P. and Peter J. Usher. 1986. From the Roots Up:
Economic Development as if Community Mattered. Croton-on-Hudson,
New York: The Bootstrap Press.
Senungetuk, Joseph E. 1971. Give or Take a Century: An Eskimo
Chronicle. San Francisco: Indian Historian Press.
Sinclair, William F. (ed.). 1985. Native Self-Reliance Through
Resource Development: Proceedings of an International ConferenceTowards
Native Self-Reliance, Renewal and Development. Vancouver:
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Government
Stavenhagen, Rodolfo 1985 The Indigenous Problematique. IFDA
Stenbaek, Marianne. 1987. Forty Years of Cultural Change among
the Inuit in Alaska, Canada and Greenland: Some Reflections. Arctic
The NFE Exchange. 1979. Generating Income Through Group Action. Michigan
State University Institute for International Studies in Education,
NFE Information Center, Issue 16:120.
Third System Project. 1981. Alternatives for Survivors: Report
from the 'Third System' Project. Development Dialogue (1):
Travis, Robert. 1984. Suicide and Economic Development Among the
Inupiat Eskimo. White Cloud Journal 3(3):1421.
Tussing, Arlon R. 1984. Alaska's Petroleum-Based Economy. IN Alaska
Resources Development: Issues of the 1980s. Thomas A. Morehouse,
ed. Pp. 5178. Boulder: Westview Press.
Usher, Peter J. 1986. Devolution of Power in the Northwest Territories:
Implications for Wildlife. IN Native People and Renewable Resource
Management: Symposium Proceedings. Pp. 6980. Edmonton:
Alberta Society of Professional Biologists.
VanStone, James W. 1984. Exploration and Contact History of Western
Alaska. IN Handbook of North American Indians: Arctic (Vol.
5), David Damas, ed. Pp. 149160. Washington: Smithsonian
Weaver, James H. and Kenneth P. Jameson 1978. Economic Development:
Competing Paradigms-Competing Parables. Washington: Agency
for International Development.
Weeden, Robert B. 1985. Northern People, Northern Resources, and
the Dynamics of Carrying Capacity. Arctic 38(2):116120.
Wolfe, Robert. 1987. Subsistence and Economic Downturns. University
of Alaska College of Human and Rural Development Newsletter 8(3):45.
Young, Oran R. 1987. After VILLAGE JOURNEY: The Future of Remote
Alaskan Communities. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society
for Applied Anthropology, Oaxaca, April.