AERIP Blog Posts

The Past Is the Path: Elders in Indigenous Policy and Progress 

By Elijah Moreno, Cornell University, Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation 

Elders are living bridges, embodying the resilience, memory, and wisdom of their communities. In many Indigenous nations, they are not merely individuals with accumulated years; they are symbols of endurance, cultural sovereignty, and continuity. They anchor their people to values and histories that modernity often tempts others to abandon. 

This respect for elders stands in quiet contrast to broader societal trends, where aging often signals a decline into invisibility. In mainstream American culture, the elderly are frequently sidelined and regarded as burdens, reminders of the past, or relics of a world left behind. Indigenous communities, however, invert this dynamic. Elders are celebrated not only for who they are but for the role they play in shaping the survival and thriving of their nations. This approach is not without its complexities but offers a powerful model of resilience and adaptation. 

Unique and Universal: The Role of Elders Across Indigenous Nations 

Across the diversity of Indigenous communities, whether in Alaska, Hawaii or the continental United States, a shared respect for elders ties them together. Yet, the expression of this respect is as unique as the communities themselves. Elders are seen as sources of wisdom and stability, grounding their people in identity while navigating the challenges of modern life. 

For many tribes, leaning on elders is not a matter of nostalgia but of necessity. Their teachings are essential to cultural preservation and governance, ensuring that progress does not come at the cost of identity. This interplay of respect and practicality has allowed Indigenous communities to adapt without losing their way, anchoring them to values that remain timeless even in a rapidly evolving world. 

Historical Context: What Elders Have Endured 

The elders of today have lived through profound historical disruptions. Many were forcibly removed from their families and placed in boarding schools designed to strip them of their languages, cultures, and identities. Others had their sovereignty threatened or extinguished and were pushed to the margins of society through termination and urban relocation policies. Despite this legacy, Native American people fought for and attained their sovereignty during the Civil Rights era and have historically maintained the highest rates of military service of any demographic group – about five times the national rate.   

Their survival and leadership are the survival of our cultures. Recognizing their contributions means understanding the weight of what they have endured and the strength it has taken to carry their communities through such challenges. 

Alaska Natives: Shared Prosperity Through Elder Support 

In Alaska, the importance of elders is reflected in economic and healthcare policies that prioritize their well-being. The Bering Straits Native Corporation (BSNC), for example, distributes elder dividends as part of its broader shareholder benefits. These payments acknowledge the elders’ role in sustaining community ties and contributing to the corporation’s long-term success.  

Healthcare programs like those offered by the Southcentral Foundation further highlight this commitment. Their elder services integrate modern medical care with cultural practices, addressing physical, emotional, and spiritual needs. Wellness programs and community activities ensure that elders remain connected to their communities while receiving the care they deserve. 

Native Hawaiians: Kūpuna as Cultural Anchors 

For Native Hawaiians, kūpuna are the bearers of aloha—the deep spirit of love, respect, and connection that defines Hawaiian culture. Through programs like those offered by Hā Kūpuna, kūpuna take on roles as cultural educators, teaching endangered Hawaiian language, traditional healing practices, and storytelling. These efforts bridge generations, ensuring that younger Hawaiians inherit a strong sense of identity and cultural pride. 

Kūpuna also engage with schools to teach Hawaiian history and traditions, reinforcing the idea that the survival of a culture depends on its active transmission. These programs highlight a fundamental truth: honoring elders is not just an act of respect but an investment in the future. 

American Indians: Tribal Sovereignty and Elder Protections 

In the lower 48 states, tribes express their respect for elders through comprehensive legal and social frameworks as well as investments in services from the tribal government. The Yurok Tribe of Northern California, for example, codifies elder protections directly into its tribal law. These legal measures safeguard elders from neglect and abuse while ensuring their access to essential services, reflecting the tribe’s commitment to embedding cultural values into governance. 

Tribes also deliver a wide range of care through their governments. For example, the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians provides a wide range of elder services, from meal deliveries to transportation and cultural events. These initiatives keep elders integrated into community life, emphasizing their role as active participants rather than passive recipients of care.

Likewise, the Ho-Chunk Village elder cottages, built by the economic development arm of the Winnebago Tribe, are affordable, accessible homes built to enable the tribe's elders to live independently while staying connected to their communities.

These programs are an expression of tribal sovereignty and how Native communities value and consider elders. Centuries of colonization and marginalization has not led to the neglect of the aged among Indigenous peoples – if anything modern attitudes and policies have become more representative of long-held values across a vast array of Indigenous communities. These values mean elders in Indigenous nations are not treated as burdens but as the wisdom-keepers and navigators of their people. These values are critical to Indigenous survival. The experiences and perspectives of elders’ grounds the development of modern Indigenous nations to what makes them culturally vibrant and unique in our society. Progress without memory is meaningless.   

Conclusion: The Soul of Resilience 

Elders are the heart of Indigenous resilience, embodying the connection between history and possibility. They anchor communities in values that withstand the pressures of modernization, offering lessons not just for their own people but for society at large. Their presence challenges the notion that the past must be forgotten to embrace the future. Instead, they show that the two are inseparable. 

For policymakers, these practices offer a roadmap: Investments that enable elders to participate in public life with dignity and comfort are how culture survives at the community level of our society. These investments are not a concession to age but rather a celebration of wisdom, progress, and humanity. Indigenous communities remind us that resilience is born not from abandoning the past but from carrying it forward with pride and purpose. 

AERIP Blog Post 3 (October 17, 2024) 

 Distance as an Impediment to Voting Access for Voters in Indian Country

Melissa Rogers and Jean Schroedel, Claremont Graduate University

Joseph Dietrich, Towson University

For most voters in the United States, the physical distance to polling places is not the biggest barrier to voting. For voters living in urban areas and with access to transportation, time constraints and disenchantment with the political process are the main impediments, not distance. Moreover, most voters in most states now have the option to vote by mail, placing their ballots in mailboxes or convenient local voting drop boxes. For many voting rights activists, as well as voting experts and advocates, the key to voter turnout is getting voters motivated enough to turn in their ballots or turn out on Election Day.  

The circumstances are in many cases quite different for American Indians and other individuals living in Indian Country, the term for reservations and other tribal lands across the United States. These tribal lands are in most cases geographically remote, polling places are few and far between, and there is no residential mail delivery. Voters on reservations often must drive 30, 50, or 100 miles in one direction to cast an in-person ballot. Clearly, this is too high a price, in time and gas costs, for anyone to pay to vote, much less individuals short on money or without access to a car. 

Our research on reservations in Nevada, featured in the journal Politics, Groups, and Identities, demonstrated both the extreme distances voters must travel, as well as possible solutions to increase voting access for tribes. We analyzed a “natural experiment” in which tribal members living in Nevada on the Pyramid Lake, Walker River, Yerington, and Duck Valley reservations sought a legal injunction against their counties and the state to place on reservation voting sites to alleviate burdensome travel distances. Voters in Duck Valley had a 101-mile one-way trip to vote off-reservation in Elko, Nevada. Voters on Pyramid Lake had to drive 48 miles to Reno and Walker River residents 34 miles to Hawthorne. This was not the case for rural, non-reservation voters, who had far closer voting sites, on average. Due to a third-party legal clerical error, however, only Pyramid Lake and Walker River were included in the lawsuit (Sanchez v. Cegavske). They won the case based on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, citing abridgment of voting based on distance and socioeconomic conditions. Walker River and Pyramid Lake received on-reservation voting sites, which we estimate to increase turnout 8-13% relative to the two comparable reservations that did not receive the sites. Voters on reservation want to vote, and the alleviating costs enables them to do so. Yet Native voting rights advocacy groups, such as Four Directions, and tribes around the country frequently must sue counties and states to secure on-reservation voting sites. We cover one of those cases in a recent article in Social Science Quarterly, in which Duck Valley tribal authorities and Native activists secured onreservation voting sites by suing Elko County, Nevada.

Vote by mail (VBM) has been proposed as a solution to extend voting access for voters on reservations. While it works well for many, it is not a panacea for voters in Indian Country. In the first place, not all states allow vote by mail for all residents—some still require that voters demonstrate a need for an absentee ballot. More importantly, in those states that have “no

excuse” absentee voting, mail service on reservations is not equal for voters living on reservations. In our studies published in Studies in American Political Development and the Journal of Historical Political Economy, we demonstrate those inequities for voters on the Navajo Nation in Arizona. The first problem of voting access is the lack of residential mail service in highly rural areas. Voters without residential mail service must travel to the post office to receive and post mail. If they cannot pay for a post office box, their mail is kept in a pile for a period of 1-2 weeks for pickup. Given that many voters on Navajo Nation may not have a car or money to pay for frequent trips to the post office, much of this mail is lost. Voting access is worse for voters on the Navajo Nation, in which precincts are much larger, voting locations much farther, and there are fewer drop boxes for mail in ballots than in adjacent off-reservation communities. Additionally, access to the post office is highly unequal should voters be able to get there. Voters in nearby rural areas have 3.3 times more retail post office hours and 9.6 times more PO Box access hours on a population-weighted basis than individuals on the Navajo Nation. On reservation voters also are less likely to have access to a full-service US Post Office and more likely to be served by a commercial postal provider, which provide only limited hours and service.  For example, there is one 870.7 square mile area on the Navajo Nation without a single post office----just two postal provider sites, neither of which offer more than 20 hours of service each week. This is an area close to the size of Rhode Island.

Beyond these inequities, mail service provision is far worse on reservations such as the Navajo Nation than in nearby rural communities that might be expected to face similar conditions. During the 2020 election, we conducted a mail in voting experiment in which we sent certified mail from post offices in the three northeastern Arizona counties that include parts of the Navajo Nation.  We wanted to compare delivery times to county election offices for letters mailed from reservation and off reservation postal locations.  Importantly, Arizona state law requires that ballots arrive on or before 7:00 p.m. on Election Day or they are not counted. We selected post offices with similar degrees of rurality, because a federal judge had previously suggested without evidence that mail access in the Navajo Nation was worse because it was rural, not because it was on a reservation. The results of our experiment were stark. Of the mail sent off reservation, the tracking showed verified delivery times within 1-3 days for 14 out of the 15 letters. In contrast, the mail sent on reservation was more likely not to arrive, or to arrive later than the USPS standard of 1-3 days (average time of 50 hours). Sixty percent of our posted mail did not arrive or did not arrive on time. Fifty percent did not arrive because it was lost while being tracked or the postal provider was not open during posted business hours. Another letter arrived after 164 hours, too late to be counted. The minority of the mail sent from the Navajo Nation that arrived did so in an average of 81 hours.   

There are simple reasons why the mail is not equitable for voters on the Navajo Nation. Eightynine percent of current post offices in northeastern Arizona were in place in 1920. These post offices were located not for equal voter enfranchisement, but for communication from three types of sites: (1) military bases with the objective of “Indian Pacification,” (2) requests from non-Native settlements, and (3) national parks and rail stops. Even worse, Navajo citizens for much of the early twentieth century received mail via abusive and exploitative Navajo Trading Posts. Not surprisingly, American Indian voters have a lower opinion of the USPS than most white voters. In related research published in Social Science Quarterly, our research team also shows that Native American voters have much less trust in voting by mail.

The costs of voting remain extraordinarily high for voters in Indian Country. Physical distance and inequitable access to voting sites and post offices, as well as poor mail service, compound sociodemographic factors that work against American Indian voters. As we look to overcome barriers to voting in Indian Country, two practical ideas come to mind. First, on-reservation registration and polling places should be the norm for any remote reservation, and state laws should be changed to allow drop boxes, ballot collection, and out-of-precinct voting for places with minimal Election Day poll locations. We will continue to see Native voting rights groups pursue legal challenges to inequitable voting access, which will push states to provide these sites. Second, the government could subsidize PO Box access for low-income rural voters (on- or offreservation) and address the inequities in mail delivery times so ballots can arrive on time.

AERIP Blog Post 2 (October 29, 2021)

Unsettling Economics: Big Changes Since the Inaugural Conference 

Inspired by the calls of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) an internationally-renowned group of economists and scholars in related disciplines, representatives of Indigenous organizations, civil servants, and students gathered together at the First Peoples House at the University of Victoria from June 25th to 27th, 2018 for the first “Unsettling Economics” workshop.

Together, the group had two core goals: to help advance the contributions of economics to projects of reconciliation and to unsettle economics with the goal of advancing efforts to make the discipline inclusive of Indigenous peoples and their views.  In addition, the group discussed Indigenous visions of the goals of economic activity, the ethics of working with communities, innovative ways economists have started to teach Indigenous economics in the classroom.

The orienting concept of “unsettling” is influenced by Paulette Regan’s work Unsettling the Settler Within, where she applies it to historical and pedagogical work in the context of the aftermath of the Indian Residential School system. Her intention was to engage with the history of Canada’s relationships with Indigenous peoples to uncover and transform the legacy of “colonization, violence, racism, and injustice” that lays at their core and that continue to shape non-Indigenous perspectives today.

The organizers began with the premise that economists have a role to play in addressing the ongoing negative impact of colonization for Indigenous people. Collectively, they recognized that doing such work in an ethical and respectful way would require economists to undertake the sometimes uncomfortable work of engaging with individual and disciplinary assumptions about both the historical and contemporary conditions of Indigenous people, communities, and nations and the role of the discipline in either supporting or challenging the status quo — of unsettling themselves and the discipline.

Day One: Setting the Stage

The workshop began with Indigenous perspectives on economics, lessons in community led research, the research needs of communities, and how to build an Indigenous economics. On the first day, Carol Anne Hilton, presented a summary of her philosophy from her then forthcoming book Indigenomics.  Dara Kelly, then a post-doctoral research fellow at the University of Victoria and now an assistant professor at Simon Fraser University presented work from her dissertation “Feed the People and You Will Never Go Hungry: Illuminating Coast Salish Economy of Affection.” These scholars set the tone for the conference.

In the second session, Miriam Jorgensen, Brent Mainprize, Boyd Hunter, Matt Murphy, and Richard Todd discussed what they have learned from their extensive experience in Indigenous community development, and shared insights about how to best work with and for Indigenous nations. The day closed with presentations by Erin O’Sullivan from what was then Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada now Indigenous Services Canada and Jacqueline Quinless from the University of Victoria sharing their views on the importance of Indigenous data and how economists can perform ethical and decolonized work.

Jorgensen and Quinless specifically emphasized the importance of community centered work, grounded in two-eyed seeing, and encouraged economists to reflect on their own positionality when conducting research and to ask themselves: Is this the right unit of analysis? What are the sources of my questions? What biases might I hold? What biases are inherent in the data I am using? Who should I be talking to? What are the implications of my work and how does it contribute to economic resurgence and reconciliation? While most of these are questions that economists should always ask of their work, the importance of asking them can be particularly pronounced when considering Indigenous economic outcomes.

Day Two: Sharing the Empirical Work

On the second day, emerging and established scholars in applied microeconometrics shared their empirical work.  The first session focused on the impact of colonial institutions and their consequences for Indigenous nations economic development: Krishna and Ravi Pendakur presented their findings on how modern treaties and agreements, and opt-in legislation has impacted income inequality amongst First Nations, and Bryan Leonard shared evidence on the impact of incomplete property rights on American Indian reservations on economic development.  

 The next session focused on Indigenous education with Jeffery Burnette highlighting how changes in the process for identification of Indigenous students in post-secondary education is leading to the statistical termination of American Indian and Alaska Native representation in post secondary enrollment. Maggie Jones provided evidence that federal funding reductions in First Nations post-secondary support led to declines not only in post-secondary completion rates but also in the high school attainment rates of Indigenous students.

 Following this session, Patrick Button and Jasmin Thomas presented evidence on the labor market experiences of Indigenous peoples in North America. Button presented evidence from the first resume correspondence study on Native American employment discrimination and Thomas provided evidence on how First Nations and Inuit childcare initiatives have affected labour force participation of Indigenous peoples in the north. The day concluded with Alyssa Savage presenting her research on how reduced access to land and resources and the simultaneous loss of traditional ecological knowledge may have impacts on Indigenous community stability.

 All researchers offered empirical evidence critical to thinking about how programs and decision-making can be shaped to best serve Indigenous communities. Yet the methodological contrast from the discussions in the first day were clear to all present. The day presented an opportunity for thinking about how work in economics must grow and where there are opportunities for potentially closing the divide between existing applied microeconometric work and perspectives from communities on the ground.

 Day Three: Teaching an Indigenous Economics

On the last day, Anya Hageman, Jeffery Burnette , and Joseph Guse shared how they have developed some of the first economics courses that detail Indigenous economic history and Indigenous economies into the present. The panelists discussed approaches and curricula to prepare young economists to better contribute to a society that actively engages in reconciliation.  Guse discussed a field-based curriculum where students would visit important historical and modern sites when learning about Indigenous economic development, history, and context. Burnette highlighted how much material already exists within economics to inform students about the challenges and opportunities facing Indigenous nations. Hageman presented how she built a course for undergraduates in economics to understand the institutional context for Indigenous nations in Canada and presented the foundations of her then in progress, open source textbook.

Key Takeaways from the Conference

After three days of intensive work, there were at least three key takeaways. First and foremost, it was made clear that economists do have a space to contribute and that quality, causal empirical research can occur in an environment that respects Indigenous data sovereignty and is grounded in questions and concerns from Indigenous communities. Second, the empirical research presented made it clear just how wide the gulf is between the evidence available to white communities and the evidence available to Indigenous communities and nations and the many opportunities there are for mutually constructive research and data creation to take place.

Perhaps the single largest takeaway from the gathering was the excitement and commitment of a growing group of economists and related disciplines to contribute to the emerging field of Indigenous economics. Each day, the room was filled with current and future scholars looking learn and committed to doing so.

 Since “Unsettling Economics”

Since the inaugural gathering there has been a sea change within the economics discipline. The establishment of the Association for Economic Research of Indigenous Peoples (AERIP) and the Indigenous Economics Study Group (IESG) within the Canadian Economics Association has helped connect scholars and practitioners across the globe and amplified the rapidly expanding research in this space.

 The 2020 ASSA session organized by Randy Akee centered on economics research in Indigenous contexts was honoured with Presidential session designation. The virtual seminar series launched by the Indigenous Economics Study group has drawn large audiences, allowing scholars at all career stages to receive critical feedback on their work, and included a student session and panel on the ethics of Indigenous data and empirical research. Anya Hageman published her open source textbook, and Carol-Anne Hilton published Indigonomics. Many of the papers presented at the Unsettling Economics Conference are now in print and new courses are being offered across North American Economics departments.  While much work remains to be done, the energy and commitment of Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars will help continue to unsettle economics and support economic reconciliation and Indigenous economic resurgence.

Donna Feir (University of Victoria), Rob Gillezeau (University of Victoria), and Rob Hancock (University of Victoria)

AERIP Inaugural Blog Post (October 4, 2020)

Welcome to the AERIP blog!

Our inaugural blog post introduces the organization and its current agenda:

Why AERIP? 

Social science research and the public policies that emanate from it have often overlooked the persistence, distinctiveness, challenges, and ingenuity of Indigenous communities. The legacy of paternalistic, parochial, and even mistaken past research (i.e., that led to asset-stripping policies, cultural assimilation programs, the termination of tribes, and privatization of Indigenous public goods) necessitate a duty to follow high ethical standards in present and future research and policymaking. The challenges that Indigenous peoples face require context-specific understandings that cross the boundaries of language, culture, and academic disciplines. The most difficult challenges demand robust feedback loops between practitioners and scholars. Indigenous people themselves are generally underrepresented in the fields studying their communities’ problems and opportunities. These and related issues must be addressed to ensure the quality of research and policy related to Indigenous peoples. 

We started AERIP to increase the visibility of  Indigenous peoples and their communities within economics, related social science fields, and in policymaking. We work to reduce barriers to information and experience in the field; increase networking opportunities between researchers and practitioners; and provide a forum to exchange ideas, present research, discuss pressing issues, and disseminate information. We support students and new faculty in the field within a network of scholars and practitioners. 

Our immediate objectives

To have a sustained impact, AERIP seeks official recognition from the American Economic Association as a member of the Allied Social Science Association, a group of sixty-two academic and professional associations in economics and related fields. Among other things, official recognition will permit AERIP to participate in the ASSA’s three-day annual meetings, which gather more than 13,000 economists from around the world. We see ASSA recognition of AERIP as table stakes for raising the salience and quality of Indigenous economic research and policymaking.

AEA requires of applicant organizations three years of demonstrated existence, bylaws specifying elected leadership, and at least 300 members (among other things). Our short-term aim is to be ready for a formal application in time for the January 2022 ASSA meetings so that in January 2023, we can sponsor speakers and panels.

What have we done to date? 

We have written our bylaws and organized an initial board. We are building our membership. We currently have over 115 members, comprising professors, graduate students, consultants, government officials, and the citizens of Native nations. Please spread the word and the link! We are very grateful to River Tikwi Garza for creating our association logo. We have started posting syllabi of graduate and undergraduate classes related to Indigenous economics. [Thank you to those of you who contributed!] We had an inaugural association reception during the AEA meetings in January 2019. We have assembled conference sessions for the SEA and the AEA meetings in November 2020 and January 2021, respectively. Finally, we have disseminated information via our membership mailing list about workshops, conferences, job opportunities, and research opportunities related to our mission. More is coming.  Please stay tuned.

What is the purpose of the blog?

As important as they are, academic conference sessions won’t do all the work AERIP aims to do integrating and elevating the field. This blog means to complement those more formal academic conversations with shorter think-pieces. We are interested in academics’ and practitioners’ views on the news of the day, the ethics of the field, the latest research, and the gaps in knowledge that stymie progress on challenges facing Indigenous communities. If you have ideas for blog posts you’d like to write or voices you’d like to hear, please use the contact page to drop us a note.

Jonathan Taylor (AERIP Treasurer) and Valentina Dimitrova-Grajzl (AERIP Secretary)