The Historical Loss of Political and Economic Autonomy

It can be argued that historically, the loss of collective autonomy of Indigenous peoples and individual autonomy of Indigenous women occurred simultaneously. This process was sparked by the capitalist market economy and its accompanying creation of dependency. The creation of enforced dependency and incorporation into the global economy of Indigenous peoples took place particularly through trade driven by colonialism. In some instances, Indigenous people entered into trading relationships by autonomous participation but often the entry occurred through coercion in which the stakes were the land and resources of Indigenous communities (Porter, Reference Porter1996). Replacing subsistence with trade and relations of sharing with market exchanges led in many Indigenous societies to the collapse of traditional economies, loss of collective and individual autonomy, starvation, poverty and ecological imbalances, for example, overhunting due to pressures of trade (Becker, Reference Becker, Baud and Rutten2004: 47; White, Reference White1983). According to Richard White, economic and political autonomy of many Indigenous societies in North America were undermined most forcefully by credit and alcohol. “Credit put the Indians quickly into debt and furthered the traders' control. When given full reign, the credit–liquor combination could lead to … the institution of market economy, the growth of market relations inside the society” (Reference White1983: 318–19). This outcome resulted in material, political and social conditions where practising self-determination was very difficult. Another outcome was that women often changed their labour patterns and economic activities in their attempts to mitigate the effects of traders' control. Wilma A. Dunaway notes:

This is not to suggest that Indigenous peoples did not trade with one another or have trading relations prior to colonization. Nor is it to say that trade and trading practices with settlers and other colonists always resulted in obliteration economic and political autonomy of Indigenous communities or Indigenous women. In the Canadian context, scholars have demonstrated the key function Aboriginal women played in the fur trade which in some cases even enhanced women's position, autonomy and authority, that fur trade could not be properly understood without taking account women's contributions and roles (Anderson, Reference Anderson, Maroney and Luxton1987; Littlefield, Reference Littlefield and Cox1987; Van Kirk, Reference Van Kirk1980). Yet others have argued that the fur trade in northern Canada was premised on the subjugation on Aboriginal women (Bourgeault, Reference Bourgeault1983).Footnote ⁷ In other regions of North America, however, such as the Cherokee territory, women's contribution to trade and the deerskin market remained invisible, thus making women “unpaid employees” of the men in their clans. At the same time, women's subsistence and household production were increasingly devalued by Cherokee men (Dunaway, Reference Dunaway and Hall2000).

The restructuring of Indigenous societies from subsistence production into a market economy dependent on trading goods has had far-reaching political and cultural transformations in Indigenous societies. Processes of colonization and incorporating Indigenous societies into the capitalist economy have been highly gendered with many gender-specific consequences. It has displaced Indigenous women from social production and, in many cases, resulted in the simultaneous loss of status and an increase in the workload of women (Albers, Reference Albers, Albers and Medicine1983; Anderson, Reference Anderson1991; Buenadventura-Posso and Brown, Reference Buenadventura-Posso, Brown, Etienne and Leacock1980; Dunaway, Reference Dunaway and Hall2000; Klein, Reference Klein, Albers and Medicine1983; Leacock, Reference Leacock, Etienne and Leacock1980; M'Closkey, Reference M'Closkey, O'Neill and Hosmer2004).Footnote ⁸

Further, the new trading practices usually reshaped communal work practices and introduced a new, gendered division of labour. Hunting and warfare required not only more male labour time but also increased efforts by women in the form of preparing the furs, meat and skins. Despite women's involvement in the fur trade, trading practices changed from being a communal affair into a male-dominated activity. In some regions, the fur trade caused environmental degradation, thereby further altering women's working conditions. For example, in Cherokee communities, deforestation—a practice taken up by Cherokee men to facilitate deer hunting—made gathering firewood more difficult and eradicated various plants used for food and medicine. The importation of horses and cattle threatened open corn fields and mulberry trees tended by women (Dunaway, Reference Dunaway and Hall2000). With the expansion of the fur trade, male crafts unrelated to deer hunting or warfare were put aside while men increased their consumption of European luxury goods (including alcohol), which in turn increased the debt of Indigenous communities (see, for example, Dunaway, Reference Dunaway and Hall2000). Specialization of labour that followed the fur or hide trade increased women's workload while at the same time decreased their control over goods that carried status with them. As Alan M. Klein argues, “the overall prosperity concealed an erosion of women's position through her being increasingly circumscribed to a few tasks related to processing and domestic production” (Reference Klein, Albers and Medicine1983: 156).

In Canada, the Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) was central in creating dependency in and altering the subsistence-based economies of many Indigenous communities. The James Bay Cree, for example, were self-sustaining and politically and economically independent until the sixteenth century. The HBC began establishing trading posts in Cree territory after the mid-seventeenth century and in 1670 the HBC was granted exclusive trading rights by the king of England for an area of approximately three million square miles. In the eighteenth century, the HBC started hiring Indigenous people as servants and supply men. The company also appointed “Indian lieutenants,” also called “captains,” whose role was to spread the trading system to their people and to recruit hunters for a particular post for trading. This led to a situation in which the families of the hired men become dependent on the trading post and were in many cases forced to set up camps outside the fort. The HBC sought to regulate this situation by limiting the number of dependents through restrictions on men's freedom to marry. In the early nineteenth century, the HBC began assigning land to hunting families in addition to trading posts previously assigned (Gagné, Reference Gagné1994; see also Ray, Reference Ray1974). According to Marie Anik Gagné,

The HBC also disregarded the Cree beaver conservation practices and introduced new regulations. The sole focus of these rules was economic activity rather than the respect for the beaver as had been part of the Cree practice. All these new arrangements radically altered the social and economic organization of the James Bay Cree and allowed the HBC to control the credit of the hunters and their families. The Cree adapted and altered their economies, such as hunting practices, to suit the needs and requirements of the HBC (Gagné, Reference Gagné1994; see also Feit, Reference Feit2005).

Some scholars have argued that the trade between the James Bay Cree and the HBC was not unequal and that initially it created mutual dependency between the Cree and the HBC (Francis and Morantz, Reference Francis and Morantz1983: 25). Others maintain that the Crees' traditional means of production were not entirely eradicated but rather, “reproduced in distorted form under capital, thereby giving the appearance that communal (traditional) society continued unabated” (Bourgeault, Reference Bourgeault and Vorst1989: 92). However, the establishment of the HBC trading posts in the area marked the beginning of the social and economic transformation that eroded self-sufficiency as well as political and economic autonomy of the James Bay Cree. The subtle transformation of social means of production enabled the exploitation of the Cree labour force and it was particularly detrimental to the autonomy of women. According to Ron Bourgeault, the foundation of “the subjugation of Indian women's autonomy was the conquest of their labour power” (Bourgeault, Reference Bourgeault and Vorst1989: 104).

The changes in the social and economic organization of the James Bay Cree are not of course necessarily identical to other Indigenous communities or regions even within Canada. Many studies indicate that while the early contact with traders and European colonists transformed social relations in Aboriginal societies, it did not eradicate them (Ray, Reference Ray1974; Ray and Freeman, Reference Ray and Freeman1978; Trigger, Reference Trigger1985). Furthermore, in some cases, such as the Cree in northern Manitoba, communities succeeded to varying degrees in resisting the imposition of control over trade and labour relations by fur traders (Thistle, Reference Thistle1986). On the northwest coast, Indigenous women were not only involved in but often in charge of managing trade (Klein, Reference Klein, Etienne and Leacock1980; Littlefield, Reference Littlefield and Cox1987). However, what the above examples do illustrate is that replacing subsistence-based economies with, and the gradual integration of Indigenous societies into, the capitalist market economy often signified considerable changes in the social and economic organization of these societies and, in some cases, led to the disintegration of traditional economies and local autonomy. These processes also introduced a new gendered division of labour which undermined women's position in social production which, in turn, often resulted in the concomitant loss of status and increase in the workload of women in their communities.

The undermining of traditional economies and the economic integration of the Indigenous people, especially in Northern Canada, have continued in the more recent times in the form of “welfare colonialism” (Paine, Reference Paine1977). Welfare colonialism is characterized by a reversal of the colonial drain of the old days and the placing of Indigenous people on unemployment benefits. According to Robert Paine, welfare is employed as the means for a way of “governing at a distance” through exercise of a particularly subtle and dependency-generating form of neocolonial social control. This pre-empts local autonomy through “well-intentioned” and “generous,” but ultimately “morally wrong” policies (Paine, Reference Paine1977). Further, other scholars have noted how welfare policies and regulations not only fail to eliminate conditions of poverty but effectively undermine various forms of household production and activities often central in make a living. Welfare policies have also always had gender-specific effects, “especially where top-down policies operate with little knowledge or regard for kinship or gender relations” (Berman, Reference Berman, O'Neill and Hosmer2004: 140).

Self-Governance in the Era of Neoliberalism

Today, it is widely recognized that the welfare dependency and the Indian Act regime have not alleviated the poverty and often dismal social conditions in Indigenous communities. Many First Nations are actively looking into alternative options, such as self-government agreements, traditional or other governance or co-management arrangements, which would replace the paternalistic and colonial Indian Act policies and governance structures to create greater local self-sufficiency and economic self-reliance. What is striking in these initiatives, however, is the absence of any consideration of the historical processes that led to the disintegration of self-sufficient local economies with high levels of political autonomy. Discussing the era of the establishment of reserves and the accompanying common rhetoric of breaking the dependency of Indigenous people on outside support, Anthony Hall notes, “It is ironic how the proposals for generating self-sufficiency among Indian people were based almost invariably on the idea of integrating them more deeply into those systems of market relations that had been instrumental in their earlier loss of autonomy” (Reference Hall2003: 193). It is even more surprising that this trend continues today when, as a result of already achieved self-government and co-management agreements, many Indigenous societies and community leaders are increasingly in charge of forging the path toward new forms of local control and governance.

The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development is often mentioned in First Nations contexts and by the First Nations leadership as a model for viable Indigenous self-governance and an effective approach to alleviate poverty in Indigenous communities (for example, Cornell, Reference Cornell, Eversole, McNeish and Cimadamore2005; Cornell et al., Reference Cornell, Curtis and Jorgensen2003; Satsan, Reference Jorgensen2007; Wien, Reference Wien2009). The Harvard project outlines sovereignty, institutions, culture and leadership as the key “determinants of tribal economic success.” It illustrates the close relationship between self-governance and economic development and emphasizes the critical importance of “practical sovereignty,” the ability for effective and actual governance, in establishing successful long-term conditions for economic development in Indigenous communities (for example, Cornell and Kalt, Reference Cornell and Kalt1998). However, the Harvard project is plagued by the same problem as many other current considerations of Indigenous economies: the narrow focus on fairly standard economic development (that is, entrepreneurship and creation of businesses) while “traditional” economic activities and their continued significance are rarely discussed. This contributes to the common practice of making these economic activities invisible and thus non-existent in current considerations. The Harvard project model also falls short in considering some of the key factors that have played a major role in economic development and change in general in Indigenous communities. Martin Mowbray contends:

The key precept of economic fundamentalism—that the markets solve all problems in society—informs neoliberal policies and governance models, including neoliberal Indigenous self-governance structures. In promoting privatization, restructuring and downsizing the government and its services, deregulating the economy and emphasizing individual responsibility and choice, neoliberal governance dismisses calls to address growing systemic socio-economic, gender and other inequalities. Instead, it naturalizes poverty as an unfortunate circumstance and destiny and obscures the interconnectedness of gendered poverty and violence (Coulter, Reference Coulter2009).

Yet for some, the objectives of Indigenous self-government and neoliberalism are not only reconcilable but a good match. Gabrielle Slowey argues that neoliberal values, especially self-reliance, are ideal for First Nations self-determination because they disrupt the “unhealthy dependency on the state” (Reference Slowey2008a: 17). The reasoning behind such an argument is that neoliberal government policies can also serve as a positive force for Indigenous self-governance as it creates unprecedented economic opportunities for communities to manage their own affairs.

The case for the compatibility of neoliberal and Indigenous values is made by using the Mikisew Cree First Nation as an example. The Mikisew Nation is located near Fort Chipewyan, north of Fort McMurray and the oil sands in northeastern Alberta. In 1986, the Mikisew signed a treaty land entitlement agreement (TLE) with the federal government and the provincial government of Alberta, which assigned 12,280 acres of land and $26.6 million to the nation. Initially, the claim had included the oil sands lands but the Mikisew had to drop it in order to reach a deal. The agreement was not considered victory only for the Mikisew but also for Alberta: “An important goal of the province had been achieved, evident in its interest in settling the claim and ensuring unfettered resource development. The TLE was thus necessary to protect the integrity of Alberta's economy” (Slowey, Reference Slowey2008a: 34).

Following the signing of the agreement, the Mikisew Cree First Nation leadership set forth to restructure its key institutions of governance and management to enhance economic development. These decisions were partly influenced at the request of Syncrude, the local oil sands corporation. The Mikisew leadership has expressed its desire in active participation in the oil sand development projects but the community has been only partially successful in doing that. While the oil sands have created jobs for the Mikisew Cree First Nation members, many feel that they are not quite enough and argue that the kinds of jobs and opportunities corporations offer are very limited. Social development has been uneven and poverty remains a serious concern as do the serious concerns about health problems created by the extreme form of resource development (Timoney, Reference Timoney2007; Timoney and Lee, Reference Timoney and Lee2009; Woodford, Reference Woodford2007; see also Clarke, Reference Clarke2008). As elsewhere,Footnote ⁹ the market-driven resource-based economy has widened the gap between the haves and the have-nots. “The increase of material wealth is not shared equally, dividing band members even further apart by accentuating already acute levels of financial disparity” (Slowey, Reference Slowey2008a: 6).

However, Slowey argues that the Mikisew Cree First Nation “has benefited from neoliberalism” because it has decreased the direct dependency from the government (Reference Slowey2008a: 53). “First Nation self-determination, with its focus on increasing band responsibility for health, housing and welfare, fits comfortably in the free market philosophy of a minimal state and non-government provision of services” (xv). Such an analysis fails to recognize that while the dependency of the Mikisew from the government might have decreased to some extent, it has only created a new dependency on corporations exploiting the natural resources in the Mikisew territory. Calling the world's attention to their situation, chief Rozanne Marcel of the Mikisew Cree announced, “Our message to both levels of government, to Albertans, to Canadians and to the world who may depend on oil sands for their energy solutions, is that we can no longer be sacrificed” (cited in Thomas-Müller, Reference Thomas-Müller2008: 13). Rather than providing self-sufficiency, partnerships between Indigenous peoples and corporations mimic colonial relationships which often are the only model available for economic development in Indigenous communities (Irlbacher-Fox, Reference Irlbacher-Fox2009).

Moreover, analysis that argues the compatibility of Indigenous self-determination and free-market ideologies disregards the deep-seated ontological differences between neoliberal ideologies and Indigenous philosophies based on a close interaction with the land and emphasizing individual and collective responsibilities of taking care of the land. Darlene Rude and Connie Deiter point out that “Indeed, the Aboriginal world view, values and inherent rights fit poorly within an international free trade framework that sees natural world—the land and its resources—solely as commodities to be harvested and exploited” (Reference Rude and Deiter2004: 11). This discrepancy between neoliberal, corporate ideology and Indigenous land-based worldviews is also recognized in the Report of the Alaska Native Review Commission (Reference Berger1985) which considers the detrimental consequences of implementing a profit-driven governmental structure on Alaska Native communities. John Berger notes:

While it might be the case that “the rise of these neoliberal forces has ushered in a new era of political interest in Aboriginal self-determination” (Slowey, Reference Slowey2008a: xiv), it often is only because there is an increased pressure to further exploit the natural resources on Indigenous peoples' territories. As the Task Force to Review Comprehensive Claims Policy pointed out, there has been a tendency to achieve a self-government agreement “only when the federal government [is] eager to facilitate an economic development project” (Coolican, Reference Coolican1986: 13). The federal and provincial governments are often pushing for modern treaties and land claims agreements only to create a stable investment environment and to serve corporate interests, not to redress historical inequalities (Altamirano-Jimenez, Reference Altamirano-Jimenez, Cohen and Brodie2007; Green and Voyageur, Reference Green, Voyageur, Porter and Judd1999). Irlbacher-Fox observes:

Considering that Canada's current land claim and self-governance policy is premised on the extinguishment of Aboriginal rights and Aboriginal title in exchange for the rights included in the new settlement or agreement (reflecting the surrender provisions of the post-Confederation treaties), it can be difficult to see modern treaties and agreements as steps toward greater self-reliance. For many, the Canadian Aboriginal self-government policy represents a subversion of sovereign governments into segments of the colonial state (Alfred, Reference Alfred1999; Venne, Reference Venne1999; see also Walkem and Halie, Reference Walkem and Halie2003) or as June McCue (Reference McCue1998) puts it, the “conquest treaty model.” Hence, to argue that “improving the situation of First Nations communities and individuals is a neoliberal priority, since it focuses on strengthening First Nations participation in the economy” is, at its best, a naïve and misguided reading of neoliberal and corporate ideologies and policies.

Economic Development and Indigenous Women

Another significant shortcoming of current economic development programs embedded in neoliberal policies and driven by corporate agendas is the lack of attention to gender or to women's economic activities. It is unclear, for example, to what extent women are participating in the creation of businesses and the emergence of the new class of Aboriginal entrepreneurs. In some communities, Aboriginal women have been successful in establishing co-operatives (Findlay and Wuttunee, Reference Findlay and Wuttunee2007). While Aboriginal women's involvement in small business ownership has increased in the past couple of decades, in 2001, Aboriginal women still comprised only 1 per cent of women owning a small business (NWAC, 2004). According to the Native Women's Association of Canada, “economic opportunities are completely outside the reach of far too many Aboriginal women in Canada” (2004: 2).

Although the unemployment level of Aboriginal women in general tends to be lower than that of Aboriginal men, more Aboriginal women are unemployed than non-Aboriginal women. Especially status Indian women living on reserves tend to have much higher unemployment rates than that any other group of Aboriginal women. Moreover, employment rates alone do no tell the full story as women's vital yet unacknowledged role and work in survival and development of Aboriginal families and communities often remain unpaid or unremunerated (Stout and Kipling, Reference Stout and Kipling1998). Even organizations such as the Native Women's Association of Canada has paid surprisingly little attention to women's economic contributions and do not consider other than standard economic development in creating opportunities for Aboriginal women (NWAC, 2008) in spite of many studies indicating that it is often Indigenous women who, against all odds, continue to engage in subsistence and mixed economies (for example, Berman, Reference Berman, O'Neill and Hosmer2004; Pickering, Reference Pickering2000).

Indigenous women are marginalized and vulnerable in other ways. They continue to experience considerably higher rates of violence than any other group in Canada. The female mortality rate among Indigenous women due to violence is five times higher than it is for Canadian women in general. Significantly, Amnesty International's 2004 report on violence against Indigenous women in Canada argues that the acts of violence are not isolated incidents but rooted in society's general attitudes reflected widely across institutions that are established to protect citizens, such as the police. The report contends that that violence against Indigenous women has not yet been recognized and addressed as a human rights issue in Canada. Another reason for the high female mortality rate is extremely high rates of suicide among status Indian women, particularly in the age group between 15 and 24. The morbidity rate is considerably higher for Aboriginal women than for Canadian women in general, the former group being more likely to “suffer from a range of diseases and with worse prognoses than is the case among non-Aboriginal women” (Stout and Kipling, Reference Stout and Kipling1998: 16).

Further, Linda Archibald and Mary Crnkovich argue that the self-government negotiations and land claims processes tend to sideline Indigenous women. Their needs, perspectives and concerns are often left out of land claims negotiations. A land claims policy that prioritizes and focuses on large-scale resource development neglects the socio-economic and cultural implications that often disproportionately affect women in the form of disruption of family and social relations. Also jobs created by resource development projects are mostly for men. Further, the requisite land use and occupancy study usually focuses on activities traditionally recognized as male, such as hunting, fishing and trapping (Archibald and Crnkovich, Reference Archibald and Crnkovich1999). By focusing on male activities on the land, land use studies and land claim negotiations in general do not take into account Indigenous women's roles as custodians of the land, kinship and other social relations, or the specific relationships with and responsibilities women have toward the land in, for example, gathering and agriculture (Anderson, Reference Anderson2000; Monture, Reference Monture and Wilkins2004).

Neoliberal policies and economic globalization operate in highly gender-specific ways, disproportionately affecting women by systematically dismantling the structures, services and institutional support in sectors such as health care, education and housing. Feminization of poverty is a widely reported phenomenon and result of the neoliberal economies worldwide (Bakker, Reference Bakker1994; Barndt, Reference Barndt1999; Beneria, Reference Beneria2003; MacDonald, Reference MacDonald1999; Marchand and Sisson Rynyan, Reference Marchand and Sisson Rynyan2000; Sassen, Reference Sassen2000; Wallis and Kwok, Reference Wallis and Kwok2008). This is no different in Indigenous communities where women, as providers in the subsistence sector and primary caregivers to their extended families, often bear the brunt of the negative effects of corporate-driven development. Resource development projects are often seen as threats to their personal and family lives, to the integrity of their communities and the essence of their cultures (Archibald and Crnkovich, Reference Archibald and Crnkovich1999; Martin-Hill, Reference Martin-Hill2008). Studying First Nations women's views and concerns related to forestry industry in British Columbia, Rude and Deiter note:

Speaking of the Lubicon Cree, not far from the Mikisew Cree in northern Alberta, Dawn Martin-Hill maintains that the human cost and social impact of resource extraction and land claim struggles can be best demonstrated through the experiences of the women. Yet she points out that “there is an eerie absence of women's voices in the literature on the Lubicon, and what is not there speaks the loudest” (Reference Martin-Hill2008: 128). The disenfranchisement of Indigenous women and disregard for their views, concerns and interests was also pointed out by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report, noting that in spite of the significant contributions and roles they play in their communities, Indigenous women are often excluded “from their home communities, from decision making, and from having a say in their future and their children's future” (1996: 95).

First Nations communities are often divided about the issue of resource development on their territory and partnerships with corporations (Rude and Deiter, Reference Rude and Deiter2004; Slowey, Reference Slowey2008a; Slowey, Reference Slowey and Belanger2008b). While these divisions are not necessarily along gender lines, Rude and Deiter argue that in the case of logging in British Columbia, they often are. There are situations where women opposing the logging activity are married to men who work in forestry. Some men are supportive of women's active opposition, while on other occasions women are ridiculed by men. Often women feel being silenced and excluded from the decision making, noting that “the largely male Indian leadership neither consulted nor reported back to them” (Rude and Deiter, Reference Rude and Deiter2004: 30). The inability to count on the support of the male leadership has prompted the establishment of a recent network by First Nations women leaders from northern British Columbia. The group, called “First Nations Women Seeking Responsible Mining,” seeks to attract the attention of industry in order to create sustainable and shared land use planning and decision making. The group's main priority is to protect their communities, territories and future generations but also to call attention to the marginalization of women, manifested in their tokenistic inclusion or campaigns aimed at discrediting and intimidating women even in their own communities. What is striking is the group's strategy to use personal ad style gendered discourse to draw the attention of industry: “First Nations women seek sensitive mining companies for meaningful long-term relationships” (FNWSRM Press Release, 2010). On the one hand, such a strategy points to the widespread understanding of the gender dynamics of economic development and natural resource extraction on Indigenous territories and to the conscious attempt to make use of this dynamic for one's own purposes. On the other hand, it raises questions about the continued obstinate and indifferent approach of corporations toward Indigenous peoples' concerns to the point where one has to resort to unconventional methods of framing Indigenous rights issues in terms of heterosexual romantic relationships in order to attract attention. It is to be seen whether this unorthodox approach will garner desired results.

Another striking aspect about the gendered processes of resource extraction is that in British Columbia, it is women elders who are in the forefront in resisting logging or other destructive economic development on their lands. They are often compelled to get involved because of their roles as elders and caretakers of their children and grandchildren. As a Mount Currie woman expresses it, “I really look at this as the second chance to save our lands” (Rude and Deiter, Reference Rude and Deiter2004: 30). The involvement in resistance, such as blockades or camps and other action, however, limits women elders' time and possibilities to engage in their critical role of primary transmitters of culture (Hull, Reference Hull2006). Women elders are particularly concerned “how they will teach their children and grandchildren about their culture if more and more land is permanently altered” (Rude and Deiter, Reference Rude and Deiter2004: 27). Further, women often experience increased levels of stress not only because of the destructive social, cultural and environmental impacts of aggressive resource extraction but also for being arrested, charged and jailed (Rude and Deiter, Reference Rude and Deiter2004; see also Manuel, Reference Manuel, Walkem and Halie2003; Martin-Hill, Reference Martin-Hill2008).

Contemporary self-government agreements may restore a degree of autonomy in Indigenous communities. Yet market-driven self-government structures create new forms of dependency and pose a serious threat to land-based economies, worldviews and practices. They definitely do not restore the political and economic autonomy Indigenous women had prior to the historical incorporation into the market economy. Economic development does not guarantee improved socio-economic circumstances for Indigenous women. Self-government and economic development based on neoliberal market models tend to neglect Indigenous women who often are already politically and socio-economically marginalized in their communities.