The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year.
Practising self-determination: Participation in planning and local governance in discrete indigenous settlements
Abstract
The principle and policy of self-determination holds that Aboriginal people should have the right to pursue a lifestyle of their choosing and to have control over their interactions with the wider society. Self-determination policy has been in place at a federal level since the 1970’s, yet after thirty years of implementation, there is considerable disarray and disagreement over its merits. This study investigated the transactions of decision-makers as they practised two of the main policy instruments of self-determination: participatory planning and self-governance. The research settings were Mapoon and Kowanyama, two discrete Indigenous settlements on the West Coast of Cape York Peninsula, in the state of Queensland, northern Australia. Three typologies for settlements, planning, and organisations were established, which gave the context for the study, as well as a basis from which to generalise findings. From the types of planning in practice, a participatory plan at Mapoon was singled out for further study since it specifically recreated the language of self-determination. The Mapoon Plan was found to be successful technically, but it fell short of its stated social development goals. Planning proved to be a highly politicised and idealised activity, brokered by external consultants. The complex interplay among knowledge, ideology and politics, as observed, could not be described in terms of two separate domains, but rather in terms of intercultural production across an interethnic field. The anthropological literature tended to treat Aboriginal polities as cultural isolates, situated within administrative vacuums. To progress the study, it became necessary to apply a functional and administrative rationality to what needed to be done in practice. Twenty case studies of decision-making forums were analysed in the main research setting of Kowanyama. Each involved the contemporary practice of self-determination, as local decision-makers engaged with the wider society. In the majority of cases, all six proposed factors were found to be necessary, but not sufficient, for success: (1) participation, (2) technical expertise, (3) negotiation, (4) institutional capacity, (5) focal driver, and (6) jurisdictional devolution. A typology of actors was established to define the different decision-makers involved. Of the 600 adults in Kowanyama, only 30 were found to be actively involved in decision-making. This was unexpectedly low given the quantity of government activity purporting to further Kowanyama’s self-determination. Six determinants were found to influence the level of participation: efficacy in practice, jurisdictional devolution, representativeness, function, informality, language and motivation. In particular, form followed function, whereby the function of a decision-making forum decided the level of participation that was appropriate. Contrary to accounts in the anthropological literature, the study found a fledgling system of representation in Kowanyama, complete with informal ‘extra-constitutional’ checks and balances. Factions were a powerful aspect of Kowanyama society, but they did not monopolise politics. The local polity was better conceptualised in terms of its political pluralism, encompassing a complex array of balancing and competing interests. Significantly, constituents were beginning to exert local political influence over their leaders. The analysis found that notions of ‘community control,’ as promulgated in the community development literature, were not adequate to explain the intercultural production underway. The full spectrum of participation was relevant to the actors of governance, from political activism to ambivalent apathy. Community control was found in the absence of government interventions, imbedded within informal institutions and cultural norms. Yet, introduced political structures, including Councils, were no less a part of the local political arena. The notion of governance better encapsulated the array of decision-making activities and actors occurring across a broad range of institutional positions. The study documented multiple dilemmas and indeterminacies as actors practised self-determination in the interethnic field, especially the interplay between local and external ideologies and knowledge. All of the examples of political innovation in the contemporary history of governance in Kowanyama involved productive social contexts developing locally between leaders and trusted outsiders. The complexity of problems and their solutions were only revealed through practice, one step at a time. Successful initiatives in Kowanyama were to a degree inadvertent; it was not until the end that actors understood what they had done right or wrong. Significantly, political innovation occurred in practice, often without any active intervention by government. Ironically, one of the greatest obstacles limiting local capacity was the size of the task of administering the programs of s
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The case study validates evidence of the value of long-term commitment by outsiders working in relational ways in support of Aboriginal-led development (Moran 2006, 163;McCausland et al. 2021).”
From Aboriginal-led development – the case of the Warlpiri Education and Training Trust (2024) · cites this paper as Moran 2006, 163
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The ‘viability’ and resilience of communities and settlements in desert Australia
Stafford‐Smith, M., Moran, M., & Seemann, K. (2008) · The Rangeland Journal · doi:10.1071/rj07048 · Cited by 55
Self-citationThe Impact of Funding Modalities on the Performance of Indigenous Organisations
Moran, M., Porter, D. J., & Curth‐Bibb, J. (2016) · Australian Journal of Public Administration · doi:10.1111/1467-8500.12192 · Cited by 27
Self-citationWith contributions by Alma Day, H. F., Sutton, M., & Conyers, L. B. (2013) · International Journal of Historical Archaeology · doi:10.1007/s10761-013-0242-1 · Cited by 25
Coping with Complexity: Adaptive Governance in Desert Australia
Moran, M., & Elvin, R. (2009) · GeoJournal · doi:10.1007/s10708-008-9240-y · Cited by 25
Self-citationReinventing the Governance of Public Finances in Remote Indigenous Australia
Moran, M., & Porter, D. J. (2014) · Australian Journal of Public Administration · doi:10.1111/1467-8500.12064 · Cited by 18
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Moran, M. F.
- ORCID
- Moran, Mark F.
- Venue
- The University of Queensland
- Publisher
- University of Queensland Library
- Published
- 2006-01-01
- OpenAlex
- W2236913104
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 4
- Type
- dissertation
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The University of Queensland (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Indigenous Cultures and History
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Australian Indigenous Culture and History
- Social Sciences › Law › Indigenous Peoples' Rights and Law
- Keywords
- self-determination (international law), participatory planning, indigenous settlements, Cape York Peninsula, local governance, decision-making participation, settler colonialism, institutional capacity, representativeness, informality
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review