Thread by @robgillezeau

Thrilled to be kicking off the first #UnsettlingEconomics conference at @uvic today. I've never been in a space with this many folks committed to Indigenous economics. The agenda for those interested: uvic.ca/socialsciences…

After introductory comments from @uvic's own Dr. Donna Feir, @Hesquiaht is kicking things off with her work in Indigenomics and the importance of claiming space and shifting narratives.

Next up: @CoastSalishDara on the economy of affection present in Coast Salish economy. Along with the fascinating content, I am particularly enjoying the style of analysis that is quite similar to the qualitative economic historians of the mid 20th century.

It is quite effective here as there isn't enough micro data to tackle the topic nor would a fancy model tell as compelling a story as the qualitative approach.

After a quick break, we're discussing the limits of social inclusion with Miriam Jorgensen from @NNIarizona. Lays out the 1969 White Paper and the Great Society as laying out both countries' approach to social inclusion that continues until today.

Critiquing of social inclusion as a core outcome: i) metrics that policymakers are seeking to equalize may not be the ones that insiders actually want (i.e. crowded housing may be viewed as an external priority, but not a priority for a nation)

ii) by focusing in the individual and the micro we miss important features at the group level iii) too heavy a focus on distributional politics when some communities actually want a positional focus (i.e. greater political autonomy)

Argues that ongoing Indigenous organizing and political pressure points to a rejection of this focus on social inclusion.

Alternatives:
-support self-defined Indigenous policies
-shift from consultation to negotiation
-generate data related to positional rather than simply distributional goals
-education needs to include the political dimension of Indigeneity

What can economists do better?
-account for political differences
-don't reduce to racial issues
-consider outcome variables that matter to communities
-value both program evaluation & cross-nation research
-develop/evaluate new ex-ante policy rather than only evaluating ex-post

I find the last point particularly compelling. This really is a new area of policy focus and if we limit ourselves to ex-post evaluation of new policies then the profession will be leaving its expertise on the table for far too long.

Now we're onto a session from @BrentMainprize on the lessons learned from the National Consortium for Indigenous Economic Development.

After the lunch break, we've got UVic's Dr. Matt Murphy on economic self-determination and sustainability in the Toquaht Nation. I've also taken over as chair so live tweeting will be a bit more intermittent.

Dr. Erin O'Sullivan from INAC is now up looking at progress or lack thereof since 2006. Interesting discussion about "bumping up" of Indigenous identity in the data, which is complicated by changing views (and court rulings) regarding Metis and others.

Interesting stylized fact: employment and income gaps vs white Canadians are heavily concentrated for those with lower levels of education. With a university degree gaps pretty much disappear.

Chairing duties aren't letting me keep up, but there really is a lot of exciting new data generation going on at the federal level.

Jacqueline Quinless from @UVic is now up on "Decolonizing Data," building nicely off of Erin's talk on some of the data movement going on at the federal level.

Now we've got a whole new angle from Dr. Dick Todd, VP at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis on the Fed's role in Indigenous economic development.

An interesting discussion on what makes Indigenous economics different from the rest of the profession in the US context:
-largely fixed land base
-analyzing outcomes for a small distinct group in a larger one
-community often prefers to preserve distinctness

-legacy of colonization and abuse
-may involve additional rights or status for both individuals and naitons

Missed it earlier, but here is the twitter feed showing some of the work being done by the fed in this area: @FedIndianCenter

Why do these differences matter? They can cause standard models that might work for other populations to collapse under this alternative set of conditions.

Todd then ties this into to Chetty's work showing the disproportionately low intergenerational mobility on reserves, which is linked to these differences. Argues for the importance of youth support programs to overcome this.

Now getting into a core tension in our burgeoning subfield: research that is "about us" vs "on us" vs "by us". Argues research about communities is extremely valuable, papers that use Indigenous peoples as nothing more than a natural experiment (on us) may be rejected.

That's a wrap for today! I'll be back with more tomorrow morning (with more of a causal identification bent!)