جمعیت بومی و توسعه پایدار: ساخت و ساز رویکردهای بومی به جامع نگر، توسعه خود-مصمم

In the 1990s, e€orts to operationalize sustainable development have been led by Western ecological economists, utilizing Capital Theory. This conceptual work has largely ignored indigenous peoplesÕ e€orts to achieve self-determination and embark on development initiatives of their own. This paper argues that these grassroots initiatives have drawn on residual stocks of social/cultural capital for their impetus, and provide useful insights into problems of conceiving and operationalizing ``sustainable development.'' Indigenous nations often espouse holistic frameworks broader than sustainable development models. They have had to address issues such as creating alternative governance structures, and how to incorporate holistic values into tribal development without jeopardizing business operations. Ó 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

While the concept ``sustainable development'' has gained in popular use, it has also attracted its share of critics. Some have suggested that e€orts to ``build on Brundtland'' 1 are doomed because growth and sustainability are incompatible (Lele, 1991; Costanza & Wainger, 1991; OÕConnor, 1994). Others have argued that it is merely the latest ideological counterattack of global capitalism (Escobar, 1995), that it is an ambiguous and useless concept (Rist, 1997; Young, 1995; Temple, 1992), or that it is an ideal that cannot be achieved in reality (Norgaard, 1994). Amid the polemics, ecological economists have been attempting to operationalize sustainable development using approaches such as Capital Theory. The debate and theorizing has largely ignored attempts by indigenous peoples, particularly in advanced postindustrial societies, to articulate their own self-determined ``holistic development.'' There are several reasons why this is the case, not the least of which is the linking of indigenous knowledge and practices with ``traditionalism'' by die-hard adherents to modernization theory. More attention should be paid to indigenous initiatives if we are serious about ®nding viable approaches to sustainable development. The following discussion considers recent e€orts by Maori in Aotearoa/New Zealand to articulate a culturally relevant, holistic development. It indicates some of the problems and dilemmas they have confronted, for instance how a holistic perspective can guide development planning and decision-making, and concludes with some implications for international e€orts to operationalize sustainable development.

There have been calls for a new epistemology and practical alternatives to Western growth models of development. Maori, like many other Fourth World peoples, have been reinventing traditional conceptual frameworks and principles as a basis for establishing alternative approaches to development and well-being. These initiatives have tended to be overlooked due to the marginalization of indigenous peoples in the ``development'' process, and in the intellectual endeavors to operationalize sustainable development. I have attempted to identify some of the implications for such endeavors of Maori e€orts to operationalize their own holistic development. Because of their di€erent cultural and philosophical bases, however, these implications cannot simply be ``utilized'' or appropriated directly into international modeling. Implicit epistemological assumptions and cultural values will need to be reconsidered even as models of sustainability are broadened and re®ned. In his landmark book The Great Transformation, Karl Polanyi (1957) portrayed the shift to a supposedly unregulated capitalist market system as the disengagement of the economy from its ``embeddedness'' in society and envi-ronment, the dominance of the market in social relations, and the commodi®cation of production, labor and nature. Today, a number of indigenous groups are exploring holistic approaches to development not in an e€ort to return to a subsistence existence, but as an alternative to Western models. These initiatives provide insights into di€erent ways of conceptualizing and achieving a sustainable development. Even more intriguing within these initiatives is the tacit hint of a new paradigm, one that legitimately deserves to be called a paradigm in the Kuhnian sense. That is, the increasing awareness that the pathway to insuring the future well-being of humankind and the planet lies not in limitless growth, consumption and ``more market,'' but in a creative reintegration of economy, society and ecology. Perhaps we are on the verge of a Second Great Transformation.