Modeling tradeoffs in a rural alaska mixed economy

Hunting, working, and sharing in the face of economic and ecological change

Shauna BurnSilver, Randall B. Boone, Gary P. Kofinas, Todd J. Brinkman

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In the Circumpolar North, mixed subsistence-cash economies are a livelihood form that is geographically widespread and culturally important for indigenous peoples (Nymand Larson et al. 2014; Poppel and Kruse 2010). Despite many ecological, subsistence, and political-economic differences, these economies have three components in common. People a) engage in market-based activities (e.g., employment for cash), b) carry out some form of subsistence production (harvesting, contributing, and processing), and c) share and cooperate, so that harvested foods, money, and other critical resources flow among households and interlink cash and subsistence activities (Natcher 2009; Nymand Larson et al. 2014). Social relationships of sharing and cooperation both anchor cultural identities and contribute to food security and broader well-being (Poppel and Kruse 2010; Schweitzer et al. 2014). While research shows mixed livelihoods have persisted through time (BurnSilver et al. 2016; Forbes et al. 2009; Harder and Wenzel 2012; Kruse 1991; Langdon 1991; Wheeler and Thornton 2005) policy discussions around how future changes will occur in northern economies often assume opposing outcomes. Either mixed livelihoods will inexorably give way to market dynamics, or they are persistent, flexible, and robust under conditions of change. The subtext of these conversations is often sustainability. That is, are arctic mixed livelihoods sustainable? Are they able to persist while maintaining material, cultural, and ecological resources for present and future generations, or are they in decline (McCarthy et al. 2005)? The processes and dynamics of adjustment associated with either market transformation or persistence outcomes are poorly understood, and the polemical arguments on both sides obscure important decisions and tradeoffs for people that could characterize mixed northern livelihoods in the future. Decision making at individual, household, and community scales within the context of political-economic structures all contribute to important outcomes for people and arctic landscapes. The emerging literature on tradeoffs emphasizes that there are costs and benefits associated with the strategies and preferred outcomes of different actors associated with any given human-resource-governance scenario (Brown et al. 2001; Campbell et al. 2010). But in the context of mixed economies, these costs and benefits are often framed in economic terms, and focus on maximizing economic utility rather than collective decisions that act to support the common good (Bates 1994; Plattner 1989). For example, common economic currencies for evaluating benefits (i.e., economic growth) are per capita income or village-level unemployment rates (Nymand Larsen and Huskey 2010).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationThe Give and Take of Sustainability
Subtitle of host publicationArchaeological and Anthropological Perspectives on Tradeoffs
PublisherCambridge University Press
Pages52-83
Number of pages32
ISBN (Electronic)9781139939720
ISBN (Print)9781107078338
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2017
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

livelihood
economy
economics
Arctic
market
food
collective decision
common good
political structure
unemployment rate
economic structure
costs
cultural identity
resources
human resources
currency
persistence
money
economic growth
conversation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences(all)
  • Arts and Humanities(all)

Cite this

BurnSilver, S., Boone, R. B., Kofinas, G. P., & Brinkman, T. J. (2017). Modeling tradeoffs in a rural alaska mixed economy: Hunting, working, and sharing in the face of economic and ecological change. In The Give and Take of Sustainability: Archaeological and Anthropological Perspectives on Tradeoffs (pp. 52-83). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139939720.004

Modeling tradeoffs in a rural alaska mixed economy : Hunting, working, and sharing in the face of economic and ecological change. / BurnSilver, Shauna; Boone, Randall B.; Kofinas, Gary P.; Brinkman, Todd J.

The Give and Take of Sustainability: Archaeological and Anthropological Perspectives on Tradeoffs. Cambridge University Press, 2017. p. 52-83.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

BurnSilver, S, Boone, RB, Kofinas, GP & Brinkman, TJ 2017, Modeling tradeoffs in a rural alaska mixed economy: Hunting, working, and sharing in the face of economic and ecological change. in The Give and Take of Sustainability: Archaeological and Anthropological Perspectives on Tradeoffs. Cambridge University Press, pp. 52-83. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139939720.004
BurnSilver S, Boone RB, Kofinas GP, Brinkman TJ. Modeling tradeoffs in a rural alaska mixed economy: Hunting, working, and sharing in the face of economic and ecological change. In The Give and Take of Sustainability: Archaeological and Anthropological Perspectives on Tradeoffs. Cambridge University Press. 2017. p. 52-83 https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139939720.004
BurnSilver, Shauna ; Boone, Randall B. ; Kofinas, Gary P. ; Brinkman, Todd J. / Modeling tradeoffs in a rural alaska mixed economy : Hunting, working, and sharing in the face of economic and ecological change. The Give and Take of Sustainability: Archaeological and Anthropological Perspectives on Tradeoffs. Cambridge University Press, 2017. pp. 52-83
@inbook{b349f84ad12b434c8cbff9f31f0c0319,
title = "Modeling tradeoffs in a rural alaska mixed economy: Hunting, working, and sharing in the face of economic and ecological change",
abstract = "In the Circumpolar North, mixed subsistence-cash economies are a livelihood form that is geographically widespread and culturally important for indigenous peoples (Nymand Larson et al. 2014; Poppel and Kruse 2010). Despite many ecological, subsistence, and political-economic differences, these economies have three components in common. People a) engage in market-based activities (e.g., employment for cash), b) carry out some form of subsistence production (harvesting, contributing, and processing), and c) share and cooperate, so that harvested foods, money, and other critical resources flow among households and interlink cash and subsistence activities (Natcher 2009; Nymand Larson et al. 2014). Social relationships of sharing and cooperation both anchor cultural identities and contribute to food security and broader well-being (Poppel and Kruse 2010; Schweitzer et al. 2014). While research shows mixed livelihoods have persisted through time (BurnSilver et al. 2016; Forbes et al. 2009; Harder and Wenzel 2012; Kruse 1991; Langdon 1991; Wheeler and Thornton 2005) policy discussions around how future changes will occur in northern economies often assume opposing outcomes. Either mixed livelihoods will inexorably give way to market dynamics, or they are persistent, flexible, and robust under conditions of change. The subtext of these conversations is often sustainability. That is, are arctic mixed livelihoods sustainable? Are they able to persist while maintaining material, cultural, and ecological resources for present and future generations, or are they in decline (McCarthy et al. 2005)? The processes and dynamics of adjustment associated with either market transformation or persistence outcomes are poorly understood, and the polemical arguments on both sides obscure important decisions and tradeoffs for people that could characterize mixed northern livelihoods in the future. Decision making at individual, household, and community scales within the context of political-economic structures all contribute to important outcomes for people and arctic landscapes. The emerging literature on tradeoffs emphasizes that there are costs and benefits associated with the strategies and preferred outcomes of different actors associated with any given human-resource-governance scenario (Brown et al. 2001; Campbell et al. 2010). But in the context of mixed economies, these costs and benefits are often framed in economic terms, and focus on maximizing economic utility rather than collective decisions that act to support the common good (Bates 1994; Plattner 1989). For example, common economic currencies for evaluating benefits (i.e., economic growth) are per capita income or village-level unemployment rates (Nymand Larsen and Huskey 2010).",
author = "Shauna BurnSilver and Boone, {Randall B.} and Kofinas, {Gary P.} and Brinkman, {Todd J.}",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/9781139939720.004",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9781107078338",
pages = "52--83",
booktitle = "The Give and Take of Sustainability",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Modeling tradeoffs in a rural alaska mixed economy

T2 - Hunting, working, and sharing in the face of economic and ecological change

AU - BurnSilver, Shauna

AU - Boone, Randall B.

AU - Kofinas, Gary P.

AU - Brinkman, Todd J.

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - In the Circumpolar North, mixed subsistence-cash economies are a livelihood form that is geographically widespread and culturally important for indigenous peoples (Nymand Larson et al. 2014; Poppel and Kruse 2010). Despite many ecological, subsistence, and political-economic differences, these economies have three components in common. People a) engage in market-based activities (e.g., employment for cash), b) carry out some form of subsistence production (harvesting, contributing, and processing), and c) share and cooperate, so that harvested foods, money, and other critical resources flow among households and interlink cash and subsistence activities (Natcher 2009; Nymand Larson et al. 2014). Social relationships of sharing and cooperation both anchor cultural identities and contribute to food security and broader well-being (Poppel and Kruse 2010; Schweitzer et al. 2014). While research shows mixed livelihoods have persisted through time (BurnSilver et al. 2016; Forbes et al. 2009; Harder and Wenzel 2012; Kruse 1991; Langdon 1991; Wheeler and Thornton 2005) policy discussions around how future changes will occur in northern economies often assume opposing outcomes. Either mixed livelihoods will inexorably give way to market dynamics, or they are persistent, flexible, and robust under conditions of change. The subtext of these conversations is often sustainability. That is, are arctic mixed livelihoods sustainable? Are they able to persist while maintaining material, cultural, and ecological resources for present and future generations, or are they in decline (McCarthy et al. 2005)? The processes and dynamics of adjustment associated with either market transformation or persistence outcomes are poorly understood, and the polemical arguments on both sides obscure important decisions and tradeoffs for people that could characterize mixed northern livelihoods in the future. Decision making at individual, household, and community scales within the context of political-economic structures all contribute to important outcomes for people and arctic landscapes. The emerging literature on tradeoffs emphasizes that there are costs and benefits associated with the strategies and preferred outcomes of different actors associated with any given human-resource-governance scenario (Brown et al. 2001; Campbell et al. 2010). But in the context of mixed economies, these costs and benefits are often framed in economic terms, and focus on maximizing economic utility rather than collective decisions that act to support the common good (Bates 1994; Plattner 1989). For example, common economic currencies for evaluating benefits (i.e., economic growth) are per capita income or village-level unemployment rates (Nymand Larsen and Huskey 2010).

AB - In the Circumpolar North, mixed subsistence-cash economies are a livelihood form that is geographically widespread and culturally important for indigenous peoples (Nymand Larson et al. 2014; Poppel and Kruse 2010). Despite many ecological, subsistence, and political-economic differences, these economies have three components in common. People a) engage in market-based activities (e.g., employment for cash), b) carry out some form of subsistence production (harvesting, contributing, and processing), and c) share and cooperate, so that harvested foods, money, and other critical resources flow among households and interlink cash and subsistence activities (Natcher 2009; Nymand Larson et al. 2014). Social relationships of sharing and cooperation both anchor cultural identities and contribute to food security and broader well-being (Poppel and Kruse 2010; Schweitzer et al. 2014). While research shows mixed livelihoods have persisted through time (BurnSilver et al. 2016; Forbes et al. 2009; Harder and Wenzel 2012; Kruse 1991; Langdon 1991; Wheeler and Thornton 2005) policy discussions around how future changes will occur in northern economies often assume opposing outcomes. Either mixed livelihoods will inexorably give way to market dynamics, or they are persistent, flexible, and robust under conditions of change. The subtext of these conversations is often sustainability. That is, are arctic mixed livelihoods sustainable? Are they able to persist while maintaining material, cultural, and ecological resources for present and future generations, or are they in decline (McCarthy et al. 2005)? The processes and dynamics of adjustment associated with either market transformation or persistence outcomes are poorly understood, and the polemical arguments on both sides obscure important decisions and tradeoffs for people that could characterize mixed northern livelihoods in the future. Decision making at individual, household, and community scales within the context of political-economic structures all contribute to important outcomes for people and arctic landscapes. The emerging literature on tradeoffs emphasizes that there are costs and benefits associated with the strategies and preferred outcomes of different actors associated with any given human-resource-governance scenario (Brown et al. 2001; Campbell et al. 2010). But in the context of mixed economies, these costs and benefits are often framed in economic terms, and focus on maximizing economic utility rather than collective decisions that act to support the common good (Bates 1994; Plattner 1989). For example, common economic currencies for evaluating benefits (i.e., economic growth) are per capita income or village-level unemployment rates (Nymand Larsen and Huskey 2010).

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85032964218&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85032964218&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/9781139939720.004

DO - 10.1017/9781139939720.004

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9781107078338

SP - 52

EP - 83

BT - The Give and Take of Sustainability

PB - Cambridge University Press

ER -