Indigenous Rights and Entrepreneurship: Social Capital Formation and Modes of Social Regulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we explore the relationship between business (most notably, corporations involved in the natural resource extraction industry) and the developmental aspirations of the world’s 800 million plus Indigenous People, whose communities are among the poorest and most marginalized in the world. To do so, we examine the emergence, evolution and growing importance of the rights of Indigenous people and the role these rights have played (and can play) in the development pathways available to Indigenous communities around the globe. To do this, we use regulation theory to explore the relationship between Indigenous rights and social capital formation as an under researched area when considering how Indigenous people pursue development, particularly through entrepreneurship We posit that the more localized the mode of social regulation (and greater the level of Indigenous participation in social regulation), the higher the level of social capital formation, but that the pathway upon which the local mode of regulation is based has a mediating effect on the entrepreneurial processes utilized by these communities. In exploring, this we will focus on modes of development involving Indigenous peoples’ participation in the modern economy through mutually beneficial alliances (MBAs) including joint ventures (JVs) with non-Indigenous organizations. A framework and illustrative examples are presented. The paper concludes by discussing the implications of this research with respect to understanding and predicting the development fortunes of Indigenous peoples globally.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".