Institutional Explanations for the Persistence of Poverty on First Nations Reserves in Canada: A Review of the Native American Economic Development Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The institutions governing First Nations reserves in Canada are commonly cited as a key barrier to economic development. Despite these claims, few studies have empirically assessed the institutional arrangements governing reserves. Conversely, there is a much larger and more developed literature on Native American economic development and the institutions governing reservations. While there are many important differences between First Nations reserves and Native American reservations, there are several key similarities that allow for comparisons. First, the institutional arrangements governing land, specifically federal trusteeship over land, are broadly similar in both contexts. The restrictions on property, especially the prohibition on using reserve and reservation lands as collateral, also create important similarities in the availability of credit, mortgages, and other banking services. Finally, while Native American tribes generally have more sovereignty over their lands and economies, First Nations are increasingly reclaiming the right to manage their lands and economies with similar levels of autonomy. This review summarizes the Native American economic development literature in these three areas and identifies relevant considerations for First Nations in Canada. The article concludes with a discussion of future research priorities.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".