Monday, July 22, 2013

Q1 Dollarising lifestyles


Under what circumstances would it be better NOT to support putting in place rules and regulations to shift people from a subsistence to a cash economy?

37 comments:

  1. Transitioning from a subsistence to a cash economy has some basic merit, increased incomes enable access to education and healthcare. There are, however, costs associated with dollarising lifestyles. The indigenous Cree of Northern Ontario depend on a subsistent economy of wildlife hunting. To the Cree, culture is “unconsciously known, and embodied in action”, thus, transitioning away from traditional hunting would deprive future Cree generations of a genuine understanding of their native culture. Culture is considered a fourth pillar for sustainable development. The loss of Cree culture through transitioning their economy can therefore be seen as unsustainable and a circumstance where it is not better to support dollarising lifestyles.

    Reference: Wildlife Harvesting and Sustainable Regional Native Economy in the Hudson and James Bay Lowland, Ontario (Berkes et al, 1994)

    Sebastian Clarke
    ID: 1551226

    ReplyDelete
  2. The stigma of poverty has only recently been introduced to many subsistent communities through colonisation. E.g. the tribes of Alaska had no words for rich or poor and until these concepts were introduced these communities had a balanced subsistent relationship with the land, shared resources, which inturn created bonds and aided survival. While this differs from the western ideal of accumulating resources to show wealth, the Alaskan tribes showed wealth through having strong cultural ties to and reliance on the land. Where subsistent communities are thriving and culturally reliant on their environment, without the introduction of a cash economy, it may, in my opinion, be unnecessary to place Western ideals upon them.

    Reference: Bista, Y., 1974. Does One Way of Life Have to Die so Another Can Live? – A Report on Subsistence and the Conservation of the Yupik Life-style.

    Victoria Bell
    ID: 1798704

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The idealized Western concept of employment involves earning only a partial and fixed income for exerting tremendous effort into a job for a lengthy period of time. Not reaping what you sow has caused modernized communities to become possessive, and at times selfish, resulting in disconnected communities.

    Contrastingly, subsistence communities like the native Arctic Indians find wealth in their freedom, values, and strong community relationships. Unlike a cash focused economy, they have the freedom of controlling their use of time, and reap the full benefits and satisfaction of what they have accomplished according to their efforts. Their dependence on life-sustaining resources also prevent over-exploitation of natural resources, which is a common issue in cash oriented economies.

    Reference: Kofinas, G., 1993. Contributions of Northern Wildlife Co-Management to Community Economic Development

    Angela Yang
    ID: 1570662

    ReplyDelete
  5. The shift from a substance to a cash economy has dramatically changed the diets (therefore health and wellbeing) of the indigenous peoples of the Arctic.

    On the one hand the practice of importing food has improved food supply reliability as people are no longer as dependent on local weather patterns.

    However the adoption of a more Western diet including processed foods, high in fats and sugar has contributed to increased rates of diabetes, hypertension, obesity and cardiovascular disease. Furthermore the increase in contaminants such as heavy metals resulting from globalisation threatens the future viability of local marine animals as a supplementary source of food.

    Source: Sustainable Development Working Group. (2009). Human Health in the Arctic: 21st Century Challenges. Canada: Model Arctic Council.

    Chris Groom: 2988294

    ReplyDelete
  6. The general intention of decision makers to shift people from a subsistence economy to a cash economy is based on the assumption that economic development is correlated with the introduction of earning capital and profit. However, in terms of the distribution and consumption of goods, there are economic values of a subsistence economy that should not be ignored, before the social, economic and environmental consequences of shifting to a cash economy are overlooked. A subsistence economy replaces the need to distribute goods to and from an external source with self-reliance and stability. Where an economy is not relying on external markets, and shift from a subsistence to a cash economy is unbeneficial.

    Reference: Bista, Y. (1974). Does One Way of Life Have to Die so Another Can Live? – A Report on Subsistence and the Conservation of the Yupik Life-style.

    Leo McLay
    ID: 5284583

    ReplyDelete
  7. Where a group operating under a subsistence economy is happy and healthy BY THEIR OWN STANDARDS, there is a strong argument for retaining that economy. The traditional Western practice of comparing and assimilating other cultures to a Western one helps us comprehend these cultures, but can have devastating consequences for social and cultural wellbeing e.g. the Native Indian tribes of North America. The argument for transitioning to a cash economy generally states that children born into a subsistence economy are stuck there - true, but I was born into a cash economy, and I'm basically trapped here too, who's to say I'm better off? As outsiders, it is impossible to judge something as complicated as happiness and wellbeing based entirely on income - particularly in a society that has no concept of rich or poor. If a society say they are happy with their standard of living, their decision should be respected, and their lifestyle preserved.

    George Winship
    ID: 5578661

    ReplyDelete
  8. Courtney BennettJuly 29, 2013 at 9:01 AM

    Courtney Bennett
    1807922
    When you look back in history, "poverty" was not as prevalent in indigenous cultures as today. However, post-colonisation we see many indigenous cultures living below the poverty line and relying on financial support from the governments or international aid agencies. The main difference between these groups of people pre and post colonisation is their conversion to a cash economy from what was originally a subsistence lifestyle. If a people are capable of providing for themselves through a subsistence lifestyle - feeding themselves from their own gardens and livestock, housing and clothing their families with resources from their own environment and maintaining a level of physical health then why would you tamper with that by encouraging them to work for wages so that they can earn money to buy all the things they already had. By sending subsistence lifestyle people to work you are taking the time that they would traditionally spend tending to their crops and livestock and creating clothing and shelter and making them do jobs that don't directly benefit they family to earn money to purchase the things they would have already had if they weren't busy being sent to work. Also, the money they make usually doesn't cover the expenses of purchasing the things that they used to provide for themselves for free - but are now unable to because they spend all their time working for money.. not for their wellbeing. To me, it just seems like converting subsistence lifestyle communities to cash economies just turns what was a simple process into a hard one where the "image" of the country/town/area is improved to outsiders (because everyone is listed earning money) but the quality of life for the individuals is degraded.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Societies are often complex and to impose an economic system that is solely cash based may not always be the solution to the ever increasing desire to strengthen the western ideal of economy.

    An example is rural Alaska, where the practice of sustenance economies allows for social development, creating identities and strengthening communities. In contrast, the western perspective creates divisions, weakening social networks, and losing cultural values due to the importance of money.

    In the circumstance, where sustenance economies function to the point of self-reliance, it would not be beneficial to implement rules and regulations to form a cash economy.

    Reference: Natcher, D, 2008. The Social Economy of Canada’s Aboriginal North


    Alvin Jung
    ID: 2976592

    ReplyDelete
  10. Economic development that shifts people from subsistence living to a cash economy has good intentions in relation to access to healthcare and education. Although, the dollarisation of their lifestyles can lead to unforeseen consequences. For example, the introduction of a mixed cash and subsistence economy to the Inuit Alaskan populations negatively impacted on the basis of their culture.

    The collective nature of harvesting and the sharing of resources diminished due to less subsistence participation as the people found that they had less time for hunting, fishing and community involvement. This was caused by the employment focused economy and population increases. As a result, the transition to a cash economy can rob the future generations of an understanding of their historic culture, affecting their lifestyle satisfaction.

    Source: Stephanie Martin. (2012). Cultural Continuity and Communities and Wellbeing (Journal of Rural and Community Development). Anchorage Alaska, USA: University of Alaska Anchorage, Institute of Social and Economic Research

    Sophie Waldron
    2719473

    ReplyDelete
  11. A common misconception is that there is no cash involved in a subsistence economy. Goods have been traded in the form of purchasing clothing and ammunition to support the subsistence economy.

    Studies of rural Alaska found that 30% of the community produced 70% of the communities harvest; these resources were often shared with dependent sections of the population. This sharing is such a fundamental characteristic it has been enacted into Alaskan law. Rules and regulations emplacing a cash economy in this situation would likely cause the community to suffer as those who are unable to provide for themselves will be unable to be provided for by the community as well.

    Thomas Morrison
    5697521

    Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game. (2013). Alaska's Economies and Subsistence. Retrieved July 25, 2013, from State of Alaska: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/library/pdfs/subsistence/ak_economies_subsistence.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  12. A cash economy can improve a society’s development statistics, but it is important to note that a society’s well-being cannot be measured by mere economic figures. There are only so many hours in a day, and by picking up a full-time job, one would have to give up time spent on activities that were part of their traditional way of life. This may result in the deterioration of the society’s culture, lifestyle, and also the natural environment.

    Therefore, support to change into such an economy should only occur if the wages cover not only the people’s economic needs, but also the opportunity cost of preventing them from doing activities that may be vital outside of the economic realm.

    Tianhang Liu
    5850944

    ReplyDelete
  13. Any system that requires a fundamental shift where the primary objective is the achievement of material wealth at the expense of community, culture and the environment is not ideal and should not be supported. The global “Growth Agenda” if not implemented properly with ethical intent that will nurture people, culture and environment will create more problems than it would solve.

    Economic growth programmes in Papua New Guinea of Cocoa and Palm Oil production have resulted in families being alienated from their customary lands, placed pressures on family networks, diminished family networks, increased incidences of poverty, domestic violence and reduced educational opportunities. For the majority these programmes have failed leaving their lives much poorer than they would have been in a subsistence lifestyle.

    Reference: Curry, G.N., Koczberski, G., Lummani, J., Ryan, S., Bue, V., 2012. Earning a Living in PNG; From Subsistence to a Cash Economy. (Chapter 10, Schooling for Sustainable Development: a focus on Austaralia, New Zealand and the Oceanic Region, 3rd Edition)

    Leonie Mullions
    Student ID: 1613765

    ReplyDelete
  14. To assess whether it is suitable to shift subsistence economies to cash economies we can look at the African proverb ‘How the Monkeys Saved the Fish’. This is where the monkeys saved the fish from a flood with the belief they were being helpful, but were actually being hurtful towards the fish. The western ideal of the cash economy being enforced upon subsistence economies is like the proverb. It is believed to be helpful but there are aspects and contexts which the cash economy cannot account for, or understand whilst the subsistence economy does.

    How the Monkeys Saved the Fish: http://www.afriprov.org/index.php/african-stories-by-season/14-animal-stories/67-how-the-monkeys-saved-the-fish.html

    Hannah Miln
    Student ID: 5533332

    ReplyDelete
  15. Michaela DavidsonJuly 30, 2013 at 7:09 PM

    The UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1996 states: “in no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence". This statement introduced the concept of a right to subsistence into international law and clearly comprehends that while there are some beneficial aspects to be drawn from transitioning a subsistence economy to a cash economy, often, the costs of doing so may be too high to ignore. In making this transition, culture and community sense of identity can suffer and in circumstances where a community is capably providing for themselves and thriving socially/culturally, it should be avoided. Quantifying subsistence lifestyles does not capture their cultural value or acknowledge cultural/spiritual ties that local people often have to surrounding natural resources. Furthermore, subsistence communities (e.g. Inuits, Canada) often view the natural environment more holistically than cash-based communities and this is reflected in the somewhat higher quality of their surrounding natural environments.

    Source: Poppel, B. (2006). Interdependency of subsistence and market economies in the Arctic. The Economy of the North.

    Michaela Davidson
    ID: 2366284

    ReplyDelete
  16. While cash economy has many benefits, (it can be easier to invest in medical research), a rapid shift from subsistence living to cash economy could potentially have negative impacts on the native population.

    Firstly, is ingrained in the culture and traditions of the local population, and cannot be analysed in dollar value. For example in the native Alaskan culture in North America, the native community is close knit and depends on one another for survival. Unfortunately, between 1830-1930, their culture has been almost entirely destroyed in 100 years, because of the rapid shift to cash economy.

    Secondly, subsistence provides people with all basic human necessities. If a government wants to shift people to a cash economy, it needs to ensure that there is enough money to substitute all the benefits of subsistence living. The shift to a cash economy should not leave the natives facing the frustration and the stigma of poverty.

    Source: Subsistence and Economic Planning: http://ankn.uaf.edu/Curriculum/Books/DoesOneWay/SUBSISTENCE%20AND%20ECONOMIC.html

    Manasi Vaidya
    ID:5985611

    ReplyDelete
  17. The Federated States of Micronesia is facing the dilemma of modernization. A cash economy is seen to have many benefits, as it is a chance to maintain their status as a nation state and develop on a global scale.
    However the transition from a subsistence economy to a cash economy has had effects that are pervasive and deep. Consequently impacting on their culture, their way of life, health, traditions and self-preservation. Heath impacts such as malnutrition, diabetes and obesity are increasing in both the young and adults as food becomes westernized, deterring from the traditional island style diet. Furthermore land inheritance and traditional practices are being diminished by a cash economy, the land is being commodified and alienated leading to confusion between modern and traditional practices, many disputes ending up in Court. Micronesia has a high value for land, tradition and cultural practices and these cannot be accounted for through a cash economy.

    Source:http://micsem.org/pubs/articles/economic/frames/examoneconofr.htm

    Kayla Versey
    1824263

    ReplyDelete
  18. While the introduction of a cash economy into subsistence societies does have both positive and negative effects on that society, it can also impact those of us that exist in the current cash economy. The existence of subsistence economies has “value for aboriginal and non-aboriginal people alike in our attempt to understand how life interrelates on the tundra or in the sea.”
    The decline of the Artic Seal hunt in the early 1970s is a good representation of the impacts the introduction of a cash economy, and the ignorance of traditional beliefs can have. The Inuits believe that “to use is to protect,” and understand the dire environmental and social impacts of overhunting – impacts that were locally and globally realised by the introduction of a market. Maintaining subsistence economies, therefore, is not only good for that individual society, but for our cash economy and society as well.

    Reference: Simpson, L. (1999). The Subsistence Economy. Retrieved July 31, 2013 from Nunavit '99 - Changing the map of Canada: http://www.nunavut.com/nunavut99/english/subsistence.html

    Emma Chandler
    ID: 2920994

    ReplyDelete
  19. If it is not broken do not try to fix it. This phrase reiterates that just because subsistence economies are not necessarily how the western world define success they are not broken and do not necessarily require fixing or altering.

    Inuit culture and communities developed around a subsistence economy leading to fundamental values of socialisation, solidarity and cooperation. A key issue of the transition from subsistence to a cash economy is incompatible goals. A cash economy has competition at its forefront- this causes a devaluation of the socialisation principle of Inuit communities; it creates self-interest philosophies which contest consensus ethics. The transition to a cash economy has so far led to community isolation and destabilisation, poverty, violence, substance abuse, and ostracism. In circumstances where a functioning community is thriving under a subsistence economy it is better not to force the change to a cash economy. This change will likely create economic prosperity for some but will lead to economic disparity for most. It will create a loss of culture and identity.

    Kirsten Wood
    1834103

    ReplyDelete
  20. Today, there is a certain degree of cynicism when the significance of subsistence economies are discussed. The idea that cash economies bring prosperity to everyone has been a view since the early European settlements. Although the introduction of rules and regulations for better education, healthcare and transportation may have some benefits to subsistence economies, it is not always in their best interests to do so.

    The Yipik Eskimos of Alaska hold traditions such as hunting and fishing, which are interwoven into their everyday lives. By placing rules and regulations to shift the Yipik Eskimos to a cash economy there could be a potential risk of destroying their ability to sustain their culture. The value of sustaining culture will increase as globalisation continues to be more prominent.

    Reference: Davidson. (1974). Does One Way of Life Have To Die So Another Can Live? A Report on Subsistence and the Conservation of the Yupik Life-Style

    Teresa George
    5453260

    ReplyDelete
  21. Bethel and Ivan (1973) identified that subsistence is the foundation of several of the Native groups in Alaska. It is interesting to know that there were no words for being rich and poor in the Yupik culture, the necessities for sustaining life were all shared among people.

    Under globalization, the ‘dollarisation’ lifestyle has been largely introduced to native groups. However, this kind of lifestyle based on western cultures would bring huge impacts to the Yupik culture. If native people were just looking for their own economic profits, the local culture would have disappeared long time ago. The ‘dollarisation’ of lifestyle is also an engine of “corporate imperialism”. It promises bring prosperity, yet often tramples over human rights in developing countries through plundering and profiteering. Instead of trying to replace the traditional way of life, efforts should be made to join the cultures in meaningful ways.

    Source:http://ankn.uaf.edu/Curriculum/Books/DoesOneWay/SUBSISTENCE%20AND%20ECONOMIC.html

    Li Tianhang
    ID: 2792873

    ReplyDelete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Transitioning from subsistence to a cash economy assumes that the profit from economic activities will bring numerous benefits to individuals and populations, such as increased access to education, healthcare and a higher quality of life. However, when traditional or indigenous methods of production prove inefficient or backwards, individuals and populations may fall from subsistence to poverty. Populations may find themselves with a new vulnerable demographic (particularly the elderly, women, and children) who may not have existed before the transition, when subsistence rather than poverty was the norm. When such an outcome is likely, it may be better to oppose transitional rules and regulations.

    Reference: Kuokannen, R. (2011). Indigenous Economics, Theories of Subsistence, and Women. American Indian Quarterly, 35(2), 215-40.

    Tom Chi
    ID: 1813142

    ReplyDelete
  24. It is true that correct cash economy policies will overcome the technological, credits, barriers that perpetuate mass rural poverty in native or peasant society. However, a shift from subsistence economy to cash economy is not always work in every circumstance. Since subsistence is an entire process of living it cannot be readily assessed by Western method of cash economy (cost-benefit and supply and demand analysis). Especially for native and agricultural society, the assumption of cash economy is that all persons are money motivated, presumes that peasants will have to obtain cash from somewhere in order to obtain food instead of growing them. Subsistence economy is when people in the community are closely tight and depends on one another for survival e.g. sharing food, crops, etc. Rapid shift to cash economy destroy their culture .


    Ref: Subsistence and economic development [electronic resource] / Ronald E. Seavoy.
    Thidarat Samart
    5962153

    ReplyDelete
  25. In combating issues such as poverty, policies shifting people from a subsistence to a cash economy have been seen as a key method. Social structures and work have always been governed by what the west call the economy. However, following Eurocentric viewpoints of the market can obscure initial good intentions surrounding socioeconomic development, towards more of a focus on market development, and increasing GDP. From an economic viewpoint, subsistence economies have been seen as a barrier to participation in the market economy and all the benefits alongside it. Looking beyond the economic sphere, a subsistence economy incorporates social, cultural and spiritual dimensions. It enriches and sustains communities such as the Inuit indigenous people in Greenland, as well as contributing to social cohesion and environmental wellbeing. While the benefits of a cash economy can be acknowledged, the importance and significance of a subsistence economy in such communities cannot be ignored and disregarded in favour of western ideology.

    Reference: Poppel, B. 2006. Interdependency of subsistence and market economies in the Arctic. In: Solveig Glomsråd and Iulie Aslaksen (eds.). The Economy of the North. Statistisk Sentralbyrå/Statistics Norway, pp. 65-80.

    Grace Wilson

    5798170

    ReplyDelete
  26. It is not OK to shift people from a subsistence to a cash economy when they already have access to resources which meet their needs. People understand what their own needs are, and are often not helped by having western ideals forced upon them.
    In the case of the proposed tuna canning factory in Wewak, PNG in 2001, workers would have had to forgo the traditional lifestyle of fishing, hunting and growing crops. Is paid employment more ideal? If this means long hours and low wages, then workers often struggle to pay for living costs, education and healthcare… they were better off before!

    Kahlia Jemmett (2313174)

    ReplyDelete
  27. In the basic proposition is that subsistence cannot be replaced with dollars as the development of society, economic and environment consequences shifting subsistence to dollarizing lifestyle. Subsistence economic cannot exist at any economic entity since subsistence is an entire process of living it can only happens when the amount of resource within the community or living areas, like farming area. The poverty issues show that at economic level, decision makers and other policies cannot allow subsistence lifestyles exist in the whole economic development system, because they cannot earn profit at subsistence lifestyles. There are various environmental, social outcomes that are positively and negatively affected by the dollarization, most of those are unforeseen and changeable. It may be better that subsistence and the cash economic are dependent on each other for increased consumptions in economic level.

    Reference: Madhu.V , Robin .Runder (2010). “ Standing consumption and entrepreneurship in subsistence marketplaces”. Journal of Business Research, Vol.63(6), pp.570-581

    Fei Hua
    5774072

    ReplyDelete
  28. It is misconception to think that cash is not used in subsistence economies. In hunter-gatherer situations, money is needed to buy guns, ammunition, seeds and tools.

    In terms of the environment, cash economy regulations and policies could lead to environmental degradation. In cash economics, it is about the production of as much of a good as possible. For example, oil palm growers in Papua New guinea are experiencing land shortages because of a shift to this cash crop. To grow their food (which they would have done out of subsistence beforehand) they are forced to cultivate on environmentally sensitive or illegally secured land to survive.

    Sources:

    Curry, G. Koczberski, J. Lummani, S. Ryan, & V. Blue. Springer Netherlands (2012). Schooling for Sustainable Development: A focus on Australia, New Zealand, and the Oceanic Region.

    Andrew Miller - 5850354

    ReplyDelete
  29. An effect of globalization is that, the functioning of economies in most countries nowadays is becoming more similar, and the way of calculating wealth, e.g. the GDP is widely applied and accepted. These are then compared, and the lowly ranked countries strive to reach the standards of those with higher statistics.
    Subsistent communities like those in rural Alaska are an exception to this. For thousands of years these communities have lived in a balanced relationship with the land, the people shared food and resources amongst each other and lived sustainably. The same statistics used in cash economies cannot reflect the true state of these communities, as their unique economy functions differently. Promoting dollarization would disturb the sustainable functioning of their economy and native culture. More evidently, poverty has only more recently been introduced to these communities with the actions of planners tackling “poverty” problems. Therefore, it is better not to support dollarizing lifestyles in these circumstances.

    Melissa Chen
    1638911

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Source: Bista, Y. (2013). A report on SUBSISTENCE and the CONSERVATION OF THE YUPIK LIFE-STYLE. (Electronic source)

      Delete
  30. The commercialisation of subsistent activities and produce harvested by subsistent communities is seen as a foreign concept and an abomination to their long-held beliefs and values system.

    Today’s cash economy generally reflects industrialisation and commercialisation, where produce and ideas are ‘engineered’ at the expense of the environment and its people; impacting on subsistent and modern societies.
    Placing a monetary value on produce shifts the attitudes and production practices subsistent communities once had towards their goods. Their dependence on external influences and the environmental effects these markets bring onto communities, has brought about climate change factors which have already devastated villages and farms with landslides, flooding and other natural disasters; displacing their communities and livelihoods.

    Source: Morton, J. F. (2007). The impact of climate change on smallholder and subsistence agriculture. PNAS - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America: Food and Forest for a warming planet, 40(50), 19680-19685. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0701855104

    Andrew Poon
    ID: 5691154

    ReplyDelete
  31. Subsistence economies are more sophisticated and complex than what common definitions of the term would suggest. Case (2010) defines subsistence as a combination of cultural, social, economic and political practices.

    For Alaska Natives, preserving their subsistence practices ensures that their culture and tradition is passed on through the generations, but is also a means to which they can achieve self-determination (Case 2010). Imposing rules and regulations on such activities, or encouraging a transition out of subsistence means that, that culture will be influenced by external forces; undermining the tradition and value system that culture is based on. Such rules and regulations can put a strain on the survival of the culture.

    Therefore, negative impacts such of loss of culture far outweigh the potential benefits of a shift to a cash economy.

    Source: http://www.culturalsurvival.org/ourpublications/csq/article/will-federal-or-state-management-afford-alaska-natives-a-more-effective-

    Jacinta Naicker
    ID:1578074

    ReplyDelete
  32. Life was hard back then, but it was satisfying. Today life is easier but to how many is it satisfying?

    In subsistence, people were living in good balanced economic relationships, where they subsisted from the land and ocean. This could be seen as hard work in the eyes of the western cultures under the cash economy system. However, for the people in the Yupik culture, it was not poor living from the land, they didn't have the frustrations and stigmas of poverty. To them wealth belong to everyone, it is something that they shared provided by the earth. It is this sharing that created trust, bonds and strong relationships between the people, so they would support and provide for each other.

    However, the cash economy replaced the food, furs, trust and community bonds with cash, cooperation and competition. This system can certainly bring wealth to many but it can be devastating to some, particularly like those in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Region.

    Bista (1974) mentioned a quote by Owen Ivan and Bethel (1973) that "Subsistence is not only a cultural activity, the foundation of several of the Native groups in Alaska, without which their cultures would die. It is also the necessary economic base for their very existence." So one way of life should not have to die for another to live, in fact, the effort should be concentrated in connecting the two systems, rather than trying to place in rules and regulations to shift subsistence to cash economy, especially when there are certain aspects of life that cannot be brought with cash, for example: happiness, well-being and culture. Plus, are we actuarially becoming wealthier in this cash economy when our most valuable thing (the earth) is dyeing?

    Yupiktak Bista. (1974). A report on Subsistence and the Conservation of the Yupik Life-style. Retrieved from
    http://ankn.uaf.edu/Curriculum/Books/DoesOneWay/SUBSISTENCE%20AND%20ECONOMIC.html

    Miao Miao Zhen
    ID: 5690514

    ReplyDelete
  33. Shifting from a subsistence economy to a cash economy does have its merits, however, it should also be considered whether or not subsistence economies should be left the way they are.

    Sure having better access to healthcare and education are perks, but shifting into a cash economy has areas of downfall. Does happiness and wellbeing derive from money? In my opinion they don’t, rather from well knit communities living in harmony with their neighbours and surrounding environments. Sometimes it’s better to NOT support a shift. The shift may very well disorientate the people living in the subsistence.

    An issue can be the exhausting of natural resources, for example the fishing industry/whalers who triggered adverse effects on the Eskimo people, who depended on fish (salmon), walrus and whale to survive.

    Reference: Davidson. (1974). Does One Way of Life Have To Die So Another Can Live? A Report on Subsistence and the Conservation of the Yupik Life-Style

    Jared Bartlett
    I.D: 5695331

    ReplyDelete
  34. “Profit to non-Natives means money. Profit to Natives means a good life derived from the land and sea, that's what we are all about” - Antoinnette Helmer
    The imposing of Western world views such as market domination and profit accumulation, over the values of Indigenous cultures is ever more increasing due to development projects such as logging and mining (Ecuador tribes of the Amazon). Improved health care and education are arguments in support of a “dollarized lifestyle”, however even ‘ 1st world nations’ experience substantial problems when dealing with health care and education. A short look at history reveals the numerous negative, often unforeseen consequences which this transition brings to Indigenous cultures. Loss of habitat and wildlife, community segregation, overall loss of culture and further impoverishment are some of these consequences. Under these circumstances, it is best NOT to support such a shift, because without money, we would all be rich.

    Tsvetina Arabajieva
    ID: 5776692

    ReplyDelete
  35. Circumstances that would be better not to support putting in place rules and regulations are situations which natives are subjected to a radical change in lifestyle initiating culture shock. A shift from traditional subsistence way of life to Western consumerism would create culture shock; uncertainty to what is valuable; physiological challenges as they cope with change; inappropriate/lack of skills to be employed in the cash economy and a change in the social hierarchy. The rate of change can magnify these challenges and an inability to adapt can create a benefit dependant society that can be alcohol or drug dependant. It is a common misperception in the Western world that money produces happiness.


    Bohannan, P. (1959). The Impact of Money on an African Subsistence Economy. The Journal of Economic History. 19(4). 491-503


    John McCall
    ID: 5758304

    ReplyDelete
  36. What if the cure of cancer was in the brain of someone who could not afford education? This saying could be related to having a cash economy as the increase in income levels would help those who could not afford education (or adequate healthcare needs). However in order to achieve this, those who are less fortunate (mainly the indigenous people) would find it hard to adapt to a "cash economy" life style. Their ways of living and cultural wellbeing would change. This change may potentially be for the greatest good as society may have great benefits of their work in an non-subsistence level. It is important that the shift to those specific individuals who can gain better education does not effect the way their community perceives them.

    Zak Nasir
    1262096

    ReplyDelete