Tribal nations have entered an era of nation building or the process by which a native nation enhances its foundational capacity for effective self-governance and self-determination. While many tribal nations have become more economically secure in recent years, legitimacy has remained elusive for some. Successful tribal nations, alongside struggling nations, often endure setbacks as citizens question and critique all actions of the tribal government. Focusing on developing legitimacy-building institutions will assist tribal nations not only gain validity in the eyes of their citizens, but also reconnect with the values of their community. This article suggests that tribal nations should re-evaluate their governing institutions to seek ways to insert culturally relevant legitimacy-building institutions, provides several best practices, and articulates ways in which the discipline of public affairs can help facilitate native nation building.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anonymous. (1972). Tribal Self-Government and the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. Michigan Law Review, 70(5), 955–979. doi:10.2307/1287800
BarshR. (1999). The challenge of indigenous self-determination. In WunderJ. (Eds.), Native american sovereignty (pp. 129–157). New York, NY: Garland Publishing, Inc.
4.
BeayM.CornellS. (2003). What is cultural match and why is it so important? Unpublished presentation to Indigenous Governance Conference, Jabiru, Australia, November 5 (on file with author).
5.
CajeteG. A. (1999). The American Indian learner and bicultural science education. In SwisherK.TippeconnicJ. (Eds.), Next steps: Research and practice to advance Indian education (pp. 135–160). Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse.
6.
CarlisleR.GoldsonJ. G. (Eds.). (2007). Native America from prehistory to first contact. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
7.
CarpenterD. P.KrauseG. (2002). Reputation and public administration, Public Administration Review, 27(1), 26–32.
8.
CarrizalesT. (2010). Exploring cultural competency within the public affairs curriculum. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 16(4), 593–606.
ChristensenT.LaegreidP.RykkjaL. (2016). Organizing for crisis management: Building governance capacity and legitimacy. Public Administration Review, 76(6), 887–897. doi:10.1111/puar.2016.76.issue-6
CornellS.KaltJ. (1992). Reloading the dice: Improving the chances for economic development on American Indian reservations. In CornellS.KaltJ. (Eds.), What Can Tribes Do?: Strategies and Institutions in American Indian Economic Development (pp. 1–59). Los Angeles, CA: American Indian Studies Center, UCLA.
15.
CornellS.KaltJ. (1998). Sovereignty and nation building: Development challenge in Indian Country today (PRS 98-25). The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development. Retrieved fromhttp://hpaied.org/sites/default/files/publications/PRS98-25.pdf
16.
CornellS.KaltJ. (2000). Where’s the glue: Institutional and cultural foundations of American Indian economic development. Journal of Socio-Economics, 29, 443–470. doi:10.1016/S1053-5357(00)00080-9
17.
CornellS.KaltJ. (2007). Two approaches to the development of native nations: One works, the other doesn’t. In JorgensenM. (Ed.), Rebuilding native Nations: Strategies for governance and development (pp. 3–33). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
18.
DavidsonB. (1992). The black man’s burden: Africa and the curse of the nation-state. New York, NY: Times Books.
19.
DeMallieR. (1978). Pine ridge economy: Cultural and historical perspectives. In StanelyS. (Eds.), American Indian economic development (pp. 237–312). The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton Publishers.
DowlingC. (2005). The applied theory of first nations economic development: A critique. Journal of Aboriginal Economic Development, 4(2), 120–128.
23.
DulleaH. (1997). Decision 1997: constitutional change in New York. Albany, NY: Rockefeller Press.
24.
Edwards-AndersonD. (2014). Renewing the Oyate: Dakota Language and Cultural Revitalization and Commemorations of the U.S.-Dakota War, 1962-2012 (MA Thesis: City University of New York). Retrieved fromhttp://academicworks.cuny.edu/cc_etds_theses/267/
25.
Flies-AwayJ.GarrowC.JorgensenM. (2007). Native nation courts: Key players in nation rebuilding. In JorgensenM. (Ed), Rebuilding native nations: Strategies for governance and development (pp. 115–145). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
GilleyB. (2009). The right to rule: How states win and lose legitimacy. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
28.
Government Accountability Office. (2006). BIA’s efforts to impose time frames and collect better data should improve the processing of land in trust applications (GAO-06-781). Washington, DC: Government Publishing Office.
29.
HainesR.WishartD. (2011). Tribal governments, contemporary. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska.
KaltJ. (2007). The role of constitutions. In JorgensenM. (Ed.), Rebuilding native nations: Strategies for governance and development (pp. 78–114). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
35.
LeeY. (2016, September). Resolving the conflicting effects of transparency and trust in Government. Paper presentation at American Political Science Association Conference. Philadelphia, PA: APSA.
36.
LemontE. (2001a). Developing Effective Process of American Indian Constitutional and Governmental Reform: Lessons from the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Hualapai Nation, Navajo Nation, and Norther Cheyenne Tribe. American Indian Law Review, 26(2), 147–176. doi:10.2307/20070679
Lopez-LittletonV.BlessettB. (2015). A framework for integrating cultural competency into the curriculum of public administration programs. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 21(4), 557–574.
McloughlinC. (2015). Researching state legitimacy: A political approach to a political problem. Birmingham, UK: Developmental Leadership Program.
42.
MeriamL., Brown, R., Cloud, H., Dale, E., Edwards, H., McKenzie, F., Mark, M., Ryan, W. C., & Spillman, W. (1928). The problem of Indian Administration: Report of a survey made at the request of honorable hubert work, secretary of the interior. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution (formerly Institute for Government Research).
43.
MeyerJ.RowanB. (1992). Institutional organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. In MeyerJ.ScottW. R. (Eds.), Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
44.
MeyerJ.ScottW. R. (1992). Centralization and the legitimacy problems of local government. In MeyerJ.ScottW. R. (Eds.), Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality (pp. 200–202). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
RothsteinB. (2009). Political legitimacy: Electoral democracy versus quality of government. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(3), 311–330. doi:10.1177/0002764209338795
54.
RothsteinB.TeorellJ. (2008). What is quality of government? A theory of impartial government institutions. Governance: an International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 21(2), 165–190. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0491.2008.00391.x
55.
SawardM. (1992). Co-Optive politics and state legitimacy. Aldershot, UK: Dartmouth Publishing.
56.
SkariA. (1992). The tribal judiciary: A primer for policy development. In CornellS.KaltJ. (Eds.), What can tribes do?: Strategies and Institutions in American Indian Economic Development (pp. 93–131). Los Angeles, CA: American Indian Studies Center, UCLA.
57.
SpildeK. (2004). Cabazon, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and the Socioeconomic consequences of American Indian Governmental Gaming: A Case Study: Cultivating New Opportunities: Tribal Government Gaming on the Pechanga Reservation. The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development. Retrieved fromhttp://hpaied.org/sites/default/files/publications/NIGACaseStudyPechanga.pdf.
58.
SullivanP. (2012). Indigenous governance: The Harvard Project, Australian Aboriginal Organizations and Cultural Subsidiarity. In A.Prasad (Ed.), Against the grain: Advances in postcolonial organization studies (pp. 95–115). Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen Business School Press.
WallS. (2010). The State Of Indigenous America Series: Federalism, Indian policy, and the patterns of history. Wicazo Sa Review, 25(1), 5–16. doi:10.1353/wic.0.0051
61.
WaplesK. (2012). Extreme Rubber-Stamping: The fee-to-trust process of the Indian reorganization act of 1934 (Comment). Pepperdine Law Review, 30(251), 251–334.
62.
WeberM. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. (G. Rother. and C. Wittich, Trans.)Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
63.
WeigandF. (2015). Investigating the role of legitimacy in the political order of conflict-torn spaces. London, England: London School of Economics and Political Science’s International Development.
