Demographic dynamism demands targeted policy responses

 

Simply the thing I am

Shall make me live.

All’s Well That Ends Well, Act 4, iii.

 

I’ve written previously about the demographic trends shaping Australian Indigenous policy and drawn out a series of policy implications (link here). One of the points made by the ABS spokesperson quoted in that post related to the explanation for the substantial growth in the Indigenous population between 2016 and 2021 (185, 000 or 23 percent, compared to a 5 percent increase in the general population). The spokesperson noted that the Indigenous population changes were ‘partly explained by changing identification over time’. She gave no estimate of the relative significance of new identifiers in contributing to the ongoing population growth.

 

In their 2018 research paper Indigenous identification change between 2011 and 2016: evidence from the Australian Census Longitudinal Dataset, ANU researchers Nicholas Biddle and Francis Markham (link here) estimated that in 2016:

The net increase from identification change was therefore estimated to be 84 607, or 13.7% of the in-scope Indigenous population in 2011.

 

One of the points I made in my earlier blog post was that:

no Australian Government appears seriously focussed on exploring the linkages and implications for policy of the rapidly changing demography of Indigenous Australia. Over the past two censuses the ABS has provided a window into what amounts to an ongoing revolution in the demographic shape of Indigenous Australia, but the response from policymakers on what this means and how they intend to respond has been determined silence.

 

A recent academic discussion paper titled American Indian Casinos and Native American Self-Identification (link here) shines a light on the relationship between population dynamics and economic opportunity through an analysis of the relationship between the flow of benefits from casino ownership and the  incentives to self-identify as native American. This paper, by economists Francisca Antman and Brian Duncan of the University of Colorado reinforces the potential significance of institutional policy incentives in shaping demographic change, albeit in the US context.

 

The paper is of interest to Australians not for any direct analytic correlations (the institutional contexts in the US and here are significantly different), but for the deeper implications that are raised by the analysis. In particular, it examines the possible drivers of the significant shifts in self-identification amongst Native Americans over the past few decades. In turn, this raises the question, what is driving the parallel shifts in self-identification in Australia (noting that there are no casinos on Indigenous owned land in Australia).

 

The abstract of the paper states (inter alia)

This paper links Native American racial self-identification with the rise in tribal gaming across the United States. We find that state policy changes allowing tribes to open casinos are associated with an increase in the probability that individuals with American Indian ancestors will self-identify as Native American and a decrease in the probability that individuals with no [documented] American Indian ancestry will self-identify as Native American. … These results are consistent with a conceptual framework in which we tie racial identification to economic motivations as well as social stigma associated with affiliating with a racial group for those without documented ancestral ties. Our results underscore the importance of economic incentives and social factors underlying the individual choice of racial identity.

 

The conclusion notes (inter alia):

By linking Native American self-identification rates with the rise of tribal gaming, this paper offers one explanation for the dramatic changes observed in the number of individuals identifying as Native American since 1990. We find that the signing of the first tribal-state gaming compact is associated with a significant increase in the probability of self-identifying as Native American for individuals with American Indian ancestry... At the same time, we find that the same policy change is associated with a decrease in the probability of self-identifying as Native American for individuals without [documented] American Indian ancestry…

… While the magnitudes of our estimates are large, so are the overall changes in racial identification of the Native American population which have been documented elsewhere (Liebler et al. 2014; 2016, 2017). This suggests that the economic factors explored here may play an important role in this important demographic shift…

… Nevertheless, these results break new ground in linking racial identity and economic incentives, and should raise concerns for policymakers and researchers alike given widespread interest in monitoring the persistence of racial gaps in socioeconomic outcomes and how they are impacted by changes in policy. Not only can racial self-reports change over time, but, as seen in this study, dramatic demographic responses to policies are possible over even a relatively short period of time. It is also important to note that while we have focused on casino openings that confer positive net economic benefits on populations with strong ties to minority groups and thus increase their likelihood of identifying with the group, we expect that the opposite result would hold if negative economic effects were predominant. Thus, in contexts where discrimination in employment, education, and mistreatment by society overall prevail, the affected populations of self-identified racial groups could actually fall.

 

The paper identifies limitations to the analysis and potential alternative explanations (social rather than economic factors) for the extraordinary growth in self-identification amongst Native Americans since 1990. Nevertheless, the data on the growth in casino compacts on native American land since 1990 is enormous, totalling 780 new approvals (see Figure 1, page 48), and the parallel shifts in self-identification over the same period are difficult to ignore. The authors quote research that suggests that around 40 percent of the self-identified native American population in 2000 had not identified in 1990 and that the native American population almost doubled between 2010 and 2020 (pages 2-3). These dynamics mirror the demographic shifts underway in Australia.

 

So what insights and conclusions should we take away from this comparative analysis of US demographic developments and the demographic shifts underway in Australia?

 

First, there is to my knowledge no recent detailed research exploring the underlying causes of the demographic shifts underway across Indigenous Australia. There is a strong case for policymakers in Australia to commission research that seeks to understand these dynamics better. The US research suggests that we should look for economic explanations as well as social and political explanations.

 

Second, the US research persuasively makes the case for native American demography being much more dynamic than is generally recognised (especially amongst policymakers). The same conclusion probably applies here in Australia.

 

Third, the US research argues that while the incentives for self-identification are currently positive, they are not fixed, and under different circumstances — where discrimination in employment, education, and mistreatment by society overall prevail —  might also operate in a negative manner. This conclusion has considerable intuitive appeal, but raises a paradox in the Australian context at least. The 2022 Reconciliation Barometer reports that the percentage of the First Nations sample in their survey who have not experienced at least one form of racial prejudice in the last six months has steadily dropped from 61 to 40 percent over the past eight years (link here: page 15). Yet if increasing discrimination drives non-identification, why is the trend in Australia towards greater identification?

 

Fourth, notwithstanding its appreciation of the innate dynamism of demography, the US research arguably under-emphasises (ignores) the likelihood that new identifiers are the descendants of individuals and families that previously hid or downplayed their native American ancestry. In other words, the recent spike in identification may be a delayed correction to an earlier fall. This may well be a factor in Australia as well.

 

Fifth, if economic factors are at play in driving greater identification in Australia, what institutional shifts might be at play? One possibility may be the adoption of Indigenous procurement policies by Australian Governments. While they appear to have had a significant impact, I am not aware of any independent research or evaluations that demonstrate this unequivocally. It is probably time for governments and policymakers to commission a truly independent assessment of these policy initiatives to ensure that the various schemes can move to the next stage. See this 2015 blog on the IPP (link here). Alternatively, if the causes are social in nature, it is not immediately obvious what might be driving this shift. Perhaps the most plausible candidate may be the increased role of identity in our multicultural society?

 

Sixth, the most important implication of the cross national evidence for significant demographic dynamism within Indigenous populations is to point to the importance of policymakers incorporating an appreciation of ‘denominator effects’ in assessing and analysing statistical indicators in policy frameworks such as closing the gap. In particular, there is a risk that the political imperative for policy action related to poor and disadvantaged Indigenous citizens will be attenuated by a growth in the number of middle class ‘new identifiers’. In turn this suggests that looking forward, there will be an imperative for both policymakers and Indigenous advocates to focus greater attention on cohorts within the Indigenous population who are vulnerable to extreme disadvantage, rather than focussing on data and indicators that are framed as averages or adopt overarching perspectives.

 

Indigenous Australia is heterogenous with substantial differences deriving from geographical location, income distribution structure, age structure, and family structures to name just a few of the sources of internal difference. Increasingly, good policy will be defined by its capability to simultaneously address heterogeneity as well as the overarching shared experience of indigeneity. This is an important policy agenda for the future. The most obvious area requiring greater focus by policymakers is the intersection of disadvantage in its various forms and remoteness as this is the area most at risk from the current shifts in the demographic characteristics of the Indigenous policy domain.