Connecting Native American. Economic Development & History. □ According to
the 2000 Census,. □ For those 25 and older, 33.1% have less than a high ...
Native American Economic History U.S. Economic History Econ 4524 Dustin Frye
Connecting Native American Economic Development & History ¤ According to the 2000 Census, ¤ For those 25 and older, 33.1% have less than a high school education, compared to 19.6% nation wide ¤ The poverty rate is 25.7%, compared to 12.4% nation wide ¤ Median earnings of Native Americans are 22% lower than the national average. ¤ Native American life expectancy is 5 years less than the national average. ¤ Deaths rates are significantly higher in several areas: ¤ Alcoholism – 514% ¤ Diabetes – 177%
¤ Before we can understand how to fully address these issues, it’s important to understand why and how these areas developed like they did.
Features of Native American Reservations ¤ Tribal Organization & Sovereignty ¤ Legal Differences ¤ Casinos ¤ Different Institutions
¤ Agriculture and Resource Dependence ¤ Typically rural areas ¤ Water rights ¤ Mining, Fishing ¤ Agriculture
Land Allotment Timing During the Dawes Act
General Allotment Act of 1887 ¤ Divided reservation land into parcels and assigned each tribal member a lot ¤ Initially a 25 year trust before receiving title
¤ Excess land made available for public purchase ¤ Proceeds placed in a government trust
¤ Executive branch designated reservations open for allotment ¤ Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 ends the Allotment Era ¤ Trust land frozen
Dawes Timing ¤ Allotment timing was instrumental in forming the property rights structure on reservations today ¤ Early allotment dates led to more land leaving trust status ¤ Later allotment dates resulted in more remaining in trust status
¤ Results in a mosaic of land tenures on reservations ¤ Fee-Simple, Individual Trust, Tribal Trust & Federal Trust
Dawes Today ¤ This land tenure structure is still found on reservations today
¤ Anderson & Lueck (1992) ¤ Land tenure types have different agricultural productivities ¤ Individual Trust is 30-40% less productive than Fee-Simple ¤ Tribal Trust is 85-90% less productive than Fee-Simple
Data and Empirics ¤ County Level Census Data 1880, 1890, 1900 & 1910 ¤ Allotment and Baseline Reservation Information from the Bureau of Indian Affairs ¤ Hazard Model with local farming, demographic and reservation characteristics and regional farming and demographic characteristics
¤ Which characteristics are associated with motivating allotment timing?
Reservation Locations
Hazard Models ¤ I estimate Hazard Models to exploit variation in the timing of allotment ¤ Analysis of the length of time until “failure”
¤ The hazard rate at a particular time is the rate at which a duration of a particular event ends, conditional on having lasted until that time. ¤ The parameters indicate whether or not the characteristics of interest affected the “risk” or timing of allotment.
Survival Functions
0
.25
.5
.75
1
Kaplan-Meier survival estimate
0
10
20 30 analysis time 95% CI
40
Survivor function
50
Survival Functions
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Kaplan-Meier survival estimates
0
10
20
30
40
50
analysis time areaoffice = Aberdeen areaoffice = Billings areaoffice = Sacramento areaoffice = Portland areaoffice = Misc. Eastern
areaoffice = Andarko & Muskogee areaoffice = Minneapolis areaoffice = Gallup areaoffice = Phoenix
Preliminary Results Demographic,and,Agricultural,Factors,that,Influence,Allotment,Timing Exponential (2) (3) 90.797*** (0.165) Share0of0Whites 92.049*** (0.668) Share0of0Improved0Acreage 90.490** (0.206) Acres0of0Farmland0per0Sq0Mi 0.987*** (0.173) Original0Reservation0Size 0.228*** 0.339*** (0.0623) (0.0768) Farm0Value0per0Acre 1.733*** (0.301) Year0Reservation0Established 90.00603*** 90.0111*** (0.000421) (0.00106) Neighboring0County Population0Density 0.893*** (0.141) Share0of0Whites 3.265* (1.962) Share0of0Improved0Acreage 2.325*** (0.319) Acres0of0Farmland0per0Sq0Mi 90.850*** (0.109) Farm0Value0per0Acre 91.490*** (0.170) Observations 450 450 491 Reservation0County Population0Density
(1) 0.216*** (0.0683) 92.373** (0.972)
(4) 90.861*** (0.198) 93.130*** (0.729) 0.214 (0.346) 1.425*** (0.293) 0.399*** (0.0855) 1.423*** (0.547) 90.0114*** (0.00114) 90.0272 (0.309) 9.689** (4.104) 91.190*** (0.456) 90.568 (0.348) 0.466 (0.573) 450
Positive and Negative coefficients indicate whether it increases or decreases the hazard of allotment or the “likelihood” of allotment
Preliminary Results Demographic,and,Agricultural,Factors,that,Influence,Allotment,Timing Exponential (2) (3) 90.797*** (0.165) Share0of0Whites 92.049*** (0.668) Share0of0Improved0Acreage 90.490** (0.206) Acres0of0Farmland0per0Sq0Mi 0.987*** (0.173) Original0Reservation0Size 0.228*** 0.339*** (0.0623) (0.0768) Farm0Value0per0Acre 1.733*** (0.301) Year0Reservation0Established 90.00603*** 90.0111*** (0.000421) (0.00106) Neighboring0County Population0Density 0.893*** (0.141) Share0of0Whites 3.265* (1.962) Share0of0Improved0Acreage 2.325*** (0.319) Acres0of0Farmland0per0Sq0Mi 90.850*** (0.109) Farm0Value0per0Acre 91.490*** (0.170) Observations 450 450 491 Reservation0County Population0Density
(1) 0.216*** (0.0683) 92.373** (0.972)
(4) 90.861*** (0.198) 93.130*** (0.729) 0.214 (0.346) 1.425*** (0.293) 0.399*** (0.0855) 1.423*** (0.547) 90.0114*** (0.00114) 90.0272 (0.309) 9.689** (4.104) 91.190*** (0.456) 90.568 (0.348) 0.466 (0.573) 450
Positive and Negative coefficients indicate whether it increases or decreases the hazard of allotment or the “likelihood” of allotment
Result Summary ¤ Agricultural variables, like farm value per acre and the share of farm land in a county seem to favor earlier allotment timing. ¤ Some of the demographic variables suggest that political organization was important. ¤ Initial reservation characteristics suggests larger reservations and younger reservations led to earlier allotment dates.
Leasing, Law and Land Tenure: Understanding the Impact of the LongTerm Leasing Act of 1955
Review of Native American Land Tenure ¤ Reservation land is divided into four-types ¤ Fee-Simple ¤ Individual Trust ¤ Tribal Trust ¤ Federal Trust
Paper Overview ¤ Use a new reservation level panel dataset ¤ Examine national and regional trends in land tenure
¤ Explore how the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act (LTLA) of 1955 changed the flow of land between tenure types ¤ Significant changes to the growth rates of individual trust land and fee-simple land
¤ Test for differential impacts of the LTLA by allotment dates ¤ Suggests that heirship may be a major mechanism through which the LTLA is impacting land holding behavior
Reservation Map
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
Shares of Native American Land Tenures 1939 to 1978
1940
1950
1960 Year
1970
Share of Indiv. Trust
Share of Tribal Trust
Share of Federal Trust
Share of Fee-Simple
Verticle line represents the passage of the Long-Term Leasing Act in 1955. Sources: See Data Appendix
1980
Heirship
¤ With each subsequent generation the fraction of ownership for any single individual falls exponentially. ¤ Particularly problematic for individual trust land ¤ Organization costs
¤ Leasing individual trust land has higher future costs ¤ As a result, marginal owners choose to sell now
Indian Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955 ¤ All new leases and renewals on individual or tribal trust land require BIA approval ¤ Before LTLA – Administrative costs, Heirship Issues
¤ Expanded maximum lease length for individual and tribal trust from 5 years to 25 years ¤ Now organizational costs related to heirship are distributed over a longer time horizon ¤ In the short-run, the discounted present value of leasing individual trust land increases ¤ Expect slower flow of land from individual trust to fee-simple
Empirical Specification Seemingly Unrelated Regression
¤ TenurePctChange ¤ Avg. Percentage change from period t-i to t for a given tenure type
¤ LTLA=1 if year>1957 ¤ Predictions: ¤ Tribal Trust land becomes more desirable after LTLA: β3 >0 ¤ Reduction in flow of land to fee-simple: β3
