I found the article Globalization and Economies of the North to be a very interesting read in this module. I have often questioned the vast disparity between the massively profitable industries in the Alaskan Arctic (mining, oil pipeline work, etc,) and the small villages in the area that are locked in an economic struggle. The three main reasons for this stood out to me, the first being that residents often to not have access to the job market of the north- many of the highly profitable jobs require technical training that the remote villages are not able to offer. Secondly, the outrageously high costs of living in these areas limit the growth of market activities. Such high costs of food, fuel, and heat continue the traditional reliance on subsistence based living. Being that many of the jobs are seasonal/ on site living and working, many people from local communities are unable to months of time off of their subsistence season to go work- even if the job is profitable. I think looking at the difference between international economies and natural resource export and local economies importance on natural resources very interesting and a subject that should be touched on. They are so closely intertwined, and yet have such a widely different scope.
The paradox of these two economies, intertwined and oppositional, stood out to me during this week’s readings as well. The Arctic is not a pastoral landscape untouched by globalization and capitalist market forces, and this does put longstanding indigenous ways of life and necessary methods for survival at odds with western concepts of livelihood and success. Subsistence lifestyles are intertwined with market forces. This reading mentioned that according to a 1995 paper “households with access to relatively high-cash incomes are often the most productive in the traditional economy.” This, in retrospective, is obvious—-a four wheeler and a gun are more effective tools for harvest than more analog options, but require capital. Climate change means previous subsistence methods (example: dog teams fed by plentiful chum harvest) are no longer viable, so adherence to a market economy is more and more advantageous to/necessary for maintaining traditional lifestyles. Resettlement in larger communities may mean more affordable administration, but cuts indigenous people off from traditional activities. I found the article’s description of indigenous land claim settlements as a “success story” curious, as the common understanding of the corporation structure in Alaska would tend towards evidence of a legacy of colonialism as opposed to successful self-governance of resources.
It is unfortunate that those indigenous to the north are often not able to find work in those profitable arctic industries. It feels rather colonial to me, that people move up here to extract resources and profit without any consideration for helping those in the community. The amount of slope workers that are not even from Alaska is insane.