Statistical equality and cultural difference in Indigenous wellbeing frameworks: A new expression of an enduring debate

Abstract

Recent years have seen a burgeoning interest in developing indicator frameworks for 'Indigenous wellbeing'. Implicit in each of the frameworks are particular conceptions of what constitutes the 'good life' for Indigenous peoples and what 'Indigenous development' should entail. In developing these frameworks, then, certain judgements must be made about whether statistical equality should be prioritised as a 'development' goal. This issue has generated long-standing debate and in this context must be broached anew. In this paper we briefly examine the growing interest in Indigenous wellbeing and outline three prominent indicator frameworks: the Productivity Commission's indicators for 'Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage'; the 'capability indicators' developed by the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership; and the indicators of wellbeing developed by the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. The first prioritises statistical equality between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians; the second adds a concern with 'capabilities'; and the last emphasises the importance of distinct cultural preferences. We offer an assessment of these approaches, drawing in part on Amartya Sen's work. We argue that in seeking to improve the wellbeing of Indigenous Australians, policy-makers should not only make their own normative assumptions clear, but also be aware of the implications of their decisions for constituents with different worldviews.Statistical equality and cultural difference in Indigenous wellbeing frameworks: A new expression of an enduring debate

The Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander enumeration and engagement strategies: challenges and future options

“…The literature indicates that this challenge is best addressed through partnerships between indigenous peoples and official agencies, for mutual benefit (Wereta & Bishop 2006;Jordan et al 2010;Yu 2011;Bruhn 2014: 16). A common priority should be to ensure that communities have access to and a voice in the governance of data concerning them (Bruhn 2014: 25-6).…”

Recognition and indigenizing official statistics: Reflections from Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia

“…This gap is demonstrated not only by the inappropriateness of some measures, such as those pertaining to Indigenous geographical diversity, but also a critical divide between Indigenous and non-Indigenous understandings of key concepts. For example, Taylor [7] and others [57] have pointed to the ontologically embedded differences in how the concept of well-being are understood. For Māori and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples the concept of well-being goes well beyond individual or even family physical, mental and economic health.…”

Organisational Capacity for Engaging with Indigenous Australians

“…With transfer of welfare responsibilities from the state to private, corporate and not‐for‐profit agencies (Mendes, ), a shift towards indicator‐driven performance organisations across the welfare and service delivery sectors (Gray, ) and a powerful commitment by Australian governments to measuring and closing the gap between Indigenous and non‐Indigenous Australians on a variety of key indicators (health, employment, housing, etc.) (Altman et al ., ; Commonwealth of Australia, ; Ingamells, ; Jordan et al ., ), community capacity building became an important key word in Indigenous affairs (Australian National Audit Office, ). Its emergence as a key word, however, has been less obvious in practice, and this draws attention to the capacity of key institutions to lead change in Indigenous development.…”