Indigenous Policies and Inequalities : Sámi Rights and Sámi Realities in Norway and Sweden

Abstract

There is a broad international consensus about the importance of states recognizing Indigenous rights, and the number of them making respective policy provisions is steadily increasing. At the same time, across the world, Indigenous peoples still face considerable levels of inequality—in material, political, and social terms—in comparison to their countries’ ethnic majority populations. So how effective are states’ policies in realizing Indigenous rights, and what are the implications for the Indigenous people concerned? In my dissertation, I explore this question by analyzing the situation of the Indigenous Sámi people in Norway and Sweden. This constitutes a unique case of one Indigenous people living in two affluent welfare states renowned for their comparatively low levels of economic inequality. Furthermore, the two countries differ considerably in how their policies implement Sámi rights, as Norwegian Sámi policies are generally more advanced in this respect. In the first research article—An Efficacious Remedy for Status Inequality? Indigenous Policies in Norway and Sweden (accepted for publication in Politics, Groups, and Identities)—I ask whether these policy differences are linked to differences in social status perceptions. I argue that policies directed toward Indigenous people reflect the respect and esteem politics and society show for that group. Consequently, Indigenous people should perceive higher status inequality when policies advance their rights to a lesser extent. The empirical results show that in Sweden, significant gaps exist between the ethnic majority’s and the Sámi’s perceptions of social status. The latter have comparatively low perceptions of both their individual socioeconomic position and the Sámi’s collective cultural status in Sweden’s society. In Norway, by contrast, I find no evidence that having a Sámi identity is correlated with lower status perceptions. In the second article—Beyond the Obvious: A Nordic Tale of the Raveled Relationship Between Political Inequality and Indigenous People’s Satisfaction with Democracy (under review at Ethnic and Racial Studies)—I focus on inequality in the political dimension. As the recognition of Indigenous rights alters the relationship between Indigenous people and the state, stronger recognition provides Indigenous people with more collective political power. But does it also contribute to Indigenous people’s satisfaction with democracy? Based on conceptual research on how satisfaction with democracy is formed, I argue that it depends on whether Indigenous matters are politicized and play a relevant role in national politics. I assume that if Indigenous issues lack political relevance, questions about Indigenous people’s rights and political influence are less likely to feature in Indigenous people’s conceptions of how a democracy should ideally work. Hence, they should also be less likely to affect Indigenous people’s satisfaction with the actual state of democracy. Empirically, I find that Swedes with an ethnic Sámi background have virtually similar satisfaction levels as their ethnic-majority compatriots. In Norway, by contrast, there is a considerable gap in how satisfied the groups are with the way democracy works. Despite arguably facing less political inequality, Norwegian Sámi’s lower satisfaction levels are closely associated with their evaluations of Sámi’s political influence. In the third research article—Divided Attitudes Toward Rectifying Injustice: How Preferences for Indigenous Policies Differ Between the Indigenous and Majority Populations of Norway and Sweden (published in The Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics)—I use original survey vignettes to find out about people’s views on different Sámi policies. That way, I explore whether policy preferences differ between the Sámi and ethnic majority populations of the two countries. Intergroup relationship theories predict that the latter would be hesitant to support policies substantially advancing Sámi rights, for which the former should have strong preferences. In my analysis, I find that—on average—ethnic majority respondents prefer policies that realize Sámi rights only to a limited extent. Yet, they do not categorically oppose any recognition of Sámi rights. Sámi respondents, on the other hand, show the highest support for policies that would contribute to status equality between the two groups. Overall, there are hardly any differences between Norwegian and Swedish respondents’ preferences, suggesting that the countries’ actual Sámi policies do not play a significant role in their formation. These three studies extend the current state of research in various important ways. They contribute to the knowledge about Sámi’s social and political realities in Norway and Sweden and advance the research about Indigenous policies’ consequences—particularly regarding perceptions of inequality. Finally, for the literature concerning ethnic inequality in general, they provide a novel focus on the challenges of achieving between-group equality in advanced democracies devoid of ethnic conflict.