Community-based entrepreneurship in Norway

Transcription

Community-based
entrepreneurship in Norway
Leo Paul Dana
Abstract: Until the middle of the twentieth century, a self-employed Sámi
reindeer herder in Norway could subsist on 250 reindeer. These were
owned individually but cared for collectively by means of flexible entrepreneurial networks. Human existence reflected the needs of herds, and
rather than manage their reindeer, herders read their cues and followed
the herds. Flexibility was the key to success. Non-breeding male reindeer
were useful in that they helped females find food in winter. When an animal was slaughtered, care was taken to minimize pain and avoid waste;
every part of a reindeer was used. Today, snowmobiles, GPS technology,
helicopters and increased regulation are transforming the sector. Reindeer
herders, interviewed for this article, have been adapting successfully to
technological, regulatory and other changes. Yet they are concerned that,
if herding is reduced to an element of the food industry, the essence and
efficiency of their community-based, symbiotic entrepreneurship will be
undermined. The reindeer remain a symbol for the Sámi. However, while
reindeer herders are attracted or pulled towards traditional community
entrepreneurship, many are forced or pushed into secondary money-driven
enterprises, less close to their tradition.
Keywords: community entrepreneurship; indigenous; self-employment;
reindeer; Norway; Sámi
Professor Leo Paul Dana is with the Department of Management, University of Canterbury, Private
Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand. He is currently on study leave at the GSCM-Montpellier
Business School, France. E-mail: [email protected].
Say (1816, pp 28–29) defined the entrepreneur as the
agent who ‘unites all means of production and who
finds in the value of the products…the re-establishment
of the entire capital he employs, …as well as the profits
belonging to himself’. Using this definition, this paper is
based on an ethnographic study conducted in Norway,
the objective of which was to observe and to gather
knowledge about Sámi1 entrepreneurs in the reindeer
herding sector.
The reindeer (Rangifer tarandus)2 has historically
been important to the survival of several peoples of the
Arctic. As noted by Turi (2000, p 131), ‘The importance
of reindeer breeding in the Arctic areas cannot be
overstated’. Today, reindeer herding is practised by
100,000 people from at least 20 ethnic minorities spread
across the northern circumpolar region (Turi, 2002).
Among the non-indigenous people to engage in reindeer
herding are Finns, Jakuts, Komis, Norwegians and
Russians. The activity takes place across Sápmi, and
also in Alaska, Canada, China, Greenland, Mongolia
and Scotland.
The Sámi people are the indigenous nation of Sápmi
(formerly known as Lapland), covering northern
Finland, Norway and Sweden, and Russia’s Kola
Peninsula. There are over 80,000 Sámi people, more
than half of whom reside in Norway (Sara, 2000). In
Norway, the Sámi comprise 96% of the population of
Guovdageaidnu3/Kautokeino, 94% of Kárášjohka/
ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 9, No 2, 2008, pp 77–92
77
Karasjok, 75% of Unjárga/Nesseby and 53% of Deatnu/
Tana.
Norway has six reindeer pasture areas, each managed
by an area board authorized to grant licences. The
Norwegian Reindeer Husbandry Administration (part of
the Royal Ministry of Agriculture) serves as executive
and secretariat for these boards. The pasture areas are
divided into 90 reindeer pasture districts, each managed
by a district committee, and the number of reindeer
allowed in a district is controlled, thereby restricting
growth. Only Sámi people are permitted to herd in these
districts. For non-Sámi people who wish to take part in
reindeer herding, there are special concession areas in
southern Norway.
Among the Sámi people, reindeer herding takes the
form of community-based entrepreneurship that often
includes the extended family (see Figure 1). According
to the view of the Norwegian anthropologist Frederik
Barth (1960, p 82), the word ‘community’ is used ‘to
designate a local group of variable size, recognized by
the people themselves as a unit’. Reindeer are individually owned, but herding remains a community effort; a
sii’dâ informally unites people into a working community that functions by consensus. This corresponds to
what Peterson (1988, p 2) described as the
Communitarianism Prototype: ‘The community is more
than the sum of the individuals in it…The relatedness of
all things is recognized.’ While the sii’dâ is the traditional unit of community-based reindeer herding, the
husbandry unit [driftsenhet] is the legal basis of husbandry organization in modern Norway; a driftsenhet is
defined as a flock owned and run by one accountable
manager. It is to the driftsenhet that licences are issued.
As the trend towards modernization increases the
need for cash, the sii’dâ and community-based reindeer
herding risk being replaced by money-driven enterprises. This paper will reveal research findings
indicating that while reindeer herders are attracted or
pulled towards this traditional form of community
Figure 1. Extended family works together.
78
entrepreneurship, many are forced or pushed into
secondary enterprises, less close to their tradition.
Where the indigenous population’s traditions and forms
of production meet the institutions of the market
economy, conflicts are on the rise. Although reindeer
herding has traditionally been central to the entrepreneurship sector of Norway’s indigenous people, recent
changes have transformed this occupation.
Jernsletten and Klokov (2002, p 90) explained that
although ‘the number of reindeer in Norway has decreased from around 218,000 reindeer in 1992 … down
to 165,000 in 2001’, there are still over 2,500 reindeer
owners in Norway. According to the Norwegian Reindeer Husbandry Administration, about 3,000 Sámi in
Norway own almost 200,000 reindeer. Lee et al (2000, p
103) noted, ‘Unlike in Finland, where reindeer are
controlled by fences, in Norway reindeer are allowed to
roam freely and are less protected from predators’. In
the Vest-Finnmark region of Norway, there are some
fences in a few of the autumn pastures, primarily to
control movement between parallel parcels
(nourtabealli, gaskajohtolat ja oarjabealli).
Historical overview of the Sámi
In former times, the Sámi people were commonly
referred to as Lapps. Clarke (1824b, p 169) wrote,
‘Perhaps their cunning may be principally due to the
necessity they are under constantly upon their guard, lest
they be maltreated; the people considering them as an
inferior order of beings in the creation, and thinking it
lawful to make them the objects of contempt and
ridicule, using their very name, Lapp, as a term of
degradation’.
Whitaker (1955, p 25) noted, ‘a Lapp was defined as
a person of Lappish origin whose father or mother, or
one of their parents, was a full-time reindeer breeder’.
The term ‘Lapp’ is no longer in use, as it showed a lack
of respect; although Clarke (1824a, p 261) wrote of ‘the
borders of Lapland’, there is no such political entity.
In time, the Sámi people developed a subsistence
economy4 around the domestication of reindeer; however, there is uncertainty as to when the Sámi people
evolved from being a food-extracting society to a foodproducing society. Laufer (1917, p 101) wrote that,
according to the Norwegian scholar A. Frijs, ‘the Lapp
of the ninth century were not yet reindeer-nomads, but
merely hunters and fishermen, whose only domesticated
animal was the dog’. Storli (1993, p 1) suggested ‘that
reindeer pastoralism was well established by A.D. 900’.
In contrast, Vorren (1960) speculated that Sámi reindeer
hunting was replaced during the sixteenth century by
domestic reindeer management.
In 1863, the Norwegian politician Johan Sverdrup said
ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 9, No 2
in Parliament that the only salvation for them was to be
assimilated into mainstream society (Bjørklund, 1985).
Nevertheless, these indigenous people succeeded in
maintaining their traditions; and the reindeer maintained
a prominent position with respect to food, as well as
transport. For centuries, the Sámi people lived a sustainable nomadic life, following their herds and trading with
non-Sámi people, with little concern for national boundaries; and reindeer traditionally migrated across
international borders (Elbo, 1952). Whitaker (1955, p 40)
explained the traditional cultural importance of reindeer,
‘Marriage is not undertaken until it is deemed that one
has sufficient property in the form of reindeer with which
to support a family. This is usually set at about 200 for
the combined herd of husband and wife….’
As of the 1950s, the Sámi people became increasingly
dependent on imported fuel, and the introduction of
snowmobiles into reindeer herding in 1962 exacerbated
the situation (Müller-Wille and Pelto, 1971; Pelto,
1973). Pelto and Müller-Wille (1972/3, p 136) explained
that cash became increasingly important, ‘Before 1963,
the costs for equipment to work in reindeer herding
were essentially zero…Full participation in mechanized
reindeer herding, on the other hand, means cash outlays
for the snowmobile.’
In 1965, the Norwegian Statlige Selskaper law
allowed the state to take over unregistered land in
Finnmark (Magga, 1985). Jebens (1999) showed that
Norway’s judicial ‘right’ to annex inner Finnmark as noman’s-land was weak. Pedersen (1999) discussed related
complexities.
In 1978, the Norwegian government passed the
Reindeer Herding Act, which made it necessary to have
a permit in order to own reindeer, and in the 1980s,
authorities stopped issuing new permits. Paine (1984)
described how Norway was seen not as a mother to the
Sámi people, but rather as a step-mother, and he accused
the kingdom of discharging the responsibility of stepmotherhood. Paine (1994) studied the impact of
legislation such as the Reindeer Management Act and
analysed attempts by non-Sámi people to regulate and
rationalize Sámi pastoralism.
During the early 1980s, conservationists and Sámi
reindeer pastoralists allied against hydroelectric development. As new roads and military installations
disrupted natural patterns of migration, land-use conflicts arose, culminating in the Alta Affair related to a
hydroelectric project (Minde, 2003). After the publication of the Brundtland Commission Report,
conservationists drew away from the pastoralists and
closer to the government. Conservationists claimed that
the Sámi people could claim a special relationship to
nature and a distinctive ethnic status only if they used
traditional techniques (Paine, 1994).
Today, in order to be registered as a Sámi in Norway,
one must have at least one grandparent or great-grandparent who was a Sámi. Lehtola (2002, p 10) provided a
comprehensive definition, ‘a Sámi is defined as a person
of Sámi origin who feels themselves to be Sámi and
who has Sámi as their first language or at least one
parent or grandparent who had Sámi as their first
language’.
Sámi language5
As explained by Brantenberg (1985, p 45), ‘The term
“Saami” does not exist in the Norwegian administrative
terminology. Instead, governmental reports refer to the
so-called “Saami-speaking Norwegians”, excluding
those who have lost their native language’. When
determining Sámi ethnicity, an important criterion is
indeed the use of one of the Sámi languages. Magga
(1985, p 17) reminds us, however, ‘From the middle of
the 19th century, Norway began a systematic war against
everything Saami. The use of the Saami language was
forbidden.’
Nine Sámi languages, all part of the Finno–Ugric
branch of Uralic languages, are spoken today (Lehtola,
2002). Ulvevadet (2004, p 113) elaborates that there are
‘more than 50 dialects’. Most Sámi speakers use North
Sámi, which is spoken in Finland, Norway and Sweden.
A few thousand people speak Lule Sámi, in Norway as
well as in Sweden. Kilden Sámi is less common. A few
hundred people in Finland use Inari Sámi. Skolt Sámi
was common in the Kola Peninsula, until their land was
annexed by Russia, at which time most of the local Sámi
people moved to Finland. South Sámi is used by a few
hundred people across Norway and Sweden.
As discussed by Salminen (2002, p 7), ‘The fundamental characteristic of a people is its own language’.
Language reflects culture and epistemology, and these in
turn are influenced by language. Epistemological truth is
generated via jokes, discussions, negotiations and
storytelling (Helander and Kailo, 1998). Not having
been a fighting nation, the Sámi have no traditional
word for war6 or for peace. The Sámi people do have a
rich vocabulary for that which matters to them. A Sámi
word for mountain is várri. A mountaintop may be
referred to as cohkka. More specifically, a rounded
mountaintop is oaivi. The term for a mountain area
covered with small, flat stones and no vegetation is
rášša.
Given the centrality of reindeer to Sámi life,
Collinder (1949) asserted the existence of thousands of
words describing reindeer herding. Beach (1993, p 5)
wrote, ‘There are about 150 words for snow and an
equal number for reindeer’. The following are several
words used to distinguish among reindeer: áldu (adult
v
79
v
female reindeer with a calf); cearpmat (reindeer
between the ages of 6 and 14 months old); goaistos
(five-year-old male reindeer); heargi (reindeer used for
work); miessi (reindeer up to the age of six months);
sarvvis (reindeer that has not been neutered during
autumn); varit (two-year-old male reindeer); and
vuonjal (two-year-old reindeer cow). These words are
still central to the Sámi people. In contrast, comparing
sheep raising in England with the same occupation in
Scotland, Malden (1899, p 28) wrote over a century
ago, ‘the terms used to distinguish older sheep are
becoming more or less obsolete; but in Scotland and in
hill districts generally, where the feeding is not so
much forced, the distinguishing terms are still required
as much as ever’. Perhaps if the Sámi begin to feed
reindeer, then many words will likewise be discarded.
Already in some areas where reindeer are fed, the use
of Sámi language appears to have declined.
Heterogeneity
Fisher (1939, p 641) distinguished among three groups:
‘the poorer sedentary Lapps who make a living chiefly
by fishing; the mountain Lapps, who carry on reindeer
culture; and the forest Lapps, who live in the forest
district and have settled down to a large extent with their
reindeer herds’. Ohlson (1960, p 28) discussed five
groups: ‘mountain Lapps, forest Lapps, river Lapps, lake
Lapps of Finland and sea Lapps’.
Of the mountain group, Pelto and Müller-Wille (1972/
3, p 123) wrote, ‘Mountain People saw themselves as
more independent, more economically successful, and in
other ways superior to the people who had come to
settle in marginal agricultural homesteads’. In contrast
to the Mountain People, who engaged in reindeer
herding as their principal occupation, the Forest Sámi,
who have long had permanent homes, earned their
livelihoods from fishing and agriculture. The Water
Shore People had ‘a strong commitment to fishing as a
basic aspect of subsistence’ (Pelto and Müller-Wille,
1972/3, p 123), while ‘the reindeer herders were seen
(especially by themselves) as having much higher
prestige and economic power’ (Pelto and Müller-Wille,
1972/3, p 123).
The Sea Sámi exist in Norway only. Paine (1958, p
168) wrote that Norway’s ‘Coast Lapps…are now
settled fishers and farmers’, and he elaborated that
pastoralism among these coastal people ‘was probably
never on a large scale, and is most worthy of note for the
husbandry of reindeer as well as sheep and cattle’ (1958,
p 171). Anderson (1983, p 180) confirmed, ‘There are
no resident coastal reindeer-breeders, as this occupation
is reserved by law to that portion of the Saami population dependent on reindeer through several generations,
80
corresponding roughly to the thousand persons from the
interior township now practicing that livelihood’.
Ownership, production and sharing
Traditionally for the Sámi, the right of land ownership
was substituted by usage rights to certain areas, often
sequential; land was neither bought nor sold. Likewise,
in former times, manpower was not a product that was
bought for cash; the economic system was based on
mutual exchange of services within the clan. Clarke
(1824b, p 169) wrote of the Sámi ‘in their dealings
demand specie, refusing the paper-currency of the
country whenever it is offered’. The social system7 was
such that Whitaker (1955, p 73) explained, ‘It is the
reindeer that moves, and the human being that follows,
rather than Man who is the leader’. This is fundamentally important – the essence of reindeer herding.
The traditional Sámi way of life stresses the need to
live in harmony with nature, refraining from leaving
physical marks on the land. In the words of Lehtola
(2002, p 88):
‘Nature has provided the sources for both their
material and spiritual culture. This base sets Sámi
culture apart from industrial or agricultural
civilizations…A common thread for all Sámi groups
is the adaptation of their way of life to the yearly
cycle of nature and to the specific local natural
environment…Because their way of life is based on
respect for Nature, Sámi have been very frugal in
their use of natural resources…Sámi religious belief
reflected this close link with nature. According to the
traditional Sámi beliefs, the world was inhabited by
spirits. Human beings could only successfully make
their living by cooperating…It was essential not to
damage nature.’
As the Sámi people did not mark the territories upon
which they lived, government authorities acted as if
these lands were unclaimed. Non-indigenous farmers
took possession of land traditionally used by the Sámi
people, reducing the area available for reindeer.
For self-employed Sámi reindeer herders, life traditionally revolved around reindeer, while the extended
family was the work unit; there were long discussions
during which parents transmitted expertise to their
children. This form of production involved sharing and
specializing, but without markets and without right of
ownership as defined by modern Western society. A
single individual did not need to know everything, since
it was group knowledge that was important, as discussed
by Freeman (1985). Nevertheless, decisions were often
made by individuals on behalf of others. When people
had more food than they could consume before it lost its
freshness, a common practice was to share, without
accepting monetary compensation.
As noted by Vorren (1973), domestic reindeer management is, and possibly always has been a minority
occupation. Reindeer are owned by Sámi people who
have other full-time occupations. Yet, as observed by
Anderson (1991, p 200), ‘Reindeer-owning, entailing
breeding, herding, and harvesting of the animals, is built
into the consensual stereotype of the Saami… virtually
all Saami accept and manipulate the coin of reindeer
when dealing with strangers’.
Theoretical framework
Pioneers of entrepreneurship theory include Cantillon
(1755) and Mill (1848), both of whom discussed the
risk-taking aspect of being self-employed, and Ely and
Hess (1893, p 95) who defined entrepreneurs as ‘the
ultimate owners of business enterprises, those who make
the final decision and assume risks in such decisions’.
Likewise, Knight (1921, p 268) argued, ‘When uncertainty is present and the task of deciding what to do and
how to do it takes the ascendancy over that of execution,
the internal organization of the productive groups is no
longer a matter of indifference or a mechanical detail’.
He then explained:
‘Uncertainty thus exerts a fourfold tendency to select
men and specialize functions: (1) an adaptation of
men to occupations on the basis of kind of knowledge and judgment; (2) a similar selection on the
basis of degree of foresight, for some lines of activity
call for this endowment in a very different degree
from others; (3) a specialization within productive
groups, the individuals with superior managerial
ability (foresight and capacity of ruling others) being
placed in control of the group and the others working
under their direction; and (4) those with confidence
in their judgment and disposition to “back it up” in
action specialize in risk-taking.’ (Knight, 1921, p
270)
Fraser (1937) associated entrepreneurs with the management of a business unit, profit taking, business
innovation and risk-bearing. Risk was also central to
Oxenfeldt (1943) and Cole (1959). Cochran (1968)
discussed risk as a distinguishing feature of the entrepreneur. Shapero (1975, p 187) concluded that in ‘almost
all definitions of entrepreneurship, there is agreement
that we are talking about a behavior that includes…the
acceptance of risk’. Zaleznik and Kets de Vries (1976, p
23) specified that the entrepreneurial personality
included ‘the urge to take risks, and the stubborn
resistance to change’. Kets de Vries (1977, p 37)
elaborated on the importance of the ‘risk-taking functions’. Brockhaus (1980) focused on risk propensity.
Gasse (1982) noted that entrepreneurs were generally
risk-takers. Shapero and Sokol (1982) found risk-taking
to be central to the entrepreneurial event, and Stanford
(1982) mentioned moderate risk-taking as an entrepreneurial trait. Tate, Meggison, Scott and Trueblood
(1982, p 576) defined the entrepreneur as ‘a person who
organizes, manages and assumes the risks of a business
venture’. Gasse (1985) elaborated on the importance, for
the entrepreneur, of having the capability to take
personal risks. According to Stevenson and Gumpert
(1985, p 88), ‘An X-ray of the entrepreneurial organization reveals these dynamic characteristics:
encouragement of individuals’ imagination, flexibility
and a willingness to accept risks’. Timmons, Smollen
and Dingee (1985) also referred to risk, and Burch
(1986, p 4) explained that the role of the entrepreneur
was to assume ‘all or a major portion of the risk’.
Brenner (1987) suggested that entrepreneurial risktaking might be a strategy by which social groups
attempted to regain an unanticipated decline experienced
by that group.
The above contrasts sharply with the view of
Schumpeter (1934, p 137) who suggested that, ‘Risk
taking is in no case an element of the entrepreneurial
function’. Schumpeter focused on the innovative
function of the entrepreneur. Belshaw (1954, p 147)
argued that ‘innovation is not a necessary criterion, but
expansive management is’.
Weber (1930, p 48) emphasized the value of time and
argued that time was money, ‘He that can earn ten
shillings a day … and goes abroad, or sits idle, one half
of that day…has really spent, or rather thrown away, five
shillings besides’. He elaborated (1930, p 49) that
‘Money can beget money…The more there is of it, the
more it produces every turning, so that the profits rise
quicker and quicker’.
Although such contributions have been central to the
evolution of the study of entrepreneurship in mainstream
society, these theses do not necessarily apply as well to
Sámi entrepreneurs who diversify in order to reduce
risk, and for whom expansive management is not an
option. As the domain of the lynx has spread north,
reindeer husbandry entails an increase in risk, and Sámi
herdsmen therefore diversify into secondary enterprises
to reduce risks.
It is important to understand the context of enterprise
and the epistemology that surrounds it. When René
Descartes proclaimed, ‘I think, therefore I am’, he
articulated a premise central to European and Euro–
American epistemology, ie that the individual mind is
the source of existence and knowledge; for other
81
peoples, the individual’s existence is contingent upon
relationships8 with others (Ladson-Billings, 2003).
Likewise, the sense of identity and of land ownership
reveals much about internal logic. An American says, ‘I
am American’ and Europeans say that they ‘are’ European; a Sámi person typically says, ‘I belong to the
Sámi people’. While a Norwegian may say, ‘I own this
land’, a Sámi living in Norway is likely to say, in the
plural, ‘My people belong in Lapland’. So, too, selfemployed reindeer herders refer to their
entrepreneurship as being community-based. A harsh
climate contributes to uncertainty, and the Sámi people
have learned to tolerate risk, mastering the art of
herding, largely by following cues from the animals,
rather than by taking dominion over them. Collinder
(1949, p 105) elaborated, ‘The life of the reindeer
nomads is regulated by the migrations of their reindeer’.
Aikio and Aikio (1989, p 128) wrote, ‘when studying
the life of tribal or Indigenous people, the interpretation
of research results is often made according to the
conqueror’s ethnocentric view’. Helander (1999, pp 26–
27) argued, ‘the time is ripe for a new paradigm when
looking at the issues of Indigenous people’. However, as
suggested by Anderson and Giberson (2003), it is a
challenge to find a theoretical approach that is appropriate in the context of indigenous or Aboriginal9 people.
Is Dube (1988) correct that development is a homogenizing and irreversible process that results in the
decline of differences between nations? Blunt and
Warren (1996) demonstrated that many programmes had
failed to recognize the validity and effectiveness of
different social structures. Even among Sámi groups
there are differences. As Paine (1994, p 71) explained,
‘The custom of living in tents the whole year is restricted to the region north of Torneträsk and the
adjacent parts of Troms Fylke and Finnmark, in Norway.
The custom of living in huts made of birch10 wood
covered with birch bark and peat has spread from the
sedentary Lapps of Finnmark to the nomad Lapps in
Norrbotten.’
Methodology
Leaning towards the naturalistic–ecological perspective
(actions are influenced by the setting in which they
occur), it was deemed appropriate for this study to rely
on naturalistic inquiry (Lincoln and Guba, 1985;
Willems and Rauch, 1969). With the methodological
mandate to be contextually sensitive, the technique of
being a participating observant (Bruyn, 1966; Jorgensen,
1993; and Spradley, 1997) was an ideal means of
grasping an understanding of entrepreneurship and its
social context. This approach seeks to comprehend the
catalysts to various activities. Rather than observe an
82
Figure 2. The ethnographer with a reindeer calf.
environment from outside it, the researcher’s approach is
to interact with its players, observing and recording their
respective behaviours. Being immersed in the same host
environment in which the entrepreneur functions, the
researcher can better understand motivations and
responses to stimuli. ‘Learning takes place through
participatory activities in work’ (Helander, 1999, p 25).
Methodology for this study therefore included participatory observation (see Figure 2); this is consistent with
Sámi epistemology, according to which an individual is
a part of society and the individual’s survival is dependent on that society. As explained by Whitaker (1955, p
11), a ‘requirement of this method of research is that the
field-worker shall not merely observe, but shall also
participate’.
For the purposes of this study, Sámi identity was
based on self-identification. On the subject of selfidentification, Eythórsson (2003, p 151) noted ‘the
relatively sudden “disappearance” of the coastal Sami
from the census records … when people who had
classified themselves as Sami in the pre-war census
classified themselves as Norwegians in the first post-war
census’.
Interviewees were identified via snowball sampling.
As explained by Müller-Wille and Hukkinen (1999, p
47), ‘In snowball sampling of interviewees, those
already interviewed identify who else they think should
be interviewed’. As discussed by Goodman (1961),
interviewing stops only when the last respondent can
suggest only individuals already named by others.
An awareness of the Sámi concept of knowledge is
very useful when asking questions of these people. The
concept of knowledge in their culture is society-based
and it is formed by means of discussions. The culture
often has many truths within a given topic, with no right
or wrong answers. Rather than giving their personal
opinion, Sámi individuals often use the term ‘we’ rather
than ‘I’ or ‘you’. A Sámi interviewee tends to provide a
consensus of knowledge based on previous discussions.
For this paper, interviews were conducted by the
author. Interviews lasted between two and twelve hours.
Sámi reindeer herder Elen Solbritt Eira translated
between Sámi and English, while Elin M. Oftedal of the
Bodø Graduate School of Business translated between
Norwegian and English.
Interviewees were helpful in identifying entrepreneurs, their role in the community, the nature of
entrepreneurial activities and their products as perceived
by the consumers. As the research team became accepted into the community, individuals became
increasingly open. Direct on-site observations were
supplied by several sources of data. Triangulation was
used to cross-validate across these (Patton, 1982; 1987;
1990).
Findings
General
Many findings from this study confirm the literature of
the twentieth century, suggesting that the Sámi people
have successfully retained values traditionally important
to them. Paine (1964, p 84) wrote, ‘Many of the jobs of
a herdsman are menial, but herding is not work of low
esteem’. He added that ‘capable herding bestows
general esteem on a person’ (Paine, 1964, p 85). Lee et
al (2000, p 103) elaborated on the subject of status, ‘The
greater the number of reindeer owned the higher the
status of the owner within Saami society’. This is
consistent with the findings of Jernsletten and Klokov
(2002, p 21), who stated that ‘reindeer husbandry forms
a “way-of-life” more than a “way of production”…The
interviews conducted for this report with the reindeer
herders, reindeer owners and other persons connected to
the industry, have clearly shown that the self-esteem and
self-respect of the people involved in reindeer husbandry is strong, even increasing.’ The same appears to
be true today. Indeed, respondents interviewed for the
present paper emphasized that subsistence resource
harvesting had a traditional value that was not measured
in currency.
While herding continues to be a community activity,
the individual ownership of each reindeer remains
private. Each spring, groups of reindeer owners participate in rounding up their herds. As explained by
Whitaker (1955, pp 28–29), ‘all reindeer found will be
brought to the main herd, even if they include a percentage of animals strayed from the herds of neighbouring
or of other communities. These will be returned to their
owners through separations in the corral.’ This continues
to be true, as witnessed recently by the author.
Young respondents expressed fascination with the
migrations. Every spring, each family of reindeer
herders travels to round up its reindeer and to earmark
the calves. A lasso is coiled by hand before throwing;
this enhances its reach as well as its velocity. Although
the reindeer gallop at 20 kilometres per hour, the herders
seldom miss their target.
A small group is separated from the herd and chased
into a small enclosure. Calves are separated from adults,
who are released into another enclosure (see Figure 3).
A number plate is placed around the neck of each calf
(see Figure 4). Calves and mothers are soon reunited, at
which time herders observe which mother gives milk to
which calf (see Figure 5). Through consensus (see
Figure 6), they agree as to who is the owner of each
mother and therefore the owner of the respective calf as
well. Knives are sharpened (see Figure 7) to ensure a
precise cut and ownership of calves is then recorded by
cutting notches into the ears of each calf (see Figure 8).
Each owner uses a unique earmark. Thus, a system of
ear-notches is used to identify reindeer; the owners are
identified based on the reindeer earmarks. As explained
by Bjørklund (2004), these earmarks are significant
cultural devices that tell stories about social relations
among reindeer owners. The sun sets only for a little
while (if at all); work is done day and night, with short
rest periods in a traditional tent called a lavvu (see
Figure 9).
Each migration has its reason. Summer grass is better
along the coast than inland. From June until August, the
reindeer pasture unattended. As winter approaches, they
migrate inland for food. On cold days, the herd can be
located by means of the steam that it gives off. When the
land is covered with snow, the reindeer use their hooves
to dig for fodder. The female reindeer are less good at
digging, and, as observed by Beach (1990, p 258), ‘It is
quite helpful if the males do some of the digging for
them’. One problem expressed by interviewees, however, was that policy makers are encouraging the culling
of what the state considers to be ‘excess’ males that are
83
Figure 6. Ownership is agreed through consensus.
Figure 3. Owners work together at separation.
Figure 4. Reindeer calves separated from mothers.
Figure 7. Sharpening the knife for greater precision.
Figure 5. Mothers and calves reunited.
84
not needed for reproduction; although older males (see
Figure 10) may not be required for breeding, they serve
a purpose in the herd, especially during the winter when
the ground is covered with snow. In the search for food
below the snow-cover, female reindeer are poor diggers
when compared with the males. When there are an equal
number of males and females in a herd, females can
access food where males have dug through the snow. As
the ratio of males to females decreases, the accessibility
of food for females decreases.
Dunkelberg and Cooper (1982) discussed entrepreneurs who were growth-oriented. This was not the case
among any of the Sámi respondents interviewed for this
paper, perhaps because the state limits the number of
reindeer in any area. While Sámi reindeer herders act on
behalf of their families, and they create jobs for family
members and express interest in their children’s futures,
there appears to be less concern about growth of their
herds. In contrast to fishermen and industrialists in
Norway, who tend to obtain considerable financing from
banks, reindeer herders tend to avoid large loans. The
average equity held by herders is 80%, considerably
higher than is the case in other industries. Only Innovation Norway (formerly the Norwegian Industry
Development Fund) gives loans on herds.
Division of labour and gender roles
Examining the division of labour, Barth (1960, p 87)
noted that in Norway, ‘the male and female roles are
defined in terms of efficacy, and may be violated on the
same grounds’. At the time, reindeer were used for
travel and each Sámi woman used only her personal
reindeer. A generation later, Anderson (1983, p 175)
wrote:
Figure 8. Calf’s jaw is held still to avoid movement
during marking.
Figure 9. During round-up, home is a lavvu.
Figure 10. Older males calm the herd and help females
obtain food.
‘In many subsistence societies, women carry out
primary subsistence chores closer to home than do
men, leading to appellations of “woman the gatherer”
of basic calories and “man the hunter” of protein. In
Sámi society in Norwegian Lapland, women, once
hunters, then herders of reindeer alongside men, now
manage long-distance networks of trade and politics
in reindeer-breeding households. Contemporary
Saami women in more sedentary subsistence groups,
such as farmers and fishers, market their foraging
surpluses and their time to busy nomadic women and
to non-Saami settlers.’
Anderson (1983, p 181) elaborated, ‘In reindeer pastoralism, both sexes and virtually all ages have shared in
herding chores, and to a lesser extent in
husbandry…Except for ocean fishing, which continues
as an exclusively male occupation, extraction activities
such as fresh-water fishing, berry-picking, and other
gathering today continue in importance largely through
the contributions of women.’
Findings of this study indicate that Sámi women11
continue to be economically independent from men;
each individual of the community – including young
girls – owns reindeer. Paine’s (1964, p 85) description
still holds true:
‘the responsibilities of husbandry are not shared, they
are those of the married man, and his wife, of each
family herd. Married men do not interact as
husbanders. Unmarried children execute the orders of
their parents but do not themselves take husbandry
decisions. The responsibilities of the head of the
family herd are grave ones for he is not the owner of
85
the herd but its senior custodian. The family lives off
its herd and one can say they take wages from it, but
the herd is also a capital asset which is re-distributed
in the next generation. Thus the parent, the
husbander, should each year select animals to be earmarked in favour of each of his children.’
Spouses interviewed indicated that they had a salary in
addition to reindeer income, and that they were less busy
with herding activities than had been the case in the
past. This supports the findings of Jääskö (1999, p 37)
who wrote:
‘Mechanization and other general developments in
the last decades have led to the situation where
women’s formerly unremunerated work has lost its
importance…The reindeerman no longer even needs
a “peski” (fur coat) or fur boots to keep him warm on
the tundra. Thus, not only do machines directly assist
in reindeer herding work, but even cloth weaving
machines in India and sewing machines in Portugal
reduce the need for work power…’
Discussing women who were self-employed in the
reindeer industry, Jääskö (1999) noted that these were
often engaged in auxiliary occupations, such as meat
preparation, making handicrafts or servicing tourism.
Bjørklund (2004, p 127) added, ‘a fast-growing supply
of consumer goods only contributed to an expanding
cash economy and its stresses’. Direct dependence on
nature and on the traditional family business has thus
been reduced.
Other issues
Sámi interviewees emphasized Sámi culture and tradition. A common comment was, ‘I follow the footsteps of
my father’. Fathers are very much looked up to for their
skills. In contrast to non-indigenous entrepreneurs, Sámi
entrepreneurs focused discussions on the fact that they
‘belonged’ to their people, and that being self-employed
was a requirement in order to remain on their traditional
homeland and to preserve their cultural heritage.
As noted by the respondents, reindeer herding cannot
be effectively managed in the same way as commercial
cattle breeding. The eldest male reindeer, which policy
makers consider to be economically useless, serve as
leaders for the less experienced animals. Several
interviewees expressed frustration at outsiders telling
Sámi herders what to do, with little understanding of
local culture, tradition and practice.
Lee et al (2000, p 101) observed, ‘Reindeer herding is
an important source of income for the Sámi, bringing in
between half and three-quarters of their gross earnings.
However, this income has to be supplemented by
86
agricultural and forestry work, as well as cash-earning
jobs.’ Research conducted for this paper supports their
findings. Interviews indicate that, with a preference for
work within the natural portion of the value chain, selfemployed Sámi people have been pulled to reindeer
herding because of social conditioning (including a
close relationship with animals), but pushed into
secondary enterprises in order to make a living without
leaving Sápmi. Furthermore, Sámi reindeer herders
claim that they are not seeking risk and that they create
secondary enterprises to reduce existing risk. The
secondary new ventures are often related to existing
skills.
Interviewees emphasized the fact that nowadays, there
is a perceived need for cash; traditional income is
supplemented by other sectors, such as tourism. In
March and April, animal hides are nailed on to walls for
drying, a process that takes about two weeks; once
tanned, these are sold. Other secondary enterprises
include the selling of handicrafts, and services provided
to the tourism industry. While the unit of interest in
herding may be the collective, entrepreneurship in
secondary enterprises often takes place at the level of the
individual. As stated so well by Ingold (1980, p 3), a
‘social opposition is between production for subsistence
and production for the market’.
This study also supports findings by Beach (1990, pp
261–290), who wrote:
‘Of particular note is the ever-increasing integration
of reindeer pastoralism with the cash economy and
the wider network of marketing that it entails. The
application of cost/profit concepts to herding results
in pressure to “rationalize” what is now often considered the “herding industry” …the system of grazing
conservation and slaughter recommended by herding
authorities is rational only under certain
circumstances…The altered age/sex composition of
the herd, which largely eliminates old, non-breeding
bulls or castrates, deprives the herd of an important
resource. It is these animals that are most knowledgeable, that often lead the herd, and that are a calming
influence in corrals and on migration. Their loss will
tie management into methods of control requiring
increased mechanization, and a resulting increased
need of cash.’
Sámi herders indicated to the author that, unlike Western-style meat production, they viewed herding as an
expression of traditional cultural values. For them,
indigenous entrepreneurship was different from other
forms of self-employment in that Sámi herding is a
community activity revolving around the family.
Children are keen to catch and to carry calves to be
marked. Small children are given reindeer, as parents are
happy to share their assets with the new generation.
During interviews, there were frequent references to the
family, respect for elders and love of children. The
extended family was described as the functional unit of
entrepreneurship, with less reference to nuclear families.
Asceticism, frugality and thrift were brought up on
several occasions.
Several interviewees expressed much concern about
the state, which was causing changes in herding, thereby
reducing efficiency. There was much bitterness about the
fact that hunters could kill moose in the wild, while
herders were required to send reindeer to distant slaughterhouses, resulting in expense and waste. This supports
the findings of Jääskö (1999, pp 37–38), who wrote:
Several Sámi interviewees told the author of this paper
that they resented the fact that their livelihoods were
controlled by non-Sámi reindeer administrators who did
not fully understand the local culture and who governed
in accordance with the interests of mainstream society.
The respondents claimed that agriculture was in competition with herding, thereby resulting in a conflict of
interests.
In the competitive global environment, reindeer
herding is not as profitable as other sectors. Neither are
young reindeer owners supported in any way, which
causes some to shift to other occupations, forcing them
to migrate from their homeland. Pastoralists find
themselves in a difficult dilemma. An article about
Norway (Bjørklund, 2004, p 135) concludes:
‘the commercialisation and centralization of meat
processing (including slaughtering) causes a decrease
in numbers of people practising a reindeer economy
as well as a decrease in opportunities for other local
people to benefit from raw materials from reindeer.
Not only does it result in reduction of jobs, but in
impoverishment of the culture as well.’
‘He might either become a criminal, legally speaking,
because laws and regulations often exclude established and well-proven forms of management, or he
may be punished economically because the policy of
subsidies only pays for those who manage their herds
the way the state wants them to – and that is a way
contrary to most Sámi values and customs.’
As stated by Riseth (2003, p 233), ‘the historical record
is that the internal system has been functioning well for
centuries and that the problems faced by the herders
have had external causes’. Among these external causes
are new requirements for meat processing. One interviewee explained,
Other Sámi entrepreneurs in Norway complained to the
author that they were suffering from the fact that
Finland and Sweden were becoming increasingly
integrated into the European Union. Sámi entrepreneurs
also complained about regulations and about bookkeeping requirements imposed by the state. It should be
mentioned that the reindeer sector in Norway was
regulated by the Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, until
jurisdiction was passed on to the Royal Ministry of
Agriculture. All herding became regulated by the
Norwegian Reindeer Herding Act, and the Norwegian
Reindeer Husbandry Association was made to report to
the Royal Ministry of Agriculture. More recently, the
Royal Ministry for the Environment has been involved.
In his discussion of the modernization theory, Brohman
(1996) suggested the existence of cultural barriers to
modernization, and Tucker (1999, p 3) wrote, ‘Other
cultural formations were viewed primarily as forms of
resistance to modernization which had to be overcome’.
Yet the Sámi have modernized smoothly, adopting the
newest communications and positioning technologies,
and in some cases using helicopters12 to herd reindeer.
One interviewee told the author in English, ‘We use
cell phones and snow scooters and four-wheel drive, and
there is some new technology on the way…a little chip
that we can transplant into the reindeer and then herd
them just sitting with our computers. We’ll invest in
such equipment when it is here.’
For some time, the world has been experiencing a
shift to a flexible regime of accumulation (Komninos,
1989). Sensitive to variations in demand, the flexible
regime of accumulation calls for increasingly specialized workplaces and a greater reliance on subcontracting
and networks. This coincides with a decrease in hierarchic control (Wright and Dana, 2003) and an increase in
cooperation. In modern Western society, this is called
the ‘New Economy’. For the Sámi people, cooperation
has traditionally been the essence of enterprise. ‘The
most important characteristic of pastoralism is that it is a
predominant economic activity in which the whole
family participates’ (Tuisku, 2002, p 101).
In Sámi society, ‘individual decisions are valued
…especially when it comes to reindeer husbandry’
(Bjørklund, 2004, p 134). In contrast to some peripheral
87
‘The governments are doing some good and some not
so good things. They don’t understand reindeer
herding really. They restrict our opportunities: the
strict laws on how to butcher, for example. That
shows that they really do not know what they are
talking about. Nothing would be better than to
butcher the animals on the spot, rather than sending
them on to the butcheries.’
communities that have been excluded from capitalism,
the Sámi people have long practised sustainable capitalism in an environmentally friendly way. It appears that
the cultural values of a society determine the desirability
of different forms of economic activity. In Inner
Finnmark, where the Sámi comprise the majority of the
population, the economy is largely rooted in reindeer
herding. In contrast, in the Bodø area (where the Sámi
people are a minority), livelihood is based more on
fishing and farming. Yet the reindeer is central to Sámi
culture in both regions, whether or not it is the primary
source of income. Reindeer herding is embedded in the
cultural and social heritage of society.
Recommendations
During the nineteenth century, Spooner (1874, p 137)
wrote, ‘The management and selection of any breed of
sheep must after all become a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence’. Reindeer herding at the time was less
focused on the cash economy. However, cash has gained
very much importance with the relatively recent introduction of new ‘necessities’ such as snowmobiles,
mobile telephones, GPS technology and Internet access.
Therefore, it could be highly beneficial to improve
profitability in the sector through increased value
creation and vertical integration. Downstream integration would allow herders to profit from a greater portion
of the value chain.
A value-adding programme was introduced in 2001,
governed by a committee comprised of representatives
from the National Reindeer Herder’s Organisation, from
the Royal Department of Agriculture and from the Sámi
Parliament. Managed by the Norwegian Industrial and
Regional Development Fund, the programme focuses on
sustainable processing with the use of technology, but
without degrading pasture resources. The programme
was evaluated by the Nordland Research Institute,
Norut-NIBR Finnmark and the Norwegian Agricultural
Economics Research Institute, and found to be successful (Rønning, Kjuus, Vesterli and Karlstad, 2004). Such
programmes should be continued. Emphasis on marketing also appears to be appropriate.
It seems, however, that some decision makers do not
fully understand the environment of the Sámi. New
requirements for pest control have caused unnecessary
difficulties. A policy writer appears to have neglected
the fact that cockroaches cannot live outdoors in Arctic
winters. Rather than transport reindeer to the south (at a
financial cost to the herder and to the discomfort of the
animals), it appears to make more sense for reindeer to
be processed in Sápmi. It also appears that government
has wrongly assumed that reindeer meat should not be
smoked in a lavvu, for hygienic reasons. Sámi experts
88
say this is unjustified, because the lavvu provides a
sterile environment.
Towards the future
Using the words of Barth (1973, p 12), ‘Let us therefore
provisionally focus on the differing character of pastoral
and agricultural activities’. Sámi reindeer herders who
were interviewed for this paper are concerned that
community-based, pastoral self-employment may
eventually be phased out in favour of agricultural
reindeer business; this would mean the demise of
community-based entrepreneurship as practised by the
Sámi for centuries. As argued by Beach (1990, pp 295–
296):
‘In the Soviet Union large-scale reindeer ranching
already exists, but in Fennoscandia growth toward
ranching can be painful for the Saami. They face a
difficult dilemma: large market-oriented ranching
businesses seem to promise the best economic return
(especially in the light of state policies fostering this
development), and, with a rapidly rising cost of
living, increased profits are most attractive. At the
same time, traditional Saami social relations, with
private ownership of reindeer…do not support such a
move.’
Indeed, ranching is not compatible with Sámi tradition
and not ideal for reindeer. Reindeer are sensitive with
regard to what they eat. They prefer fresh, natural food,
and they have traditionally travelled looking for new
fresh food supplies; hence they have not stayed in one
place. On a ranch, they can be fed expensive pellets, but
there is still an issue of space. One herder told the
author, ‘It is the reindeer who feed me; the day that I
have to feed the reindeer then I’ll quit’. When crowded,
reindeer catch contagious diseases from one another. It
is therefore preferable for them to be given more space
per head than is the case with other animals.
Judge (1983, p 149) observed, ‘Faced with differing
national policies, the Saami, or Lapps, of Sweden,
Norway, and Finland have had difficulty in forging a
united front to protect traditional activities undermined
by the resource-development projects of their governments’. Vesilind (1983, p 194) noted, ‘They want to
develop, most Saami say, but not as Norwegians’.
Until relatively recently, there were between Sámi
people and others, ‘limitations on shared
understandings, differences in criteria for judgment of
value and performance and a restriction of interaction to
sectors of assumed common understanding and mutual
interest’ (Barth, 1969, p 15). Although groups have been
learning from one another, mainstream society still has
much to learn from the Sámi people; in particular, a
wealth of information lies in the elders. A prerequisite to
understanding, however, is open-mindedness. If Sámi
entrepreneurship is analysed through Western thinking,
actions risk being interpreted incorrectly. Entrepreneurship and enterprise development take on different forms
and are motivated by a variety of factors. Some generalizations have been made for entrepreneurs in the
industrialized West; yet these are not necessarily
applicable to indigenous peoples. Data collected are
useless unless they are interpreted correctly. The
Western approach is not the only way of understanding;
there are indeed other valid ways of knowing, but we
risk losing these.
Future research might investigate how entrepreneurs
could best cope with government regulation in a traditional occupation such as reindeer herding. Another
research focus could be on analysing the impact of
recent change on Sámi culture and identity. In the words
of Morris (1968, p 167), ‘An ethnic group is a distinct
category of the population in a larger society whose
culture is usually different from its own. The members
of such a group are, or feel themselves, or are though to
be, bound together by common ties of race or nationality
or culture.’ As explained by Barth (1969, pp 15–16),
‘Ethnic groups only persist as significant units if they
imply marked difference in behaviour, i.e., persisting
cultural difference’.
University College, Guovdageaidnu, Norway; Trond
Thuen, Department of Social Anthropology, University
of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway; and Birger Winsa, Department of Finnish, Stockholm University, Stockholm,
Sweden.
Notes
1
Sámi is sometimes spelled in English ‘Saami’ or even ‘Sami’.
Rangifer tarandus in Eurasia refers to reindeer; in North
America, the Micmac word ‘caribou’ has become the standard
(Anderson, 2004).
3
Guovdageaidnu was formerly known as Guov’dageai’dno.
4
For discussions of subsistence self-employment, see Barth
(1952) and Dana (1995; 2005).
5
See also Sammallahti (1998).
6
The Sámi in Norway suffered under Nazi German occupation
between 1940 and 1945; for a detailed account, see
Morgenstierne (1943) and Henry (1945).
7
Parsons and Smelzer (1956, p 8) defined a social system as
‘the system generated by any process of interaction, on the
socio-cultural level, between two or more “actors”’.
8
Barth (1963, p 5) wrote, ‘the entrepreneur must initiate and
coordinate a number of inter-personal relationships in a
supervisory capacity to effectuate his enterprise’.
9
Morse (1985, p 1) defined Aboriginal people as ‘people who
trace their ancestors in these lands to time immemorial’.
10
For a discussion of Sámi approaches to mountain birch
utilization, see Aikio and Müller-Wille (2005).
11
See also Joks (2007).
12
Helicopters are very useful where terrain is rugged. Dennis
(1930, p iii) wrote about Norway, ‘most of the land is either
unproductive or covered with rocks, forests, rivers and lakes’.
2
References
Acknowledgments
Funding for this research was provided by the Bodø
Science Park, in Bodø, Norway. The author expresses
special thanks to Elen Solbritt Eira, with whose extended family he lived and worked. Thanks are also due
to the following for having reviewed several drafts of
this paper: Bjørn Willy Åmo, Handelshøgskolen i Bodø
(Bodø Graduate School of Business), Bodø, Norway;
Kathleen Osgood Dana, Sterling College, Craftsbury
Common, Vermont, USA; Harald Gaski, Department of
Sámi, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway; Per
Klemetsen Haetta, Deputy Head, Centre for Sámi
Studies, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway;
Elisabet Ljunggren, Høgskolen i Bodø/
Nordlandsforskning, Bodø, Norway; Ludger MüllerWille, Department of Geography, McGill University,
Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Murielle Nagy, Editor,
Journal of Inuit Studies, Université Laval, Quebec City,
Quebec, Canada; Jukka Nyyssönen, University of
Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway; Anders Oskal, Innovation
Norway, Tromsø, Norway; Torkel Rasmussen, Sámi
University College, Guovdageaidnu, Norway; Lars
Rønning, Handelshøgskolen i Bodø (Bodø Graduate
School of Business), Bodø, Norway; Ándde Sara, Sámi
Aikio, M., and Aikio, P. (1989), ‘A chapter in the history of the
colonization of Sámi lands: the forced migration of Norwegian
reindeer Sámi to Finland in the 1800s’, in Layton, R., ed.,
Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions, Unwin Hyman,
London.
Aikio, M. S., and Müller-Wille, L. (2005), ‘Sámi approaches to
mountain birch utilization in northern Sápmi (Finland and
Norway)’, Ecological Studies, Vol 180, pp 255–268.
Anderson, D. G. (2004), ‘Reindeer, caribou and “fairy stories” of
state power’, in Anderson, D. G., and Nuttall, M., eds,
Cultivating Arctic Landscapes: Knowing and Managing
Animals in the Circumpolar North, Berghahn, New York and
Oxford, pp 1–16.
Anderson, M. (1983), ‘Woman as generalist, as specialist, and
as diversifier in Saami subsistence activities’, Humboldt
Journal of Social Relations, Vol 10, No 2, spring/summer, pp
175–197.
Anderson, M. (1991), ‘Reindeer and magic numbers: the making
and maintenance of the Saami stereotype’, Ethnos, Vol 3/4,
pp 200–209.
Anderson, R. B., and Giberson, R. J. (2003), ‘Aboriginal
entrepreneurship and economic development in Canada:
thoughts on current theory and practice’, in Stiles, C. H., and
Galbraith, C. S., eds, Ethnic Entrepreneurship: Structure and
Process, Elsevier, Oxford, pp 141–167.
Barth, F. (1952), ‘Subsistence and institutional system in a
Norwegian mountain valley’, Rural Sociology, Vol 17, March,
pp 28–38.
Barth, F. (1960), ‘Family life in a central Norwegian mountain
community’, in Eliot, T. D., and Hillman, A., eds, Norway
Families, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA,
pp 81–107.
89
Barth, F., ed (1963), The Role of the Entrepreneur in Social
Change in Northern Norway, Årbok for Universitetet i Bergen,
Bergen.
Barth, F., ed (1969), ‘Introduction’, in Ethnic Groups and
Boundaries: The Organisation of Cultural Difference,
Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, pp 9–38.
Barth, F. (1973), ‘A general perspective on nomad-sedentary
relations in the Middle East’, in Nelson, C., ed, The Desert
and the Sown: Nomads in the Wider Society, University of
California Institute of International Studies, Berkeley, CA, pp
11–21.
Beach, H. (1990), ‘Comparative systems of reindeer herding’, in
Galaty, J. G., and Johnson, D. L., eds, The World of Pastoralism: Herding Systems in Comparative Perspective, Guildford
Press, New York, pp 253–298.
Beach, H. (1993), A Year in Lapland: Guest of the Reindeer
Herders, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Belshaw, C. S. (1954), ‘The cultural milieu of the entrepreneur: a
critical essay’, Explorations of Entrepreneurial History, Vol 7,
No 3, pp 146–163.
Bjørklund, I. (1985), Fjordfolket I Kvaenangen: Fra Samisk
Samfunn til Norsk Utkant 1550–1980, Universitetsforlaget,
Bergen, Norway.
Bjørklund, I. (2004), ‘Saami pastoral society in northern Norway:
the national integration of an indigenous management
system’, in Anderson, D. G., and Nuttall, M., eds, Cultivating
Arctic Landscapes: Knowing and Managing Animals in the
Circumpolar North, Berghahn, New York and Oxford, pp 124–
135.
Blunt, P., and Warren, D. M. (1996), Indigenous Organizations
and Development, Intermediate Technology Publications,
London.
Brantenberg, O. T. (1985), ‘The Alta-Kautokeino Conflict, Saami
reindeer herding and ethnopolitics’, in Brøsted, J., Dahl, J.,
Gray, A., Gulløv, H. C., Henriksen, G., Jørgensen, J. B., and
Kleivan, I., eds, Native Power: The Quest for Autonomy and
Nationhood of Indigenous Peoples, Universitetsforlaget,
Bergen, Norway, pp 23–48.
Brenner, R. (1987), Rivalry: In Business, Science, Among
Nations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Brockhaus, R. H. Sr (1980), ‘Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol 23, No 3,
September, pp 509–520.
Brohman, J. (1996), Popular Development: Rethinking the
Theory and Practice of Development, Blackwell, Oxford.
Bruyn, S. (1966), The Human Perspective in Sociology: The
Methodology of Participant Observation, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Burch, J. G. (1986), Entrepreneurship, Wiley, New York.
Cantillon, R. (1755), Essai sur la nature du commerce en
général, R. Gyles, London and Paris; translated (1931) by
Henry Higgs, Macmillan and Co, London.
Clarke, E. D. (1824a), Travels in Various Countries of Europe,
Asia and Africa: Scandinavia, Volume 9, T. Cadell, London.
Clarke, E. D. (1824b), Travels in Various Countries of Europe,
Asia and Africa: Scandinavia, Volume 10, T. Cadell, London.
Cochran, T. C. (1968), ‘Entrepreneurship’, in Sills, D. L., ed,
International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Volume 5,
Macmillan, London and New York, pp 87–91.
Cole, A. H. (1959), Business Enterprise in its Social Setting,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Collinder, B. (1949), The Lapps, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ, for the American Scandinavian Foundation.
Dana, L. P. (1995), ‘Entrepreneurship in a remote sub-Arctic
community: Nome, Alaska’, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, Vol 20, No 1, fall, pp 55–72 (reprinted 2002 in
Krueger, N., ed, Entrepreneurship: Critical Perspectives on
Business and Management, Volume IV, Routledge, London,
pp 255–275).
Dana, L. P. (2005), When Economies Change Hands, International Business Press, Binghamton, New York.
Dennis, A. P. (1930), ‘Norway, a land of stern reality: where
90
descendants of the sea kings of old triumphed over nature
and wrought a nation of arts and crafts’, National Geographic,
Vol 58, No 1, July, pp 1–36.
Dube, S. C. (1988), Modernization and Development: The
Search for Alternative Paradigms, United Nations University,
Tokyo.
Dunkelberg, W. C., and Cooper, A. C. (1982), ‘Entrepreneurial
typologies: an empirical study’, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship
Research, Babson College, Wellesley, MA, pp 1–15.
Elbo, J. G. (1952), ‘Lapp reindeer movements across the
frontiers of northern Scandinavia’, The Polar Record, Vol 6, pp
348–358.
Ely, R. T., and Hess, R. H. (1893), Outline of Economics,
Macmillan, New York.
Eythórsson, E. (2003), ‘The coastal Sami: a “pariah caste” of the
Norwegian fisheries? A reflection on ethnicity and power in
Norwegian resource management’, in Jentoft, S., Minde, H.,
and Nilsen, R., eds, Indigenous Peoples: Resource Management and Global Rights, Eburon Academic, Delft, The
Netherlands, pp 149–162.
Fisher, C. (1939), ‘The nomads of Arctic Lapland: mysterious
little people of a land of the midnight sun live off the country
above the Arctic Circle’, National Geographic, Vol 76, No 5,
November, pp 641–676.
Fraser, L. M. (1937), Economic Thought and Language, A. & C.
Black, London.
Freeman, M. M. R. (1985), ‘Appeal to tradition: different perspectives on Arctic wildlife management’, in Brøsted, J., Dahl, J.,
Gray, A., Gulov, H. C., Henricksen, G., Jorgensen, J. B., and
Nationhood of Indigenous Peoples, Universitetforlaget,
Bergen, Norway.
Gasse, Y. (1982), ‘L’entrepreneurship moderne: attributs et
fonctions’, Revue Internationale de la Gestion, Vol 7, No 4, pp
3–24.
Gasse, Y. (1985), ‘A strategy for the promotion and identification
of potential entrepreneurs at the secondary school level’,
Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson College,
Wellesley, MA, pp 538–559.
Goodman, L. A. (1961), ‘Snowball sampling’, The Annals of
Mathematical Statistics, Vol 32, No 1, pp 148–170.
Helander, E. (1999), ‘Traditional Sámi knowledge’, in MüllerWille, L., ed, Human Environmental Interactions: Issues and
Concerns in Upper Lapland, Finland, Arctic Centre, University
of Lapland, Rovaniemi, pp 25–27.
Helander, E., and Kailo, K., eds (1998), No Beginning, No End –
The Sami Speak Up, Canadian Circumpolar Institute,
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Henry, T. R. (1945), ‘The white war in Norway’, National Geographic, Vol 88, No 5, November, pp 617–640.
Ingold, T. (1980), Hunters, Pastoralists and Ranchers, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Jääskö, O. (1999), ‘Women’s position in reindeer herding
economy: an environmental factor’, in Müller-Wille, L., ed,
Human Environmental Interactions: Issues and Concerns in
Upper Lapland, Finland, Arctic Centre, University of Lapland,
Rovaniemi, pp 35–40.
Jebens, O. (1999), Om Eiendomsretten til Grunnen i Indre
Finnmark, Cappelen Akademisk Forlag, Oslo.
Jernsletten, J.-L. L., and Klokov, K. (2002), Sustainable Reindeer
Husbandry, University of Tromsø Centre for Saami Studies,
Tromsø.
Joks, S. (2007), ‘Women’s position in the Sámi reindeer
husbandry’, in Dana, L. P., and Anderson, R. B., eds, International Handbook of Research on Indigenous
Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 246–256.
Jorgensen, D. L. (1993), Participant Observation: A Methodology
for Human Studies (Applied Social Research Methods, Vol
15), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Judge, J. (1983), ‘Peoples of the Arctic’, National Geographic,
Vol 163, No 2, pp 144–149.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1977), ‘The entrepreneurial personality: a
person at the crossroads’, The Journal of Management
Studies, Vol 14, No 1, pp 34–57.
Knight, F. H. (1921), Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Houghton
Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Komninos, N. (1989), ‘From national to local: the Janus face of
crisis’, in Gottdiener, M., and Komninos, N., eds, Capitalist
Development and Crisis Theory, St Martin’s Press, New York,
pp 348–364.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2003), ‘Racialized discourses and ethnic
epistemologies’, in Denzin, N. K., and Lincoln, Y. S., eds, The
Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues, 2
ed, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 398–432.
Laufer, B. (1917), ‘The reindeer and its domestication’, Memoirs
of the American Anthropological Association, Vol 4, No 2, pp
91–147.
Lee, S. E., Press, M. C., Lee, J. A., Ingold, T., and Kurttila, T.
(2000), ‘Regional effects of climate change on reindeer: a
case study of the Muotkatunturi region in Finnish Lapland’,
Polar Research, Vol 19, No 1, pp 99–105.
Lehtola, V.-P. (2002), The Sámi People: Traditions in Transition,
Kustannus-Puntsi, Inari.
Lincoln, Y. S., and Guba, E. G. (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage,
Beverley Hills, CA.
Magga, O. H. (1985), ‘Are we finally to get our rights? On the
work to secure the Saami peoples’ rights’, in Brøsted, J., Dahl,
J., Gray, A., Gulløv, H. C., Henriksen, G., Jørgensen, J. B., and
Nationhood of Indigenous Peoples, Universitetsforlaget,
Bergen, Norway, pp 15–22.
Malden, W. J. (1899), Sheep Raising and Shepherding: A
Handbook of Sheep Farming, L. Upcott Gill, London.
Mill, J. S. (1848), The Principles of Political Economy With Some
of Their Applications to Social Philosophy, Volumes 1 & 2,
John W. Parker, London (revised 1886, Longmann, Green,
London).
Minde, H. (2003), ‘The challenge of indigenism: the struggle for
Sami land rights and self-government in Norway 1960–1990’,
in Jentoft, S., Minde, H., and Nilsen, R., eds, Indigenous
Peoples: Resource Management and Global Rights, Eburon
Academic, Delft, The Netherlands, pp 75–104.
Morgenstierne, W. (1943), ‘Norway, an active ally’, National
Geographic, Vol 83, No 3, March, pp 333–357.
Morris, H. S (1968), ‘Ethnic groups’, in Sills, D. L., ed, International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Volume 5,
Macmillan, London and New York, pp 167–172.
Morse, B. W. (1985), Aboriginal Peoples and the Law: Indian,
Métis, and Inuit Rights in Canada, Carleton University Press,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Müller-Wille, L., and Hukkinen, J. (1999), ‘Human environmental
interactions in Upper Lapland, Finland: development of
participatory research strategies’, Acta Borealia, Vol 2, pp 43–
61.
Müller-Wille, L., and Pelto, P. J. (1971), ‘Technological change
and its impact in Arctic regions: Lapps introduce snowmobiles
into reindeer herding’, Polarforschung, Vol 41, pp 142–148.
Ohlson, B. (1960), ‘Settlement and economic life in Enotekiö – a
parish in the extreme north of Finland’, Fennia, Vol 84, pp 21–
46.
Oxenfeldt, A. R. (1943), New Firms and Free Enterprise: PreWar and Post-War Aspects, American Council of Public
Affairs, Washington, DC.
Paine, R. (1958), ‘Changes in the ecological and economic
bases in a coast Lappish district’, Southwestern Journal of
Entrepreneurship, Vol 14, pp 168–188.
Paine, R. (1964), ‘Herding and husbandry: two basic distinctions
in the analysis of reindeer management’, Folk, Vol 6, No 1, pp
83–88.
Paine, R. (1984), ‘Norwegians and Saami: nation-state and
Fourth World’, in Gold, G. L., ed, Minorities and Mother
Country Imagery, Memorial University, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada, pp 211–248.
Paine, R. (1994), Herds of the Tundra: A Portrait of Saami
Reindeer Pastoralism, Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, DC, and London.
Parsons, T., and Smelzer, N. J. (1956), Economy and Society,
Free Press, Glencoe, IL.
Patton, M. Q. (1982), ‘Qualitative methods and approaches: what
are they?’ in Kuhns, E., and Martorana, S. V., eds, Qualitative
Methods for Institutional Research, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, CA, pp 3–16.
Patton, M. Q. (1987), How to Use Qualitative Methods in
Evaluation, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Patton, M. Q. (1990), Qualitative Evaluation and Research
Methods, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Pedersen, S. (1999), ‘The state and the rejection of Saami
customary law: superiority and inferiority in Norwegian–Saami
relations’, in Svensson, T. G., ed, Skrifsserie Nr 8, Senter for
Samiske Studier ved Universitetet I Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway,
pp 127–141.
Pelto, P. J. (1973), The Snowmobile Revolution: Technology and
Social Change in the Arctic, Cummings, Menlo Park, CA.
Pelto, P. J., and Müller-Wille, L. (1972/3), ‘Reindeer herding and
snowmobiles: aspects of a technological revolution’, Folk, Vol
14–15, pp 119–144.
Peterson, R. (1988), ‘Understanding and encouraging entrepreneurship internationally’, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol 26, No 2, April, pp 1–7.
Riseth, J. Å. (2003), ‘Sami reindeer management in Norway:
modernization challenges and conflicting strategies: reflections upon the co-management alternative’, in Jentoft, S.,
Minde, H., and Nilsen, R., eds, Indigenous Peoples: Resource
Management and Global Rights, Eburon Academic, Delft, The
Netherlands, pp 229–247.
Rønning, L., Kjuus, J., Vesterli, G., and Karlstad, S. (2004), Verdiskapingsprogrammet for Reindrift – Følgeevaluering, Nordlandsforskning-rapport Nr. 4, Nordlandsforskning Bodø, Norway.
Salminen, T. (2002), ‘Ethnolinguistic diversity in Siberia’, in
Lehtinen, I., ed, Siberia: Life on the Taiga and Tundra,
National Board of Antiquities, Helsinki, pp 6–22.
Sammallahti, P. (1998), The Saami Languages: An Introduction,
Davvi Girji, Kárásjohka, Norway.
Sara, Á. (2000), Interreg Sápmi Subprogram; Interreg III A
Nordkalotten, 2000–2006, Sámi Instituhtta, Kautokeino,
Norway.
Say, J. B. (1816), Catechism of Political Economy: Or, Familiar
Conversations of the Manner in Which Wealth is Produced,
Distributed, and Consumed by Society, Sherwood, London.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the
Business Cycle, translated by Redvers Opie, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Shapero, A. (1975), ‘The displaced, uncomfortable entrepreneur’, Psychology Today, Vol 7, No 11, pp 83–89.
Shapero, A., and Sokol, L. (1982), ‘The social dimensions of
entrepreneurship’, in Kent, C. A., Sexton, D. L., and Vesper, K.
H., eds, Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp 72–90.
Spooner, W. C. (1874), The History, Structure, Economy and
Diseases of the Sheep, 3 ed, Lockwood & Co, London.
Spradley, J. P. (1997), Participant Observation, Holt Rinehart &
Winston, New York.
Stanford, M. J. (1982), New Enterprise Management, Prentice
Hall, Reston, VA.
Stevenson, H. H., and Gumpert, D. E. (1985), ‘Heart of entrepreneurship’, Harvard Business Review, Vol 63, No 2,
March–April, pp 85–94.
Storli, I. (1993), ‘Sami Viking Age pastoralism – or “the fur trade
paradigm” reconsidered’, Norwegian Archaeological Review,
Vol 26, No 1, pp 1–47.
Tate, C. E. Jr, Meggison, L. C., Scott, C. R. Jr, and Trueblood, L.
R. (1982), Successful Small Economic Management,
Business Publications, Plano, TX.
Timmons, J. A., Smollen, L. E., and Dingee, A. L. M. (1985), New
Venture Creation, Irwin, Homewood, IL.
91
Tucker, V. (1999), ‘Chapter 1: The myth of development: a
critique of a Eurocentric discourse’, in Munck, R., and
O’Hearn, D., eds, Critical Development Theory: Contributions
to a New Paradigm, Zed, London, pp 1–26.
Tuisku, T. (2002), ‘Reindeer herding’, in Lehtinen, I., ed, Siberia:
Life on the Taiga and Tundra, National Board of Antiquities,
Helsinki, pp 100–107.
Turi, J. M. (2000), ‘Native reindeer herders’ priorities for research’, Polar Research, Vol 19, No 1, pp 131–133.
Turi, J. M. (2002), ‘The world reindeer livelihood – current
situation, threats and possibilities’, in Kankaanpää, S., MüllerWille, L., Susiluoto, P., and Sutinen, M.-L., eds, Northern
Timberline Forests: Environmental and Socio-Economic
Issues and Concerns, The Finnish Forest Research Institute,
Kolari, Finland, pp 70–75.
Ulvevadet, B. (2004), ‘Norway’, in Ulvevadet, B., and Klokov, K.,
eds, Family-Based Reindeer Herding and Hunting Economies, and the Status and Management of Wild Reindeer/
Caribou Populations, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, pp 113–
129.
Vesilind, P. J. (1983), ‘Hunters of the lost spirit’, National
Geographic, Vol 163, No 2, February, pp 151–197.
92
Vorren, Ø., ed (1960), ‘Lapp settlement and population’, in
Norway North of 65, Oslo University Press, Oslo, pp 122–133.
Vorren, Ø. (1973), ‘Some trends of the transition from hunting to
nomadic economy in Finnmark’, in Berg, G., ed, Circumpolar
Problems: Habitat, Economy, and Social Relations in the
Arctic, Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp 185–194.
Weber, M. (1930), The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism, translated by Talcott Parsons, Charles Scribner’s
Sons, New York.
Whitaker, I. (1955), Social Relations in a Nomadic Lappish
Community, Utgitt av Norsk Folkemuseum, Oslo.
Willems, E. P., and Rauch, H. L. (1969), Naturalistic Viewpoints
in Psychological Research, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New
York.
Wright, R. W., and Dana, L. P. (2003), ‘Changing paradigms of
international entrepreneurship strategy’, Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Vol 1, No 1, March, pp 135–152.
Wrightson, J. (1905), Sheep: Breeds and Management, 5 ed,
Vinton & Company, London.
Zaleznik, A., and Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1976), ‘What makes
entrepreneurs entrepreneurial?’ Business and Society
Review, Vol 17, spring, pp 18–23.

Community-based entrepreneurship in Norway

Transcription

Similar documents

The Norwegian Bunad [Modo de Compatibilidade]

MouthHealthy.org: Hermey Wants to Be a Dentist

`Twas the week before Christmas, and all through the city, the Santa

FEMUNDSMARKA

REINDEER IN ALASKA About March 1 of 1898 the people of Seattle

the presentation

The Dolgans and Their Mammoths

PASVIK–INARI NATURE AND HISTORY SHARED