82
Arctic Yearbook 2015
had fewer barriers to institutional layering (and thus the development of stronger regions with ad hoc
authority) than more heterogeneous regions. This helps to explain both the emergence of strong
regional models in the Iñupiat-inhabited northern regions of Alaska, and sheds light on the decision
of the Sahtu region to explore community self-government. It is also an important intervening factor
in understanding why the combined Gwich’in-Inuvialuit regional government did not advance as a
successful model. Both timing and identity have structured how institutions have layered on top of
one another to create strong models of regional governance in the north.
Unpacking ad hoc regional Indigenous authority is key to understanding one of the primary
mechanisms through which local Indigenous populations interact with Arctic policy. Though some
cases see the promise of more ‘concrete’ regional self-government, other regions will continue to
operate in more dynamic models. By focusing on these ad hoc models, we have a better understanding
of the ways in which Indigenous organizations have transformed their operations to expand into new
policy areas. As such, we have a better understanding of the existing regional capacity and the
opportunities for building partnerships with other levels of governance. For example, as the Arctic
Council continues to tackle the challenges that come with coordinating Arctic search and rescue, the
resources and experiences of Alaska’s northern borough governments—which have been conducting
policy and service delivery in this area for over thirty years—may provide some important lessons.
Meanwhile, northern Indigenous governments in the Canadian north can tap into resources and
knowledge from other regions that have faced (or are facing) similar population, infrastructure, and
fiscal challenges. This exploration presents a starting point for understanding both how new regional
organizations interact intra-jurisdictionally and inter-regionally across new regional borders.
Ultimately, despite the many barriers to their creation, these regions are poised to carve out an even
greater role in territorial and international Arctic development.
Acknowledgments
This article was originally presented at the Canadian Politics & Public Policy Graduate Symposium on
May 27, 2015. The author wishes to thank Sara Hughes for her insightful comments and direction on
the paper, and Graham White, Grace Skogstad, and Robert Schertzer for their feedback on earlier
drafts of this article. Financial support for this research was provided by the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), the School of Graduate Studies at the University of Toronto,
and the Northern Scientific Training Program.
Notes
1. The classical definition of regionalism, developed by Michael Keating and John Loughlin,
defines regionalism as pressure from a region (by regional political elites) towards the central
government demanding more (cultural) autonomy, social priorities, democratization, and
decentralization. The processes explored in this paper do not always fit neatly under this
definition, as the definition presumes that region is largely pre-defined. The process of land
claims—whereby regional Indigenous elites place pressure on the central government to
Regional Governance Without Self-Government