We asked an economist who moved to Hawaii within the last 18 months to have a look at the Akaka bill and related documents. He specifically asked that his name not be revealed because he sense (rightfully or wrongly) that he might be targeted for his thoughts. Here they are, unedited, just as we received them.

~ Dick Rowland

How will it affect the vast majority of “native” Hawaiians?

A good bit of the stated rationale for the bill is contained in one interpretation of history, though credible challenges to that interpretation abound. It seems to me that history, whatever its interpretation, is pretty much irrelevant to the future of so called “native” Hawaiians. The status quo is the status quo, no matter how we got there subsequent to the events of the 1890’s and before. What we need to do is take a prospective look at probable outcomes of the bill. How will the bill affect the people of Hawaii and the nation, including those “native” Hawaiians singled out for “special” treatment?”

One erroneous interpretation of history that is somewhat relevant to this prospective look, because it misleads us about how we arrived at the status quo, is the bill’s assertion that “the long-range economic and social changes in Hawaii over the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries have been devastating to the population and to the health and well-being of the Hawaiian people[1].” Nothing in the background accompanying the legislation says why its drafters think so. Most likely what is meant is contained in a speech by Assistant Secretary of the Interior John Berry subsequent to the Apology Resolution: “It cannot be ignored that such a governmental act as the overthrow of 1893 is not without physical and economic consequences for the indigenous people of Hawaii. The statistics of today for the majority of Native Hawaiians are not good and they unfortunately parallel many of the problems facing the indigenous people of the continental United States[2].” The gist of the Apology Resolution and the Akaka Bill suggests a cause and effect that is absurd, namely that the “overthrow” of the monarchy caused poor health and well-being for the so-called “native Hawaiians.”

This assertion constitutes lazy thinking. How would the monarchy’s continuation have allowed Hawaiians, “native” or otherwise, to flourish in the way they actually have under the rule of law, protection of property rights and freedom to trade that they enjoy as U.S. citizens? “Native” Hawaiians are doing much better than the world’s average by any statistical measure, certainly much better than the subjects of monarchies in existence today. Do the drafters believe that there is an impediment to “native” Hawaiians doing even better? If so, what is it?

Their answer is implicit in the Akaka Bill’s long list of “rights” obtained through the “provision of governmental services.” The laundry list of these “rights” includes[3]:

(i) health care services;

(ii) educational programs;

(iii) employment and training programs;

(iv) economic development assistance programs;

(v) children’s services;

(vi) conservation programs;

(vii) fish and wildlife protection;

(viii) agricultural programs;

(ix) native language immersion programs;

(x) native language immersion schools from kindergarten through high school;

(xi) college and master’s degree programs in native language immersion instruction; and

(xii) traditional justice programs

Presumably (they don’t actually say this) more government provision of these “rights” would raise the “native” Hawaiians standard of living to a level statistically more in line with other citizens of the U.S. But how can this be? Are they not already receiving a heavy dose of government provision of all of these “rights?” There are national and state entitlements galore for the poor – housing, energy, health care, food stamps, earned income tax credits, assistance to needy families, government-run schools and the like. In addition, there are special provisions for “native” Hawaiians. The Akaka Bill seems to imply that all these government provided “rights” are not enough. If that is what it means, then how much more would be enough and in what form? We should demand a concrete idea of what is in mind. By the way, judging by the dismal results of special provisions for the indigenous people of the continental United States, why would “native” Hawaiians ever want to subject themselves such “special” treatment?

That “native” Hawaiians are not doing as well “statistically” probably is more the result of “cultural” qualities mentioned in the Akaka Bill: “economic self-sufficiency[4]” and cultural practices such as “traditional agricultural methods, fishing and subsistence practices, maintenance of cultural use areas and sacred sites, protection of burial sites, and the exercise of their traditional rights to gather medicinal plants and herbs, and food sources.” These ways of doing things are not the way to higher statistical economic prosperity as we commonly measure it. But our common measure is unlikely to be valid for these Hawaiians. They are choosing these practices because that is what they want and they have that freedom. At least we think they have that freedom; is somebody interfering with it? A simple test of how these cultural qualities affect economic statistics may be available through census data: How are “native” Hawaiians living in Hawai’i doing compared to their counterparts where these cultural values likely do not hold as rigidly, such as California and Nevada?

Of course, some of the “not good” statistics may be the result of the very programs that the Akaka Bill would like us to expand. After all, when you punish responsible behavior (the behavior that puts you higher in terms of economic statistics) you get less of it. Similarly, when you subsidize irresponsible behavior (the behavior that puts you lower in terms of economic statistics) you get more of it. If these programs, from our dismal school system to welfare schemes that are supposedly designed to help the poor, are really working, then show us your evidence before we embark on expansions of all of it.

Speaking of the implicit goal of expanding all of these “rights,” where is the money going to come from? Nothing is mentioned about the new layer of “sovereign” government having any taxing power over its citizens. How much of a wealth transfer from non-natives to the new “sovereign” government is envisioned?

Unleashing a power struggle to become the new Ali’i

Who will gain from the Akaka Bill? The Akaka Bill is about political entrepreneurship. A small, vocal minority seems to have allied with politicians in selling their promises of “reconciliation” and improved welfare to an unaware public. While the outcome of the Akaka Bill is unlikely to help the warriors, that cannot be said for the new chiefs. The prospective chiefs have already unleashed a struggle for the wealth and power that will accompany their positions. They exist in the state’s Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Department of Hawaiian Homelands.

A Dangerous Precedent

The kinds of wealth transfers in “reconciliation” as suggested by the Akaka Bill are nothing more than reparations filtered through the new Ali’i for supposed wrongs that occurred over four generations ago. This kind of precedent, if it passes constitutional muster, opens the door for any other group claiming historical injustice based on race. The state of Hawai’i is already engaging in this dangerous precedent; and it should be challenged in court for the massive wealth transfers it is brokering without our consent.

Ceded Lands

The “ceded lands” are a problem whether or not there is an Akaka Bill. The government owns a bunch of land supposedly held for use in common as a matter of historical evolution. Allowing a good bit of this land to be owned privately would promote prosperity and better stewardship. But that is unlikely to happen. There will always be interest group struggles over disposition of that land. The result of the struggles is likely to keep it in government hands.

[1] Quoting one of the whereases from the Apology Resolution

[2] Speech at Iolani Palace Bandstand in December 1999.

[3] House version of the Akaka Bill passed in October 2007.

[4] North Korea has the explicit goal of being the most “economically self-sufficient” country on the face of the earth; and as a result most North Koreans face unimaginable poverty.