rationalism “…would appear to be di

rationalism “…would appear to be diametrically opposed to stated social and environmental
aspirations of ATSI people
”
(2001, p. 177). When Indigenous tourism operators have been supported in their tourism enterprises, it has been very much based on an alien market model which they are expected to master in short timeframes. Studies in Indigenous entrepreneurship have expanded in the last decade and have examined the question of whether there is a contradiction between the economic focus of western business practice and Indigenous cultural values in Indigenous enterprises (e.g. Foley 2006a,
2006b, 2009; Wood and Davidson, 2011). Foley’s body of work indicat
es that Indigenous entrepreneurs can adapt to western economic systems and still hold Indigenous cultural values such as respecting cultural norms, serving the needs of family and community, and creating positive role models. While economic pressures may conflict with cultural obligations and cause short-term difficulties, Foley suggested that Maori entrepreneurs
“…practice sustainability
[by]
valuing the cultural level of their business pursuit”, thus
modelling a quadruple bottom-line sustainability (adding culture to economy, society and ecology) (2009, p. 611). Wood and Davidson demonstrated that government initiatives may not be attuned to these differences and this presents a significant barrier to Indigenous business success: There is a different value set to the non-indigenous population; indigenous people value community, consensus and co-operation (Schaper, 2007), and this can be at odds to the individual culture of the dominant population. Indeed, this misunderstanding and clash of cultures (e.g. in terms of what constitutes
entrepreneurial “success” for indigenous versus
non-indigenous populations, etc.) is another main barrier facing future indigenous entrepreneurial growth (Wood and Davidson, 20011, p. 323). Recent research in Indigenous tourism
has underscored “the importance of an Indigenous
-driven approach to planning for tourism
” (Nielsen, 2010
, p. 36). This is due to a new emphasis on Indigenous self-determination and a recognition of the failure of a multitude of mainstream and mainstreaming policies. Whittaker (1999) found that tourism organisations have a limited understanding of Indigenous social and cultural issues which hampers good outcomes for planning interactions. Nielsen et al
’s
(2008) study of interactions between Indigenous and non-Indigenous tourism operators in Queensland revealed that there are strong cultural divides between them and racism was identified as a barrier to cooperation. Finally, more than a decade ago, and in the wider domain, Chris Ryan argued we need to be
concerned with “…serious issues of patterns of power and how such power to implement policies is to be both determined and practised” (2002, p. 17).
It is also important to contextualise these efforts in terms of the profound economic disadvantage that Indigenous Australians find themselves in in contemporary Australia. This results from:
•

the historical legacy of dispossession and exclusion;
•

the continuing consequence of poor education, housing, health and income status as economic disadvantage reproduces itself;
•

structural factors reflecting Indigenous family formation, demographic transitions, and high population growth;
•

locational factors reflecting the distribution of the Indigenous population disproportionately remote from economic opportunity