Content uploaded by Marius Warg Næss
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marius Warg Næss
Content may be subject to copyright.
Pastoral Risk Management
The Importance of Cooperative Production
Marius Warg Næss
A dissertation for the degree of philosophiae doctor
UNIVERSITY OF TROMSØ
Faculty of Social Sciences
Department of Social Anthropology
June 2009
Pastoral Risk Management
The Importance of Cooperative Production
Marius Warg Næss
i
ABSTRACT
An important problem facing nomadic pastoralist in stochastic environments is the ability to
manage production risk so as to maximise long term survival in the ‘pastoral game’. Herd
maximization is one widely discussed risk reducing strategy, as herd size may act as buffer
against falling below a threshold of long-term survival during occasional environmental
catastrophes. Labour investment have been argued to be an important prerequisite for building
herds, although the few studies that have tried to quantify the relationship have been
characterized by contradictory results. By combining two review studies, three observational
studies and one theoretical model, I show that: (1) herd accumulation is a risk reducing
strategy for Saami reindeer herders as larger reindeer herds perform better than smaller ones
over time. (2) Earlier contradictory results pertaining to the relationship between pastoral
labour and production can be explained with reference to: (i) a lack of consistency regarding
which areas of pastoral production that is considered being influenced by labour investment;
and (ii) the relationship between effect size and sample size. (3) More importantly,
measurements of pastoral labour investment have been characterized by a within-household
bias, neglecting possible between household cooperative labour investments. (4) From a
theoretical point of view, it is possible that pastoral labour is characterized by scale
dependency consisting of changed cost-benefit relationships where cooperative labour
investment may be a least-cost strategy. (5) Scale dependency of pastoral labour was shown to
be present in the Saami reindeer husbandry, where number of possible cooperating husbandry
units and genealogical relationship had a significant effect on: (i) individual husbandry unit
herd size; (ii) density of female reindeer; and (iii) offspring body mass. These results suggest
that future studies have to investigate possible cooperative labour related effects on pastoral
production, and more importantly that cooperative labour investment is an important
mechanism for efficiently buffering risk in stochastic environments. Moreover, if herd
maximization is an important risk reducing strategy facilitated by cooperative labour
investment, this has important implications not only for our understanding of pastoral systems
in general but also in relation to how these systems should be managed.
Keywords: Fennoscandia; nomadic pastoralism; labour; cooperation, production, reindeer;
Rangifer tarandus; quantitative approach, Norway.
PAPERS INCLUDED IN THE THESIS
Paper 1
Næss, M. W., and Bårdsen, B.-J. (2010). Environmental stochasticity and long-term livestock
viability - herd-accumulation as a risk reducing strategy. Human Ecology 38(1):3-17.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10745-009-9288-4.
Paper 2
Næss, M. W. (2010). Contradictory evidence as a guide for future research - investigating the
relationship between pastoral labour and production. Nomadic Peoples 14(1):51-71.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3167/np.2010.140104.
Paper 3
Næss, M. W. (manuscript). Quantifying the relationship between pastoral labour and production:
the importance of cooperative labour investment. Is now included and published as part of paper
4.
Paper 4
Næss, M. W. (2012). Cooperative pastoral production - reconceptualizing the relationship
between pastoral labor and production. American Anthropologist 114(2):309-321.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1433.2012.01427.x.
Paper 5
Næss, M. W., Fauchald, P., and Tveraa, T. (2009). Scale Dependency and the "Marginal" Value
of Labor. Human Ecology 37(2):193-211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10745-009-9226-5.
Paper 6
Næss, M. W., Bårdsen, B-J., Fauchald, P., and Tveraa, T. (2010). Cooperative pastoral
production – the importance of kinship. Evolution and Human Behavior 31(4):246-258.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.12.004.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This study was financed by the Research Council of Norway under the program “Frittstående
prosjekter – Miljø- og Utviklingsforskning” (FRIMUF). I have been a PhD student at the
Department of social anthropology, University of Tromsø, and I want to thank the department
for supporting this study. Moreover, the present study is part of the interdisciplinary
Ecosystem Finnmark project, and I want to thank all participants on the semi-formal research
seminars that were undertaken during the four years that I have worked on this thesis.
Nevertheless, some people have contributed more than others and they deserve to be
explicitly thanked. I have been so fortunate to have three supervisors, and I would like to
thank Bjørn Bjerkli (Department of social anthropology), David Anderson (now at
Department of social anthropology) and Rolf A. Ims (Department of Biology) for valuable
comments and discussions. I would especially like to thank Rolf A. Ims for providing
necessary support for a quantitatively and mathematically challenged social scientist.
Furthermore, I am deeply grateful towards my co-authors, Bård-Jørgen Bårdsen, Per Fauchald
and Torkild Tveraa (all working at the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Tromsø), on
several of the manuscripts making up this thesis. For me, this form of interdisciplinary
cooperation has been both challenging and rewarding.
I would also like to thank Bård-Jørgen Bårdsen, Ole-Bjørn Fossbakk, Bror Olsen and Johnny-
Leo Jernsletten for valuable contributions through discussion and comments on various
manuscripts. I would also like to especially thank Ole-Bjørn Fossbakk and Bror Olsen for
various “coffee-break” discussions that have always been fun (but not always “professionally”
motivated). These years would have been depressingly boring without these breaks.
Moreover, I would like to thank all my colleagues at the department for valuable input during
various seminars. I would also like to thank Tania Lopez for providing much needed
emotional support during these years. Finally, I would like to thank Rune Vik-Hansen for
philosophical support.
Marius Warg Næss
Tromsø, June 2009
1
INTRODUCTION
“It should be known that differences of condition among people are the result of
the different ways in which they make their living … Some people live by
agriculture, the cultivation of vegetables and grains; others by animal
husbandry, the use of sheep, cattle, goats …” (ibn Khaldun, AD 1332-1406, the
Muqaddima quoted in Cribb 1991:23).
The overall objective for this thesis was to investigate whether the accumulation of large
herds of livestock is a risk reducing strategy and whether pastoral labour investment is a
prerequisite for successfully exploiting this strategy. In general terms nomadic pastoralists’
(see Appendix I) dependence and relationship to their herds of animals have been described
differently in the literature. For example, Herskovits (1926) showed how cattle were a
dominant element among east African pastoralists’ culture and life. Cattle were important in
many ways, e.g. as a symbol of wealth, dowry, and in ceremonies. As such, the preoccupation
with having large herds have been explained as having nothing to do with economic
considerations, but rather with values lying outside the economic domain (this was not
Herskovits intention, however, he merely wished to stress the importance of cultural values,
see e.g. McCabe 1994). This has been defined as the “East African cattle complex”, where
focus was put on the social value of cattle, often without reference to the consumption
requirements of households (Dahl and Hjort 1976).
As a consequence, nomadic pastoralists have been viewed as non-rational as they have
been accused of having an economically unreasonable attachment to livestock. Professionals
and governments viewed problems, such as dramatic droughts causing the death of animals
and humans, and pasture degradation in many pastoral areas, as inherent in the nomadic
pastoral adaptation itself:
”Their [the pastoralist themselves] retention of pastoral economic structures
based upon the maximal increase of herd size, under new conditions of limited
movement and growing dessication because of rainfall failure, were seen to
have led to overgrazing of pastures, environmental degradation, and the physical
decline of livestock. Eventual economic collapse and famine were thus seen to
follow the logic of the ‘tragedy of commons’, the inevitable outcome of lack of
individual restraint on livestock production in the face of collectively owned
pasture resources […]” (Galaty and Salzman 1981:6).
2
According to Fratkin & Smith (1994) the study of the pastoral production system in
anthropology first started out with Evans-Pritchard (1940) study of the cattle keeping Nuer in
Africa. Evans-Pritchard described the many aspects of pastoral production, such as milk
production and the organisation of labour in great detail. As such, Evans-Pritchard paved the
way for the study of pastoralism in Africa that focused on the “[…] unique fit between
livestock-keeping peoples and the arid lands they inhabit, between their particular social
organizations and the demands of mobile livestock production” (Fratkin et al. 1994:1, see also
Dyson-Hudson 1972, Dyson-Hudson and Dyson-Hudson 1980).
In 1976 Dahl and Hjort wrote in the introduction to their seminal book Having herds:
pastoral herd growth and household economy:
“Ever since Herskovits' definition of the "East African cattle complex" in 1926
much interest has been focused on the social value of cattle, often without
relating it to the consumption requirements of the household. Such a
preoccupation with the cosmological aspect of cattle easily leads to a
misunderstanding of the rationale for an individual household keeping many
cattle (i e to provide sufficient food, to provide security against droughts and
disease); the focus is then rather on the prestige aspects of having large herds,
beautiful cattle etc. […]” (Dahl and Hjort 1976:16-7).
This point seem to be well taken as most commonly the rationale for keeping large herds of
livestock has been framed in economical or ecological terms. Explanations pertaining to the
importance of keeping large herds range from Barth’s (1961, 1973) theory that nomadic
pastoralists maximise livestock numbers in conditions of communally owned pastures,
nomadic pastoralists are risk avoiders (Galaty and Johnson 1990), nomadic pastoralists seeks
reliable food intake (Roe et al. 1998), and value long term household survival (Mace 1993,
Mace and Houston 1989).
Nevertheless, Chatty (2006:1-2, italics added) argues that nomadism
“[…] may not have been specifically linked to any particular ecology and thus
was a purely practical adjustment to the ecological environment. It may be that
we overestimate the role played by ecological pressure in creating these ways of
life that the nomads of the Middle East and North Africa continue to exhibit.
Thus we may find that a cultural initiative, for example, a specific ideology
favoring mobility has played a role in the development and adaptive
3
continuance of these lifestyles. Mobility and movement may, contrary to what
some have suggested, be an important reason for being a nomadic pastoralist.”
While not suggesting that ideological and cosmological aspects of keeping livestock and
moving with them are irrelevant for an understanding of nomadic pastoralism, it could be
argued that “[…] that the social value system primarily reflects […] economic/ecological
aspects” (Dahl and Hjort 1976:16-7, italics added). It is the starting point of this thesis that the
keeping of large herds of animals is best understood with reference to economic and
ecological consideration. Accordingly,
“The tendency that pastoralists try to keep as large herds as possible is not,
however, solely a result from the value system. […]. For example the unreliable
rainfall leads to great fluctuations in the availability of water and grazing, both
seasonally and over longer periods. For a pastoral household it is necessary to
keep a margin against the risk of having part of the herds killed from a drought
or an epidemy [sic]. The number of animals needed to maintain a longtime
continuous production is also much larger than the number of animals
immediately utilized at a certain period.” (Dahl and Hjort 1976:16-7, emphasis
added)
Moreover, Barth (1961, 1964, 1973) has argued that nomadic pastoralists maximise herd
growth not only when pastures are communally owned but also because of the dangers
connected with falling below some subsistence threshold (see also Fratkin and Roth 1990,
Hjort 1981, Roth 1996, Templer et al. 1993). The economic rationale for having relatively
large herds have been summarized by Coughenour et al. (1985:619) as (1) milk requirements
necessitates a large fraction of mature females, giving herds excessive reproductive capability,
(2) lactating animals must provide milk to both humans and young animals, (3) pastoralist
herd 50 to 100% more animals than required for subsistence purposes only to secure survival
of some animals during droughts to form the basis of a new herd (see also Fratkin and Roth
1990, Hjort 1981, McPeak 2005, Roth 1996, Templer et al. 1993), and (4) individual animals
are in general characterized by low productivity, necessitating more animals per person. In
short, one compelling reason for pastoralists to keep a large herd of livestock may be viewed
with reference to risk.
4
Risk
According to Kuznar (2002:265, abstract) “Risk sensitivity is important for modeling
behavior since organisms live in a stochastic world and must respond to risk by either
avoiding it to the extent possible or taking chances.” According to Cashdan (1990) there is
little consensus on how risk and uncertainty should be defined1. Uncertainty, in a very broad
sense of the word, refers to an individual’s lack of knowledge about the state of the world
(Cashdan 1990). Risk, on the other hand, may be defined as unpredictable outcomes of
behaviour and decision and their subsequent consequences for an organism's fitness (the
ultimate currency in evolutionary biology), utility (an economic currency which can be
broadly defined as referring to a measure of satisfaction with a decision or good, Kuznar
2001, Colman 1995) or value (a synonym for both currencies: cf. Winterhalder 2007,
Winterhalder et al. 1999). Moreover, according to Cashdan (1990:2) “An individual facing a
future of several possible states may be uncertain about which one will actually occur, but he
may be able to assign probabilities to each of them”. If able to assign probabilities, the
individual faces a problem of “risk”, but if this is impossible the individual faces a situation
that is “uncertain” (Cashdan 1990)2. While the probability distribution of outcomes can be
known based on past experience, stochasticity makes it impossible to predict with certainty
any particular future outcome (Kacelnik and Bateson 1996).
Moreover, Winterhalder (2007:433) argue that risk is different from uncertainty (or
incomplete knowledge) as uncertainty can by definition be overcome by acquiring more
information3. Risk may be present in any behaviour if the choice of behaviour can result in
more than one relatively unpredictable outcome and where the outcomes have a nonlinear
1 Following Winterhalder (2007:433) risk is differentiated from the common sense understanding of risk as
pertaining to exposure to danger and hazards.
2 Although this distinction has been somewhat ignored by turning problems of uncertainty into problems of risk
by using subjective probabilities, Cancian (1980) has argued that the distinction should be maintained since
the behaviour of people faced with known risk (e.g. variable rainfall) and the behaviour of people faced with
uncertainty (e.g. new technology) is very different.
3 Winterhalder (2007:433, italics added) illustrates the difference with an illuminating example “[…] I can
alleviate uncertainty by the day’s weather forecast by reading the meteorology section of the newspaper, but
there is no escaping the unpredictability implied in the statement that there is a 40% chance of rain. The
outcome – precipitation – can be assigned odds, but otherwise is not known in advance.” Nevertheless, both
risk and uncertainty “[…] imply a degree of ignorance about the future, but uncertainty is a profounder type
of ignorance than risk” (Colman 1995:23). This because a lack of information may not always be possible to
overcome prior to decisions.
5
effect on some measure of utility (Kuznar 2001, Colman 1995). Winterhalder et al. (1999)
argue that much risk-sensitive behaviour can be understood by applying a sigmoid utility
function to model people’s preferences. An important fact about utility, which was recognised
by Daniel Bernoulli, is that that the value or satisfaction with a certain good need not be
equivalent with the quantity of the good (Colman 1995:19). In short, utility theory recognizes
the fact that e.g. winning 100$ may be more valued by the poor than by the millionaire, i.e.
that an individual’s willingness to take risk or avoid risk may depend on wealth or well-being4
(Kuznar 2002).
Assuming that for pastoralists a reasonable measure of wealth is herd size and
moreover that herd size has consequences for pastoralists’ utility (or value, e.g. long-term
household survival as suggested by Mace 1993, Mace and Houston 1989), a sigmoid utility
functions predicts that poor pastoralist should take risk so as to increase herd size, while rich
pastoralist should be averse to risk so as not to significantly decrease herd size. For example,
in Figure 1, a pastoralist with herd size, w, if offered an equal chance to either increase or
decrease herd size with p, should accept the gamble because the increase in value, b, is larger
than the potential loss in value, a. In contrast a pastoralist with herd size, y, will decline the
same gamble because the most he or she can win, d, is less than the potential loss, c (see
Figure 1).
4 To take a risk implies gambling on a bet where the long-term expected payoff is less than the short-term cost
when entering the bet (i.e. a convex utility function). In contrast, to avoid risk implies the acceptance of a bet
when the long-term expected payoff is higher than the cost of entering the bet (i.e. a concave utility function).
Risk neutrality, implies accepting a bet if long-term expected payoff is equal to the cost of entering the bet
(i.e. a linear utility function) (Kuznar 2002:205-6).
6
Herd size (X)
Value (X)
a
b
cd
ww+pw-p yy+py-p
Figure 1. An example of a sigmoid utility function and its relevance to risk. Pastoralists at
wealth, w, in the convex section of the curve are attracted to risky prospects of winning or
losing p because the value of winning, b, is greater than the potential loss, a. In contrast,
people with wealth, y, in the concave section of the curve avoid risky prospects of winning or
losing p because their potential gain in value, d, is less than the potential loss, c (Adopted
from Kuznar 2002:268).
In a study of the Gabbara in Africa, Mace (1993) found evidence of flexible herd
management, i.e. decisions pertaining to controlling the breeding rates of sheep or not, aimed
at accommodating long-term household survival. For example, Mace (1993) found that
wealthy herders controlled breeding by restricting ewes’ access to males, and consequently
increased the longevity of females but reduced the number of offspring per year. Poor
households did, however, not engage in this practise, but rather focused on increasing the
number of offspring per year. The choice pastoralist makes in relation to the controlling of
breeding rates or not, could be explained with recourse to risk sensitivity. In short, many large
terrestrial herbivores, including domesticated species, experience a considerable cost of
reproduction, especially during occasions of harsh weather conditions where the survival rate
of pregnant and/or lactating females can be substantially lowered (Clutton-Brock et al. 1996,
7
Skogland 1985, Tveraa et al. 2003). As such, wealthy herders control breeding rates because
the cost of loosing pregnant or lactating females during droughts is higher than the potential
gain in number of offspring (i.e. they are risk averse, see Figure 1). In contrast, poor
households have less to loose as they are already poor and for them the potential gain in utility
by focusing on increasing the number of offspring per year far outweighs the potential loss of
utility (i.e., they are risk prone, see Figure 1).
While risk sensitivity analyses may provide a valuable tool for explaining differential
behaviour depending on e.g. social status, wealth etc. (Kuznar and Lutz 2007) this is not the
topic for the risk analyses undertaken in this thesis (Paper 1). Following Cashdan (1990), risk
is defined as unpredictable variations in ecological or economic variables and outcomes are
viewed as riskier depending on their degree of variability (Halstead and O'Shea 1989). Risk
then may be evaluated in terms of shortfall, i.e. the probability of falling below some
minimum level of income or food intake (Winterhalder 2007). In essence, rather than
evaluating the degree of risk sensitivity among Saami reindeer herders, Paper 1 takes the
starting point that stochasticity5 involves a degree of production risks that have to be managed
(see below and Paper 1 for details).
Pastoral risk management
Halstead & O’Shea (1989) argues that societies, in general, employ a wide range of strategies
or ‘buffering mechanism’ to counteract scarcities, including everything from myths to
alternative modes of subsistence (see also Bollig and Göbel 1997). Following Halstead &
O’Shea (1989), strategies for countering risk can be grouped into four major categories; (a)
diversification, ranging from the keeping of multiple livestock species (e.g. Khazanov 1994,
White 1997) to investing in non-pastoral activities (e.g. Bayer and Watersbayer 1990,
Berzborn 2007, Lesorogol 2008, Mearns 2004, Sperling 1987, Thornton et al. 2007), (b)
exchange, livestock exchange networks such as stock-friendship (e.g. Bollig 2006:287, Göbel
5 In general, nomadic pastoralists inhabit marginal areas characterized by large temporal stochasticity in
environmental conditions. For example, in semi-arid grazing areas low and erratic rainfall cause
unpredictable variations in livestock forage that influence livestock survival (Behnke 2000, Mace 1991,
Behnke and Scoones 1993). The same has also been observed in northern and clearly seasonal environments,
where late winter conditions have profound effects on individual survival and reproduction for large
herbivores (Coulson et al. 2001, Coulson et al. 2000, DelGiudice et al. 2002, Patterson and Messier 2000)..
Historically, mass starvation due to severe winter conditions have dramatically reduced reindeer populations
in Norway (Bjørklund 1990:79).
8
1997, White 1997), (c) mobility, e.g. taking advantage of spatial and temporal heterogeneity
in available forage (e.g. Bollig and Göbel 1997, McCabe 1997, Thompson et al. 2008, Behnke
et al. 1993) and (d) storage, e.g. large herd size (Bollig and Göbel 1997, Hjort 1981, Ingold
1986, see e.g. Colson 1979 for other categories). The underlying logic of these strategies is to
minimize the impacts of risks and to reduce uncertainties (Bollig and Göbel 1997). The
strategies usefulness depends on the social and environmental context, including both the
structural characteristics of the society at large and the structure of resource failure the society
is likely to experience (for a short review of other buffering mechanisms, see Bollig 2006:13-
4). Diversification includes a broad range of both passive and active practices, the underlying
principle being that broadening the base of the subsistence system, either by using a wider
range of plant and animal species or by exploiting broader and more varied areas (i.e. niches),
reduces the risk of catastrophic shortages (Halstead and O'Shea 1989). As a strategy for
buffering scarcity, exchange functions in similar fashion as storage, i.e. present abundance is
converted, this time through social transactions, into a future obligation if needed (Halstead
and O'Shea 1989). Mobility works by taking advantage of the spatial and temporal structure of
resource failure in effect to move away from scarcity towards abundance. Movement because
of droughts in Africa is a good example; both hunter-gatherers and pastoralists use this
strategy to move away from areas that are much affected to areas that are less affected
(Halstead and O'Shea 1989). Physical storage refers to strategies that are directed towards
stabilizing available food so that it may be consumed at some later stage6. This principally is a
means of dealing with temporal structures of food availability (Halstead and O'Shea 1989).
“All four categories of buffering mechanism exploit favourable aspects of the
temporal and spatial structure of variability to mitigate the risk of scarcity.
Mobility and diversification use local abundance to counter local scarcity, while
storage balances seasons of plenty against lean seasons and good year against
bad. Exchange secures a stable food supply by playing off temporal variability.
As a result, different types of responses are suited to buffering different sorts of
risk”(Halstead and O'Shea 1989:4).
6 Colson (1979:21) gives five somewhat different strategies that are commonly used for countering possible
disasters: (1) diversification, (2) food storage, (3) storage and transmission of information of famine foods,
(4) conversion of surplus food into storable valuables which can be traded during crisis and (5) engaging in
social relationships enabling individuals to get access to food resources in other regions.
9
Of importance in the context of the present thesis is the category of storage, as the
accumulation of animals as a buffer against future loss have been argued to be a distinct form
of storage, i.e. pastoralist store food on the hoof (Bollig and Göbel 1997, Hjort 1981, Ingold
1986). Following this line of reasoning the accumulation or maximization of large herds can
be viewed as a strategy for countering what Göbel (1997:41) terms ‘production risk’, i.e. how
to secure a reliable flow of food. This implies that pastoralists have to be, to some degree, risk
averters by attempting “[…] to decrease uncertainty by anticipation.” (Galaty and Johnson
1990:20).
Herd size as buffer against risk
McCabe (1997:55), however, argues that pastoral management strategies are best understood
as rigged towards risk aversion rather than maximisation, implying that “Pastoral strategies
are directed primarily toward securing a predictable food supply rather than maximising
animal numbers” (White 1997:94). This view is presented by Galaty & Johnson (1990:20-21)
as:
“The essential pastoral strategy is probably neither maximisation nor
optimisation but risk aversion, an attempt to decrease uncertainty by
anticipation. Domestic security is increased through creating alliances across
ecological zones, distributing livestock among friends, securing rights in dry
season pastures, increasing herds in anticipation of future losses. Short term
tactics include punctuated movements to take advantage of new grass, depriving
humans of milk to feed calves, or keeping animals within the home to increase
security.”
In this view, pastoral strategies are not viewed so much as directed towards maximising
animal numbers, but rather directed primarily towards securing a predictable food supply in a
highly unpredictable environment.
Roe et al. (1998), however, argue that nomadic pastoralists are concerned with
maintaining peak herd size at all time so as to provide a reliable source of food. This view
understands pastoralism as high reliability institutions, which “[…] seek and attain reliable
peak performance by managing highly complex technologies to better manage risks” (Roe et
al. 1998:39). Accordingly, a perspective focusing on pastoralists as risk averters assumes that
avoiding hazards is the central issue for pastoralists, while reliability seeking pastoralists
actually accept hazards and aim at managing them better. Risk-averting pastoralists are then
seen as attempting to avoid or escape the hazards of ecological unpredictability, since they
10
cannot control the probability of the occurrence of hazards. Reliability seeking pastoralists, on
the other hand, are actively engaging in ongoing efforts to reduce the probability they cannot
avoid by “[…] managing temporal and spatial diversity in grazing opportunities and diversity
in livestock capabilities. Far from ‘risk averse’, pastoralists accept and even take risks to use
rangelands” (Roe et al. 1998:40). Nevertheless, the difference between these two perspectives
seems to be exaggerated, as no strategy said to be risk avoiding can be interpreted as a
strategy aimed at completely avoiding risk, i.e. making risk absent.
Although there has been a considerable debate concerning maximization and
accumulation, it could be argued that the aforementioned arguments against maximization
conflates strategy with goals or intentions (see Paper 1 for details). As a consequence, I agree
with Hjort (1981) who view maximisation as a buffer strategy analogous to storage. In other
words, herd maximisation or accumulation can be interpreted as a strategy that aims at the
goal of securing a predictable food supply and/or reducing/averting risk in an unpredictable
environment, and not as contrast to risk aversion. Following this line of reasoning, risk
avoidance in an unpredictable environment may be defined as strategies that (1) reduces the
possibility of exposing oneself for risk, e.g. reduces the probability of loss, and (2) buffers the
impact of a loss when it occurs.
Previous studies
Despite of the many debates concerning pastoral strategies of maximizing herd size few
studies have actually quantified possible relationships (Roth 1996:219). More importantly,
studies that have undertaken to analyze the effectiveness of herd maximization have been
characterised by contradictory results. For example, Sperling (1989 in Roth 1996:219) found
no evidence of a positive effect of large herd size prior to a drought on post-drought herd size
for Samburu cattle pastoralists in Kenya. In contrast Fratkin & Roth (1990), found that the
same drought resulted in increased wealth differences between rich and poor among the
Ariaal Rendille, Kenya. Comparing post-drought herd size and species-specific herd losses to
pre-drought counts, rich households tended to stay rich in contrast to middle and poor
households who became poor or even poorer (Fratkin and Roth 1990:386). It was also showed
that households keeping a large proportion of camels, i.e. rich households, lost proportionally
less animals than those relying on cattle and small stock.
In a follow up study Roth (1996) wished to test the effectiveness of traditional
maximizing strategies through analysis of sedentary Rendille pastoralists during the Kenyan
drought of 1984/85. Roth (1996:221) hypothesized that: “For maximization to be effective,
11
wealthier households should suffer greater absolute animal losses, but fewer, or comparable,
relative losses. In this scenario, large herd sizes buffer wealthy households from the ravages
of drought”. In short, Roth (1996) found that all households lost a major part of their animals,
even more than 50% of pre-drought herd size. Moreover, when it comes to proportional
losses, there were insignificant differences between camels and small stock, but poor
households lost proportionally more cattle than rich ones. As a consequence, Rendille herd
maximization strategies for the 1984/85 drought “[…] were highly effective” (Roth
1996:221).
Further on, McPeak (2005) investigated whether livestock accumulation can be
empirically identified as a rational strategy to adopt in a variable environment, i.e. boom-and-
bust periods of livestock populations where herd size grows steadily over a period of years in
a boom period, only to have these gains erased during a short bust period – facing Gabra
pastoralists in northern Kenya. On overall the conclusion is that herd accumulation makes a
great deal of sense as a response to the highly risky production environment of the study area
(McPeak 2005:172). The results of the analyses indicates the accumulation of animals in this
system was rational because (i) more animals means more income (McPeak 2005:181); (ii)
alternative strategies like converting some animals to less risky formal savings in banks as a
buffer against future food shortages is less profitable compared to investing in more animals
(McPeak 2005:183-5); and (iii) in terms of loss, larger pre-crisis herd size is correlated with
larger post-crisis herd size. In essence, the more animals a herder has going into a crisis
period, the more animals the herder can expect to have once the crisis has passed (cf. McPeak
2005).
Mechanisms for building herds – the importance of pastoral labour
If the building of large herds of animals can be argued to be a risk reducing strategy it follows
logically that pastoral herd size has to be influenced by what pastoralists do, otherwise herd
size would only be the result of factors outside of the pastoralists’ control such as e.g. chance
or luck. Thus, for herd accumulation to be a risk reducing strategy we have to assume that the
behaviours that pastoralists undertake in relation to their animals have to have some effect on
either the herd’s size or its demographic parameters. This should not be interpreted as a
controversial argument as it is relatively self-evident that e.g. guarding against predators,
taking animals out to the best available pastures should have an effect on e.g. animal survival
and thus herd size.
12
Even more fundamentally, however, it could be argued that without human input and
investment in the keeping of a herd of animals, pastoralism as a meaningful analytical
category ceases to exist as pastoralism is predominantly about the exercising of control over a
herd of animals through the use of human inputs (Appendix I). While how this exercising of
control may vary cross-culturally, the necessity of it does not. As such, all pastoralists have to
invest human labour into their herds and as a consequence labour represents an interesting
starting point for pastoral research. Moreover, labour has been argued to bee an important
prerequisite for successful pastoral management (e.g. Cribb 1991, Dahl 1979a, Paine 1994).
Following this rationale, human investment into pastoral production must have an effect, and
this effect should also be easily measurable. Nevertheless, there exists no shred of reliable
quantitative evidence that pastoral labour have had positive effects on herd size or herd
demography. For example, Scoones (1992) found no significant relationship between labour
and livestock survival during drought. Similarly, Sieff (1997) found no significant relationship
between labour availability, herding strategies and cattle herd dynamics. If we broaden our
perspective, however, and not only look at the relationship between labour investment and
herd size but look at pastoral production in general the picture changes (see Paper 2). For
example, Turner and Hiernaux (2008) found a significant, but small, effect of labour
availability on the probability of herders continuously herding animals, although labour
availability did not have an effect on the probability of undertaking both night grazing and
wet-season transhumance (see Paper 2 for details). In addition, Berhanu et al. (2007) found a
positive relationship between labour and pastoral production, measured as the sum of values
of milk and meat off-takes, both marketed and unmarketed (for a review of these and other
studies see Paper 2). A common explanation for somewhat contradictory results has been that
nomadic pastoralists exchange and share herding labour (Grandin 1989, Næss 2003, Scoones
1992, Sperling 1985, Sperling and Galaty 1990, Torry 1977) and form cooperative herding
groups with other households. Scoones (1992:307), for example, argues that it may not be
labour availability at the household level that is critical for the Karanga – instead herding
labour may be shared among clusters of households. Furthermore, Sieff (1997:542) argues
that the fact that labour availability within households does not influence herding practices or
cattle herd dynamics among the Datoga, may suggest two things: (1) households are not
limited by labour, or (2) ”[…] they [the Datoga] are circumventing any labor shortages within
their households either by borrowing herders from another household, or by having their
animals herded in conjunction with the herds of another household.”
13
In light of the apparent importance of pastoral labour investment, contradictory results
may be argued to be surprising. Even more surprisingly is the fact that so few studies have
tried to quantify this relationship (see Paper 2). Nevertheless, there exists a prevalent
assumption of a positive effect of increasing labour inputs on pastoral production in the
literature (Bollig 1997, Bonte and Galaty 1991, Dahl and Hjort 1976, Göbel 1997, Khazanov
1994, Borgerhoff Mulder and Sellen 1994, Sperling 1985, White 1997 for a review see Paper
2). This assumption seem to be so well integrated that the literature concerning pastoral labour
is predominantly focusing on topics related to (1) the division of labour, i.e. the gender and
age division of labour (see e.g. Curry 1996, Fratkin 1987, Fratkin 1989, Fratkin and Smith
1994, Grandin 1989, Jacoby 1991, Morton 1990, Roberts 1996, Turner 1999, Wangui 2008),
(2) changes in labour patterns as a response to commercialisation (cf. Sikana and Kerven
1991, Behnke 1987), (3) economic diversification (see e.g. Bayer and Watersbayer 1990,
Berhanu et al. 2007, Berzborn 2007, Lesorogol 2008, Mearns 2004, Sperling 1987, Thornton
et al. 2007).
In general, it has been argued that pastoral labour can be partitioned into quantitative
and qualitative aspects (Sikana and Kerven 1991). In short, the quantitative aspect of labour is
mainly related to measures of the amount and types of labour inputs, while the qualitative
aspects of labour relates to the kinds of labour used, how labour is managed, what tasks are
undertaken, and by whom the tasks are undertaken (see e.g. Fratkin 1987, Fratkin 1989,
Grandin 1989, Morton 1990, Sikana and Kerven 1991, Turner 1999). Moreover, the definition
of labour have been argued to differ in the literature where labour have usually been
conceptualized as physical inputs at the expense of labour as management inputs, i.e. the
continuous monitoring of herds and environment (both social and physical) that forms the
basis for decision-making in pastoral production (Grandin 1989). While both the qualitative
aspects and management aspects of pastoral labour are important for an understanding of
pastoralism, e.g. that variation in individual herders’ management inputs may have substantial
effects on pastoral performance; it could be argued that a possible quantitative relationship
between pastoral labour and production has not been satisfactorily explored.
Main objective and research questions
Consequently, the overall objective for this thesis was to investigate whether the accumulation
of large herds of livestock is a risk reducing strategy and whether labour investment and
cooperation is a prerequisite for successfully exploiting this strategy. The following research
questions were addressed:
14
(1) Is the accumulation of large herds a risk buffering strategy (Paper 1)?
(2) Why has previous studies of the relationship between pastoral labour and
production been characterized by contradictory results (Paper 2-3)
(3) Is cooperative production important for pastoralists (Paper 3-6)?
METHODS & STUDY DESIGN
Theoretical and methodological perspectives
“[…] we now know that all aspects of the human phenotype are products of
organic evolution – exactly the same processes that create the diversity of life
around us” (Boyd and Silk 2006:488).
This thesis is highly influenced by the perspective commonly referred to as human
behavioural ecology (see e.g. Cronk 1991, Smith et al. 2001, Winterhalder and Smith 2000),
and more importantly its methodological and theoretical approach towards understanding
socioeconomic/ecologic systems. With its explicit biological and economical foundations
human behavioural ecology has as one of its point of departure that individuals “[…]
strategically interact to maximize their own selfish interest” (Paciotti and Hadley 2004:122) 7.
Human behavioural ecology (HBE) as a perspective can be traced back to the middle
of the 1970s, and started by applying optimal foraging models in relation to decisions made
by human gatherers in relation to resource selection and land use (Winterhalder and Smith
2000:51). According to Cronk (1991:25), HBE can be defined as “[…] the study of the
evolutionary ecology of human behaviour”8. In other words, HBE can be viewed as a
7 See also (Barth 1966, Barth 1967) and his generative approach that stresses that social forms are the results of
individual actors strategic actions: “The determinants of the form must be of a variety of kinds. On the one
hand, what persons wish to achieve, the multifarious ends which they are pursuing, will channel their
behaviour. On the other hand, technical and ecological restrictions doom some kinds of behaviour and
rewards other; while the presence of others imposes strategic constraints and opportunities which modify the
allocation people can make, and will benefit from making. I will therefore argue that it is unfruitful to explain
social form, a pattern, directly by hypothesizing a purpose for it. Individual actors and individual
management units have purposes and make allocations accordingly; but a social form, in the sense of an
over-all pattern of statistical behaviour, is an aggregate pattern through which ecologic and strategic
constraints channelize, defeat and reward various activities on the part of such management units” (Barth
1967:4). This approach can be subsumed under the heading of methodological individualism.
8 In short this implies that HBE focus on an evolutionary understanding of human behaviour. This, however,
have been argued to be problematic by social scientists ever since Wilson’s (1975) final chapter generated
15
perspective that aims at investigating the relationship between ecological factors and adaptive
behaviour (Smith 2000). More specifically, the research strategy is to develop and test models
that can explain observed variations in behaviour both within and between human
populations. In essence, this implies that humans are capable of learning to use different
behaviours in different ecological and social context so as to maximise inclusive fitness9
(Borgerhoff Mulder 1988:260). Moreover, HBE aims at investigating how behaviours among
modern humans is linked to our evolutionary history (Cronk 1991).
According to Cronk (1991), HBE was developed from three theoretical perspectives:
(1) the study of the evolutionary basis of animal behaviour during the 1960s and 1970s; (2) a
dissatisfaction with previous ecological anthropological perspectives such as Steward’s
Cultural Ecology (see e.g. Moran 1982 for a summary), neo-functionalism as proposed by
Rappaport (e.g. Rappaport 1979) and Harris (e.g. Harris 1964); and (3) the development
within anthropology of the actor-based perspective, usually subsumed under the heading
methodological individualism (e.g. Barth 1966, Barth 1967), and the use of game theory.
Especially the last point was important as it resonated well “[…] with the growing emphasis
in evolutionary biology and animal behavior studies on individual-level selection and the
strategies of individual organisms” (Cronk 1991:26, for a thorough discussion of the
relationship between HBE and methodological individualism see Smith and Winterhalder
1992).
Assumptions of human behavioural ecology
According to Smith (2000) the key assumptions of HBE include: (1) an ecological selectionist
approach; (2) a piecemeal approach to the study of behaviour; (3) a focus on building models
as an intake for understanding behavioural variation; (4) a focus on decision rules or
conditional strategies; and (5) the phenotypic gambit.
uproar by trying to apply sociobiological thinking to humans (for a detailed exposition of the debate see
Segerstråle 2001). Nevertheless, times have changed and HBE and other evolutionary approaches to the
understanding of human behaviour cannot longer be argued to be illegitimate scientific perspectives
(although e.g. Ingold 1996 argues exactly that). This can be illustrated by the fact that a search on ISI Web of
Knowledge containing “human AND behavioural OR behavioral AND ecology” generates 5347 hits. As a
consequence, the general problem aspect of using evolutionary thinking in relation to human behaviour will
not be addressed here.
9 An organism survival and reproductive success is usually designated as fitness (Ridley 1995). Inclusive fitness
can then be defined as own fitness plus the effect the behaviour has on relatives’ fitness weighted by the
average coefficient of relatedness (r).
16
Ecological selectionism refers to the fact that when analyzing behaviour one have to
ask “what are the ecological factors selecting for behaviour x?” (Smith 2000:29). The
ecological part of this argument implies that one have to look at environmental conditions,
e.g. resource density, competition etc., and look for correlations between these conditions and
the behaviour one wishes to investigate (e.g. territorial behaviour). The selectionist part of this
argument implies that one develops predictions pertaining to a possible correlation based on
expectations related to what kind of behavioural patterns one believes will be (or have been)
favoured by natural selection (Smith 2000:29).
The piecemeal approach implies that complex “[…] socioecological phenomenon are
most fruitfully studied in a reductionist rather than holistic fashion” (Winterhalder and Smith
2000:52)10 by splitting up the problem into different components of decisions and constraints
(Smith 2000:29). In relation to e.g. cooperation one can look at how hunting group size may
vary as a function of differential benefits and costs related to different resources. Moreover,
conflicts in relation to how many individual should be allowed to join a group or not may
partly be explained by different benefit functions for individuals within the group versus
individuals wanting to join the group (Smith 1997a). This approach also relies on series of
simple analytical models (e.g. kinship) where the assumption is that these models can
generate valuable testable hypotheses (e.g. kinship relations as a positive predictor for
cooperation) (see Smith 2000:30 for other examples).
Furthermore it is common to frame the study of adaptation in terms of decision rules
or conditional strategies: “These are abstract and somewhat metaphorical ways of conceiving
the covariation of behaviour and socioecological environment, having the general form “In
context X, doα; in context Y, switch to β”” (Smith 2000:30). In other words, behavioural
variations are explained as adaptive responses to environmental variation, or more specifically
10 Winterhalder and Smith (1992:14) argues that reductionism for HBE implies “the “dissection of phenomena,
events, and processes into the constituents of which they are composed” (Mayr 1988:10)”, i.e. that aggregate
phenomena are constituted by lower level events and processes. This is a stark contrast to Dennett’s
(1995:81) designation greedy reductionism which can imply that “[…] reductionists want to abandon the
principles, theories, vocabulary, laws of the higher-level sciences in favor of the lower-level terms”.
Accordingly, such a preposterous understanding of reductionism may imply papers written pertaining to
““The Role of Oxygen Atoms in Supply-Side Economics”” (Dennett 1995:81). For an argument against the
more sober understanding of reductionism as argued by Winterhalder and Smith (1992:14) see Miller and
Page (2007:41-2).
17
that “Behavioral variation arises as individuals match their conditional strategies to their
diverse socioenvironmental settings” (Winterhalder and Smith 2000:54).
HBE also takes a calculated risk to ignore the unknown details pertaining to the
inheritance (cultural or genetic) of cognitive mechanisms forming the basis of, and
phylogenetic history (i.e. the evolutionary history of a species or other grouping of organisms)
of specific behavioural rules as one hopes that they will not influence the end result (Smith
2000:30). This is usually referred to the phenotypic gambit. For example, behaviour is
complex and multi-causal and depends on the environment in ways that are not easily
captured by genetic models. As a consequence, HBE treats observed phenotypes, e.g.
behaviour, as adaptations and avoid detailed notions of inheritance. In other word, strategies
or decision rules have been shaped through natural selection and resulted in adaptive
phenotypes (Smith and Winterhalder 1992:33). As few, if any, of the traits studied by HBE is
controlled by a single gene the phenotypic gambit is based on the premise that natural
selection will favour traits with high fitness regardless of the specific mechanisms of
inheritance (Smith and Winterhalder 1992:33).
Winterhalder & Smith (2000:52) argues that HBE stands in contrast to current social
anthropology because of its commitment to a hypothetico-deductive research strategy, where
testable hypotheses are developed from mathematical and graphical models based on the basic
evolutionary principle of natural selection (Smith 1983, Winterhalder and Smith 2000).
Moreover HBE focus on being general and the models that are used aims at being both simple
and parsimonious. Furthermore, HBE tries to capture the essential characteristics of a
adaptive problem and disregard to a certain degree the many other variables that the more
particularistic social anthropology is preoccupied with (Winterhalder and Smith 2000:52).
The ecology and economy of human behaviour
Nevertheless, Smith (1997b) have argued that too much of the current human behavioural
ecological research is about sex, more specifically concerning mating and parenting. While
this may be natural as differential replication forms the basis for evolution, Smith (1997b:70)
argues that “[…] the realities of thermodynamics have been around a long time – even longer
than those of natural selection – and they continue to exercise a profound influence even in
that upstart realm of the universe that we call life”. In short this implies that important
avenues for research should also include perspectives in relation to economic activities such
as food production (Smith 1997b). Moreover, Robin Fox (1997:192), one of the pioneers
together with Lionel Tiger (Tiger and Fox 1971, Fox 1975) in applying evolutionary thinking
18
in anthropology have argued that he never thought that the maximization of reproductive
fitness could describe and explain all aspects of human behaviour.
While not explicitly evolutionary in approach, this thesis’ theoretical underpinnings
have been greatly influenced by the human behavioural ecological framework pertaining to
production broadly understood. For example, the theoretical understanding of the formation of
cooperative (and measuring of cooperation) herding groups among pastoralists (Paper 4-6)
have been highly influenced by the basic premise of optimality theory (see details below),
which is a commonly used tool within HBE, focusing on the cost and benefits associated with
a specific choice or behaviour. Nevertheless, the explanations developed are more couched in
an economic language rather than an evolutionary language as an explicit link to fitness is
never made. As such one could argue that there may be inconsistencies arising in the papers
that make up this thesis, i.e. whether pastoral behaviour should be understood in economic or
evolutionary terms. Fox (1997:149), however, have argued that “If economics is the science
of self-interest then so is evolutionary biology (and hence anthropology)”. Moreover,
Darwinism has been argued to simply be “[…] the imposition of classical market economics
onto the natural world […]” (Fox 1997:151). Moreover, Ingold (1996:26) has argued that
natural selection is the “[…] mirror-image of rational choice”. Furthermore, with specific
reference to the use of optimality theory Smith (1983:627) argues that ecological optimization
theory can be viewed as a version of the standard neoclassical economic logic applied to non-
money based production systems11,12. As such there is a close link between economy and
evolutionary approaches such as HBE.
11 Nevertheless, fundamental differences exists, e.g. the main causal factor in evolutionary theory is natural
selection while in economy and other perspectives based on rational choice it is individual decision making
(Smith and Winterhalder 1992:41-2).
12 Note, however, that rationality does not require self-interest, but rather that individuals have consistent
preferences (Gintis 2009). Moreover, the assumption that individuals are entirely self-interested seems to be
increasingly relaxed in e.g. behavioural economy. In short, cross cultural evidence have shown that “[…] in
addition to their own material payoffs, many […] subjects appears to care about fairness and reciprocity, are
willing to change the distribution of material outcomes at a personal cost, and are willing to reward those
who act in a cooperative manner while punishing those who do not even when these actions are costly to the
individual” (Henrich et al. 2001:73, see also Alvard 2004, Gintis et al. 2005, Henrich 2004). Gintis et al.
(2005:8, italics in original) argues that humans have evolved to become strong reciprocators, where strong
reciprocity is “a predisposition to cooperate with others, and to punish (at a personal cost, if necessary)
those who violate the norms of cooperation, even when it is implausible that these costs will be recovered at
a later date.”
19
Optimality theory
A common form of modelling both within the social sciences and ecology is the application of
optimality models (e.g. Smith 1983, Stephens and Krebs 1986, Borgerhoff Mulder and Sellen
1994, Thomas 2007a, Thomas 2007b, Pyke et al. 1977, Deboer and Prins 1989, Hawkes et al.
1982, Hill et al. 1987). Optimality models have been used to analyse dilemmas or problems
facing individuals, e.g. how to allocate time, energy and resources between different activities
such as work and leisure etc., whether to cooperate or undertake actions alone (Borgerhoff
Mulder and Sellen 1994:205). One of the fundamental assumptions is that behaviour should
be “[…] viewed as an outcome of individual decisionmaking in response to social and
ecological challenges” (Borgerhoff Mulder and Sellen 1994:206).
Optimality theory as used within human behavioural ecology is rooted in a set of
assumption derived from an understanding of adaptation through natural selection (Smith
1983). More specifically, optimality theory assumes that behaviour has been designed by
natural selection so as to respond to changes in environmental conditions in such a way that
the specific behaviour gives individuals the best possible advantages in relation to survival
and reproductive success. In other words, optimality models focuses on the cost and benefits
that follows from individual actors’ choices or behaviours, i.e. which trade off between costs
and benefits will maximize net benefit for the individual (Houston and McNamara 1999). As
a consequence, optimality models avoids the idea that group benefits structure behaviour that
seems to be common within parts of the social sciences (Smith 1983:626). Moreover, Pianka
(1978:12, quoted in Winterhalder 1981:15) argues that ”Natural selection and competition are
inevitable outgrowths of heritable reproduction in a finite environment” (italics in original).
In short, this implies that direct or indirect competition gives advantages to individuals that
apply efficient techniques for acquiring energy and nutrition something which again may have
fitness consequences. In other words, optimalisation may be understood as efficiency in
relation to the costs and benefits from undertaking a specific activity. The assumption is that
increased efficiency, compared to some standard of performance, leads to a relative increase
in fitness13 (Winterhalder 1981:15).
Fitness, however, have been argued to be difficult to measure directly and as a
consequence other more easily measures of success, such as food intake, mate acquisition or
13 Note that an evolutionary link is not necessary when dealing with optimality models, e.g. microeconomic
analyses assuming that individuals are self-regarding maximisers of utility will use optimality models in the
same manner when finding efficient strategies (e.g. Maddala and Miller 1989).
20
numbers of surviving offspring, have been used (Borgerhoff Mulder and Sellen 1994:206).
According to Borgerhoff Mulder and Sellen (1994:206), used in this way “[…] optimality
models have greatly advanced our understanding of how behavior patterns might constitute
adaptations to the socioecological environments”. A typical optimality model consists of three
elements or assumptions: (1) currency; (2) decision rules; and (3) constraints (Borgerhoff
Mulder and Sellen 1994:206, for suggestion of somewhat different elements see Houston and
McNamara 1999, Smith 1983, Stephens and Krebs 1986).
In short, the currency may be viewed as any outcome, such as maximisation,
minimisation or variance reduction (commonly used in studies of risk sensitivity) “[…] in a
scarce commodity such as food, labor, or productivity” (Borgerhoff Mulder and Sellen
1994:206). While currencies are usually thought of as proxies for fitness (the ultimate
currency in HBE), this is not necessary as the concept of currency makes just as much sense
under a rational choice paradigm common in economics and other disciplines where actors are
seen as pursuing their ends (i.e. some form of currency) as effectively as possible (Smith and
Winterhalder 1992:45).
Furthermore, the decision rule may be thought of as the behaviour whose adaptive
significance (or efficiency) the model aims at testing (Borgerhoff Mulder and Sellen
1994:206). As previously mentioned, HBE is ignorant concerning the heritability of these
rules, but they are most likely “[…] to be reached through social learning, with the occasional
input of trial-and-error deduction […]” (Borgerhoff Mulder and Sellen 1994:206).
Finally, constraints refer to assumptions linking decisions to the relevant currency and
that restrict the outcome of the decision (Borgerhoff Mulder and Sellen 1994:206). In essence,
constraints can “[…] consist of any combination of physiological, ecological, and social
factors” (Borgerhoff Mulder and Sellen 1994:206). While the ideal is to incorporate the full
set of constraints in an optimality model, this is almost impossible. As a consequence,
optimality models should try to incorporate and explicitly consider all assumptions and
constraints that are relevant for the problem examined. To sum up, it can be argued that
optimality models represents an attempt at specifying a set of decision rules based on cost-
benefit considerations that again can be derived from the overarching principles of adaptation
through natural selection (or by assuming the individuals are self-interested maximisers of
own utility) (Smith 1983:627).
Nevertheless, optimality theory both within economy and HBE is not without
difficulties. For example, Bowles (2004:60) argues that:
21
“[…] while optimization is a behavioural postulate in the economic approach, it
is necessarily a as if shortcut in biological modelling, where the work of
optimization is done by the process of competition and selection rather than
through the conscious choice of strategies by individual members of a species”
This points to a fundamental problem of optimality models: (1) the economic approach with
its strong focus on rationality makes excessive demands on the level of information available
to individuals (i.e. a purely rational agent needs in some models so much information that it
becomes unrealistic, Smith and Winterhalder 1992, Colman 1995, Dixit and Skeath 2004,
McCain 2003); whereas (2) biological models may be argued to make far too few demands
(Bowles 2004:60). Moreover, with reference to the applicability of biological models to
explain human behaviour Sahlins (1977:44-45) attacks the relevance of kin selection for
humans in this manner:
“In passing it needs to be remarked that the epistemological problems presented
by a lack of linguistic support for calculating, r, coefficients of relationship,
amount to a serious defect in the theory of kin selection. Fractions are of very
rare occurrence in the world’s languages, appearing in Indo-European and in the
archaic civilizations of the Near and Far East, but they are generally lacking
among the socalled primitive peoples. Hunters and gatherers generally do not
have counting systems beyond one, two and three. I refrain from comment on
the even greater problem of how animals are supposed to figure out how that r
[ego, first cousins] = 1/8. The failure of sociobiologists to address this problem
introduces a considerable mysticism in their theory.”
This argument has been refuted by e.g. Dawkins (1989:291-2) with the following analogy “A
snail shell is an exquisite logarithmic spiral, but where does the snail keep its log tables?” The
point is that even though our understanding of different behaviours may be enhanced by
mathematical models, this does not by any means imply that the organism themselves need
any understanding of mathematics in order to behave (Irons and Cronk 2000).
Far more problematic is, however, Bowles (2004:60, italics added) argument that
“Application of the biological model to human evolution has produced insights but misses the
important fact that humans produce novelty intentionally […]”. The answer, according to
Bowles (2004:60) is to brush aside the zero intelligence agents of classical biological models
and the perfect information agents of classical economy, and rather look at how humans are
adaptive agents.
22
“Adaptive agents adopt behavior in a manner similar to the way people come to
have a particular accent or to speak a particular language. Forward-looking
payoff-based calculation is not entirely absent […], but conscious optimizing is
not the whole story. The answer to “why do you talk like that?” is generally
“because I was born where people talk like that” not “because I considered all
the ways of speaking and decided that my utility would be maximized by
speaking this way”” (Bowles 2004:60).
With this in mind, this thesis’ application of an optimality model (Paper 4) have, following
Smith (1983), as its starting point that assumptions connected to optimality has to be viewed
as a heuristic starting point for making models and to generate testable hypotheses, and not as
a naïve understanding of how the world actually works. They are mere models focusing on a
few key variables that help us to explain certain phenomena. Our understanding of natural
selection (or the assumption that individuals are self-regarding maximisers) makes some kinds
of assumptions in relation to optimality credible guides for developing theory, but we have to
acknowledge that they are only shortcuts that we make use of in understanding the world
(Smith 1983, see also below).
Different tools for answering different questions
“Theories can, and should, be separated from the tools used to derive them. […]
Different tools are good for different things. Some tools, like mathematics, are
good for developing precise theories based on simple sets of assumptions. Other
tools, like prose, offer the opportunity to explore subtle features of institutions
and behavior. Tools need to be judged by their ability to enhance the scientific
enterprise; theories need to be judged by how well they are able to improve our
understanding of the world around us, and not by what tools we used to derive
them” (Miller and Page 2007:60, italics added).
Review as a basis for generating hypotheses and theories
“A review tells a straightforward tale of a circumscribed question in want of an
answer” (Bem 1995:173).
This thesis is not particularly concerned with the Saami reindeer husbandry, but more
specifically oriented towards exploring specific aspects of pastoral production, i.e. labour and
risk, and how this has been conceptualized as influencing pastoral production. The underlying
starting point for the collected articles in this thesis is comparative where empirical evidence
from a wide array of nomadic pastoral societies are used to frame questions and hypothesis in
23
relation to e.g. the general relationship between pastoral labour and production. As such the
Saami reindeer husbandry can be thought of as a pastoral society where the more general
questions and hypotheses developed are investigated (I have, however, tried to collect more
detailed information pertaining to the reindeer husbandry than given in the individual papers
Paper 1, 5 & 6 in Appendix II).
In essence this indicates a focus on reviewing the pastoral literature pertaining to the
aforementioned objective(s). This, however, may be viewed as problematic as e.g. Barfield
(1993:6-7) argues that reindeer herding is “[…] best analyzed as the most sophisticated
variation in a wide continuum of arctic reindeer exploitation that ranges from simple hunting,
to raising the animals for meat harvest alone, to their use for milking and traction”. This
because reindeer herders depend on a single regionally unique species that cannot survive
anywhere else while at the same time no other domesticated animals can survive in areas
designated for reindeer herding (Barfield 1993:7). Moreover, reindeer husbandry is
historically relatively recent, only 3-400 years old (Paine 1994, see e.g. Bostedt 2001,
Bjørklund 1990:76 for different estimates) and probably evolved from a hunting culture based
on wild reindeer. This in contrast to pastoralism elsewhere who have roots back several
thousands of years (for example Goldstein and Beall 1990, Miller 1998 argues that nomadic
pastoralism originated about 9,000 years ago in the mountains of southwest Asia, today
known as Iraq and Northwest Iran with the domestication of sheep and goats)14. Moreover,
the ecosystem in which reindeer husbandry is practiced is different from e.g. semi-arid
African pastoralism. For example, while the major constraining factor limiting plant growth
and herbivore survival in semi-arid Africa is variable rainfall, in the Arctic plant growth and
livestock survival may be limited by: (1) precipitation; (2) snow; and (3) temperature (Behnke
2000). These different ecosystem factors present different problems facing reindeer herders,
which arguably may diminish the relevance of using evidence from other pastoral societies to
frame questions in relation to the reindeer husbandry. Furthermore, it could be argued that the
14 See, however, Cribb (1991:15) for different estimates that range over 4 millennia, e.g. three different origins:
(1) seventh millennium, (2) third millennium, and finally (3) the first millennium BC. Cribb (1991) argues
that one of the reasons for why estimates differ is due to definitional differences, e.g. when is it correct to
designate an economic adaptation as nomadic pastoralism? The same problem is also present in the dating of
reindeer husbandry, i.e. can the reindeer husbandry be characterised as pastoralism when using reindeer
predominantly as decoys, when having small herds consisting of draft and milk animals, or only when
subsistence was based on relatively large herds? See e.g. Bergstrøm (2005:91-98) for a discussion of the
transition from keeping relatively few reindeer to pastoral herding of a large number of reindeer.
24
keeping of only one species of livestock present, although some Saami reindeer herders have
kept both sheep and goats (e.g. Evjen 2007, Hultblad 1968), different managerial problems
than the keeping of several, again making comparison difficult. Moreover, the reindeer
husbandry can be viewed as an example of a modernized pastoral system with its extensive
dependence on technology (e.g. ATV, snowmobiles, helicopters etc.), and on both sale of
reindeer meat and governmental subsidies (Pelto 1973, Riseth 2000, Riseth 2003). Again, it
could be argued that using empirical evidence from pastoral societies in less developed
countries to pinpoint important areas of research in the reindeer husbandry may be viewed as
a cause for concern.
Nevertheless, I will argue that this approach is valid. First and foremost, as previously
mentioned one of the fundamental aspects of a pastoral adaptation shared by all pastoralists is
the exercising of control over a herd of animals by the use of human inputs. While how this
exercising of control may vary cross-culturally, the necessity of it does not. As such, all
pastoralists have to, in one way or another, invest labour into their herds and as a consequence
the problem of pastoral labour as discussed in relation to different pastoral societies represents
a valid starting point for developing general hypotheses and questions which are again
investigated in a Saami reindeer husbandry context.
Following Silvia (2007:105) the two review papers (Paper 2 & 3) in this thesis aimed
at: (1) finding problems in the existing literature pertaining to pastoral labour, and moreover
tried to identify topics that should be the focus for more research; and (2) describing what I
perceive as fundamental problems in relation to the relationship between pastoral labour and
production while at the same time proposing a solution to the problems. With this in mind a
review may be argued to represent efforts at systematizing previously published results, and,
more importantly, should point out problematic areas in relation to the topic of interest that
should be solved. In general terms, review articles have the possibility of framing future
discussions related to important areas of scientific research. More specifically, Baumeister
and Leary (1997:311) argues that reviews
“[…] serve a scientific field by providing a much-needed bridge between the
vast and scattered assortment of articles on a topic and the reader who does not
have time or resources to track them down. Reviews also present conclusions of
a scope and theoretical level that individual empirical reports cannot normally
address”.
25
In short, a review could be viewed as a systematic attempt at gathering up and integrate
evidence across studies (Cooper 2003:3). Following the taxonomy developed by Cooper
(2003) the review papers are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Placement of review papers according to the taxonomy developed by Cooper (2003)
Taxonomic
category
Paper 1 Paper 2
Focusa Research findings, method Research findings, method, theory
Goal
b
Integration of previous research,
identification of central issues
and/or problems, surveying the
state of knowledge, questions
stimulating future research,
methodological problems
Integration of previous research,
identification of central issues and/or
problems, surveying the state of
knowledge, questions stimulating
future research, methodological
problems, theoretical problems
Point of viewc Neutral representation Espousal of a position
Coverage
d
Selected central work Selected central work
Organizatione Conceptually Conceptually
Audience
f
Specialists Specialists
a Usually centered around research findings, methods, theory and application (Cooper 2003).
b Concerns what one hopes the review will accomplish. A common goal is to integrate
previous research that is believed to relate to a common topic, including “[…] (a)
formulating general statements from multiple specific instances, (b) resolving conflict
between contradictory ideas or statements of fact by proposing a new conception that
accounts for the inconsistency, and (c) bridging the gap between theories or disciplines by
creating a common linguistic framework” (Cooper 2003:3-4). Furthermore, Baumeister
and Leary (1997:312) argues that (i) theory development, (ii) theory evaluation, (iii)
surveying the state of knowledge on a particular topic, (iv) problem identification, which
purpose is to “[…] reveal problems, weaknesses, contradictions, or controversies in a
particular area of investigation.”, (v) historical account of the development of theory and
research pertaining to a specific topic are valid goals of literature reviews.
c Reviewers point of view that may influence the discussion of the literature. This can be
viewed as a continuum where two endpoints may be called neutral representation, where
the reviewer presents all arguments or evidence for and against different interpretations,
espousal of a position, where the reviewer presents the literature with the explicit aim of
demonstrating a particular point of view (Cooper 2003:4).
d Refers to the extent that reviewers find and include all relevant publications in the review.
Four types of coverage have been suggested: (i) exhaustive, where an effort is made to
include the entire literature (ii), exhaustive selection, where the entire literature forms the
basis of a sample that is presented in the review, (iii) representative, works that are
representative for a field where one of the points is to discuss what makes the chosen
works representative, (iv) central, where the reviewer concentrates on literature that have
been central to a specific topic or area.
e “Reviews may be arranged (a) historically, so that topics are introduced in the chronological
order in which they appear in the literature; (b) conceptually, so that works relating to the
same abstract ideas appear together; or (c) methodologically, so that works that use
similar methods are grouped together” (Cooper 2003:5).
f Whether writing for specialists or a general audience should have important consequences
for the review (Cooper 2003).
26
Following Cooper (2003:4) the review articles included in this thesis aims to be a research
synthesis which “(a) focuses on research findings and (b) is undertaken with the principal goal
of integrating research findings so as to make claims about their collective results and, of
course, identify the limits of these claims”. Moreover, such work “[…] also pursues both the
goal of conflict resolution by identifying inconsistencies in study results and the goal of
bridge building by identifying points of contention in the theories, conceptualizations, and
methods in which the research is embedded […]”(Cooper 2003:4).
Modelling & simulation
“Creating a model is much like trying to solve a brain teaser. Finding such
solutions is often an extremely difficult task involving a combination of theory,
practice, and a bit of art. Yet, once discovered, the answer has a strong intuitive
appeal and appears all too obvious” (Miller and Page 2007:43).
According to Kohler and Leeuw (2007:1) every time researchers try to answers questions in
relation to “how” or “why”, “[…] we build a model to try to answer it”. In this sense a model
may be thought of as, however informal, a candidate explanation. More technically, a model
may be thought of as an imaginary system, which is represented in its own language such as
e.g. mathematics or computer code “[…] that has useful similarities to the aspect of the target
system in the real world” (Kohler and Leeuw 2007:3, italics added). Thus, a model cannot be
true or false in the same sense as hypotheses, but is rather evaluated on the basis of whether it
fits some portion of the real world with respect to the specific purpose the model is developed
for investigating (Kohler and Leeuw 2007:3). Whether the model fits or not has to be
investigated empirically, but models have an important property that e.g. generalisations do
not have: while a generalisation may be discredited by one contrary observation, a model that
does not fit one case may nevertheless by useful for another (Kohler and Leeuw 2007:3).
In short, models should be thought of as thinking aids that do not investigate nature,
but “[…] investigate the validity of our thinking, i.e. whether the logic behind an argument is
correct” (Kokko 2007:7). This implies that a model may be highly simplified “[…] omitting
details that are thought to be noncritical to the aspects of the target system being explored. It
might be viewed as an abstraction, a simplification, an idealization, or a conceptual device”
(Kohler and Leeuw 2007:4). More critically, Kokko (2007:8) argues that “[…] a model
should include all the relevant details for the particular question at hand, but it should be kept
so simple that it can be understood”. Following Axelrod (1997:4-5), a model does not aim at
providing “[…] an accurate representation of a particular empirical application”, but the goal
27
is rather to “[…] enrich our understanding of fundamental processes that may appear in a
variety of applications”. With this in mind, Axelrod (1997:5) suggest that modellers should
adopt the KISS (“keep it simple, stupid”) principle. According to Axelrod (1997:5) this
principle is important due to the character of the research community:
“Both the researcher and the audience have limited cognitive ability. When a
surprising result occurs, it is very helpful to be confident that we can understand
everything that went into the model. Although the topic being investigated may
be complicated, the assumptions underlying the […] model should be simple.”
In short, the complexity of a model should lie in the results it generates and not in the
assumptions (Axelrod 1997:5).
In the same vein Levins (1966:421) argued that “[…] we have to simplify the models
in a way that preserves the essential features of the problem”. Ideally, a model should achieve:
(1) generality; (2) realism; and (3) precision at the same time (Levins 1966:422). This is,
however, hardly possible and most types of modelling sacrifices one of the three aspects,
“[…] with the choice depending on the nature and goals of the investigation” (Winterhalder
1981:18).
Following Bårdsen (2009:6) the model developed in this thesis (Paper 4) should be
though of as “[…] an idealized, or simplified, representation of reality”, what Kokko (2007:9)
designates as “conceptual models” that “[…] can be viewed as tools for testing arguments in a
formal mathematical setting, where models can be used to test if specific patterns emerge
from known processes and mechanisms given a set of more or less realistic assumptions […]”
(Bårdsen 2009:6). In short, the simple optimality model developed in Paper 4 aims at
illustrating how one important mechanism for maximising long term household survival may
be related to cooperative labour investment. Cooperation may result in reduced labour
investment related costs and as such may increase the optimal level of labour investment. This
may again have the potential of positively influence pastoral production. As the question I aim
at answering is whether cooperation can, in principle, lead to higher production returns, the
model focuses first and foremost on achieving generality and secondly precision.
Statistical analyses
Three papers in this thesis apply statistical analyses of empirical data when exploring the
aforementioned overall objective(s) in relation to the Saami reindeer husbandry (Paper 1, 5 &
6). In contrast to descriptive narratives, the use of quantitative data allow hypotheses to be
28
tested statistically and opens up for the possibility of cross-cultural comparisons on a
statistically basis (Borgerhoff Mulder and Caro 1985). This has been argued to both increase
the confidence and the strength of results (Borgerhoff Mulder and Caro 1985). Furthermore,
the use of quantitative data offer the possibility of cross-culturally and intra-culturally
comparison of quantifiable relationship in relation to a predictor of interest as for example
labour (Borgerhoff Mulder and Caro 1985). Nevertheless, the use of quantitative data does not
negate the use of traditional anthropological fieldwork as fieldwork can be used to gather both
qualitative and quantitative data.
A reasonable question then may be why the analyses pertaining to the: (1)
accumulation of large herds as a buffer strategy (Paper 1); and (2) relationship between
labour and production in the Saami reindeer husbandry (Paper 5 & 6) are based on data
collected by the Norwegian reindeer husbandry administration (see Paper 1, 5 & 6 for
details) rather than data collected through long time fieldwork. The underlying rationale for
this choice is related to sample size. In general, fieldwork undertaken by one researcher
constrains the realistic sample size that one can possible hope to base quantitative analyses on.
Moreover, sample size can be argued to be of vital importance for questions pertaining to both
risk and labour. For example, one of the main arguments developed in Paper 2 is that one of
the reasons why previous studies have been characterized by ambiguous results in relation to
the relationship between pastoral labour and production may be partly due to relatively low
sample size. Low sample size is known to have a negative impact on the possibility of
detecting significant effects (see e.g. Anderson et al. 2001, Crawley 2002, Johnson 2002,
Yoccoz 1991), which may be argued to be especially pertinent if the effect of pastoral labour
is marginal as some evidence suggests (Berhanu et al. 2007, Turner and Hiernaux 2008,
Paper 4-6). Similarly, the question of herd size as a buffer for risk can be argued to also be
best investigated by the use of relatively large sample sizes as previous studies have again
been characterized by somewhat contradictory results (see above). Moreover, if risk
sensitivity is viewed as an adaptation (as argued by e.g. Winterhalder 2007, Winterhalder and
Leslie 2002, Winterhalder et al. 1999) it could be argued that it is important to have data from
several years, something which is difficult to obtain by the use of traditional anthropological
fieldwork. Consequently, rather than doing extensive fieldwork in the Saami reindeer
husbandry as a basis for data collecting, the present thesis take advantage of data compiled
annually by the Norwegian reindeer husbandry administration covering the period from 1998-
2004. The drawback of basing analyses on a database is the apparent constraints in relation to
how to operationalise relevant variables. Labour had to be measured as number of people or
29
number of husbandry units (see Paper 5 for details), whereas production was measured as
herd size or calf body mass (see Paper 1, 5 & 6 for details concerning the variables used).
Furthermore, this also naturally constrained what could not be considered in the specific
analyses (see Figure 2 for an overview of what has been considered in this study and possible
important aspect that have not been considered due to data constraints). For example, income
from both sale of reindeer meat and governmental subsidies are without doubt important
factors in the reindeer husbandry. Measures pertaining to these important aspects of Saami
reindeer husbandry production was, however, not available so this aspect could not be
investigated (see however Paper 1 for some tentative suggestions). While not indicating that
factors not included in these analyses (see Figure 2) are unimportant this merely reflect the
point that all studies are constrained by data and as such the analyses pertaining to the Saami
reindeer husbandry represent no particular exception to a general consideration that underlies
all scientific investigations.
Figure 2. Conceptual figure illustrating factors that influence pastoral production investigated
in this thesis and important factors that have not been considered. Boxes with grey text
indicate important factors not considered. Note: factors not investigated should not be thought
of as representing a complete list or to be unimportant (see the individual papers for rationale
for the factors chosen). Other important factors influencing production, such as year to year
variation and geographic variations in e.g. climate and pasture, and variations in reindeer
density have been dealt with in the individual papers (1, 5 & 6).
Production
Risk Labour
Cooperation
Kinship
Income
Non-pastoral
activities
Subsidies Meat sale
Interactions
with the state Technology
Women's role and
status
Interactions with
other groups
Social organisation
30
RESULTS
Production in risky environments (paper 1)
The main finding of this study was that large herd size maximizes long term viability for
Saami reindeer husbandry units in Finmark, Norway. This was supported as husbandry units
with large herds are performing better relative to husbandry units with smaller herds due to
the fact that larger herds were on average larger the following year relative to smaller ones.
This study also found evidence of negative density-dependence as reindeer density had a
negative effect on the husbandry units’ future herd size, and this negative effect was more
prominent in some years compared to others. Finally, this study found that when the relative
effect of own herd size and reindeer density was assessed simultaneously the positive effect of
own herd size represented a significantly stronger force on future herd size compared to the
small negative effect imposed by density.
The problem of pastoral labour (paper 2-3)
The two review studies incorporated in this thesis has pointed out several problems in the
literature concerned with the relationship between pastoral labour and production. First and
foremost, it is a widely held belief that there is a positive effect of increasing labour inputs on
pastoral production in spite of contradictory quantitative evidence. In terms of future research,
these studies have raised important issues in relation to study design that has to be addressed:
(1) the relationship between statistical significance and sample size (Paper 2); (2) how
different measures of pastoral production can affect the inference drawn from such analyses
(Paper 2); and (3) how the contradictory results in the literature may be caused by inadequate
measurements of pastoral labour (Paper 3). Future quantitative research has to incorporate the
fact that nomadic pastoralists exchange and share labour with other households in what has
been termed cooperative herding groups. One of the main arguments in Paper 3 has therefore
been that to fully investigate possible effects of pastoral labour on production one also have to
test for possible effects on higher levels of social organizations (the same was also noted by
Grandin 1989:145).
The importance of cooperative production (paper 4-6)
Paper 4 found that one important mechanism for maximising long term household survival
may be related to cooperative labour investment. Cooperation may result in reduced labour
31
investment related costs and as such may increase the optimal level of labour investment. This
may again have the potential of positively influence pastoral production. In essence, the
model developed showed that cooperation can, in principle, lead to a relatively small increase
in production returns (measured as an increased birth rate) for nomadic pastoralists which
again may have positive long term consequences for household survival.
From this point of view, it may be that pastoral labour related effects is characterized
by scale dependency consisting of tradeoffs between the costs and benefits of labour inputs on
varying levels of social organization. Consequently, it may be expected that a variation in the
number of potential labourers per individual household will not lead to a variation in
production between different households. A variation in the number of cooperating
households, on the other hand, may lead to a variation in production because this can increase
the total amount of labour input per cooperative unit without significantly increasing the cost
per household. One should therefore expect that cooperating units consisting of many
cooperating household should, on average, perform better than cooperating units consisting of
relatively few cooperating households.
Paper 5 aimed at investigating whether labour availability, in general, have an effect
on pastoral production, and second whether there is a scale dependent effect of pastoral labour
in the Saami reindeer husbandry. To put it briefly, this study found both support for a general
effect of pastoral labour on production and that this effect also have a scale dependent
component as this study found: (1) a positive relationship between within-husbandry labour
and herd size; and (2) a positive relationship between the number of cooperative husbandry
units within districts and calf carcass body mass and density. This study clearly shows that
assuming a zero effect of pastoral labour on production is incorrect for the reindeer
husbandry. The state of the cost-benefit model developed in Paper 4, however, can be said to
be less certain as the study found positive results on both the husbandry unit level and district
level of social organization.
Paper 6 aimed at investigating whether important mechanisms facilitating cooperative
behaviour, such as kinship relations may be an important factor influencing pastoral
production in the Saami reindeer husbandry. The main finding in this study was that
cooperative labour investment is important for Saami reindeer herders, but that the effect of
kinship and labour needs to be understood in relation to each other. When we assessed the
effect of labour and kinship simultaneously, both labour and genealogical relationship had
positive effects on herd size. Moreover, the positive interaction between them shows that high
32
levels of relatedness coupled with a large potential labour pool had an increasingly positive
effect on herd size.
DISCUSSION
The collected articles in this thesis found first that herd accumulation is a risk reducing
strategy for Saami reindeer herders as a larger reindeer herds performed better than smaller
ones over time (Paper 1). Second, previous attempts to quantify the relationship between
pastoral labour and production have been characterized by somewhat contradictory results due
to a lack of consistency regarding which areas of pastoral production that is considered being
influenced by labour investment and by a limited sample size given the strength of effect sizes
(Paper 2). Third, measurements of pastoral labour investment have been characterized by a
within-household bias neglecting possible between household cooperative labour investments
(Paper 3). Fourth, from a theoretical point of view it was shown that pastoral labour can be
characterized by scale dependency consisting of changed cost-benefit relationships where
cooperative labour investment may be a least-cost strategy (Paper 4). Fifth, evidence of scale
dependency of pastoral labour in the Saami reindeer husbandry was found as the number of
possible cooperating husbandry units and genealogical relationship had a significant effect on
individual herd size, animal density and offspring body mass (Paper 5 & 6). These results
suggest that future studies have to investigate possible cooperative labour related effects on
pastoral production, and more importantly that cooperative labour investment is an important
mechanism for efficiently buffering risk in stochastic environments.
Pastoral labour, cooperation and risk
Pastoral labour and production
In contrast to e.g. Scoones (1992) and Sieff (1997), Paper 5 found a positive effect of labour
on herd size for Saami reindeer herders. In other words, in the Saami reindeer husbandry herd
size is positively correlated with number of persons within husbandry units (see Paper 5 for
details). In short this result supports the general assumption of a positive effect of labour on
pastoral production (see Paper 2 for a review) and more importantly that assuming a zero
effect of pastoral labor on production, as suggested by e.g. Schneider (1974) and Helland
(1980), is incorrect for reindeer husbandry. Nevertheless, Paper 5 argued that it may not be
the number of people per husbandry units’ that influence herd size, but rather that the size of
33
livestock holdings may positively influence the number of people per husbandry unit (see
Paper 5 & 6 for details). In other words, it could be argued that results pertaining to within-
household (or within-husbandry unit) labour is ambiguous at best when measuring labour as
number of persons (see Paper 5 & 6 for details).
As argued in Paper 3 & 4, however, pastoral labour is not merely a question for
individual households, but also a question for possible cooperative herding groups. As Paper
3 shows, pastoral labour cooperation is relatively prevalent which goes to show that it is
important to measure labour not only in relation to household labour but also in relation to
between household labour. Moreover, the explicit assumption underlying the argument
developed in Paper 4 is that previous contradictory evidence related to the effect of pastoral
labour on production for individual households may be associated with the costs related to
labour inputs for individual households and that labour related effects on pastoral production
may be found on levels of social organization above the household level. In other words, it
may be that pastoral labour related effects is characterized by scale dependency consisting of
tradeoffs between the costs and benefits of labour inputs on varying levels of social
organization. Assuming a benefit from increasing labour inputs, however small, and that
cooperation is based on a sharing and exchange of labour, cooperation could be a least-cost
combination among a set of feasible labour input combinations incorporating herding alone
and herding cooperatively (see Paper 4 for details). A possible change in trade-off between
costs and benefits of labour inputs when investing cooperatively may help explain the
prevalence of cooperative herding groups among pastoralists as this may make it possible to
reap a marginal increase in benefit.
In line with this Paper 5 & 6 also investigated possible cooperative aspects of pastoral
labour investments and its relationship with production for the Saami reindeer husbandry. In
sum, Paper 5 found a positive effect of number of husbandry units within reindeer districts
on: density of female reindeer within districts and offspring body mass. Moreover, the
importance of the cooperative aspect of labour investment was corroborated in Paper 6,
where number of husbandry units together with the degree of genealogical relationship within
reindeer districts had a positive effect on individual husbandry units’ herd size15. In short, this
15 The reason why Paper 6 did not look at the relationship between offspring body mass and both labour and
degree of genealogical relatedness was connected to sample size. Paper 5 found a relatively small effect of
labour on offspring body mass which detection can be argued to be related to a relatively large sample size.
In contrast, Paper 6’s sample size was reduced as information pertaining to kinship relations was available
34
indicates that looking for possible scale-dependent effects of pastoral labour is important.
Nevertheless, Paper 5 argued that the analysis dealing with female reindeer density may not
be connected to actual labour investment, i.e. the number of husbandry units may not
represent a measure of labour input per se, but only a measure of the effect that districts
consisting of more husbandry units and, as a consequence, more herds, have naturally a larger
total number of animals (see Paper 5 for details).
The same line of reasoning cannot be applied to the positive effect of number of
husbandry units on offspring body mass (Paper 5) and to the positive effect of number of
husbandry units together with the degree of genealogical relationship on individual husbandry
units’ herd size (Paper 6). Paper 5 demonstrates that the density of reindeer within districts
have a negative effect on offspring body mass and Paper 6 demonstrates that the density of
reindeer within districts have a negative effect on individual husbandry units’ herd size. In
effect, cooperative labour investment had a positive effect on both offspring body mass and
individual husbandry units’ herd size after controlling for the important effect of negative
density-dependence (e.g. Clutton-Brock et al. 1996, Albon et al. 1983, Saether 1997, Tveraa
et al. 2007), i.e. Saami reindeer herders can to a certain degree compensate for the negative
effect of density by the application of cooperative labour investment.
While Paper 5 argued that applicability of the cost-benefit model developed in Paper
4 is somewhat uncertain due to somewhat contradictory results (i.e. the detection of a positive
relationship on the husbandry unit level, but see above) the combined results from Paper 5
and 6 indicate that cooperation is important for pastoralists and that the cost-benefit model is a
valid starting point. Moreover, there is some evidence indicating that pastoral labour may
have a relatively small effect on pastoral production (Berhanu et al. 2007, Turner and
Hiernaux 2008, Paper 4-6). In essence, this may be taken to indicate that the cost of investing
labour is relatively high in comparison to a possible small benefit. However, the model
developed in Paper 4 indicates that this may be true in the short term, i.e. investing labour
may have a small positive effect on birth rate, but the long term effect may be significant
indeed (see simulation in Paper 4). This again may be taken to strengthen the model and
argument developed in relation to the importance of cooperative labour investment – by
cooperating the short term cost may be significantly reduced something which again may
have significant long term benefits for individual households.
only for 20 reindeer husbandry districts which represents around 26% reduction in number of districts
compared to Paper 5 (which was based on 27 districts).
35
Cooperative production
“Many of the benefits sought by living things are disproportionally
available to cooperating groups. While there are considerable differences in
what is meant by the terms “benefits” and “sought,” this statement, insofar as it
is true, lays down a fundamental basis for social life. The problem is that while
an individual can benefit from mutual cooperation, each one can also do even
better by exploiting the cooperative efforts of others” (Axelrod 1984:92).
As the above quote indicates cooperation is an important aspect of social life, more so
because it carries with it the possibility of attaining benefits not available if not cooperating.
Smith (2003), in a review of the various domains of human cooperation lists: (1) resource
sharing; (2) cooperative production; (3) aid-giving; and (4) coalition-based conflict as
important cooperative domains. Discussions pertaining to cooperation have been
predominantly focused on different aspects of and explanations for e.g. resource sharing (cf.
Gurven 2004a, Gurven 2004b, Gintis et al. 2005, Smith 2004b, Smith 2004a, Smith and Bird
2005), while the aspect of cooperative production has been given comparable less attention.
One aspect of cooperative production that have been given some attention is group hunting,
where Smith (1981), for example, has argued that group formation by Inuit (Canadian
Eskimos) hunters can potentially benefit individual foraging behaviour (see also Smith
1997a). The same has also been observed for whale hunters in Indonesia where cooperative
whale hunting resulted in greater per capita returns than solitary fishing (Alvard and Nolin
2002). One of the reasons for why cooperative production have been given less attention may
be because, as the studies referred to above indicates, cooperative hunting may imply some
sort of mutual benefits to all cooperating individuals. As such cooperative production may not
represent as difficult a problem needing an explanation as the sharing of already obtained
food resources where the giver usually experience a reduction in net returns (Smith 2003).
Cooperative situations characterised by some degree of mutualism have usually been
subsumed under the heading coordination games where the structural property of the game is
that the players’ payoff is related to one another so that the players’ preferences coincide
(Colman 1995:11). Coordination games “[…] are characterized by common interest among
players […]” and “[…], benefits accrue to individuals through collective action, and
individuals are better off cooperating than they are defecting” (Alvard 2003:149).
Thus, if cooperative production among Saami reindeer herders is characterized by
mutualism it is to be expected that cooperative labour investment is important regardless of
possible important mechanisms, such as kinship relations, explaining cooperative behaviour.
36
Nevertheless, both Paper 5 and 6 included measures of possible cooperative mechanisms that
were important. More importantly, the results in Paper 6 suggests that while both labour and
kinship had a positive effect on individual husbandry units’ herd size when assessed
simultaneously, the interaction between them was important. As the effect of possible
cooperative labour was not significant when assessing labour alone, in the Saami reindeer
husbandry cooperative labour investment may be mediated through kinship relations (see
Paper 6 for details). As such, for the reindeer husbandry mutualism alone is not a sufficient
condition for efficient cooperative behaviour. This is in line with Alvard and Nolin
(2002:547) who argue that
“Substantial coordination is required to subsist on cooperatively acquired
resources. Behaviors must be synchronized, rules must be agreed to (even if
tacitly), and assurance, trust, and commitment must be generated among
participants for the collective benefits of cooperative hunting to be realized.”
These important aspects underlying cooperative behaviour may be argued to be positively
influenced by kinship relations (see e.g. Borgerhoff Mulder and Coppolillo 2005). In essence,
this implies that important mechanisms facilitating cooperative behaviour, such as kinship
relations (see e.g. Borgerhoff Mulder and Coppolillo 2005, Hamilton 1964, Alvard 2003),
may be an important factor influencing pastoral production (see also Paine 1994, Pehrson
1964 in relation to the Saami reindeer husbandry).
Herd size and risk
Following Mcpeak (2005), Roth (1996) Fratkin and Roth (1990) Paper 1 aimed at
investigating whether the keeping of a large herd of reindeer works as a risk buffering strategy
in the Saami reindeer husbandry. In short, the results support the general assumption that the
keeping of large herds is an efficient risk reducing strategies for nomadic pastoralists (see
Paper 1 for details). This was supported as husbandry units with large herds are performing
better relative to husbandry units with smaller herds due to the fact that larger herds were on
average larger the following year relative to smaller ones both during periods of overall
decrease and increase in reindeer numbers. Paper 1 also found evidence of negative density-
dependence as reindeer density had a negative effect on the husbandry units’ future herd size,
and this negative effect was more prominent in some years compared to others. More
importantly, when the relative effect of own herd size and reindeer density in the district was
assessed simultaneously it was clear that the positive effect of own herd size represents a
37
much stronger force on future herd size compared to the negative density-dependence (see
Paper 1 for details). This may be seen to indicate that Mace & Houston (1989) have a point
when arguing that pastoralists maximize long term household survival, i.e. they want to stay
in the game as long as possible, by minimising the risk of destitution. As Paper 1 show, in the
reindeer husbandry one viable path for obtaining this goal is to accumulate reindeer numbers
and consequently, following McPeak (2005), the overall conclusion is that herd accumulation
makes a great deal of sense as a response to the risky production environment of the Saami
reindeer husbandry.
From a more theoretical point of view it may, however, be argued that Paper 1 have
not properly investigated herd size as a buffer strategy. This study used future herd size as a
response variable while Roth (1990), Fratkin & Roth (1990) and McPeak (2005) used
livestock loss as a response. First, Paper 1 used future herd size as a response due to the
unreliability of data connected to reindeer loss. Loss due to predation, for example, is to a
large degree subsidized by the Norwegian government (Anonymous 2008). Furthermore, as
this data is based on self-reporting, measures related to loss may be biased as it could be
argued that the subsidies presents an incentive for reindeer herders to overestimate losses.
Second, both absolute loss and relative loss may be argued to not be good indicators of
herd size as a buffer strategy. This can be illustrated with two somewhat different
understandings of the relationship between loss and herd size. For example, Roth (1996:221)
argues that “For maximization to be effective, wealthier households should suffer greater
absolute animal losses, but fewer, or comparable, relative losses”. This view fits nicely within
the perspective that risk buffering strategies are aimed at reducing variations in e.g. food
production (Bollig and Göbel 1997, Halstead and O'Shea 1989, Winterhalder 2007,
Winterhalder et al. 1999). The second understanding can be summarized with the following
quote from Fratkin and Roth (1990:387): “[…] a rich man may lose half of 100 animals and
survive, where a poor man will lose half of ten animals and perish”. While these two views
may appear to be closely linked, they could be argued to be quite different as they have
different implications concerning what absolute loss and relative loss can tell us with
reference to herd size as a buffer strategy. In contrast to the first view, the second view
incorporates an understanding of the importance of herd size prior to e.g. a climatic event. In
other words, it could be argued that the second view opens up for a view that households with
relatively larger herds of livestock may lose a larger percentage of the herd during a climatic
event than households with fewer animals, but still ends up in better post-event position than
poorer households. For example, a pre-event herd consisting of 100 animals compared with
38
one consisting of 50 sustaining a 70 and 50 percent loss respectively will result in that the
relatively wealthy household will continue to be wealthy compared to the poor household
even though it has lost larger percentage of its herd during the event (post-event herd sizes are
30 vs. 25). This indicates that it is possible to find a positive relationship between herd size
and both absolute loss and relative loss but that a large herd size may still be an effective risk
reducing strategy. The first understanding, however, does not carry the same implication as it
assumes that such a positive relationship in terms of relative loss shows that a large herd size
does not works as a buffer against risk. The question then arises if it is meaningful to argue
that the keeping of a large number of animals results in a reduction in variation (i.e. relative
losses). It could be argued that it is meaningless to discuss the keeping of a large herd as
variation reducing strategy without explicitly stating some sort of level that numbers vary
around. In short, wealthy households with a large herd of animals may reduce the probability
of variation around some level of minimum subsistence, while at the same time experiencing
greater percentage variation around its own herd size. Herd accumulation may then be argued
to be a different risk reducing strategy than e.g. diversification. For pastoralist, a classical
diversification strategy is the keeping of multiple species of animals. This strategy can have
several advantages: herds tend to be more stable, and permit a wider use of pasture. Also, if
one species experiences great losses another available species can, to some extent,
compensate for this loss because the different species’ capacity to cope with different natural
disasters and reproductive ability varies (Khazanov 1994). Also, species diversification
reduces the danger of losing an entire herd from one disease (White 1997). Species
diversification then reduces variation in the classical sense: when losing a number of animals
from one species it is still possible to survive if other species fare better. The building of large
herds, however, may be viewed differently as it could be understood as a strategy that aims at
building up a herd of the size where it is possible to experience a greater percentage variation
in animal numbers, but still fare better than a household with fewer animals. Consequently,
losses in itself may not be good indicator of whether large herd size works as a risk
management strategy – rather one have to look at individual households’ relative position in
terms of livestock numbers vis. a vis. other households and/or a threshold indicating the
minimum number of livestock necessary.
Cooperation and risk
One of the most important findings in this thesis is that one important mechanism facilitating
the accumulation of large herds of reindeer is cooperative labour investment. As was argued
39
in Paper 1, one of the biggest challenges facing the Saami reindeer husbandry in Finnmark,
Norway, both from a governmental management perspective and from the perspective of
individual herders, is the perceived notion of overstocking in terms of number of reindeer.
Consequently, the Norwegian government has initiated several economic incentives and
subsidies with the explicit aim of motivating reindeer herders to reduce the size of their herds
(Anonymous 2008). Nevertheless, the number of reindeer in Finnmark has experienced an
increase in recent years (see Paper 1 for details). As argued in Paper 1, this implies that
governmental assumed objectives and the Saami reindeer herders’ objectives may not be
exactly corresponding, i.e. that reindeer herders are not purely motivated by financial gains as
the economic incentives and subsidies seem to presuppose. A classical explanation for
pastoralists’ accumulation of livestock has been that rather than being motivated by market
economic goals of efficient production of meat for sale, e.g. reindeer herders are motivated by
non-economic values such as prestige and status where large herds are the ultimate sign of
status and prestige (e.g. Sara and Knudsen 2001, see also Paine 2009 who argues that one of
the reasons that reindeer herders 'hoard' reindeer is for "conspicuous display"). In contrast,
this thesis has shown that one of the reasons for accumulating reindeer is related to risk
buffering (see above).
As argued in Paper 1, governmental subsidies may in fact positively interact with the
risk beneficial aspects of having a large herd: as previously mentioned, loss due to predation
is to a large degree subsidised by the Norwegian government (Anonymous 2008). As losses
again are based on self-reporting it could be argued that the subsidies presents an incentive for
reindeer herders to overestimate losses16. The beneficial aspect of having a large herd in such
a subsidised system is self-evident: having a large herd gives reindeer husbandry units the
possibility to report much larger losses than husbandry units with comparable smaller herds.
Consequently, the economic incentives and subsidies aimed at increasing production
efficiency and thereby reducing herd sizes may not work in the fashion that they were
supposed to. More to the point, it may be that Saami reindeer herders’ trade off long term
survival (increasing herd size) and economic gain through slaughter by slaughtering the
minimum necessary to obtain governmental meat production subsidies, but at a level that still
make them capable to accumulate animals for maximizing long term husbandry unit survival.
16 Compensation due to loss increased from 22 400 000 NOK in 2004 to 29 500 000 NOK in 2005 (Anonymous
2005). In 2007 this compensation was 43 000 000 NOK (http://www.reindrift.no/?id=4547&subid=0). 100
NOK = 14.34$ per 11.12.08.
40
If this is true, governmental management initiatives aimed at reducing herd size have to
change so as to incorporate factors associated with risk reducing strategies in their
management plans. At present management initiatives can be viewed as being based on a
faulty assumption of what the objectives of reindeer herders are, i.e. increased meat
production efficiency.
Moreover, Paper 4 has demonstrated that it is a distinct possibility that pastoralists in
general use cooperative labour investment to increase herd size and thereby increase long
terms household survival. This can be argued to indicate that cooperative labour investment is
an important risk reducing mechanism, and more to the point that Göbel (1997) is correct
when arguing that bottlenecks in the availability of labour, has to be considered as a risk
factor in pastoral production systems. As for the Saami reindeer husbandry, this has been
demonstrated to be the case, as Paper 6 found that substantial cooperative efforts are used to
increase individual husbandry units’ herds size. Moreover, Paper 5 found also that
cooperative labour investment had a positive effect on offspring body mass. In sum, it could
be argued that cooperative labour investment increases long term survival probability in the
Saami reindeer husbandry.
Finally, Paper 4, 5 and 6 may be argued to support the important general questions
pertaining to pastoral labour raised in Paper 2 and 3: (1) that sample size is important for
detecting pastoral labour related effects, i.e. that relatively large samples sizes are necessary
for detecting a possible small effect. (2) More importantly, that the prevalence of cooperative
herding groups may be aimed at attaining increasing production returns, i.e. that it is
important to incorporate measurement of cooperative labour investment when investigating
labour related effects. (3) Coupled with a risk perspective, it could also be argued that the
timeframe for investigating labour related effects, i.e. it is important to have data from several
years.
COOPERATION, COMPETITION AND MANAGEMENT – PROSPECTS FOR
FUTURE RESEARCH
This thesis found that the accumulation of large herds is an efficient risk buffering strategy,
and more importantly that one important mechanism for building large herds is cooperative
labour investment. Nevertheless, there are reasons to believe that investing cooperative labour
in herd building may be sub-optimal in the Saami reindeer husbandry. For example, it is
relatively well known that density has a negative effect on herbivore body mass (Albon et al.
41
1983, Clutton-Brock et al. 1996, Saether 1997) and consequently survival during harsh
environmental conditions. This is also the case for the reindeer husbandry where it has been
demonstrated that reindeer density has a negative effect on body mass (Næss et al. 2009,
Tveraa et al. 2007, Bårdsen 2009) – and consequently survival (Tveraa et al. 2003). From a
risk perspective it could be argued that for the Saami reindeer herders, the best long term
strategy may be to invest in livestock body mass and not herd size.
One of the reasons why this pattern is not observed may be explained with reference to
between-district competition over access to common winter pastures (Riseth et al. 2004,
Riseth and Vatn 2009). Most of the summer districts in this thesis share the same winter
grazing area where access is to a large degree determined by herd size (Anonymous 2009b,
Ulvevadet 2000:65, Nilsen and Mosli 1994:102-103). Riseth (2004), for example, argues that
after the introduction of technological herding aids, such as snowmobiles (see Appendix II),
herd sizes increased and some winter siidas expanded their relative share of winter pastures at
the cost of other siidas (changes in relative pasture from 1957 to 1997). In short, larger herds
use more extensive pasture areas and thereby may exclude other herds from grazing in the
same area. Building of large herds through cooperative labour investment may thus be a
viable strategy for gaining access to winter pastures. Furthermore, while summer districts
consist of relatively few husbandry units and with the possibility of an efficient cooperation
through kinship relations, common winter pastures are used by a relatively large number of
husbandry units. As such, the use of common winter grazing may represent a problem of
large-scale cooperation (Paciotti and Hadley 2004, Bowles and Gintis 2003) where kinship
relations are not sufficient to provide the basis for cooperative behaviour. From a theoretical
point of view, competition rather than cooperation for access to common winter grazing could
easily develop if just one or a few herders initiate herd accumulation (cf. Hardin 1968 and the
'tragedy of the commons'). If this is the case, other herders have to adopt the same strategy so
as to not be excluded from the grazing areas.
Ultimately, competition for access to winter pastures may explain the adoption of herd
accumulation as the only viable risk reducing strategy. Moreover, Paper 6 demonstrates that
herd accumulation may be constrained by the availability of cooperative labour, and that
husbandry units within districts with a lower degree of relatedness have, on average, access to
a smaller cooperative labour pool. This entails that access to more cooperative labour enables
husbandry units to be more successful in following whatever strategy that is best in a given
context. For example, we could expect that in contexts where between district competition is
highly controlled, e.g. where all grazing areas are controlled by individual districts, or where
42
there exists both formal and informal regulations in terms of access to common grazing areas,
husbandry units experiencing high degrees of cooperation should invest cooperative labour
into livestock condition. It could be hypothesized that one of the reasons for problems in
relation to overstocking may be that reindeer herders adopt herd accumulation as the best
available risk reducing strategy when access to common winter pastures is characterized by
competition.
Nevertheless, the Norwegian government are taking steps to reduce the possible
problem connected to possible competition in relation to winter pastures. Presently, the
Norwegian government is in the process of initiating a redistribution of common inland winter
pastures to smaller managerial units as this is assumed to ease both governmental and regional
management (Anonymous 2007c, Anonymous 2007a, Anonymous 2007d). In principle, this
redistribution is reinstating power to the traditional Saami siida system by giving siidas
exclusive user rights to geographical delineated winter areas (Anonymous 2007c, Anonymous
2007a). Up until this redistribution, winter pastures has been informally regulated according
to siida membership, i.e. Saami reindeer herders have a clear understanding of the fact that
different winter pasture areas belong to different siidas, although when in need everybody had
right to access alternative pastures (Riseth 2000:132, see also Paine 1994). The siida was (and
still is) a flexible system of cooperation, i.e. siida membership changes over time so as to
optimise the relationship between herds and personnel (Bjørklund 2004:126, Paine 1994:14).
Consequently, it could be argued that a legal consolidation of siida user rights may reduce
pastoral flexibility. While not trying to provide a critique of the apparent positive step that the
Norwegian government is taking in implementing a higher degree of local co-management in
the Saami reindeer husbandry, it could be argued that if the legal consolidation of siida user
rights is viewed as a step towards a greater privatisation of a previously semi-communally
used grazing area this can, following Thompson et al. (2008:26), be argued to increase the
fragmentation of the aforementioned grazing area.
According to Thompson et al. (2008:25) “Human action has modified the earth in
many ways, but one of the most pervasive effects of humans on the environment is the
dissection of natural systems into spatially isolated parts, a process generally known as
fragmentation”. One current source of fragmentation of pastoral grazing areas is the
transformation of land ownership from common to more or less private land tenure (Reid et
al. 2008:10). In The Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR), China, for example, land was
traditionally owned by monasteries and pastures were re-allocated on a three-year interval on
the basis of individual households’ herd size. Additional pastures were allocated to
43
households whose herds had increased, and pastures were taken away from those whose herds
had decreased (Goldstein et al. 1990). Under Chinese rule, however, this relative flexible
pasture allocation system has changed and up till relatively recently, land was owned
exclusively by the state. This form of land tenure is, however, changing and according to Ho
(2000) the land tenure system in The People’s Republic of China is of a nature where
individuals or groups “lease” land from the government for long periods of time, which can
be interpreted as a step towards a privatization of grazing areas, with the underlying rationale
to minimise the impact of the ‘tragedy of the commons’17 (Ho 2000). This process has
recently become even more prominent with the fencing off of grazing areas in the western
parts of TAR (Fox and Dorji unpublished result).
While privatization in itself may not be a cause for concern, privatization is often
followed by exclusivity in terms of use. This exclusivity pertaining to land tenure can again be
viewed as increasing rangeland fragmentation and may have as some of its consequences the
restriction of the movement of people and livestock, again limiting pastoralists’ access to
resources that varies over time and space (Reid et al. 2008:13). As a consequence, both
pastoralists and their animals may have their options for responding to temporal variations in
terms of both vegetation and precipitation, a variation that is common for many of the areas
that pastoralists usually inhabit, reduced (Thompson et al. 2008:26).
Furthermore, Thompson et al. (2008:26) argue that
“A diminished ability to compensate for temporal heterogeneity in vegetation
and water by exploiting its spatial heterogeneity has interrupted ecological
processes that sustain natural and human economies. Degradation of human
welfare has followed, requiring substantial inputs of policy and capital to offset
the effects of fragmentation.”
A more “traditional” view of the management of pastoral systems holds that exclusivity of use
promotes human welfare and sustains natural processes without resulting in overexploitation
of e.g. natural pastures, and thereby prevents the development of “the tragedy of the
17 Due to a perceived notion of increasing land degradation: “It is said that the rapid increase of grazing animals
in the pastoral areas (from approximately 29 million in 1949 to 90 million in the early 1990s), as well as a
decline in the area of rangeland due to reclamation (an estimated loss of 6.5 million hectares over 1949-92),
has led to serious rangeland degradation and desertification [i.e. in PRC]. In 1994, over one-third of usable
rangeland had been reported degraded to a certain degree, while total biomass production per hectare had
declined to 30-50 percent of that in the 1950s.” (Ho 2000:241).
44
commons” (Thompson et al. 2008:26). “The traditional view holds that the sum of the
productivities of privately-owned parcels is greater than the whole landscape productivity
because of the incentive for land stewardship provided by property rights (Lund 2000)”
(Thompson et al. 2008:26). In contrast, Thompson et al. (2008:26 italics added) argues that
“[…] in many systems, the sum of the productivities of land fragments may be less than the
productivity of the unfragmented landscapes.”
The effect of possible fragmentation have been documented in Mongolia, where
changes have been undertaken that aims at modifying the “[…] major administrative
boundaries to allow greater access to natural resources and seasonal grazing lands to better
sustain pastoral livelihoods […]” (Ojima and Chuluun 2008:188). This policy is being
implemented to counter the negative effects of privatization after the collapse of the Soviet
Union. With privatization the Soviet initiated collective state farms were dissolved, and
ownership of livestock was again in private hands. Furthermore, the suspension of collective
farms reduced mobility as the costs of moving was carried by individual households rather
than the collectives (e.g. household have less access to trucks) (Ojima and Chuluun
2008:183). Of importance here is that during the Soviet period the spatial extent of
administrative units were reduced, a reduction that has been accelerated since independence
(Ojima and Chuluun 2008:183). As a consequence, land-use areas have decreased which
“[…] have resulted in the destabilization of the pastoral system by decoupling the herders
from regional landscapes and forcing them to utilize resources within fragmented units, which
do not provide the diversity of settings needed to sustain their pastoral systems without
external inputs.” (Ojima and Chuluun 2008:184). More to the point, these processes has
resulted in an increased concentration of both people and livestock in small areas and as such
resulted in increased grazing intensification and consequently rangeland degradation (Ojima
and Chuluun 2008:188, Potkanski 1993, Sneath 2003, Williams 1996).
Contrary to Saami reindeer husbandry management, who attempts to attain
sustainability through redistribution of grazing rights to relatively low levels of social
organization (i.e. siida), the Mongolian reforms attempts to enlarge administrative and
territorial units as this is proposed to “[…] enhance socio-economic optimality, environmental
sustainability, and historical and cultural acceptability by citizens […] (Ojima and Chuluun
2008:188). Within a framework of the negative effect of fragmentation on rangelands, these
reforms makes sense as “[…] enlarging administrative and territorial units may provide
greater flexibility in managing livestock densities across a more diverse set of landscape types
within a more comprehensive administrative unit. The overall result would be a greater
45
utilization of the natural landscapes now restricted in the fragmented smaller sums18” (Ojima
and Chuluun 2008:188 footnote added).
If the winter pastures in Finnmark is characterized by a moderate or high degree of
heterogeneity (such as varying vegetation or varying snow cover that leads to varying
vegetation cover), and if one of the goals of the partly privatization of winter pastures is to
create a sustainable balance between reindeer and pastures (apart from an increase in co-
management), then this management initiative should be rethought. This because it has been
documented that fragmentation of heterogeneous grazing areas has as one of its consequences
that overall landscape productivity decreases as the ability to move according to temporal and
spatial variation in heterogeneous environments have been argued to impact the overall
carrying capacity (Thompson et al. 2008, Reid et al. 2008, Behnke and Scoones 1993).
Consequently, it could be argued that the planned semi-privatization of common inland winter
pastures should be looked upon with care, as it has been demonstrated in several pastoral
areas that rather than decrease overexploitation of grazing areas, privatization has in many
places exacerbated overgrazing (see above).
Apart from the possibility of reducing flexible movement patterns aimed at utilizing
heterogeneous environments, this planned semi-privatisation may also hinder the
development of cooperative risk reducing strategies, such as labour investment, necessarily
for dealing with increasing production risk in relation to global climate change. Scenarios for
future climate change generally predict an increase average, variance and even a changed
distribution of important climatic variables like precipitation and temperature (e.g. Rowell
2005, Sun et al. 2007), i.e. an increase in factors contributing to production risk. Moreover,
these changes are predicted to vary both temporally (e.g. Rowell 2005, Tebaldi et al. 2006)
and spatially (e.g. Hanssen-Bauer et al. 2005, Rowell 2005, Sun et al. 2007, Tebaldi et al.
2006). Global climate change will most likely result in more frequent extreme precipitation
events (e.g. Benestad 2007, Semmler and Jacob 2004, Sun et al. 2007, Tebaldi et al. 2006,
Wilby and Wigley 2002), a trend that is already empirically evident on several continents (e.g.
wet regions may get wetter and dry regions may become drier mostly because of a
simultaneous increase (decrease) of precipitation frequency and intensity, Sun et al. 2007:
4801). As for the reindeer husbandry, expected changes due to climate change are expected to
happen both sooner and to be more prominent in the northern hemisphere (e.g. Tebaldi et al.
18 County level administrative units, “Currently Mongolia is divided into 331 sums and 1,671 bags
(administrative units similar to municipalities)” (Ojima and Chuluun 2008:188).
46
2006). Hanssen-Bauer et al. (2005), in a review of several studies, indicates that future
Fennoscandia climate change may be characterised by: (1) increased warming rates with
distance to the coast; (2) higher warming rates in winter compared to summer; and (3)
increased precipitation especially during winter. The shifts between warm and cold periods
during winter coupled with an year-round increased precipitation intensity (Hanssen-Bauer et
al. 2005) may again result in increased frequency of wet weather, deep snow and ice crust
formation that has negative consequences for large herbivores (e.g. Solberg et al. 2001).
Furthermore, Rees et al. (2008:214-15) argue that “Environmental pressures on reindeer
husbandry in the European North […]” as a consequence of projected climate change […] are
predicted to be generally negative in Scandinavia, neutral in Finland and mildly positive in
Russia, largely through a combination of changing vegetation distribution, winter temperature
and wind regime.” Nevertheless, they argue that the effect of these changes on the reindeer
husbandry is expected to be relatively small and well within the range of previous experience
of reindeer herders (Rees et al. 2008:215). However, as almost all climate models predicts
future winter climatic conditions to be more stochastic than present day for most of the areas
inhabited by reindeer herders, efficient risk buffering strategies may be even more important
in the future.
This thesis found that the accumulation of large herds is an efficient risk buffering
strategy in an already stochastic environment, and more importantly that one important
prerequisite for efficiently building large herds may be cooperative labour investment. Faced
with increased stochasticity, as a consequence of climate change, cooperative risk reducing
strategies may become increasingly important for the reindeer husbandry. For example,
Mearns (1996:297) has argued that the more a given group of herders find reason to cooperate
with each other across a range of activities, the more likely they will find solutions in relation
to the transaction costs19 inherent in controlling the use of the commons. Again, it could be
argued that management initiatives aimed at semi-privatising common winter grazing areas
may hinder the development of flexible cooperative networks necessary for dealing with
increasing production risk in terms of climate change. Rather than encourage the
development of cooperation such initiatives may be argued to reduce the possibility of
between herder cooperation.
19 Transaction costs can be defined as costs in relation to (1) search costs – i.e. identifying possibilities for
cooperation; (2) bargaining costs – i.e. agreeing on one form of cooperation rather than another; and (3)
monitoring and enforcement costs – i.e. ensuring that the cooperation of other members is enforced (Mearns
1996:301).
47
REFERENCES CITED
Albon, S. D., Mitchell, B., and Staines, B. W. (1983). Fertility and Body-Weight in Female
Red Deer - A Density-Dependent Relationship. Journal of Animal Ecology 52(3):969-
980.
Alvard, M. S. (2003). Kinship, lineage, and an evolutionary perspective on cooperative
hunting groups in Indonesia. Human Nature 14(2):129-163.
—. (2004). Introduction. In M. S. Alvard (eds.), Socioeconomic aspects of human behavioral
ecology, Research in Economic Anthropology, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 1-15.
Alvard, M. S., and Nolin, D. A. (2002). Rousseau's whale hunt? Coordination among big-
game hunters. Current anthropology 43(4):533-559.
Anderson, D. R., Burnham, K. P., Gould, W. R., and Cherry, S. (2001). Concerns about
finding effects that are actually spurious. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(1):311-316.
Anonymous. (2005). Totalregnskap for reindriftsnæringen (Total statistics of reindeer
husbandry). Reindriftsforvaltningen p.151 (in Norwegian).
—. (2007a). Lov om reindrift av 15. juni. 2007 nr 40. (Reindeer husbandry law of June 15,
2007 nr. 40) (in Norwegian).
—. (2007b). "Reindrift (reindeer husbandry)," The Directorate for Nature Management,
Norway (in Norwegian) http://www.dirnat.no/content.ap?thisId=1009878.
—. (2007c). Reindriftsnytt (Reindeer Husbandry News) 1 (41 - March 2007).
Reindriftsforvaltningen, p.60 (in Norwegian).
—. (2007d). Årsrapport 2007 (Yearly report 2007). Reindriftsforvaltningen, p. 31 (in
Norwegian).
—. (2008). Ressursregnskap for reindriftsnæringen (Ecological statistics of reindeer
husbandry). Reindriftsforvaltningen, p.159 (in Norwegian).
—. (2009a). Ressursregnskap for reindriftsnæringen (Ecological statistics of reindeer
husbandry). Reindriftsforvaltningen, p.146 (in Norwegian).
—. (2009b). Sluttrapport for prosjektet: ”Økosystem Finnmark” (Final report for Ecosystem
Finnmark). University of Tromsø (in Norwegian).
Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation, Basic Books, New York.
—. (1997). The complexity of cooperation: agent-based models of competition and
collaboration. Princeton studies in complexity, Princeton University Press, Princeton,
N.J.
48
Barfield, T. J. (1993). The Nomadic Alternative, N.J., Prentice Hall, Engelwood Cliffs.
Barth, F. (1961). Nomads of South Persia: the Basseri tribe of the Khamseh confederacy, Oslo
University Press, Oslo.
—. (1964). Capital Investment, and the Social Structure of a Pastoral Nomad Group in south
Persia. In R. Firth and B. S. Yamey (eds.), Capital, Saving, and Credit in Peasant
Societies, Allen and Unwin, London, pp. 69-81.
—. (1966). Models of Social Organization. Vol. No. 23, Royal Anthropological Institute
Occasional Paper London.
—. (1967). On the Study of Social Change. American Anthropologist 69(6):661-669.
—. (1973). A General Perspective on Nomad-Sedentary Relations in the Middle East. In C.
Nelson (eds.), The Dessert and the Sown, vol. No. 21, Research Series No. 21.
Institute of International Studies, University of California, Berkley.
Baumeister, R. F., and Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing Narrative Literature Reviews. Review of
General Psychology 1(3):311-320.
Bayer, W., and Watersbayer, A. (1990). Relations between Cropping and Livestock-Keeping
in Traditional Land-Use Systems in Tropical Africa. Tropenlandwirt 91:133-145.
Beach, H. (2000). Pastoralism Politics in Sweden: Protecting the Environment and Designing
the Herder. In A. Hornborg and G. Pálsson (eds.), Negotiating Nature: Culture, Power,
and Environmental Argument, University Press, Swede, Lund.
Behnke, R. H. (1987). Cattle Accumulation and the Commercialization of the Traditional
Livestock Industry in Botswana. Agricultural Systems 24(1):1-29.
—. (2000). Equilibrium and non-equilibrium models of livestock population dynamics in
pastoral Africa: their relevance to Arctic grazing systems. Rangifer 20(2):141-152.
Behnke, R. H., and Scoones, I. (1993). Rethinking Range Ecology: Implications for
Rangeland Management in Africa. In R. H. Behnke, I. Scoones, and C. Kerven (eds.),
Range Ecology at Disequilibrium. New Models of Natural Variability and Pastoral
Adaptation in African Savannas, Overseas Development Institute, London, pp. 1-30.
Behnke, R. H., Scoones, I., and Kerven, C. Editors. (1993). Range Ecology at Disequilibrium.
New Models of Natural Variability and Pastoral Adaptation in African Savannas.
London: Overseas Development Institute.
Bem, D. J. (1995). WRITING A REVIEW ARTICLE FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL-
BULLETIN. Psychological Bulletin 118(2):172-177.
Benestad, R. E. (2007). Novel methods for inferring future changes in extreme rainfall over
Northern Europe. Climate Research 34(3):195-210.
49
Berg, B. Å. (2008). Utviklingen av reindriften i nordre Nordland 1750-2000. In B. Evjen and
L. I. Hansen (eds.), Nordlands kulturelle mangfold: etniske relasjoner i historisk
perspektiv, Pax, Oslo, pp. 151-191.
Bergstrøm, C. (2005). Claiming reindeer in Norway: towards a theory of the dynamics of
property regime formation and change, Norwegian University of Life Sciences.
Berhanu, W., Colman, D., and Fayissa, B. (2007). Diversification and livelihood
sustainability in a semi-arid environment: A case study from Southern Ethiopia.
Journal of Development Studies 43(5):871-889.
Berzborn, S. (2007). The household economy of pastoralists and wage-labourers in the
Richtersveld, South Africa. Journal of Arid Environments 70(4):672-685.
Bjørklund, I. (1990). Sami Reindeer Pastoralism as an Indigenous Resource Management
System in Northern Norway: A Contribution to the Common Property Debate.
Development and Change 21:75-86.
—. (1999). Norsk ressursforvaltning og samiske rettighetsforhold : om statlig styring,
allmenningens tragedie og lokale sedvaner i Sápmi, Ad notam Gyldendal, Oslo (in
Norwegian).
—. (2004). Saami Pastoral Society in Northern Norway: The National Integration of an
Indigenous Management System. In D. G. Anderson and M. Nuttall (eds.), Cultivating
Arctic Landscapes: Knowing and Managing Animals in the Circumpolar North
Berghahn, New York, pp. 124-135.
Bollig, M. (1997). Risk and Risk Minimisation among Himba Pastoralists in Northwestern
Namibia. Nomadic Peoples 1(1):66-89.
—. (2006). Risk management in a hazardous environment: a comparative study of two
pastoral societies. Studies in human ecology and adaption, Springer, New York.
Bollig, M., and Göbel, B. (1997). Risk, Uncertainty and Pastoralism: An Introduction.
Nomadic Peoples 1(1):5-21.
Bonte, P., and Galaty, J. G. (1991). Introduction. In J. G. Galaty and P. Bonte (eds.), Herders,
warriors, and traders: pastoralism in Africa, Westview Press, Boulder, Colo., pp. 3-30.
Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (1988). Behavioral Ecology In Traditional Societies. Trends In
Ecology & Evolution 3(10):260-264.
Borgerhoff Mulder, M., and Caro, T. M. (1985). The Use of Quantitative Observational
Techniques in Anthropology. Current anthropology 26(3):323-335.
Borgerhoff Mulder, M., and Coppolillo, P. (2005). Conservation: linking ecology, economics,
and culture, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
50
Borgerhoff Mulder, M., and Sellen, D. (1994). Pastoralist decision making: A behavioral
ecological perspective. In E. Fratkin, K. A. Galvin, and E. A. Roth (eds.), African
Pastoralist Systems: An Integrated Approach, Boulder, London, pp. 205-229.
Bostedt, G. (2001). Reindeer husbandry, the Swedish market for reindeer meat, and the
Chernobyl effects. Agricultural Economics 26(3):217-226.
Bowles, S. (2004). Microeconomics: behavior, institutions, and evolution. The Roundtable
series in behavioral economics, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
Bowles, S., and Gintis, H. (2003). Origins of Human Cooperation. In P. Hammerstein (eds.),
Genetic and Cultural Evolution of Cooperation, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp.
429-444.
Boyd, R., and Silk, J. B. (2006). How humans evolved, 4th edition, University of California,
Los Angeles.
Bull, K. S. (1997). Studier i reindriftsrett, Tano Aschehoug (in Norwegian), Oslo.
Bårdsen, B.-J. (2009). Risk sensitive reproductive strategies: the effect of environmental
unpredictability, University of Tromsø and Norwegian Institute for Nature Research.
Cancian, F. (1980). Risk and Uncertainty in Agricultural Decision Making. In P. F. Bartlett
(eds.), Agricultural Decision Making: Anthropological Contributions to Rural
Development, Academic Press, Orlando, FL.
Cashdan, E. (1990). Introduction. In E. Cashdan (eds.), Risk and Uncertainty in Tribal and
Peasant Economies, Westview Press, Boulder.
Chatty, D. (2006). Introduction: Nomads of the Middle East and North Africa Facing the 21st
Century. In D. Chatty (eds.), Nomadic societies in the Middle East and North Africa
entering the 21st century, Brill, Leiden, pp. 1-29.
Clutton-Brock, T. H., Stevenson, I. R., Marrow, P., MacColl, A. D., Houston, A. I., and
McNamara, J. M. (1996). Population fluctuations, reproductive costs and life-history
tactics in female Soay sheep. Journal of Animal Ecology 65(6):675-689.
Colman, A. M. (1995). Game theory and its applications in the social and biological sciences,
2nd edition. International series in social psychology, Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford.
Colson, E. (1979). In Good Years and in Bad. Food strategies of self-reliant societies. Journal
of Anthropological Research 35(1):18-29.
Cooper, H. (2003). Editorial. Psychological Bulletin 129(1):3-9.
51
Coughenour, M. B., Ellis, J. E., Swift, D. M., Coppock, D. L., Galvin, K., McCabe, J. T., and
Hart, T. C. (1985). Energy Extraction and Use in a Nomadic Pastoral Ecosystem.
Science 230(4726):619-625.
Coulson, T., Catchpole, E. A., Albon, S. D., Morgan, B. J. T., Pemberton, J. M., Clutton-
Brock, T. H., Crawley, M. J., and Grenfell, B. T. (2001). Age, sex, density, winter
weather, and population crashes in Soay sheep. Science 292(5521):1528-1531.
Coulson, T., Milner-Gulland, E. J., and Clutton-Brock, T. (2000). The relative roles of density
and climatic variation on population dynamics and fecundity rates in three contrasting
ungulate species. Proceedings Of The Royal Society Of London Series B-Biological
Sciences 267(1454):1771-1779.
Crawley, M. J. (2002). Statistical computing: an introduction to data analysis using S-Plus,
Wiley, Chichester.
Cribb, R. (1991). Nomads in archaeology. New studies in archaeology, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Cronk, L. (1991). Human Behavioral Ecology. Annual Review Of Anthropology 20:25-53.
Curry, J. (1996). Gender and livestock in African production systems: An introduction.
Human Ecology 24(2):149-160.
Dahl, G. (1979a). Ecology and equality: The Boran Case. In E. Ecologie (eds.), Pastoral
Production and Society, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 261-281.
—. (1979b). Suffering grass: subsistence and society of Waso Borana. Stockholm studies in
social anthropology, Department of social anthropology University of Stockholm,
Stockholm.
Dahl, G., and Hjort, A. (1976). Having herds: pastoral herd growth and household economy.
Stockholm studies in social anthropology, Stockholm.
Dawkins, R. (1989). The selfish gene, New edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Deboer, W. F., and Prins, H. H. T. (1989). Decisions Of Cattle Herdsmen In Burkina-Faso
And Optimal Foraging Models. Human Ecology 17(4):445-464.
DelGiudice, G. D., Riggs, M. R., Joly, P., and Pan, W. (2002). Winter severity, survival, and
cause-specific mortality of female white-tailed deer in north-central Minnesota.
Journal of Wildlife Management 66(3):698-717.
Dennett, D. C. (1995). Darwin's dangerous idea: evolution and the meanings of life, Simon &
Schuster, New York.
Dixit, A. K., and Skeath, S. (2004). Games of strategy, 2nd edition, W.W. Norton, New York.
52
Dyson-Hudson, N. (1972). The Study of Nomads. In W. Irons and N. Dyson-Hudson (eds.),
Perspectives on Nomadism, E. J. Brill, Leiden Netherlands, pp. 2-29.
Dyson-Hudson, R., and Dyson-Hudson, N. (1980). Nomadic Pastoralism. Annual Review of
Anthropology 9:15-61.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1940). The Nuer a description of the modes of livelihood and political
institutions of a Nilotic people, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Evjen, B. (2007). Custodial reindeer and custodial goats - part of reindeer herding and animal
husbandry. Rangifer 27(2):79-91.
Fox, J. L., and Dorji, T. (unpublished result). Tibetan Antelope Traditional Hunting, its
Relation to Antelope Migration, and its Rapid Transformation in the Western Chang
Tang Nature Reserve. http://www.cwru.edu/affil/tibet/tibetanNomads/documents/Fox-
Dorji-Tibetanhuntingpaper-color.pdf.
Fox, R. (1975). Biosocial anthropology. ASA studies, Malaby Press, London.
—. (1997). Conjectures & confrontations: science, evolution, social concern, Transaction
Publishers, New Brunswick, N.J.
Fratkin, E. (1987). Age-Sets, Households, and the Organization of Pastoral Production: The
Ariaal, Samburu, and Rendille of Northern Kenya. Research in Economic
Anthropology 8:295-314.
—. (1989). Household Variation and Gender Inequality in Ariaal Pastoral Production: Results
of a Stratified Time-Allocation Survey. American Anthropologist 91(2):430-440.
Fratkin, E., and Roth, E. A. (1990). Drought And Economic Differentiation Among Ariaal
Pastoralists Of Kenya. Human Ecology 18(4):385-402.
Fratkin, E., Roth, E. A., and Galvin, K. A. (1994). Introduction. In E. Fratkin, E. A. Roth, and
K. A. Galvin (eds.), African Pastoralist Systems: An Integrated Approach, Lynne
Rienner Publishers, Inc, London.
Fratkin, E., and Smith, K. (1994). Labor, livestock, and land: The organization of pastoral
production. In E. Fratkin, E. A. Roth, and K. A. Galvin (eds.), African Pastoralist
Systems: An Integrated Approach, Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc, London.
Galaty, J. G., and Johnson, D. L. (1990). Introduction: Pastoral Systems in Global
Perspective. In J. G. Galaty and D. L. Johnson (eds.), The World of pastoralism :
herding systems in comparative perspective, Guilford Press, New York, pp. 1-31.
Galaty, J. G., and Salzman, P. C. (1981). Change and development in nomadic and pastoral
societies. International studies in sociology and social anthropology ; 33, Brill, Leiden.
53
Gintis, H. (2009). The Bounds of Reason: game theory and the unification of the behavioral
sciences, +4 edition, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Gintis, H., Bowles, S., Boyd, R., and Fehr, E. (2005). Moral Sentiments and Material
Interests: Origins, Evidence, and Consequences. In H. Gintis, S. Bowles, R. Boyd, and
E. Fehr (eds.), Moral sentiments and material interests: the foundations of cooperation
in economic life, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 3-39.
Goldstein, M. C., and Beall, C. M. (1990). Nomads of western Tibet: the survival of a way of
life, Serindia Publications, London.
Goldstein, M. C., Beall, C. M., and Cincotta, R. P. (1990). Traditional Nomadic Pastoralism
and Ecological Conservation on Tibet’s Northern Plateau. National Geographic
Research 6(2):139-156.
Grandin, B. E. (1989). Labor sufficiency, livestock management, and time allaoction on
Maasai group ranches. Research in Economic Anthropology 11:143-178.
Gulliver, P. H. (1975). Nomadic Movemets: Causes and Implications. In T. Monod (eds.),
Pastoralism in Tropical Africa, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Gurven, M. (2004a). Reciprocal altruism and food sharing decisions among Hiwi and Ache
hunter-gatherers. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 56(4):366-380.
—. (2004b). To give and to give not: The behavioral ecology of human food transfers.
Behavioral And Brain Sciences 27(4):543-+.
Göbel, B. (1997). You Have To Exploit Luck’: Pastoral household Economy and the Cultural
Handling of Risk and Uncertainty in the Andean Highlands. Nomadic Peoples
1(1):37-53.
Halstead, P., and O'Shea, J. (1989). Introduction: cultural responses to risk and uncertainty. In
P. Halstead and J. O'Shea (eds.), Bad year economics: cultural responses to risk and
uncertainty, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1-8.
Hamilton, W. D. (1964). Genetical Evolution of Social Behavior 1. Journal of Theoretical
Biology 7(1):1-16.
Hansen, L. I., and Olsen, B. (2004). Samenes historie, Cappelen akademisk forl., Oslo.
Hanssen-Bauer, I., Achberger, C., Benestad, R. E., Chen, D., and Forland, E. J. (2005).
Statistical downscaling of climate scenarios over Scandinavia. Climate Research
29(3):255-268.
Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of The Commons. Science 162:1243-1248.
Harris, M. (1964). The Nature of Cultural Things, Random House, New York.
54
Hawkes, K., Hill, K., and O'connell, J. F. (1982). Why Hunters Gather: Optimal Foraging and
the Ache of Eastern Paraguay. American Ethnologist 9(2):379-398.
Helland, J. (1980). Five essays on the study of pastoralists and the development of
pastoralism. African savannah studies, Bergen.
Henrich, J. (2004). Foundations of human sociality: economic experiments and ethnographic
evidence from fifteen small-scale societies, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., and McElreath, R. (2001).
In search of Homo economicus: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies.
American Economic Review 91(2):73-78.
Herskovits, M. J. (1926). The Cattle Complex in East Africa. American Anthropologist
28(4):633-664.
Hill, K., Kaplan, H., Hawkes, K., and Hurtado, A. M. (1987). Foraging Decisions Among
Ache Hunter-Gatherers - New Data And Implications For Optimal Foraging Models.
Ethology And Sociobiology 8(1):1-36.
Hjort, A. (1981). Herds, Trade and Grain: Pastoralism in a Regional Perspective. In J. G.
Galaty, P. C. Salzman, and A. Choiunard (eds.), The Future of pastoral peoples:
proceedings of a conference held in Nairobi, Kenya, 4-8 August 1980, International
Development Research Centre, Ottawa, pp. 97-103.
Ho, P. (2000). The Clash over State and Collective Property: The Making of the Rangeland
Law. The China Quarterly 161:240-263.
Holand, Ø. (2003). Reindrift - samisk næring i brytning mellom tradisjon og produksjon, Gan
forl., Oslo.
Houston, A., and McNamara, J. (1999). Models of adaptive behaviour, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Hultblad, F. (1968). Övergång från nomadism till agrar bosättning i Jokkmokks socken,
[Lund].
Humphrey, C., and Sneath, D. (1999). The end of Nomadism? Society, state, and the
environment in Inner Asia, Duke University Press, Durham, NC.
Ingold, T. (1980). Hunters, pastoralists and ranchers reindeer economies and their
transformations. [Cambridge studies in social anthropology] 28, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
—. (1986). The appropriation of nature: essays on human ecology and social relations.
Themes in social anthropology, Manchester University Press, Manchester.
55
—. (1996). The optimal forager and economic man. In P. Descola and G. Pálsson (eds.),
Nature and society: anthropological perspectives, Routledge, London, pp. 25-44.
Irons, W., and Cronk, L. (2000). Two Decades of a New Paradigm. In L. Cronk, W. Irons,
and N. Chagnon (eds.), Adaptation and human behavior : an anthropological
perspective
Aldine de Gruyter, New York, pp. 3-26.
Jacoby, H. G. (1991). Productivity of men and women and the sexual division of labor in
peasant agriculture of the Peruvian Sierra. Journal of Development Economics 37(1-
2):265-287.
Johnson, D. H. (2002). The role of hypothesis testing in wildlife science. Journal of Wildlife
Management 66(2):272-276.
Jones, S. (1996). Tibetan nomads: environment, pastoral economy, and material culture. The
Carlsberg Foundations Nomad Research Project, Rhodos, Copenhagen.
Kacelnik, A., and Bateson, M. (1996). Risky Theories—The Effects of Variance on Foraging
Decisions. AMER. ZOOL. 36:402-434.
Khazanov, A. M. (1994). Nomads and the outside world, 2nd edition, University of
Wisconsin Press, Madison.
Kohler, T. A., and Leeuw, v. d. (2007). Introduction: Historical Socionatural Systems and
Models. In T. A. Kohler and v. d. Leeuw (eds.), The Model-Based Archaeology of
Socionatural Systems, School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe, pp. 1-12.
Kokko, H. (2007). Modelling for field biologists and other interesting people, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Kuznar, L. A. (2001). Risk sensitivity and value among Andean pastoralists: Measures,
models, and empirical tests. Current anthropology 42(3):432-440.
—. (2002). Evolutionary applications of risk sensitivity models to socially stratified species
Comparison of sigmoid, concave, and linear functions. Evolution and Human
Behavior 23:265-280.
Kuznar, L. A., and Lutz, J. M. (2007). Risk sensitivity and terrorism. Political Studies
55(2):341-361.
Lesorogol, C. K. (2008). Land privatization and pastoralist well-being in Kenya.
Development and Change 39(2):309-331.
Levins, R. (1966). Strategy of Model Building in Population Biology. American Scientist
54(4):421-&.
Mace, R. (1991). Conservation Biology - Overgrazing Overstated. Nature 349(6307):280-281.
56
—. (1993). Nomadic pastoralists adopt subsistence strategies that maximise long-term
household survival. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 33:329-334.
Mace, R., and Houston, A. (1989). Pastoralist strategies for survival in unpredictable
environments: A model of herd composition that maximises household viability.
Agricultural Systems 31(2):185-204.
Maddala, G. S., and Miller, E. (1989). Microeconomics: theory and applications, McGraw-
Hill, New York.
Marx, E. (2006). The Political Economy of Middle Eastern and North African Pastoral
Nomads. In D. Chatty (eds.), Nomadic societies in the Middle East and North Africa
entering the 21st century, Brill, Leiden, pp. 78-97.
McCabe, J. T. (1994). Mobility and Land Use Among African Pastoralists: Old Conceptual
Problems and New Interpretations. In E. Fratkin, K. A. Galvin, and E. A. Roth (eds.),
African Pastoralist Systems: An Integrated Approach, Lynne Rienner Publishers,
Boulder, Colo.
—. (1997). Risk and Uncertainty Among the Maasai of the Ngorongoro Conservation Area in
Tanzania: A Case Study in Economic Change. Nomadic Peoples 1(1):54-65.
McCain, R. A. (2003). Game Theory: A Non-Technical Introduction to the Analysis of
Strategy, South-Western, Div of Thomson Learning.
McPeak, J. (2005). Individual and collective rationality in pastoral production: Evidence from
Northern Kenya. Human Ecology 33(2):171-197.
Mearns, R. (1996). Community, collective action and common grazing: The case of post-
socialist Mongolia. Journal of Development Studies 32(3):297-339.
—. (2004). Sustaining livelihoods on Mongolia's pastoral commons: Insights from a
participatory poverty assessment. Development and Change 35(1):107-139.
Miller, D. J. (1998). Nomads of the Tibetan Plateau Rangelands in Western China Part One:
Introduction and Pastoral History. Rangelands 20(6):24-29.
Miller, J. H., and Page, S. E. (2007). Complex adaptive systems: an introduction to
computational models of social life. Princeton studies in complexity, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, N.J.
Moran, E. F. (1982). Human adaptability: an introduction to ecological anthropology,
Westview Press, Boulder, Colo.
Morton, J. (1990). Aspects of labour in an agro-pastoral economy: the northern Beja of
Sudan. Pastoral Development Network Paper 30b, Overseas Development Network,
London.
57
Nilsen, R., and Mosli, J. H. (1994). Inn fra vidda: hushold og økonomisk tilpasning i
reindrifta i Guovdageaidnu 1960-1993. NORUT samfunnsforskning rapport, Bajos (in
Norwegian), Guovdageaidnu.
Næss, M. W. (2003). Living with risk and uncertainty: the case of the nomadic pastoralists in
the Aru basin, Tibet. Cand. Polit., Univeristy of Tromsø.
Næss, M. W., Fauchald, P., and Tveraa, T. (2009). Scale Dependency and the "Marginal"
Value of Labor. Human Ecology 37(2):193-211.
Ojima, D., and Chuluun, T. (2008). Policy Changes in Mongolia: Implications for Land Use
and Landscapes. In K. A. Galvin, R. S. Reid, J. R. H. Behnke, and N. T. Hobbs (eds.),
Fragmentation in semi-arid and arid landscapes: consequences for human and natural
systems, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 179-193.
Paciotti, B., and Hadley, C. (2004). Large-Scale Cooperation among Sungusungu "Vigilantes"
of Tanzania: Conceptualizing Micro-Economic and Institutional Approaches. In M. S.
Alvard (eds.), Socioeconomic aspects of human behavioral ecology, Research in
Economic Anthropology, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 119-147.
Paine, R. (1964). Herding and husbandry: two basic distinctions in the analysis of reindeer
management Folk 6(1):83-88.
—. (1971). Animals as capital - comparisons among northern nomadic herders and hunters.
Anthropological Quarterly 44(3):157-172.
—. (1972). The Herd Management of Lapp Reindeer Pastoralists. In W. Irons and N. Dyson-
Hudson (eds.), Perspectives on Nomadism, E.J. Brill, Leiden, pp. 76-87.
—. (1994). Herds of the Tundra: a portrait of Saami reindeer pastoralism. Smithsonian series
in ethnographic inquiry, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington London.
—. (2004). Saami Reindeer Pastoralism: Quo Vadis? Ethnos 69(1):23-42.
—. (2009). Camps of the tundra: politics through reindeer among Saami pastoralists.
Instituttet for sammenlignende kulturforskning. Serie B, Skrifter, Instituttet for
sammenlignende kulturforskning, Oslo.
Patterson, B. R., and Messier, F. (2000). Factors influencing killing rates of white-tailed deer
by coyotes in eastern Canada. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(3):721-732.
Pehrson, R. N. (1964). The bilateral network of social relations in Könkämä Lapp district.
Samiske samlinger 7, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.
Pelto, P. J. (1973). The snowmobile revolution: technology and social change in the Arctic,
Cumming, Menlo Park, Calif.
58
Potkanski, T. (1993). Decollectivisation of the Mongolian pastoral economy (1991-92): some
economic and social concequences. Nomadic Peoples 33:123-135.
Pyke, G. H., Pulliam, H. R., and Charnov, E. L. (1977). Optimal Foraging: A Selective
Review of Theory and Tests. The Quarterly Review of Biology 52(2):137-154.
Rappaport, R. A. (1979). Ritual Regulation of Environmental Relations among a New Guinea
People. In R. A. Rappaport (eds.), Ecology, meaning and religion, North Atlantic
Books, Richmond, Calif., pp. 27-41.
Rees, W. G., Stammler, F. M., Danks, F. S., and Vitebsky, P. (2008). Vulnerability of
European reindeer husbandry to global change. Climatic Change 87(1-2):199-217.
Reid, R. S., Galvin, K. A., and Kruska, R. S. (2008). Global Significance of Extensive
Grazing Lands and Pastoral Societies: An Introduction. In K. A. Galvin, R. S. Reid, J.
R. H. Behnke, and N. T. Hobbs (eds.), Fragmentation in semi-arid and arid
landscapes: consequences for human and natural systems, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 1-
24.
Ridley, M. (1995). The Evolution of Behavior. In M. Ridley (eds.), Animal behavior: an
introduction to behavioral mechanisms, development and ecology, 2nd edition,
Blackwell Scientific Publications, Boston, pp. 20-39.
Riseth, J. Å. (2000). Sámi reindeer management under technological change 1960-1990:
implications for common-pool resource use under various natural and institutional
conditions: a comparative analysis of regional development paths in West Finnmark,
North Trøndelag, and South Trøndelag/Hedmark, Norway. Doctor scientarium theses /
Norges landbrukshøgskole, Institutt for økonomi og samfunnsfag, Norges
landbrukshøgskole, Ås.
—. (2003). Sami Reindeer Management in Norway: Modernization Challenges and
Conflicting Strategies. Reflections Upon the Co-management Alternative. In S.
Jentoft, H. Minde, and R. Nilsen (eds.), Indigenous Peoples: Resource Management
and Global Rights, Eburon Academic Publishers, Delft, Netherlands, pp. 229-247.
—. (2006). Sàmi reindeer herd managers: why do they stay in a low-profit business? British
Food Journal 108(7):541-559.
Riseth, J. Å., Johansen, B., and Vatn, A. (2004). Aspects of a two-pasture – herbivore model.
Rangifer Special Issue 15:65-81.
Riseth, J. Å., and Vatn, A. (2009). Modernization and Pasture Degradation: A Comparative
Study of Two Sàmi Reindeer Pasture Regions in Norway. Land Economics 85(1):87-
106.
59
Roberts, B. D. (1996). Livestock production, age, and gender among the Keiyo of Kenya.
Human Ecology 24(2):215-230.
Roe, E., Huntsinger, L., and Labnow, K. (1998). High reliability pastoralism. Journal of Arid
Environments 39(1):39-55.
Roth, E. A. (1990). Modeling Rendille Household Herd Composition. Human Ecology
18(4):441-455.
—. (1996). Traditional pastoral strategies in a modern world: An example from northern
Kenya. Human Organization 55(2):219-224.
Rowell, D. P. (2005). A scenario of European climate change for the late twenty-first century:
seasonal means and interannual variability. Climate Dynamics 25(7-8):837-849.
Saether, B. E. (1997). Environmental stochasticity and population dynamics of large
herbivores: A search for mechanisms. Trends In Ecology & Evolution 12(4):143-149.
Sahlins, M. (1977). The use and abuse of biology an anthropological critique of sociobiology.
Social science paperbacks ; 165, Tavistock, London.
Salzman, P. C., and Galaty, J. G. (1990). Nomads in a Changing World: Issues and Problems.
In S. P.C and G. J.G (eds.), Nomads in a Changing World, Institute Universitario
Orientale, Naples.
Sara, M. N., and Knudsen, A. (2001). Reinen - et gode fra vinden: reindriftens
tilpasningsformer i Kautokeino, Davvi girji, Karasjok.
Schneider, H. K. (1974). Economic-Development and Economic Change - Case of East-
African Cattle. Current Anthropology 15(3):259-265.
Scoones, I. (1992). Coping With Drought - Responses Of Herders And Livestock In
Contrasting Savanna Environments In Southern Zimbabwe. Human Ecology
20(3):293-314.
Segerstråle, U. (2001). Defenders of the truth: the sociobiology debate, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Semmler, T., and Jacob, D. (2004). Modeling extreme precipitation events - a climate change
simulation for Europe. Global and Planetary Change 44(1-4):119-127.
Seymour-Smith, C. (1986). Macmillan dictionary of anthropology, Macmillan, London.
Sieff, D. F. (1997). Herding strategies of the Datoga pastoralists of Tanzania: Is household
labor a limiting factor. Human Ecology 25(4):519-544.
Sikana, P. M., and Kerven, C. K. (1991). The impact of commercialisation on the role of
labour in African pastoral societies. Vol. 31c. Pastoral Development Network Paper,
Overseas Development Network, London.
60
Silvia, P. J. (2007). How to write a lot: a practical guide to productive academic writing,
American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.
Skogland, T. (1985). The effects of density-dependent resource limitations on the
demography of wild reindeer. Journal of Animal Ecology 54.
Smith, E. A. (1981). The application of optimal foraging theory to the analysis of hunter-
gatherer group size. In B. Winterhalder and E. A. Smith (eds.), Hunter-gatherer
foraging strategies, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 36-65.
—. (1983). Anthropological Applications of Optimal Foraging Theory: A Critical Review.
Current Anthropology 24(5):625-651.
—. (1997a). Inuit foraging groups: some simple models incorporating conflicts of interest,
relatedness, and central place sharing. In L. L. Betzig (eds.), Human nature: a critical
reader, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 50-69.
—. (1997b). Sex is not enough. In L. L. Betzig (eds.), Human nature: a critical reader, Oxford
University Press, New York, pp. 70-72.
—. (2000). Three Styles in the Evolutionary Analysis of Human Behavior. In L. Cronk, W.
Irons, and N. Chagnon (eds.), Adaptation and human behavior: an anthropological
perspective, Aldine de Gruyter, New York, pp. 27-46.
—. (2003). Human cooperation: perspectives from behavioral ecology. In P. Hammerstein
(eds.), Genetic and Cultural Evolution of Cooperation, The MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA, pp. 401-427.
—. (2004a). The complexity of human sharing. Behavioral And Brain Sciences 27(4):567-+.
—. (2004b). Why do good hunters have higher reproductive success? Human Nature-An
Interdisciplinary Biosocial Perspective 15(4):343-364.
Smith, E. A., and Bird, R. B. (2005). Costly Signaling and Cooperative behavior. In H. Gintis,
S. Bowles, R. Boyd, and E. Fehr (eds.), Moral sentiments and material interests: the
foundations of cooperation in economic life, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 115-
148.
Smith, E. A., Mulder, M. B., and Hill, K. (2001). Controversies in the evolutionary social
sciences: a guide for the perplexed. Trends In Ecology & Evolution 16(3):128-135.
Smith, E. A., and Winterhalder, B. (1992). Natural selection and decision-making: some
fundamental principles. In E. A. Smith and B. Winterhalder (eds.), Evolutionary
ecology and human behavior, Aldine de Gruyter, New York, pp. 25-60.
Sneath, D. (2003). Land Use, the Environment and Development in Post-socialist Mongolia.
Oxford Development 31(4):441-459.
61
Solberg, E. J., Jordhoy, P., Strand, O., Aanes, R., Loison, A., Saether, B. E., and Linnell, J. D.
C. (2001). Effects of density-dependence and climate on the dynamics of a Svalbard
reindeer population. Ecography 24(4):441-451.
Sperling, L. (1985). Labour Recruitment Among East African Herders: The Samburu of
Kenya. Labour, Capital and Society 18(1):68-86.
—. (1987). Wage employment among Samburu pastoralists of Northcentral Kenya. Human
Ecology 9:167-190.
—. (1989). Food Acquisition by the Samburu Herders During the Drought of 1983/4. In T.
Downing, K. Gitu, and C. Kamau (eds.), Coping With Drought in Kenya: National and
Local Strategies, pp. 264-280.
Sperling, L., and Galaty, J. G. (1990). Cattle, Culture, and Economy: Dynamics in East
African Pastoralism. In J. G. Galaty and D. L. Johnson (eds.), The World of
pastoralism: herding systems in comparative perspective, Guilford Press, New York,
pp. 69-98.
Spooner, B. (1973). The cultural ecology of pastoral nomads. An Addison-Wesley module in
anthropology ; no. 45, Addison-Wesley Publishing, [Reading, Mass.].
Stephens, D. W., and Krebs, J. R. (1986). Foraging theory. Monographs in behavior and
ecology, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
Sun, Y., Solomon, S., Dai, A. G., and Portmann, R. W. (2007). How often will it rain? Journal
of Climate 20(19):4801-4818.
Tebaldi, C., Hayhoe, K., Arblaster, J. M., and Meehl, G. A. (2006). Going to the extremes.
Climatic Change 79(3-4):185-211.
Templer, G., Swift, J., and Payne, P. (1993). The changing significance of risk in the
Mongolian pastoral economy. Nomadic Peoples 33:105-122.
Thomas, F. (2007a). The behavioral ecology of shellfish gathering in Western Kiribati,
Micronesia. 2: Patch choice, patch sampling, and risk. Human Ecology 35(5):515-526.
Thomas, F. R. (2007b). The Behavioral ecology of shellfish gathering in Western Kiribati,
Micronesia 1: Prey choice. Human Ecology 35(2):179-194.
Thompson, N., Reid, R. S., Galvin, K. A., and Ellis, J. E. (2008). Fragmentation of Arid and
Semi-Arid Ecosystems: Implications for people and Animals. In K. A. Galvin, R. S.
Reid, J. R. H. Behnke, and N. T. Hobbs (eds.), Fragmentation in semi-arid and arid
landscapes: consequences for human and natural systems, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 25-
44.
62
Thornton, P. K., Boone, R. B., Galvin, K. A., BurnSilver, S. B., Waithaka, M. M., Kuyiah, J.,
Karanja, S., Gonzalez-Estrada, E., and Herrero, M. (2007). Coping strategies in
livestock-dependent households in east and southern Africa: A synthesis of four case
studies. Human Ecology 35(4):461-476.
Tiger, L., and Fox, R. (1971). The imperial animal, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
Torry, W. I. (1977). Labour Requirements Among the Gabra. (eds.), East African pastoralism:
anthropological perspectives and development needs, ILCA, Addis Ababa, pp. 159-
170.
Turner, M. D. (1999). Labor process and the environment: The effects of labor availability
and compensation on the quality of herding in the Sahel. Human Ecology 27(2):267-
296.
Turner, M. D., and Hiernaux, P. (2008). Changing access to labor, pastures, and knowledge:
The extensification of grazing management in Sudano-Sahelian West Africa. Human
Ecology 36(1):59-80.
Tveraa, T., Fauchald, P., Henaug, C., and Yoccoz, N. G. (2003). An examination of a
compensatory relationship between food limitation and predation in semi-domestic
reindeer. Oecologia 137(3):370-376.
Tveraa, T., Fauchald, P., Yoccoz, N. G., Ims, R. A., Aanes, R., and Hogda, K. A. (2007).
What regulate and limit reindeer populations in Norway? Oikos 116(4):706-715.
Ulvevadet, B. (2000). Penger teller, kultur avgjør: analyse av statens virkemiddelbruk for å
oppnå en bærekraftig reindriftsnæring i Vest-Finnmark, og reindriftssamenes
reaksjoner på denne politikk. Dissertations & theses / Centre for Development and the
Environment (SUM), University of Oslo, Centre for Development and the
Environment, University of Oslo, Oslo.
—. (2008). Management of reindeer husbandry in Norway - power-sharing and participation.
Rangifer 28(1):53-78.
Ulvevadet, B., and Klokov, K. Editors. (2004). Family-based reindeer herding and hunting
economies, and the status and management of wild reindeer/caribou populations.
Tromsø: University of Tromsø, Centre for Saami Studies
Vorren, Ø. (1978). Bosetning og ressursutnytting i ressursutvalgets mandatområde under
veidekulturen og dens differensiering, Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromsø (in
Norwegian), Tromsø.
Wangui, E. E. (2008). Development interventions, changing livelihoods, and the making of
female Maasai pastoralists. Agriculture and Human Values 25(3):365-378.
63
White, C. (1997). The Effect of Poverty on Risk Reduction Strategies of Fulani Nomads in
Niger. Nomadic Peoples 1(1):90-107.
Wilby, R. L., and Wigley, T. M. L. (2002). Future changes in the distribution of daily
precipitation totals across North America. Geophysical Research Letters 29(7):4.
Williams, D. M. (1996). Grassland enclosures: Catalyst of land degradation in Inner
Mongolia. Human Organization 55(3):307-313.
Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: the new synthesis, Belknap Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Winterhalder, B. (1981). Optimal Foraging Strategies and Hunter-Gatherer Research in
Anthropology: Theory and Models. In B. Winterhalder and E. A. Smith (eds.), Hunter-
gatherer foraging strategies ethnographic and archeological analyses, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 13-35.
—. (2007). Risk and decision-making. In R. I. M. Dunbar and L. Barrett (eds.), The Oxford
Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 433-
445.
Winterhalder, B., and Leslie, P. (2002). Risk-sensitive fertility: The variance compensation
hypothesis. Evolution And Human Behavior 23(1):59-82.
Winterhalder, B., Lu, F., and Tucker, B. (1999). Risk-sensitive adaptive tactics: Models and
evidence from subsistence studies in biology and anthropology. Journal of
Archaeological Research 7(4):301-348.
Winterhalder, B., and Smith, E. A. (1992). Evolutionary ecology and the social sciences. In E.
A. Smith and B. Winterhalder (eds.), Evolutionary ecology and human behavior,
Aldine de Gruyter, New York, pp. 3-23.
—. (2000). Analyzing adaptive strategies: Human behavioral ecology at twenty-five.
Evolutionary Anthropology 9(2):51-72.
Woodburn, J. C. (1972). Ecology, Nomadic Movement and the Composition of the Local
Group among Hunters and Gatherers: An East African Example and Its Implications.
In P. J. Ucko, R. Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby (eds.), Man Settlement and
Urbanism, Gerald Duckworth, London.
Yoccoz, N. (1991). Use, overuse, and misuse of significance tests in evolutionary biology and
ecology. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 72(106-111).
i
APPENDIX I: NOMADIC PASTORALISM – A DEFINITION
“More of the land surface of the earth is used for grazing than for any other
purposes” (Reid et al. 2008:1).
The land where most herding peoples and livestock make a living can be characterized as
open grazing lands, including savannas, grassland, prairies, steppe and shrublands (Reid et al.
2008:1). “These grazing lands cover 61.2 million km2 or 45% of the earth’s surface
(excluding Antarctica), 1.5 times more of the globe than forests, 2.8. times more than
cropland and 17 times more than urban settlement.” (Reid et al. 2008:1). Grazing lands cover
around 77% of Australia, 61% of Africa, 49% of Asia and around 18% of Europe (Reid et al.
2008:2).
Pastoral people are ethnically diverse, and in eastern Africa alone more than 70
different linguistic/cultural groups have been observed (Reid et al. 2008:3). “Even though
extensive grazing lands [<20 people/km2] support only 3% of the world’s people, they keep
35% of the world’s sheep, 23% of the goats, and 16% of the cattle and water buffalo.” (Reid
et al. 2008:3). Compared to settled farmers in Africa, pastoralistst produce 50-70% of all the
milk, beef and mutton produced on the continent (Reid et al. 2008:3). Also, in Iran, while
comprising only 1.5% of the total population, pastoralists keep 25% of the national herd (Reid
et al. 2008:3). Generally speaking, pastoralists keeps a vide variety of domesticated animals
depending on region, with alpaca and llamas as the main species in the Andes, camel and
horse in east-central Asia, the dromedary in Africa and West Asia, reindeer in northern
Eurasia, and yak on the Tibetan plateau (Reid et al. 2008:3).
According to Dyson-Hudson (1972), the traditional anthropological study of nomadic
pastoralism was concerned with establishing typologies of “pure pastoralists or nomads”
where the units of analysis were not societies but “ideal types”. Pastoral and nomadic
societies were classified according to how much of the “ideal types” they contained. In
contrast, the modern study of nomadic pastoralists has demonstrated that the concept of “pure
pastoralists or nomads” is fictional; rather, nomadic pastoralism as an adaptation is
characterized by variations (Dyson-Hudson 1972). Rather than being occupied by typologies,
Barth (1966) has argued that it is important to look for processes that produce social forms by
seeing a society as patterns of human behaviour or patterns of allocation of time and
resources. Following this line of thought, Dyson-Hudson and Dyson-Hudson (1980)
conceptualizes nomadic pastoralism as a social form that may be defined as the coexistence of
ii
dependence on livestock with spatial mobility. More specifically, Khazanov (1994:16) have
five characteristics for nomadic pastoralism:
“(1) Pastoralism is the predominant form of economic activity. (2) Its extensive
character connected with the maintenance of herds all year round on a system of
free-range grazing without stables. (3) Periodic mobility in accordance with the
demands of pastoral economy within the boundaries of specific grazing
territories (as opposed to migrations). (4) The participation in pastoral mobility
of all or the majority of the population (as opposed, for example, to the
management of herds on distant pastures by specialist herdsmen, into which
only a minority is involved in pastoral migrations). (5) The orientation of
production towards the requirements of subsistence (as opposed to the
capitalistic ranch or dairy farming of today).”
Following this definition, nomadic pastoralism can be viewed as a distinct form of food-
producing economy, distinguishing it from other forms of economic activity, where mobile
pastoralism is the dominant activity, and where the majority of the population undertakes
seasonal movements. There are many examples of societies being nomadic, but not pastoral,
and pastoral societies that are not nomadic. Also, since it involves everyone in the various
aspects of production, it distinguishes nomadic pastoralists from shepherds in Western Europe
or the American cowboys who also make a living by herding animals. As Barfield (1993:5)
states: “Heidi is not the story of a Swiss nomad girl even though she herded cows and goats
each summer.”
According to Spooner (1973:3) the term “nomadism” has been applied to any society
that is not settled in permanent dwellings, although etymologically it implies a pastoral
subsistence base. According to Seymour-Smith (1986) the word ‘nomad’ is derived from the
Greek word nemo, which roughly means, “to pasture”. Although the word ‘nomad’ refers
both to mobility and to a pastoral base of subsistence, it is useful to distinguish between
nomadism20 as referring to mobility, and pastoralism as a mode of subsistence. The term
mobility has to comprise both seasonal and daily movement along with who participates in
20 However, Humphrey & Sneath (1999:16) argues that the category nomadism is useless analytically, and
prefers the term ’mobile pastoralism’, since “Mobility here is seen as a technique that is applicable in a range
of institutions, rather than as a holistic lifestyle suggested by the word ‘nomad’.” However, my usage of the
term ‘nomad’ here refers exactly to the aspect of mobility, as ways of moving spatially, i.e. as a strategy used
in a way of making a living, and not to a value orientation (see Salzman and Galaty 1990 for further
discussion on the difference).
iii
the actual moving, making it possible to conceptually distinguish nomadic pastoralism from
transhumance. According to Jones (1996) transhumance refers to an economic system that is
based on both agriculture and livestock herding, with a permanent “home base” occupied by
all members during most of the year. Herding of livestock and agricultural activities are
divided between the members of a household21 so that not all of the members are involved in
the pastoral production, i.e. production is diversified. Marx (2006), however, calls for
redefinition of nomadic pastoralism in the Middle East and North Africa on the basis of
diversification. In essence, nomadic pastoralism can be argued to have been defined as being
primarily rigged towards subsistence (see e.g. Khazanov 1994), based mainly on animal
products such as meat, milk, wool and hides (Marx 2006:81). Subsequently, any involvement
in the commercialization of livestock and livestock products have been viewed as a modern
invention and not part of the “traditional” way of life (Marx 2006:81 and references therein).
In relation to Middle Eastern pastoralism Marx (2006:81-2) argue that a new model/definition
of nomadic pastoralism has come to terms with: that (1) pastoralists produce, at least to some
degree, for markets and therefore depend on the city and the state, (2) pastoralism cannot be
treated as a self-contained or as only a subsistence economy, (3) pastoralists engage in a
variety of occupations, the relative importance of which change according to economic
changes (for the full list see Marx 2006:81-2).
Similarly, Dyson-Hudson & Dyson-Hudson (1980:18) argues that discussing
movement patterns of nomadic pastoralists with reference to categories like transhumance
and semi-sedentary has “[…] proved to be an intellectual sterile enterprise.” Movement
patterns are empirically constituted and have to be investigated and not discussed in relation
to a firm typology. For example, one of the main reasons given for why pastoralists in Africa
move is the seasonality of pastures, i.e. different pastures have different growing seasons and
the nomads move accordingly (Dyson-Hudson & Dyson-Hudson, 1980). This is, however,
not necessarily the only explanation for pastoral movement, e.g. political and social factors
have been argued to be important factors (see e.g. McCabe 1994, Gulliver 1975, Woodburn
1972, Chatty 2006, Dyson-Hudson and Dyson-Hudson 1980).
Pastoralists fall into the category of food-producing economies, since they rely on
domesticated animals that are controlled by the pastoralist and as a consequence “[…] the sex
21 Defined as “[…] the smallest group of people which can take independent decisions over the allocation of its
members’ domestic and herding labour, and over the use, allocation, and location of their livestock capital”
(Dahl 1979b:70).
iv
and age composition of a herd is, ideally, an artifice of the pastoralists, who, at the same
time, allocates different ‘tasks’ to his animals” (Paine 1994:15). Pastoralists exert control
over their animals based on their preferences for livestock’s products they make a living of
either directly, or indirectly, through the usage of products from the domesticated animals
(Spooner 1973). Directly in the form of meat, blood, milk, hair, wool and hides, usually
referred to as primary pastoral products. Secondarily, (but nonetheless direct) pastoral
products are butter, cheese, cloth and carpets. Indirect use of pastoral products refers to
subsistence via trading and bartering, formal and informal markets.
Although pastoralism refers to a subsistence based on livestock, what kind of livestock
they rear and what kind of pastoral products they make use of, varies across cultures.
Nevertheless, nomadic pastoralists have to be differentiated from nomadic hunters-gatherers,
which economy can be classified as a food-extracting economy, i.e. hunter-gatherers do not
physically change the animals they live of, as nomadic pastoralist do through selective
breeding (domesticated animals tend to give more milk and more wool than their wild
counterparts because of breeding) (Khazanov 1994). Nevertheless, not all anthropologists
agree in separating nomadic pastoralists from nomadic hunter-gatherers based on these
criteria, for example Ingold (1986) prefers to classify both nomadic pastoralists and hunter-
gatherers in terms of mobility and resource appropriation, and does not distinguish them on
the basis of food-extraction and food-production. Ingold (1980) distinguishes between
nomads and hunters on the basis of their relationship to the animals they subsist on. Whereas
the relationship between a hunter and animals is that of a predator-prey relationship, the
relationship between a pastoralist and his herd is that of a protector-protected. Ingold (1980.)
also divides them on the basis of access to land and animals, where for a pastoralist access to
land is normally common and access to animals divided, access to both land and animals are
common for hunters.
As seen, there are differences in how researchers define nomadic pastoralism.
However, what constitutes a nomadic pastoral adaptation in one society cannot be described
and compared with a basic “ideal type”, but has to be investigated empirically in order to be
properly understood. As Spooner (1973:3) writes “[…] there are no features of culture or
social organization that are common to all nomads or even that are found exclusively among
nomads”.
i
APPENDIX II: SAAMI REINDEER HUSBANDRY
Historical origins
Saami reindeer husbandry has been said to be the cornerstone of the Saami culture in northern
Fennoscandia (Bostedt 2001). Although it is difficult to come up with accurate dating of the
origin of reindeer husbanding as a pastoral economy, it developed at least 400 years ago
(Riseth and Vatn 2009:89-90, Paine 1994, see e.g. Bjørklund 1990:76, Bostedt 2001, Hansen
and Olsen 2004, Bergstrøm 2005 for other estimates) and probably evolved from a hunting
culture based on wild reindeer. During glacial time in Fennoscandia, the presence of wild
reindeer was most likely an important reason for stone-age settlement of hunting people
(Riseth 2000:120). According to Riseth (2000:120) in older times the Saami adaptation was
semi-nomadic, consisting of a limited number of households that migrated between different
seasonal locations, and for which the hunting of wild reindeer was the most important
economic activity. These bands were furthermore organized according to the term siida, who
described both the territory used and the band: “The hunting siida can be defined as an
organization of households, which utilize common-pool-resources for hunting, trapping, and
fishing in a geographic area and which claim exclusive rights to these resources.” (Riseth
2000:120, italics in original). Furthermore, from the 17th century, siida borders delineated
property rights that were legally recognized by nation-state rulers (Riseth 2000:120). By the
end of the 16th and during the 17th century the Saami hunters used tame reindeer as draft
animals and as decoys during hunts (Riseth 2000:120). Increased hunting pressure on wild
reindeer, coupled with the already use of tame animals, provided, according to Riseth
(2000:120, the basis for the transformation of the hunting culture to full nomadic reindeer
pastoralism as tame reindeer provided a much more stable source of livelihood than the
decreasing population of wild reindeer (see also Vorren 1978, Bergstrøm 2005, Holand 2003).
Riseth (2000:122) has summarized the changes from a hunting culture to nomadic
reindeer pastoralism as follows: (1) the siida areas became larger to incorporate the longer
migration necessary for reindeer pastoralism, (2) a reduction of the number of households per
siida, (3) the household became a more important economic unit, and (4) labor cooperation
combined with a privatization of production. Traditionally, reindeer pastoralism was based on
families, or households that followed their herds’ year-round where the pastoral economy was
primarily tied to reindeer products (Vorren 1978). Central to the reindeer husbandry is the two
levels of social organization: (i) baiki (household) and (ii) siida (Bjørklund 1990, Nilsen and
ii
Mosli 1994, Paine 1964, Paine 1972, Paine 1994, Pehrson 1964, Riseth 2000). The household
consisted, according to Riseth (2000:121), of a family group comprising a nuclear family but
may have also included servants or old people e.g. the parents of the wife or husband. In
general terms, members of the household own their own animals privately and make decisions
in relation to slaughter and reproduction on their own, although under the supervision of the
household leader (Riseth and Vatn 2009:90). New households were usually formed upon
marriage, i.e. reindeer has traditionally been individually owned and inherited by both women
and men (Paine 1994:14), and upon marriage both the groom and bride will bring with their
own reindeer, which they have accumulated since birth into a new household (Paine
2009:36)22.
The siida can be defined as a cooperative unit composed of one or more reindeer
management families, usually organized on the basis of kinship, which joined in a social and
labour community for keeping control over a herd of reindeer through herding (Pehrson
1964). Generally speaking, the siida is both a social and a working community normally
consisting of several households. Moreover, the siida was (and still is) a flexible system of
cooperation, i.e. siida membership can change over time so as to optimise the relationship
between herds and personnel (Bjørklund 2004:126, Paine 1994:14, see below). As the siida
can be defined as a unit composed of one or more reindeer management families, Riseth and
Vatn (2009:90) argues that the siida carries with it potential sources of conflict related to
differences between individual and collective interests. Consequently, the siida has
traditionally been regulated by a number of principles: (1) all herd owners are their own
masters; (2) solidarity between siida partners, which sometimes can be stronger than sibling
solidarity (but see Paper 6); (3) a network of mutual obligations; (4) unanimity in relation to
collective decisions and (5) a spiritual land-man relationship. According to Riseth and Vatn
(2009:90) inter-siida conflicts where resolved through the use of 3-5.
A central concept in reindeer husbandry is that of herd management. Paine (1964,
1971, 1972, 1994) conceptualize herd management to embody two principles of
interdependence, i.e. between herd, personnel and pasture (the principal factors of production)
and between herding and husbandry (however, see Dyson-Hudson 1972:14 for a discussion
on the analytically use of the terms). An important aspect in viable herd management is the
22 It should be noted, however, that at present the establishing of a new husbandry unit (or siida share) has to be
officially recognized as the Norwegian government controls the recruitment of reindeer herders through the
use of a quota system (Bjørklund 1999, see below).
iii
possession of the three principal factors of production in commensurate proportions. Failure
to reach commensurability results in difficulties for the pastoralist, e.g. herds without
sufficient manpower available to herd them will probably suffer continuous depletion of the
herd (Paine 1994). Paine (1964) defines herding as the relationship between herd/pasture in
connection to the welfare of the animals in the terrain, which is the responsibility of the siida
group (Nilsen and Mosli 1994). Husbandry on the other hand, relates to the reindeer herd as a
resource of its owners (Paine 1964). Husbandry for Paine (1964:79) is “[…] the efforts of the
owners in connection with the growth of capital and the formation of profit”. Decisions in
connection to husbandry are the responsibility of the household (see Nilsen & Mosli 1994).
Reindeer husbandry in transition
The newer history of Saami reindeer husbandry can be summarized as being influenced by an
increased meat and market adaptation coupled with an increased sedentarisation (Riseth
2006). According to Riseth and Vatn (2009:87) after the Second World War the life of the
Saami reindeer herders changed as herding changed to become more an occupation than a
way of life. Moreover, during the 1950s access to markets increased. Furthermore, from the
middle of the 1960s the reindeer husbandry underwent major technological changes with the
introduction of snowmobiles and later all terrain vehicles (ATV). During the late 1970s the
Norwegian government became more and more directly engaged in the reindeer husbandry
through subsidies and regulations. Reforms during the end of the 70s and early 80s had as one
of its main aims to increase both production and co-management (Riseth and Vatn 2009).
Herd sizes in Finnmark were at their lowest after the end of the Second World War,
but were normalised by the end of the 1950s. At the beginning of the 1950s the Norwegian
government tried to help reindeer herders to increase their herds to a pre-war level by
supplying capital for buying animals for breeding and by erecting fences between summer
districts (Riseth and Vatn 2009:100). The Norwegian government also started to build
slaughterhouses throughout the 1950s something which gave herders good opportunities for
slaughtering during the 1950s and 1960s. According to Riseth and Vatn (2009) and Riseth
(2006) one of the main underlying ideas for increased governmental involvement in the
reindeer husbandry was to rationalise the industry. During this period the reindeer husbandry
underwent major technological, economical and political changes (Riseth 2003, Riseth 2000),
which had as one of its consequence that, in Finnmark, one has observed a doubling of
number of reindeer from around 1970-1990 (Riseth and Vatn 2009:95), while the number of
husbandry units have doubled from 1950 to 1990 (Riseth and Vatn 2009:96).
iv
In Finnmark, the snowmobile was introduced in the middle of 1960 and was adopted
by almost all herders within a relatively short time period. Moreover, where it was possible,
i.e. in areas with not too steep terrain, all terrain vehicles (ATV) were being used more and
more during summer. Generally speaking, during this period the reindeer husbandry
experienced a high degree of technological modernization within the limits set by economy
and geography (Riseth and Vatn 2009:95). This was a change that, according to Riseth and
Vatn (2009) was welcomed by the reindeer herders. During this period cars and trucks were
used more and more for transporting both reindeer and people. For example, trucks could be
used to move the weakest animals or the whole herd during spring migration if necessary
(Riseth and Vatn 2009:95). Moreover, both helicopters and military transport boats were used
in the reindeer husbandry e.g. military transport boats were being used for moving reindeer
over water to summer grazing areas. More and more fences were also put up as well as a
general modernisation of the corral system (Riseth and Vatn 2009:95). In sum, during this
period the production system started to change from being subsistence based to a motorised
and market oriented industry (Riseth 2003, Riseth 2000, Riseth and Vatn 2009:100). The
technological change, illustrated by the increased dependence of e.g. snowmobiles, were
financed by converting animal capital something which Riseth and Vatn (2006) and Nilsen
and Mosli (1994) has argued provides a partial explanation for why the number of reindeer
experienced a temporary decrease prior to and around 1970.
During the 1970s most of the reindeer herders had moved into modern houses in
central areas in Finnmark. This was due to official policies such as housing programmes
(1958 and 1969) that made modern houses affordable for herders. Moreover, nine years
compulsory school made it impossible for families to live close to their herd (Riseth and Vatn
2009:100). Furthermore, the public sector grew considerably from the end of the 1960s and
new ways of making money became more and more available, especially for women. All
these factors made it possible for reindeer herders to attain a “modern” standard of living
(Nilsen and Mosli 1994, Riseth and Vatn 2009). Furthermore, at the end of the 1970s a new
step in governmental involvement in the reindeer husbandry was initiated. The Saami
Reindeer Herders’ Association of Norway (NRL)23 lobbied for recognition and support for
viewing the reindeer husbandry as an industry (Riseth and Vatn 2009:100). In short, they
achieved two important goals: in 1976 the General Agreement for the Reindeer Industry was
negotiated between NRL and the Norwegian government. This agreement achieved that
23 The national interest organisation of the reindeer husbandry established in 1948 (Berg 2008:188)
v
reindeer pasture areas should be protected from encroachment from other industries and
secured both welfare and income for Saami reindeer herders (Riseth and Vatn 2009:100). This
agreement was approved by the Norwegian parliament. Far more important, however, is the
fact that this agreement laid the foundation for annual agreements pertaining to official
subsidies and development that continues to this day (Riseth and Vatn 2009:100, see also
Ulvevadet 2008). A prerequisite of achieving the goals of the agreement necessitated a
number of official subsidies, e.g. direct and indirect price support, cost reducing actions and
support for husbandry units (Riseth and Vatn 2009:100). Riseth and Vatn (2009:101) has
argued that the subsidies had an unintended consequence in Finnmark: the increased income
generated from e.g. subsidies was partly converted to larger herd sizes (see also Paper 1).
In 1978 a new Reindeer Management Act was adopted, focusing on (1) the
establishment of formal institutions for access to the reindeer husbandry and pasture
management; (2) co-management. While the establishment of formal institutions was based
on the rationalisation and efficiency paradigm, co-management was based on herder
representation in the administration of the reindeer husbandry, both regionally and nationally
(Riseth and Vatn 2009:101). Locally, democratically elected districts boards were established
for each reindeer district (Ulvevadet 2008:61). The intention was to establish a framework for
governance that should limit the growth of both husbandry units and herds as well as making
sure that reindeer herders and their representatives should be accountable for their decisions
(Riseth and Vatn 2009:101, see also Ulvevadet 2008). The number of husbandry units was
controlled by the use of a quota system (Bjørklund 1999). The Reindeer Management Act
placed weight on active management for members of the husbandry unit as well as restricted
the possibility of keeping reindeer in other husbandry units (Riseth and Vatn 2009:101).
Furthermore, the act also established a structure for governance where the boards were given
authority in relation to e.g. herd quotas on both district and husbandry unit level (Riseth and
Vatn 2009:101). According to Riseth and Vatn (2009:102) several changes followed: (1) the
status of the husbandry unit seems to have been strengthened at the expense of the siida
system (see also Nilsen and Mosli 1994). One of the reasons for this is that governmental
subsidies targeted the husbandry unit. (2) At the same time husbandry units got increased
opportunities for generating income from non-pastoral activities, i.e. increased sedentarisation
lead to a closer link with the overall society which again increased income generating
opportunities (Riseth and Vatn 2009:102). Berg (2008) has argued that the Reindeer
Management Act of 1978 and the General Agreement for the Reindeer Industry of 1976 lay
the foundation for a change into a corporative reindeer husbandry, i.e. not only production of
vi
meat for subsistence and sale but also for official subsidies. Accordingly, in many districts it
has been common that half of the income has been generated by different support and
compensatory arrangements (Berg 2008:189).
The focus on co-management has been broadened in the Reindeer Management Act of
2007. The committee in charge of proposing the 2007 Reindeer Management Act wanted
“[…] more power-sharing between the government and industry and more influence on the
part of reindeer owners […]” and that the “[…] industry should have self-determination and
influence but also more responsibilities for its actions […]” (Ulvevadet 2008:66). To
accommodate increased co-management the traditional siida system has been recognised as an
important managerial unit and where different siidas should elect boards that is to work as a
contact point between the siida and the district boards (Ulvevadet 2008:67-8, Anonymous
2007a). In short, it is assumed that “[…] a well-arranged management system at the local
level will lead to better social relations, increased trust and better co-operation among the
reindeer owners […]”(Ulvevadet 2008:68).
In sum, the reindeer husbandry have undergone substantial changes, the most
important being: (1) more extensive management (decrease in contact between man and
animals, see Beach 2000 for a discussion concerning the erosion of herding skills); (2) the
subsistence economy was replaced by a money based economy; (3) sedentarisation; (4)
reindeer husbandry as an occupation and not as a way of life; (5) an increase in the use of
modern technology; and (6) increased dependence on governmental support (Berg 2008,
Bergstrøm 2005, Bjørklund 1999, Bjørklund 2004, Paine 1994, Riseth 2000, Riseth and Vatn
2009). Also, Bjørklund (1999) argues that while in traditional reindeer husbandry the
principal factors of production were under the control by traditional institutions, during 1960-
90 the Norwegian government assumed the control by e.g. setting a limit on the number of
animals, and by controlling the recruitment of reindeer herders by the use of a quota system.
Present organisation and administration
From a national point of view the Saami reindeer husbandry is a relatively small industry.
Nevertheless, the Saami reindeer husbandry is important from a local and Saami point of view
both in terms of economy and culture (Anonymous 2007b). Moreover, around 40% of
Norway’s landmass is utilized as reindeer pastures from Hedmark in the South to Finnmark in
the North (Anonymous 2007b). According to Ulvevadet (2008:55), management of the
reindeer husbandry consist of a complex co-management system with participants from the
bottom to the top. Moreover, “[…] there are three organizational systems with vertical and
vii
horizontal interaction among all its organizational parts” (Ulvevadet 2008:55). First and
foremost is the administrative system that goes from the Parliament to the Ministry of
Agriculture and Food and further to the Reindeer Husbandry Administration with its six
different reindeer husbandry areas at the regional level (Figure II.1 & II.2). Accordingly the
six different reindeer husbandry areas “[…] provide reindeer owners with assistance and
advice […] (Ulvevadet 2008:65). Another part of the system consist of the corporative system
that goes from NRL to six regional associations located within the six different reindeer
husbandry areas (Ulvevadet 2008:65). As previously mentioned NRL negotiates with the
government concerning annual agreements pertaining to official subsidies and development of
the reindeer husbandry (Riseth and Vatn 2009:100, see also Ulvevadet 2008). Finally, there is
an extensive co-management system that consists of different boards within the (1) Reindeer
Husbandry Administration; (2) the six different reindeer husbandry areas; (3) reindeer
districts; and (4) siidas (see Figure II.2). “Reindeer owners are the sole members of the
district boards. Members of the area boards are appointed by the Sami Parliament and the
County Council […], while members of the Reindeer Husbandry Board are appointed by
MAF [Ministry of Agriculture and Food] and the Sami Parliament” (Ulvevadet 2008:55,
italics added). Members of the siida board are elected from the reindeer herders within the
siida (see above).
As for social organization, the Saami reindeer husbandry can arguably be
distinguished into three different levels: (1) husbandry unit; (2) siida; and (3) district (see
below for rationale, Figure II.2). The husbandry unit is the basic unit in the social
organization of the reindeer husbandry, and operates on the basis of a license given by the
government which entitles a person to manage a herd of reindeer within a delimited area
(Ulvevadet and Klokov 2004). The husbandry unit is similar to a household, as defined by
Dahl (1979b:70), but as a husbandry unit can also consist of reindeer belonging to family
members of the husbandry unit’s manager, a husbandry unit de facto similar to an extended
family unit. This level of social organization has, however, changed name in the new reindeer
husbandry law, where the former designation husbandry unit has now changed to siida share
(Ulvevadet 2008, Anonymous 2007a). In contrast to the husbandry unit, the siida is a
cooperative unit composed of one or more reindeer management families, and is part of the
traditional reindeer husbandry system. The siida is usually organized on the basis of kinship
joined together in social and labor communities for keeping control of herds of reindeer
through herding (Bjørklund 2004, Nilsen and Mosli 1994, Paine 1994, Pehrson 1964, see
above). Moreover, this level of social organization is formally recognised by the Norwegian
viii
government in the new reindeer husbandry law (Ulvevadet 2008, Anonymous 2007a). The
Saami reindeer husbandry districts are formal management units with the responsibility to
provide the Norwegian reindeer husbandry administration with information connected to the
reindeer husbandry, and also to help the authorities with the administration of the reindeer
husbandry. The district also has the responsibility of ensuring that the reindeer husbandry is
managed in accordance with the rules and regulations that are stipulated by the Norwegian
government (Bull 1997). As such district may be argued to not be a level of social
organization, but rather as the lowest level of governmental management for the reindeer
husbandry (Ulvevadet 2008). However, members of reindeer districts has to cooperate in e.g.
maintaining fences or fulfilling governmental demands pertaining to the maximum number of
reindeer per districts, and as such may also be conceptualized as a level of social organization.
Pasture use
Important prerequisites for the reindeer husbandry have arguably been land, herd and
personnel (Paine 1972, Paine 1994, Riseth and Vatn 2009). Pastures are, however, seasonal
and have specific physical and geographical locations than necessitates migration between
them. For reindeer, the most important diet during winter is ground lichens which are
commonly distributed in relatively dry continental areas (Riseth and Vatn 2009:89). During
summer, reindeer subsist mostly on herbs and grasses which are most commonly distributed
in nutritious mountain areas. Spring and fall pastures consist usually of both this types of
resources (Riseth and Vatn 2009:89). Riseth and Vatn (2009:89) argues that as lichens are a
stock resource that experience optimal growth during relatively low grazing pressure, the
capacity of winter grazing areas determines to a large degree herd size. In contrast, the
capacity of the green summer pastures determines the production potential (Riseth and Vatn
2009:89, Tveraa et al. 2007).
In short then, the herding of reindeer is based on following the natural migration
patterns of reindeer. In Finnmark the summer pastures are localized in the northeast close to
the coast and fjords while winter pastures are on the continental inland plateau (see Figure
II.3). Summer pastures are moreover geographically delineated on the basis of district
borders, i.e. the aforementioned formal management units (Figure II.1). Summer pastures are
shared between several husbandry units, e.g. the number of husbandry units per summer
district ranged from 2 to 28 in Paper 6. The combined spring and fall pastures are localized
between the summer and winter pastures (see Figure II.3). Spring, fall and winter pastures
consist of large common grazing areas that in some periods includes five to six dozen winter
ix
siidas (Riseth and Vatn 2009:96). The commonality of the winter pastures could be, however,
questioned: Paine (1994:75) argues that while summer pastures are physically separated,
winter pastures constitutes an overlapping quilt. Saami reindeer herders have, however, a
clear understanding of the fact that different winter pasture areas belong to different siidas
(Riseth 2000:132). Furthermore, Riseth (2000:132 italics in original, see also Paine 1994)
argues that “The ethic of respecting another’s pastures seem to have been rather strong. This
is; however, modified by the rule that everybody had right of access to alternative pastures,
when in need […]”. This siida delineation of winter pastures, however, have been informal, a
situation that the Norwegian government is in the process of rectifying. Presently, the
Norwegian government has initiated a redistribution of common inland winter pastures to the
siida units as this is assumed to ease both governmental and regional management
(Anonymous 2007c, Anonymous 2007a, Anonymous 2007d). In short, the distribution of
pastures requires that Saami reindeer herders living in Finnmark migrate with their reindeer
out to costal summer pastures during spring time from winter pastures in the interior (Figure
II.3) with distances often being several hundred kilometres (Paine 2004:24).
x
East-Finnmark
Districts: 10
Siida shares: 181
Persons: 938
Reindeer: 88 820
West-Finnmark
Districts: 26
Siida shares: 216
Persons : 1370
Reindeer: 98 010
Troms
Districts: 14
Siid a sh ares: 46
Persons: 167
Reindeer: 12 025
Nordland
Districts: 12
Siida shares: 44
Persons: 22 4
Reindeer: 14 710
North-Trøndelag
Districts: 6
Siida shares: 38
Persons: 187
Reindeer: 12 517
South-Trøndelag/Hedmark
Districts: 4
Siida shares: 30
Persons: 150
Reindeer: 13 564
Figure II.1. Map over the different Saami reindeer husbandry areas in Norway and their
respective administrative centres (adopted from Ulvevadet 2008:54). Number of districts
refers only to summer and whole-year districts per 31 March 2008 (Anonymous 2009a:50).
‘Siida shares’ is the same as what has been termed ‘husbandry units’ in Paper 1, 5 & 6.
Numbers in relation to persons refers to number of persons in siida shares (Anonymous
2009a:50). Number of reindeer refers to the total number in area. All numbers refer to per 31
March 2008 (Anonymous 2009a:62).
xi
Ministry of Agriculture
and Food
The Reindeer Husbandry
Administration
Area Reindeer Husbandry
East-Finnmark
Area Reindeer Husbandry
West-Finnmark
Area Reindeer Husbandry
Troms
Districts (14)
Husbandry Units/
Siida Shares ( 46)
Siida (14)(14 )
Area Rein deer Husban dry
Nor d l an d
Districts (12)
Hus band ry Unit s/
Siida Shares (44)
Siida (16)(18 )
Area Rei ndeer H usband ry
Nor t h- T rø n del a g
Dis tricts ( 6)
Husb andry Uni ts/
Siida Shares (38)
Siida (10)(10)
Area Reindeer Husbandry
S-Trøndelag/Hedmark
Districts (4)
Husbandry Units/
Siida Shares (30)
Siida (4)(4)
Districts (6)
Husbandry Units/
Siida Shares (44)
Siida (6)(11)
Polmak/Varanger
Districts (6)
Husbandry Units/
Siida Shares (44)
Siida (6)(11)
Polmak/Varanger
Districts (3)
Husbandry Units/
Siida Shares (54)
Siida (4)(16)
Karasjok Eastern Zone
Districts (3)
Husbandry Units/
Siida Shares (54)
Siida (4)(16)
Karasjok Eastern Zone Karasjo kW estern Zone
Districts (1)
Husbandry Units/
Siida Shares (83)
Siida (9)( 24)
Karasjo kW estern Zone
Districts (1)
Husbandry Units/
Siida Shares (83)
Siida (9)( 24)
Districts (7)
Husb andry U nits/
SiidaShares (62)
Siida (14)(15)
Kautoke ino Eastern Zone
Districts (7)
Husb andry U nits/
SiidaShares (62)
Siida (14)(15)
Kautoke ino Eastern Zone
Districts (12)
Husbandry Units/
SiidaShares (97)
Siida (1 6)(24)
Kautok eino Middle Zo ne
Districts (12)
Husbandry Units/
SiidaShares (97)
Siida (1 6)(24)
Kautok eino Middle Zo ne Kautokeino Western Zone
Dis tricts ( 7)
Husb andry U nits/
Siida Shares (57)
Siida (6)(14)
KautokeinoWestern Zone
Dis tricts ( 7)
Husb andry U nits/
Siida Shares (57)
Siida (6)(14)
Figure II.2. The current organisational and administrative levels in the Saami reindeer husbandry, Norway. Number of siida in black refers to
summer siida, while grey refer to the number of winter siida. All numbers in relation to siida and husbandry units/siida shares is from
Anonymous (2009a:62), while numbers pertaining to districts is from Anonymous (2009a:50).
xii
Figure II.3. Map showing the spring, summer, autumn and winter grazing areas for reindeer
husbandry districts in Finnmark, Norway. Grey shaded area designates the 27 reindeer
husbandry districts used as a basis for analyses in Paper 5 and also serves as their individual
summer pastures. Vertically hatched area shows the area used for spring and autumn pastures
while horizontally hatched area shows the area used for winter pastures. Arrow headed lines
indicates general seasonal movement patterns between different grazing areas for all
husbandry units and do not refer to the movement pattern of specific husbandry units within
specific districts.
70
65°
60°
20°
10°
100km
ERRATA
ABSTRACT/KEYWORDS
P. i – “Norway” has been inserted as keyword.
PAPERS INCLUDED IN THE THESIS
P. ii – Status of papers have been updated.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
P. iii – Error in name spelling has been corrected.
APPENDIX II: SAAMI REINDEER HUSBANDRY
P. v, vii, viii – minor language corrections have been undertaken.
MAIN TEXT
P. 20, 36, 40, 41, 42, 45, 46 – minor language corrections have been undertaken.
