This paper draws on Te Rangahau o Te Tuakiri Māori me Ngā Waiaro ā-Pūtea | The Māori Identity and Financial Attitudes Study (MIFAS). The MIFAS is a nationwide study that examines the relationship between Māori identity and economic attitudes and values. The MIFAS embeds the Multidimensional Model of Māori Identity and Cultural Engagement (MMM-ICE), which assesses Māori identity in relation to eight domains. We report data regarding three aspects of economic activity: risking iwi (tribal) assets for profit; individualism at work; and preferences for workplaces that promote Māori culture and identity. We find Māori who are more strongly oriented towards a traditional Māori belief system are less likely to be individualistic at work, more likely to prefer workplaces that respect Māori development and less likely to support commercialising iwi assets. We also find marked heterogeneity and suggest ‘Māori success as Māori’ may not solely reflect ‘traditional’ Māori values.

Introduction

Capitalist Western ideologies accompanied British colonisation of New Zealand (Beaglehole 1938, cited in Hilliard 1997). Nearly 180 years after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, Māori are an ethnic minority within a Westernised economic system that is essentially capitalist, albeit mixed-market and with a large welfare state. Māori fare disproportionately poorly in most socio-economic statistics (Easton 2018), and when it comes to economic outcomes, national statistics and the media have portrayed Māori as a financially incompetent (Moewaka Barnes et al. 2012; Whitney et al. 2014) ‘brown underclass’ (New report … 2011; Hitchcock 2017). However, Māori have grown tired of distinctively Western deficit approaches to Māori development (Smith et al. 2015), and a discourse that champions ‘Māori success as Māori’ is growing stronger (ACE Aotearoa Professional Development Steering Group 2014).

The notion that Māori must achieve success as Māori aligns with what sociologists, psychologists and other social scientists have long understood about identity. Culture and identity play a key role in shaping economic development (Weber 1930; Polanyi 1944). Here, culture refers to the ‘customary beliefs and values that ethnic, religious and social groups transmit fairly unchanged from generation to generation’ (Guiso et al. 2006, p. 23). Values are abstract concepts or beliefs guiding people's lives (Schwartz 1992, 1994; Daniel et al. 2014). Our term ‘economic values’ refers to principles and standards for one's economic life. Economic values may affect, for instance, notions of economic success or failure, and orientations towards materialism, career and the utilisation of environmental assets. We argue they are reflected in attitudes to specific economic questions.

Culture itself is a challenging factor to measure in relation to economic values and attitudes because it is broad, and the sheer ubiquity of ways it may influence economic activity makes it difficult to devise testable measures and hypotheses to usefully analyse the relationships between these somewhat nebulous variables (Guiso et al. 2006, p. 23). Yet, in recent decades, the burgeoning empirical literature has analysed how culture affects various economic measures and outcomes (Franke et al. 1991; Brook and Luong 1999; House et al. 2004; Akerlof and Kranton 2010; Kapás 2017). In an analysis of World Values Survey data from 1995 to 2011, Grimes et al. (2015) found that Māori were more likely than non-Māori to believe that capitalists threaten society, and to prioritise the environment over economic growth. In this paper, we expand on that work and consider the extent to which Māori identity and cultural beliefs influence expressed attitudes about economic decisions. We argue that core (but non-exhaustive) ‘traditional’ Māori values continue to influence Māori economic decisions. Here ‘traditional Māori values’ refer to what published writings generally recognise as such; however, our calling these values traditional does not assume they have been held ubiquitously or by all Māori historically; rather, that they are widely cited as being normative for Māori.

The next section expounds our theoretical foundations and describes how we measure Māori identity in Te Rangahau o Te Tuakiri Māori me Ngā Waiaro ā-Pūtea | The Māori Identity and Financial Attitudes Study (MIFAS). We then offer a literature review of research that connects Māori values to economic activity and describe the guiding hypothesis for this paper before setting out the MIFAS methodology. A description of the results of our analyses including sample characteristics and data analyses is then provided before we discuss the significance of associations found overall and with three specific attitudes, while acknowledging limitations and suggesting future research avenues. Finally, the seventh section draws conclusions and describes potential implications.

Theoretical foundations and the Multidimensional Model of Māori Identity and Cultural Engagement

Our overall approach to understanding group attitudes and values derives from social identity theory (SIT) (Tajfel and Turner 1986), which proposes that group membership is crucial to the self-concept (Turner et al. 1994). In their seminal introduction to SIT, Tajfel and Turner (1979, 1986) proposed that an aspect of each person's self-concept is socially derived through their relationships with others. Social identity may be defined as a person's sense of who they are based on their group membership(s) and is an important source of belonging, meaning and social value. Social identities prescribe behavioural as well as attitudinal norms, and in order to win and maintain acceptance, members are compelled to act in accordance with what is normative for the group. In this paradigm, self-identified Māori who consciously feel they ‘belong’ to the social category Māori and who highly value group membership will be strongly influenced by (what they consider) Māori social and cultural norms and expectations.

The MIFAS also draws on the work of Akerlof and Kranton (2000), who integrated SIT into formal economic analysis, creating the field of identity economics. Their work challenges the economic notion of ‘rational choice’ (i.e. that individuals always make prudent and logical decisions that provide them with the greatest benefit or satisfaction) by systematically incorporating the proposal that economic decisions factor in not only the financial implications, but also the implications for the decision maker's identity. We therefore take the view that those who identify strongly as Māori will be more likely to support and express (what they believe to be) Māori norms and values when making economic decisions.

To measure Māori identity, we employ the Multidimensional Model of Māori Identity and Cultural Engagement (MMM-ICE). The MMM-ICE is a survey-based measure that asks individuals to agree or disagree with a series of statements about being Māori. The inception, development and validation of the MMM-ICE scale is described in numerous publications (e.g. Houkamau and Sibley 2010, 2015b, 2018; Greaves et al. 2015). Ongoing iterations have modified the MMM-ICE to improve its validity. The latest measure, the MMM-ICE3, comprises eight dimensions. Each dimension assesses a specific domain relevant to Māori identity and cultural engagement, as follows:

1. Group Membership Evaluation

2. Interdependent Self-Concept

3. Cultural Efficacy and Active Identity Engagement

4. Spirituality

5. Socio-Political Consciousness

6. Authenticity Beliefs

7. Perceived Appearance

8. Whānau Efficacy.

The operational definitions, means, standard deviations and Cronbach's alpha scores for each MMM-ICE3 scale appear in the Methodology section below (also see Houkamau, Sibley, and Henare 2019 for the full version of the MMM-ICE3).

In relation to dimensions 1–6 listed above, higher scores may be taken as indicative of a stronger affiliation (e.g. a higher positive evaluation of the social group Māori, greater importance of being Māori to one's overall self-concept, stronger pro-Māori political beliefs and a closer alignment to normative Māori beliefs and values around spirituality). Dimension 6 (Authenticity Beliefs) is particularly important for understanding the prevalence and influence of essentialist beliefs within the Māori population because it evaluates the extent to which individuals believe Māori must display specific characteristics to be considered ‘real’ Māori. Dimension 7 (Perceived Appearance) was included in the MMM-ICE to evaluate the impact of racism on Māori. Unfortunately, being on the receiving end of racism is not unusual for many Māori (Houkamau et al. 2017), and economic outcomes experienced by Māori may be influenced by discrimination (see Houkamau and Sibley 2015a for an example). Dimension 8, the Whānau Efficacy scale, was developed specifically for the MIFAS to evaluate the role of whānau connectedness and well-being for Māori identity (Matika et al. under review).

Thus far, research using the MMM-ICE has identified distinct sub-groups within the Māori population who are relatively detached from Māori culture and values. For example, drawing on data from Māori participants in the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study (n = 686), Greaves et al. (2015) identified six unique Māori population sub-groups that reflected differential patterns in how Māori express their identity as Māori on each dimension of the MMM-ICE. These varied from the most enculturated group, who expressed strongly traditional ideas and preferences (22.6%), to those who identified as Māori but were largely disassociated from Māori culture and values (6.9%). These data indicate that understanding the connection between Māori identity and economic values and beliefs is a complex endeavour. Personal cultural knowledge (like the ability to speak Māori and understand tikanga Māori, namely Māori culture, custom and ethics) varies markedly across the Māori population. As Durie (1998, p. 215) observed of ever-increasing diversity: ‘Māori live in diverse cultural worlds.’

Māori values and economic activity

Despite diversity in Māori society, academic commentary on Māori values regarding economic activity (what we term economic values) tends to treat Māori as having fixed, settled and stable identities, rooted in tradition and fundamentally different from New Zealand European/Pākehā (which here we also refer to European). In this respect, Māori are frequently portrayed as embodying communal values, esoteric wisdom and environmental spiritualism – diametrically opposed to supposed exclusively Western cultural values such as individualism, technology, commerce and trade (Reid and Rout 2016). Reid and Rout (2016) call the defining of Māori in opposition to Pākehā a form of ‘reactionary traditionalism’ – an ideological response to colonisation. They propose that reactionary traditionalism encourages indigenous people to dissociate economically from modernity, presenting indigenous culture as the antithesis of Western capitalism and exaggerating true historical differences. Examining pre-contact and pre-colonial Māori economies, Reid and Rout (2016) demonstrate that Māori already possessed many characteristics thought to uniquely underpin Western capitalism (including the traditions of property rights, governance and leadership that generated strong economic growth) prior to Pākehā arrival.

Yet, Haar and Brougham (2013, p. 878) observe: ‘Māori are fundamentally different from their European counterparts and are considered to be more collectivistic’. Similarly Hook et al. (2007) note that Māori culture largely deals with the world through ‘traditional principles’ (p. 6). They add:

Gallagher (2016) describes the core values that underpin the totality of tikanga Māori. These include whanaungatanga (relationships, mainly based on whakapapa, i.e. genealogy); mana (prestige, authority, control, power, influence, status); tapu and noa (rules about what is sacred, prohibited or restricted), manaakitanga (generosity, caring for others and compassion) and utu (reciprocity). Many accounts describe these core values as being widely held among Māori generally (see Henare 1988, 2001, 2014; Marsden et al. 1989; Walker 1989; Barlow 1993; Royal 2002; Durie 2003; Mead 2016). A range of data sources indicate that the core Māori values described above remain important to Māori with respect to business, employment and economic activity (McIntosh et al. 2004; Te Puni Kōkiri 2006; Henry 2007; Oliver and Love 2007; Tapsell and Woods 2008; Carter et al. 2011; Spiller et al. 2011; Bargh 2012; Māori Economic Development Panel 2012; Harris et al. 2016).

For example, quantitative research also shows Māori orientations towards whanaungatanga and collectivism exert a continuing influence on Māori career satisfaction. Haar and Brougham (2013) found that Māori employees (n = 174) who felt their cultural values were understood in the workplace reported better job outcomes and satisfaction with their work. Kuntz et al. (2014) found that organisational espousal of ‘central values’ of te ao Māori (the Māori world), including manaakitanga, whakawhanaungatanga (family strength and unity) and kaitiakitanga, boosted Māori employees’ affective commitment to the workplace (n = 91). Qualitative research shows Māori tribal organisations operate a multiple bottom line taking into account the impacts of economic development for the social and cultural outcomes of stakeholders (Smith et al. 2015), while Māori educational, work and career aspirations have been found to encompass relational values including manaakitanga and whanaungatanga (Liu and Tamara 1998; Oliver and Love 2007).

Kaitiakitanga (environmental guardianship, acknowledging the close affinity of Māori to nature; Harmsworth and Awatere 2013) and rangatiratanga (Māori acting with authority and independence over their own affairs) are modern coinages invoked regarding, among other things, Māori economic development (Carter et al. 2011). These terms represent a desire for economic self-determination (Smith et al. 2015) and express adaptation to modern political and legal realities. However, Kawharu (2000) observes that the values underpinning new constructs such as kaitiakitanga have been key facets of Maori life for generations in the management of resources and the promotion of identity. Kaitiakitanga affirms a unique status for Māori as tangata whenua (people of the land; Williams 2007), so it goes beyond a value to an affirmation of collective identity (Dell 2017).

O’Sullivan and Dana (2008) interviewed 14 Māori involved in supporting economic development in Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu (the largest iwi, or tribe, in New Zealand's South Island). Māori economic development for most respondents meant achieving tino rangatiratanga (tino meaning full or absolute) by supporting their community to be economically independent. In research documented by Warriner (2007), six out of seven of the Māori entrepreneurs interviewed reported that traditional Māori values guided their decisions in relation to their business. Warriner focused on the role of whanaungatanga, manaakitanga, kaitiakitanga, rangatiratanga and aroha (love, compassion, respect) and found that these values were either highly significant to the entrepreneurs’ work or considered ‘essential in terms of manaakitanga and kaitiakitanga towards iwi/hapū resources and beneficiaries’ (Warriner 2007, p. 563) (hapū meaning a sub-tribe or kinship grouping). Yet for one of the participants, traditional Māori values played only a minor role.

Thus, empirical research indicates that traditional Māori values are still relevant to the ways in which many Māori engage in economic activity. However, the influence of these values does not appear to be universal. Here we add to the literature by examining intra-group diversity in economic attitudes and underlying values in a large representative sample of Māori. Our guiding hypothesis is that Māori who expressed a stronger commitment to Māori identity (as measured by the MMM-ICE) would be more likely to support normative/traditional Māori values regarding economic matters, and therefore attitudinally would report greater concern for protecting land and other iwi assets (reflecting the value of kaitiakitanga), a greater need for their workplace/employer to respect Māori values and development (reflecting utu and manaakitanga) and higher prioritisation of relationships over personal performance at work (reflecting the values of manaakitanga and whanaungatanga). The traditional Māori economic values we consider to be reflected by attitudes expressed to our three economic activities are kaitiakitanga, utu, manaakitanga and whanaungatanga.

Methodology

The MIFAS proceeded in two phases. First, interviews with 25 Māori business leaders were conducted to develop content. Interviewees identified a range of factors that motivate and inspire Māori in relation to economic development. Although these interviews did not aim to generate a list of core Māori values, all interviewees mentioned at least one of the core values cited in the previous section as important to Māori generally (and/or to themselves personally). The draft survey was developed by the authors of this paper, reviewed by two Māori academics (working in either business- or economics-related disciplines) and piloted with 35 Māori respondents and three Māori PhD students before being administered nationwide. The second phase began in September 2017, when a pen-and-paper questionnaire was posted to a random sample of 100,000 people on the New Zealand electoral roll claiming Māori whakapapa. The electoral database we sampled from included all registered voters, whether on the general or Māori roll.

Results

Data processing for the MIFAS required anonymising all surveys (by removing personal information and sorting it separately from survey content), inputting all survey data into Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), coding qualitative responses and checking and rechecking the accuracy of the data (comparing the completed surveys). A total of 7019 participants in the sample frame responded to the MIFAS, giving a ‘raw’ response rate of 7% in round numbers (7010/100,000).

Here we offer a brief summary of our sample characteristics. Houkamau et al. (2019) recently reported the response rate data of the MIFAS data set and discussed its representativeness in comparison with the 2006 and 2013 New Zealand census data for Māori, and with Te Kupenga, Statistics New Zealand's first large-scale survey of Māori well-being (Statistics New Zealand 2014). A more comprehensive discussion of the MIFAS characteristics can be found there.

Discussion

This section discusses the significance of the associations between the MMM-ICE and the three attitudes analysed in this paper (the values we believe to underlie each have already been identified). Overall, our results show marked heterogeneity. We found that Māori who strongly value Māori identity according to specific dimensions (particularly Spirituality, Socio-Political Consciousness, Whānau Efficacy and Authenticity Beliefs) were more likely to endorse attitudes that aligned with the normative or traditional values often cited in academic literature describing Māori as reviewed above.

First, we found that Māori who are more socially and politically conscious and believe more firmly in Māori concepts of spirituality (as measured in the MMM-ICE) have a much greater preference for preserving and protecting iwi natural resources, including land, rather than utilising and risking it for profit. Land recovery, and the recovery of iwi assets generally, has been a core focus of the Treaty of Waitangi claims process. Therefore, the reason that those who are more socially and politically conscious and hold on to more traditional Māori values as measured by Authenticity Beliefs may oppose commercialising iwi assets if they are more attuned to the history of Māori land loss and the intrinsic value of land to Māori.

The MMM-ICE Spirituality scale specifically asks respondents to consider the extent to which they feel connected with their ancestors spiritually. Therefore, higher scores on this scale explain a deeper connection to land as a tāonga tuku iho (a gift passed down from previous generations) which must be protected and is hard to compensate by money. More data are needed to understand the relationship between higher scores on Whānau Efficacy and a reluctance for iwi members to ‘take risks’ with iwi assets to ‘make money’, as the survey items stated. Our previous research has found that higher levels of Cultural Efficacy and Active Identity Engagement (as measured by the MMM-ICE) are linked to an increased positive expectation of future financial security for Māori (Houkamau and Sibley 2017). We propose that this earlier finding may reflect the tendency for Māori, who overall have collectivist orientations, to view their relationships as a form of future economic security. The MIFAS data on Whānau Efficacy supports this, and suggests that those with very high trust in whānau (or a positive whānau network they can rely on) consider this their primary source of sustenance, and therefore see no need to risk iwi assets or resources for profit (or indeed see a need not to).

Second, our findings of strong correlations with fully seven dimensions of the MMM-ICE indicate that Māori who are deeply culturally engaged and treasure their Māori identity and culture prefer employment that promotes Māori values and development This preference, for those who have the choice, may mean selecting employers who respect Māori cultural values and work that promotes Māori development, even if it pays less. This result bears out identity economics and the notion that identity is a crucial factor in economic decisions, notably complementing or even overriding pecuniary motivations (Akerlof and Kranton 2010).

Third, with regard to individual performance versus sociality in the workplace, it makes sense that belief in interdependence (Interdependent Self-Concept) is associated with preferring the maintenance of relationships at work over individual performance. We propose that this may indicate attitudes towards whanaungatanga. Interdependent Self-Concept measures how far individuals define themselves by relationships with other Māori. We find it particularly interesting that gender and Group Membership Evaluation were not significantly associated with expressed preferences for individual performance at work over sociality. This suggests expressions of individualism and collectivism may be socially and situationally contingent for Māori. It may be that in some cases people have little say in the matter. If relying on their own performance simply to hold on to their jobs they may effectively have to focus foremost on keeping that individual performance at a consistently high standard. Thus, specific dimensions of Māori identity may be more important in some contexts and not others, contingent on individual circumstances.

For all three outcome variables, having European ethnic affiliation bore no significant association with financial attitudes. This finding suggests Māori with multiple ethnic identities may not necessarily have a weaker sense of cultural identity compared with those identifying as solely Māori. This is a particularly intriguing and worthwhile area for future research given the increased incidence of Māori reporting mixed ethnicity in New Zealand census data.

Conclusions and implications

A core objective of the MIFAS is to paint a clearer picture of Māori perspectives on financial and economic matters. Although differences among iwi and hapū are well recognised, much writing around Māori in relation to economic development effectively treats Māori as culturally and socially homogenous. The consideration of Māori aspirations tends to be viewed through the lens of somewhat monolithic and essentialist Māori values, nevertheless taken as widely or even universally ‘normative’, in a simplification that sacrifices important insights about impactful diversity.

In this paper we first affirm and elucidate the economic importance of treasured Māori cultural identity, aligning with the traditional values cited here, for the many who choose it. However, for some of Māori descent, what are considered traditional Māori values may be incompatible with their personal aspirations. Thus, our data support and extend smaller-scale, qualitative and quantitative studies that explore the ways traditional cultural imperatives or economic values still affect contemporary Māori attitudes towards economic activity. Secondly, but equally importantly, confirming previous research and commentary on the nature of contemporary Māori society (Durie 1998; Greaves et al. 2015), we show heterogeneity: contemporary Māori are not monolithic, and important nuances shape how different Māori engage with economic decisions.

We delineate the potential influence of Māori cultural values in relation to employment choices, satisfaction with employers, and the use of natural resources. Māori ethnic identity is evolving and diverse, but often homogeneity in Māori identity is taken for granted. Yet our data shows a heterogeneity in attitudes towards the three aspects of economic activity examined.

Without underestimating the profound impact of Māori economic hardship, our results qualify purely deficit-based readings of the socio-economic position of Māori. Deficit readings omit Māori heterogeneity and incidentally risk simplistically defining Māori by Western values and metrics, including metrics of rationality. Our examples of respect for Māori values at work, workplace sociality and iwi land/asset preservation are rational within a traditional Māori value system, even if they incur personal financial cost. Moreover, the extent of the difference between what are supposed to be traditionally Māori and traditionally Western capitalist values, and thus how far they need to be traded off against each other for Māori economic development, remain live questions.

Our data set showed that strong traditional Māori allegiances and traditional Māori values may override the desire for personal pecuniary benefit. This supports the key tenets of identity economics and suggests that some Māori may reject the culture of the ‘dominant’ ethnic group and identify much more closely with their own ethnic group and its values as traditionally represented, even if this rejection acts as a barrier to employment and upward social mobility. In this sense, strong allegiance to being Māori might be a ‘poor economic decision’ but serves to endorse the value of being Māori. This in turn affirms Akerlof and Kranton’s (2000, p. 717) observation: ‘because identity is fundamental to behaviour, choice of identity may be the most important “economic” decision people make’.

Acknowledgements

The University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee on 16 May 2016 approved this study. Reference Number: 017154.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

This research was supported by a Marsden Grant from the Royal Society of New Zealand awarded to the first author for ‘How great can we be? Identity leaders of the Māori economic renaissance’.