McClure and Pearson address the need for reform of the Australian social security system in very different ways. McClure has an Australia-wide focus and is greatly influenced by global welfare debates; Pearson is specifically focused on the Aboriginal communities of Cape York Peninsula. Both analyses have significant limitations when it comes to providing practical policy advice about contexts which are largely devoid of economic opportunity.

McClure's discussion of such situations is largely limited to a brief section titled 'Community Economic Development' (2000: 47–8). There is some mention here of a model devised in the UK to generate economic participation opportunities in disadvantaged regions (typically those where industry might have existed historically, but has now departed). McClure notes that 'in the model community development organisations are formed by local communities to provide a range of social and economic activities on a not for profit basis'(2000: 47). The description of such organisations resonates with the image of CDEP organisations, but these are not really discussed in any detail. Elsewhere, it is suggested that Rural Transactions Centres (RTCs) could be established to assist disadvantaged rural communities with access to financial and other services, including 'passive' welfare delivered by Centrelink. There is no doubt that RTCs could be useful, but they represent another new institutional arrangement. Similarly, reference is made to a new program called Regional Solutions that will provide grants 'for community planning, local project implementation, community adjustment initiatives, regionally based enterprise or infrastructure projects and community-based development officers' (McClure 2000: 48). The best-practice case for Indigenous employment comes from rural New South Wales where a partnership has been forged between Commonwealth and local governments and a cotton growers' association.

McClure completely fails to address the question of how new partnerships can be forged between governments, business, the community and the individual in situations where:

In seeking to address these problems—which go to the core of the reality faced by many Indigenous communities—one might turn to Pearson's strategies for economic development. However, in a 'four point plan for developing a real economy for Aboriginal society on Cape York Peninsula', Pearson too is light on practical, culturally-informed strategies. The key planks of his plan (Pearson 2000a: 83–92) are as follows:

Some comments are offered here in response to Pearson's proposals. The rejuvenation of the subsistence economy has occurred with some success elsewhere in remote Australia, especially on Aboriginal land (see Altman & Taylor 1989). Participation in this informal economy can be extremely important especially in improving diets and health and in generating non-monetary income. But there is, as yet, no evidence that it is associated with movement towards greater economic independence.

Replacement of all welfare programs with so-called reciprocity programs has already been tried in remote communities where, up until the late 1980s, the CDEP scheme was only introduced on an 'all-in' basis. While it is true that it is extremely difficult to operate a reciprocity program effectively alongside a passive welfare regime, again there is no evidence that reciprocity alone led to reduced dependence on government.

The development of community economies is of crucial importance, for if Indigenous people cannot fill locally available and scarce mainstream jobs how can engagement with the 'real' economy occur? But the growing technical and social demands of many service jobs in remote communities are in fact making them less appealing and less accessible to local people. The cultural persistence of distinctly Indigenous kin-based relations of production greatly dilute the rewards—as conventionally valued—of high-pressure employment. To some extent, it could be said that mutual obligation and reciprocity within the Indigenous domain is hampering economic participation.

And finally there is engagement with the mainstream economy outside the community, at regional, national, and international levels. When opportunities arise in mining, tourism, or cultural industries, where Indigenous people may have special leverage based on land rights or native title, or a clear competitive advantage, these should be grasped. But so often such opportunities are forgone because of political complexities at the community level, or an absence of appropriate development agencies, or for the cultural reasons referred to above. There is often a tension between community and individual engagement and a myriad of potential problematic groupings in between these two extremes.

To be fair to Pearson, his policy prescription is regionally focused on Cape York Aboriginal society and makes a great deal of intuitive sense.^[21] It is noteworthy, however, that his approach is little different from that advocated some 15 years ago by the Miller Committee of Review of Aboriginal Employment and Training Programs (Miller 1985). It was the Miller Committee in particular that advocated strongly the need for the development of an economic base in remote Indigenous communities, and for 'localisation' of employment opportunities. Second, Pearson does not refer to other situations where this broad four-pronged approach has been vigorously pursued, such as nearby on the northern tip of Cape York Peninsula. There is some evidence there of improved economic status, albeit with limited evidence of reduced dependence on government.