IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v43y2025i2p368-386.html

Decoy politics: How settler states deflect Indigenous threats

Author

Listed:
  • James Collie
  • Christopher Alcantara

Abstract

Anglo settler states like Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States were built through the dispossession of Indigenous lands and through the disruption of Indigenous political, social and economic systems. Over time, however, Indigenous nations have challenged the unjust foundations of these states, forcing settler states to respond with repression but also with accommodation, especially in the face of successful Indigenous mobilization. Yet even during these moments, state actors have resisted changes to state sovereignty, sometimes by creating new institutions that seem responsive, but which simply reinforce the status quo. To make sense of these moments, we introduce the concept of “decoy politics†and develop a theory for why states might turn to decoy politics, with a particular focus on Canada. Our findings suggest decoy politics may help explain why reconciliation with Indigenous nations remains difficult despite seemingly genuine attempts at meaningful institutional and policy change.

Suggested Citation

  • James Collie & Christopher Alcantara, 2025. "Decoy politics: How settler states deflect Indigenous threats," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 43(2), pages 368-386, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:43:y:2025:i:2:p:368-386
    DOI: 10.1177/23996544241267965
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23996544241267965
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/23996544241267965?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lipset, Seymour Martin, 1959. "Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy1," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(1), pages 69-105, March.
    2. Sartori, Giovanni, 1970. "Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 64(4), pages 1033-1053, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rachel M. Gisselquist, 2012. "Good Governance as a Concept, and Why This Matters for Development Policy," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2012-030, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    2. Sergiu Buscaneanu & Andrew X. Li, 2024. "The External Incentives Model Embedded: Evidence From the European Union's Eastern Neighbourhood," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(3), pages 760-783, May.
    3. Heiko Giebler & Saskia P. Ruth & Dag Tanneberg, 2018. "Why Choice Matters: Revisiting and Comparing Measures of Democracy," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(1), pages 1-10.
    4. repec:unu:wpaper:wp2012-30 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Mark Purdon, 2015. "Advancing Comparative Climate Change Politics: Theory and Method," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 15(3), pages 1-26, August.
    6. Giebler, Heiko & Ruth, Saskia P. & Tanneberg, Dag, 2018. "Why Choice Matters: Revisiting and Comparing Measures of Democracy," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 6(1), pages 1-10.
    7. Gisselquist, Rachel M., 2012. "Good Governance as a Concept, and Why This Matters for Development Policy," WIDER Working Paper Series 030, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    8. Heiko Giebler & Saskia P. Ruth & Dag Tanneberg, 2018. "Why Choice Matters: Revisiting and Comparing Measures of Democracy," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(1), pages 1-10.
    9. Lewkowicz, Jacek & Woźniak, Michał & Wrzesiński, Michał, 2022. "COVID-19 and erosion of democracy," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    10. Jian-Guang Shen, 2002. "Democracy and growth: An alternative empirical approach," Development and Comp Systems 0212002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. repec:rza:wpaper:029 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Mehlum, Halvor & Moene, Karl Ove & Østenstad, Gry, 2025. "Add and rule," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    13. Seghezza, Elena & Pittaluga, Giovanni B., 2018. "Resource rents and populism in resource-dependent economies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 83-88.
    14. Lourdes ROJAS RUBIO, 2022. "Inequality, Corruption and Support for Democracy," Thema Working Papers 2022-20, THEMA (Théorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), CY Cergy-Paris University, ESSEC and CNRS.
    15. Tausch, Arno, 2018. "The return of religious Antisemitism? The evidence from World Values Survey data," MPRA Paper 90093, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Riccardo Pelizzo & Daulet Turganov & Nygmetzhan Kuzenbayev, 2023. "Modernization, Superstition, And Cultural Change," World Affairs, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 186(4), pages 869-895, December.
    17. Xinyu Zhang & Yue Liao, 2023. "A Bibliometric and Visual Analysis of Populism Research (2000–2020)," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, December.
    18. Gary Goertz & Tony Hak & Jan Dul, 2013. "Ceilings and Floors," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 42(1), pages 3-40, February.
    19. Fischer, Justina AV & Schneider, Friedrich, 2007. "Protestantism and Government Spending: a Negative Relationship? An Empirical Application to Swiss Cantons," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 685, Stockholm School of Economics.
    20. Amir-ud-Din, Rafi & Rashid, Abdul & Ahmad, Shabbir, 2008. "Democracy, Inequality and Economic Development: The Case of Pakistan," MPRA Paper 26935, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    21. Sayantan Ghosal & Eugenio Proto, 2006. "Why did (not) the East Extend the Franchise? Democracy, Intra-Elite Conflict and Risk Sharing," DEGIT Conference Papers c011_032, DEGIT, Dynamics, Economic Growth, and International Trade.
    22. Torsten Persson & Guido Tabellini, 2009. "Democratic Capital: The Nexus of Political and Economic Change," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(2), pages 88-126, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:43:y:2025:i:2:p:368-386. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.