questions as to whether or not oppressed groups would overcome their disadvantages, even if discrimination were to be dismantled and opportunities distributed equally.

It is also argued that indigenous people who are _traditional_ will place less importance on the labor force and will use it only to achieve a specific, short-term end, such as obtaining cash to finance a lengthy period out of the labor market. Such individuals have been labeled as _target_ workers: they work only as long as necessary to obtain a fixed sum of wages (Sandefur and Scott 1983). The reasons put forward for this behavior include a desire to work at one’s own pace and the importance of kinship and community in indigenous societies. The theory of target workers was developed from analyses of the work behavior of peasants and has been applied to indigenous peoples of the Americas.

Traditional indigenous Americans see themselves as members of communities first, and are driven more by the good of the community than by individual achievement. This characteristic is expected to have a negative effect on labor force attachment and, ultimately, wages. Indigenous people who reside in the cities normally maintain their rural ties and landholdings (Saavedra 1981). For instance, many Aymara who now live in urban environments maintain ties with the rural communities to their mutual advantage (Hardman 1981). At the same time, the Aymara value education highly, which meshes with their traditional values of individualism, hard work and communal and private advancement. Open competition and forceful self-expression, however, are missing from Aymara culture. Level of education, however, is expected to lead to a decline in traditional activities (Stabler 1990).

Others argue that in an expanding modern economy, there is a possibility that kinshipbased systems – a common trait among indigenous peoples – may begin to act as “instruments of stagnation” by taking collective actions ex-ante that raise exit barriers from the kin group, and thus holding back their members from benefiting from market development (Hoff and Sen 2005). Small communities can also ensure the loyalty of members by “taxing” activities outside the “club” thus inhibiting innovation (Berman 2000). The definition of group membership or kinship networks is close to the specific type of social capital defined as _bonding_ social capital; that is, relations among relatively homogenous groups such as family members, close friends or ethnic fraternal organizations. While social capital can be leveraged for material gain – that is, by helping individuals access secure jobs or take advantage of other economic opportunities – it can also be a liability. For example, there are costs in that those same ties can place considerable non-economic claims on members’ sense of obligation and commitment, with negative economic consequences. Furthermore, group loyalties may be so strong that they isolate members from information about employment opportunities, foster a climate of ridicule toward efforts to study and work hard, or siphon off hard-won assets (Woolcock 2001). This set of theories then, describe how the disadvantaged economic status of some groups may be perpetuated by grouplevel influences on individuals.

With this background in mind, Collins (1983), for example, reports that kinship-based exchange relationships such as the institution of _compadrazgo_ also play an important role in providing economic security and well-being. Thus, there could be an indigenous path to development that is distinct from the modern or mainstream development model. In addition to the kinship networks, other strengths of the indigenous include collective control and sustainable management of natural resources, their deep respect for the knowledge of their elders, and a close spiritual attachment to their ancestors and the earth (Davis and Patrinos 1996). Stephen (1991) provides another example of the important role of social structure, and social and 6