• Alaska's Gross State Product, 1961-1990

      Larson, Eric; Goldsmith, Scott; Colt, Steve (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska., 1991)
      Alaska's gross state product (GSP) in 1990 was almost $25 billion. That compares with less than $1 billion in 1961. Even if we adjust those figures to remove the effects of inflation, the real gross state product was still nearly 6 times bigger in 1990 than it had been 30 years earlier. GSP is a crucial measure of Alaska's economic capacity: of Alaska's ability to produce for the local, national, and world markets. But only a part of GSP stays in Alaska. A big share goes to multi-national oil companies, the federal government, and others outside Alaska. So when we talk about how much GSP grew in recent times, that doesn't all translate into economic benefits for Alaskans.
    • Alaska's Gross State Product, 1961-1993

      Goldsmith, Scott; Hull, Teresa; Hill, Alexandra (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska., 1994)
      Gross state product for Alaska is the sum of the value added in Alaska in the production of all the goods and services produced in a year. It is Alaska's contribution to the US gross domestic product. Gross product for an industry is its value added calculated as the market value of output minus the cost of purchased goods and services used in production. For example, the gross product in the Pulp and Paper Manufacturing sector is the market value of pulp produced minus the cost of purchased logs and other inputs such as petroleum and legal services. Value added in timber harvesting, petroleum wholesaling, business services, and other activities providing inputs to pulp manufacturing is separately calculated if produced within the state. If these inputs are imported from another state, they are excluded from the calculation. Tills method captures the value added contributed by each industry and avoids double counting. Tabulated data follows our description of gross state product for Alaska.
    • Alaska's Gross State Product, 1961-1998

      Goldsmith, Scott (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska., 1999)
      Alaska gross state product declined by $.5 billion in 1997 and $3.5 billion in 1998 after 3 years of growth. Gross state product measured in current dollars is useful for comparing the contribution of different sectors to total gross state product at a particular point in time. However since Alaska gross state product is dominated by petroleum, and heavily influenced by the production of other commodities which fluctuate in price over time, both the size and composition of gross state product in current dollars can change substantially from year to year independent of the change in the overall level of economic activity as measured either by employment or payroll. Much of this fluctuation is the result of changes in the prices of a few commodities including oil, gas, zinc, and seafood.
    • Electric Load Forecast for Ketchikan, Metlakatla, Petersburg, and Wrangell, 1990-2010

      Hull, Teresa; Goldsmith, Scott; Colt, Steve (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska., 1990)
      The study area is composed of the Alaskan communities of Ketchikan, Metlakatla, Petersburg, and Wrangell. In this report we call the area Lower Southeast Alaska (LSE). Like that of Southeast Alaska as a whole, the LSE economy is built on timber (logging, lumber, and pulp), fishing, and tourism. Hard rock mining is an emerging but still relatively unimportant basic sector. Although the region has felt the positive effects of the statewide oil boom through increased construction of public buildings and government employment at all levels, it is far less reliant on the petroleum industry than is the rest of the state. Instead, the people of Southeast Alaska are heavily exposed to swings in the world market prices of wood and fish products. The tourism industry has been growing steadily. This report provides information and scenarios for projections of electricity usage for these communities.
    • Fiscal Effects of Commercial Fishing, Mining and Tourism

      Loeffler, Bob; Colt, Steve (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2015)
      This report summarizes the fiscal effects of the commercial fishing, mining, and tourism industries on Alaska’s state government. The report calculates state revenue collected from each industry and compares it to the state’s expenditures for that industry. What revenue does the State of Alaska receive from commercial fishing? From the mining industry? From tourism? What does the state pay out to manage each resource? While the comparison between the state’s revenue and expenditures is useful information, this report is not an economic benefit-cost analysis.
    • Mining and Sustainable Communities: A Case Study of the Red Dog Mine

      Loeffler, Bob (International Economic Development Council, 2014-12-01)
      Politicians and planners work to attract economic development because of the desire to provide jobs and income for residents, and to find tax revenue to fund government services. Their focus is usually statewide: jobs, income, and taxes for Alaskans. This article is about the impact of one remote development project on nearby, Native communities. It is about the community effects of the Red Dog Lead and Zinc Mine in northwest Alaska. 2014 was the 25th anniversary for the mine, which began operation in 1989. This case study evaluates the mine’s effects on the communities after 25 years of operation. It begins with an overview of the communities and the mine. It evaluates the mine’s effects on these communities in four ways: 1) jobs and income, 2) governance, 3) education, and 4) subsistence. This case study provides lessons for development in other rural communities
    • Social Indicators for Arctic Mining

      Haley, Sharman; Szymoniak, Nick; Klick, Matthew; Crow, Andrew; Schwoerer, Tobias (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2011-05)
      This paper reviews and assesses the state of the data to describe and monitor mining trends in the pan-Arctic. It constructs a mining index and discusses its value as a social impact indicator and discusses drivers of change in Arctic mining. The widely available measures of mineral production and value are poor proxies for economic effects on Arctic communities. Trends in mining activity can be characterized as stasis or decline in mature regions of the Arctic, with strong growth in the frontier regions. World prices and the availability of large, undiscovered and untapped resources with favorable access and low political risk are the biggest drivers for Arctic mining, while climate change is a minor and locally variable factor. Historical data on mineral production and value is unavailable in electronic format for much of the Arctic, specifically Scandinavia and Russia; completing the historical record back to 1980 will require work with paper archives. The most critically needed improvement in data collection and reporting is to develop comparable measures of employment: the eight Arctic countries each use different definitions of employment, and different methodologies to collect the data. Furthermore, many countries do not report employment by county and industry, so the Arctic share of mining employment cannot be identified. More work needs to be done to develop indicator measures for ecosystem service flows. More work also needs to be done developing conceptual models of effects of mining activities on fate control, cultural continuity and ties to nature for local Arctic communities.