• Login
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • University of Alaska Anchorage
    • Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER)
    • Publications
    • Reports
    • View Item
    •   Home
    • University of Alaska Anchorage
    • Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER)
    • Publications
    • Reports
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of Scholarworks@UACommunitiesPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsTypeThis CollectionPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsType

    My Account

    Login

    First Time Submitters, Register Here

    Register

    Statistics

    Display statistics

    The Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Declining Petroleum Revenues

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Thumbnail
    Name:
    1982-The Economic and Fiscal ...
    Size:
    229.8Kb
    Format:
    PDF
    Download
    Author
    Goldsmith, Oliver Scott
    Keyword
    Oil and Gas
    Revenue
    Data
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/11122/14061
    Abstract
    The Prospect of declining petroleum revenues means that in future years, significantly less money will be available to fund government programs than we currently have. Because state spending has in recent years become the main driving force behind the growth of the economy, a decline in state spending will have economic effects beyond the reduction of certain government services. Tables 1 and 2 provide a rough estimate of the importance of state spending for the economy. For example, at least one job in six (33,000 employees working directly for state government or working for local government but funded through state transfers) in the Alaskan economy is directly funded by petroleum revenues. The Recently passed spending limit law will not prevent the revenue decline from translating into a significant spending decline. If spending occurs from translating into a significant spending decline. If spending occurs up to the limit when revenues are available and spending equals revenues when revenue growth is slower that the limit ceiling, the future pattern of spending would be as illustrated in Figure 1. Liquidation of the general and permanent funds closes the revenue gap for only a short time. Reestablishment of the income tax (dashed line) also has only a marginal impact. Alternative resource development cannot produce a tax base to replace the depleting petroleum base. Indicators for 1979 (tables 3 and 4) show that no other resource or manufacturing activity is significant in the Alaskan economy in comparison to petroleum. If adoption of the spending limit means significant reductions in state spending in future years, a logical alternative spending strategy would be one where the level of spending never fell. A sustainable spending level is based upon sustainable revenues from recurring plus nonrecurring revenues. For nonrecurring revenues, the equivalent recurring value is calculated as the annual real earning of the total value of the nonrecurring revenue viewed as an asset. In table 5 the sustainable revenue flow is estimated at $1.4 Billion (1982 $) based on $800 Million of sustainable revenues and $600 million of investment earnings. The latter is the 2 percent return annually received on state asset holdings of $30 billion (the state share of oil in the ground). Adoption of such a spending program would require very significant set-asides of current revenues into an investment program generating real positive monetary returns to the state treasury. Figure 2 shows the proportion of revenues annually invested to produce a level of investment earnings sufficient to sustain $1.4 billion of spending (including a two-year phase-in period). The level of spending under this strategy is contrasted with the spending limit strategy in Figure 3. Any variant between the two is possible, indicated by the hashed lines. The figure clearly shows the present-future trade. If in any year more than $1.4 billion of spending (including a two-year phase-in period). The level of spending under this strategy is contrasted with the spending limit strategy in Figure 3. Any variant between the two is possible, indicated by the hashed lines. The figure clearly shows the present-future trade. If in any year more than $1.4 billion is spent, there must be a year when correspondingly less than $1.4 billion is spent.
    Date
    1982-11-19
    Publisher
    Institute of Social and Economic Research
    Type
    Report
    Collections
    Reports

    entitlement

     
    ABOUT US|HELP|BROWSE|ADVANCED SEARCH

    The University of Alaska is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer, educational institution and provider and prohibits illegal discrimination against any individual.

    Learn more about UA’s notice of nondiscrimination.

    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.