• $1.5 Billion and Growing: Economic Contribution of Older Alaskans

      Goldsmith, Scott; Angvik, Jane (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska., 2006)
      Nearly $1.5 billion a year flows into Alaska from a source that doesn’t depend on oil or fish or gold, isn’t influenced by world markets, and isn’t seasonal. That cash flow roughly equals what fishermen were paid in 2005 for their Alaska seafood harvests, or the value of zinc, gold, and other metals mined in Alaska in 2004. It’s close to what tourists spend here every summer. What’s the source? Retired Alaskans. The 52,000 retirees age 60 or older brought an estimated $1.46 billion into the state in 2004. About 75% is from Social Security and pensions. Most of the rest is spending by governments and private insurers for health-care costs of retired Alaskans. ISER estimates that spending by retirees supports about 11,700 jobs—or nearly 4% of Alaska’s wage and salary jobs. This summary reports ISER’s findings about the economic contributions of older Alaskans, describes who they are, and estimates how their numbers are likely to grow.
    • 2004 Alaska Construction Spending Forecast

      Goldsmith, Scott; Killorin, Mary (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska., 2004)
      We estimate total construction spending in Alaska in 2004 will be $5.315 billion, about the same as last year. Private spending will be $3.250 billion, or 61 percent of the total. Public spending will contribute $2.065 billion, or 39 percent.
    • 2005 Alaska Construction Spending Forecast

      Goldsmith, Scott; Killorin, Mary (Associated General Contractors of Alaska: Construction Industry Progress Fund, 2005)
      Construction spending is one of the important contributors to overall economic activity in Alaska. It supports firms not only in the construction industry itself, but also construction activity “hidden” in other sectors of the economy such as oil and gas and mining. This is the second year we have prepared a forecast of construction spending, and our categories of spending are not exactly comparable to those last year. Consequently it is not possible to directly compare the forecasts by category between 2004 and 2005. Although we have not conducted a formal year-end review of construction spending in 2004, in the process of collecting information for 2005 we have determined that our projection for 2004 was robust.
    • 2006 Alaska's Construction Spending Forecast

      Goldsmith, Scott; Killorin, Mary (2005)
      Total construction spending in Alaska in 2006 will be $6.525 billion, an increase of 13% from a revised figure of $5.755 billion in 2005. This is the amount of money that will “hit the street” for construction during the year. Because of increases in the cost of materials during 2005, industry employment and other measures of activity will not expand as much as spending, but 2006 will be another very strong year for the construction industry with some sectors, most notably education, up sharply from 2005. Uncertainty in the forecast for 2006 comes from the likelihood that material prices will continue to be volatile due to strong demand. This may negatively impact some major projects, as was the case in 2005. For example the Alyeska pipeline reconfiguration project was originally scheduled for completion last year, but cost overruns (and possibly other factors) caused total spending to increase substantially and the estimated time for completion to be moved into 2006."
    • 2007 Alaska's Construction Spending Forecast

      Killorin, Mary; Goldsmith, Scott (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska., 2007)
      Uncertainty in the forecast for 2007 comes from several sources. The decline in the crude oil price in recent months may cause some firms working in the oil patch to re-evaluate their capital budget decisions and slow their rate of investment in exploration and development. All sectors of the industry are continuing to experience rapid increases in construction material costs that will undoubtedly cause some projects to be canceled or postponed, as has been the case in the last several years.
    • 2008 Alaska's Construction Spending Forecast

      Killorin, Mary; Goldsmith, Scott (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska., 2008)
      Total construction spending “on the street” in Alaska in 2008 will be $7.01 billion, down 2% from last year. Excluding the oil and gas sector—which accounts for 41% of the total—construction spending will be down for the second year in a row, falling 6% to $4.12 billion. Last year it declined 3%. Lower construction spending, combined with higher material and labor costs, will result in a modest reduction in the level of construction employment in 2008. Although this will be the second year of decline in construction employment, it remains well above the long-term trend. Construction costs continue to rise faster than the general rate of inflation—and that trend is expected to continue, further reducing the purchasing power of each construction dollar. Private-sector construction spending is projected to be $4.64 billion in 2008, an increase of 2% over 2007. Strong growth is expected in oil and gas, mining, utilities, and the other basic sectors.
    • 2019 Alaska's Construction Spending Forecast

      Goldsmith, Scott (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 2/6/2019)
    • Alaska Economic Database: Charting Four Decades of Change

      Goldsmith, Scott (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska., 2000)
      This document contains data collated over four decades between 1961 and 1998. Data included in this document relate to employment, Alaska and state gross product, earnings, wages, salaries, labor market, price indices, and other economic indicators considered to be important at the time of collection.
    • The Alaska Economy And The Challenge Ahead

      Goldsmith, Scott (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 11/1/2015)
    • The Alaska Economy And The Challenge Ahead

      Goldsmith, Scott (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 11/1/2015)
    • Alaska Electric Power Statistics (with Alaska Energy Balance) 1960-2001

      Goldsmith, Scott (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska., 2003)
      Prior to 1985, the federal Alaska Power Administration published the Alaska Electric Power Statistics. Then, the Alaska Energy Authority (formerly the Alaska Power Authority) began gathering statistical data and publishing this annual report. In 1988, the Alaska Electric Power Statistics report became a combined effort between the Alaska Systems Coordinating Council and the Alaska Energy Authority. Beginning in 1993, the report became a joint effort between the Alaska Systems Coordinating Council and the Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division of Energy. After the 1995 no further reports were published until this year. This twenty-second edition of the Alaska Electric Power Statistics has been prepared by the Institute of Social and Economic Research of the University of Alaska Anchorage with funding provided by the Alaska Energy Authority, the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, and the Denali Commission. The data is presented using the same regional definitions as in past reports, but since some utilities have operations that span more than a single region, their combined operations characteristics are also reported. In addition we present a breakdown of operations between the Railbelt utilities, the Power Cost Equalization utilities, and all other. Finally, an entirely new section has been added to the report that describes the production and consumption of all energy in the state.
    • The Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline: What's It All About?

      Gorsuch, Lee; Tussing, Arlon R.; Persily, Larry; Larsen, Peter; Goldsmith, Scott; Foster, Mark; Fischer, Victor; Colt, Steve; Bradner, Tim; Berman, Matthew (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska., 2005)
      Alaska has collected nearly $100 billion in oil revenues (adjusted to today’s dollars) since it became a state. Almost all those revenues have been from oil produced on the North Slope, where the largest known oil field in the U.S. was discovered in 1968. Construction of the trans-Alaska oil pipeline in the 1970s made development of that oil possible. The North Slope also has one of the largest accumulations of natural gas in the country—and for 30 years Alaskans have been hoping for construction of a second pipeline, to carry that gas to market. Gas pipelines have been proposed at times over the years. But none has been built, because investors did not think it was economic. Now, with higher natural gas prices and changes in the North American market, many people think a gas project may be possible. Alaska stands to gain a ot if a gas pipeline is built—a new long-term source of state revenues; more jobs and increased business activity; an increased local property tax base; and a potential new in-state source of natural gas for home heating, electricity, and industrial uses. With future supplies of natural gas from Cook Inlet uncertain, many Alaskans want one or more “spur” pipelines to be built from the main pipeline, to make natural gas available to Alaska communities. But access to the gas will come at a price, and not all Alaskans will benefit equally.
    • The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend Program

      Goldsmith, Scott (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska., 2001)
      This paper provides a short introduction to the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend Program - a method for returning a portion of the revenues from petroleum development to the citizens of Alaska as a direct cash payment. It briefly touches on 5 topics - the mechanics of the Dividend, why it was established, its history, its economic, political and social effects, and the future of the Dividend.
    • Alaska's $5 Billion Health Care Bill - Who's Paying?

      Goldsmith, Scott; Foster, Mark (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska., 2006)
      Spending for health care in Alaska topped $5 billion in 2005. Just how big is $5 billion? It is, for perspective, one-third the value of North Slope oil exports in 2005—a year of high oil prices. It’s nearly one-sixth the value of everything Alaska’s economy produced last year. In 1991, health-care spending in Alaska was about $1.6 billion. Even after we take population growth into account, spending for health care increased 176% per Alaskan in 15 years. These soaring costs are taking a growing share of family and government budgets, increasing labor costs, and putting businesses at a competitive disadvantage.
    • Alaska's Budget: Where the Money Came From and Went, 1990-2002

      Goldsmith, Scott; Leask, Linda; Killorin, Mary (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska., 2003)
      Alaska’s state budget increased from $4.1 billion in 1990 to $7.4 billion in 2002. But who paid for that budget growth? W e know the state’ s oil revenues dropped by about half in the past decade—cr eating big holes in the budget—and Alaska has no personal income or other broad-based taxes. This paper is descriptive: we don’t mean to imply that particular changes were good or bad, or that some programs got too much or not enough money . Its’ part of a larger effort to help Alaskans understand the budget.
    • Alaska's Economy and Housing Market

      Goldsmith, Scott; Berman, Matthew; Huskey, Lee; Leask, Linda; Hull, Teresa (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 12/1/1986)
    • Anchorage at 90: Changing Fast, With More to Come

      Goldsmith, Scott; Leask, Linda; Howe, Lance (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska., 2005)
      Anchorage began as a boom town, headquarters for construction of the Alaska Railroad. It’s seen many ups and downs since. But after 35 years of growth triggered by oil development—and boosted lately by an infusion of federal money—the city has grown to 277,000 and its economy is bigger, broader, and more dominant statewide. Despite that growth, the city still depends on resource development and state and federal spending (including military spending). It’s still subject to forces beyond its control, chiefly oil prices and production and federal and state policies affecting the flow of money into the economy. As long as Alaska prospers—and that depends a lot on how the state deals with its long-term fiscal problems - Anchorage will prosper.
    • Anchorage Economic Forecast, 2003

      Goldsmith, Scott (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska., 2003)
      Anchorage’s economic performance for 2002 was in sharp contrast to the national economy which saw a decline in jobs and a marked increase in the unemployment rate. The Anchorage unemployment rate inched up during the year to an annual average of 4.6 percent but remained well below the national average of 5.8. This report provides a forecast for job growth in sectors that are currently important to the sponsors of the report. AEDC predicts 1,750 jobs will be added to the Anchorage economy in 2003, an increase of 1.3 percent. As in years past, most of these new jobs will be in the fast growing service sector. Trade, utilities, government, and construction will also contribute to the growth. Petroleum and manufacturing employment should remain constant. Anchorage will continue to outperform the US economy. This forecast was updated in July 2003. That update summarizes changes by mid-year.
    • ANILCA and the Seward Economy

      Goldsmith, Scott; Martin, Stephanie (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska., 2001)
      The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) established the Kenai Fjords National Park and the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge on the doorstep of Seward, a small community on Resurrection Bay in the Kenai Peninsula of south central Alaska. The community originally opposed both, primarily because citizens felt they would preclude economic development through restrictions on the use of the natural resources of the region. In the first decade after statehood, Seward had lost a large share of its economic base virtually overnight as a result of the Good Friday earthquake in 1964. It struggled through the rest of the decade, but was never able to recover its role as the transportation gateway into south central Alaska, which shifted to the port at Anchorage. In the 1970s growth in the seafood and timber industries, the pipeline construction boom, and state government spending combined to help the economy grow. Still, Seward never was a partner in the oil and gas development that stimulated growth in the western half of the Kenai Peninsula, and market driven fluctuations in both the seafood and timber industries were a continuing source of economic instability. As a result when ANILCA became law, Seward residents saw it as another obstacle to development rather than an opportunity. In fact since ANILCA the Seward economy has expanded and strengthened. Annual average employment has increased at a rate of 3.7 percent per year. The economy hasbecome less dependent on the unstable harvesting and processing of seafood and timber. Through the 1980s the seafood and timber industries did expand, but their economic contributions to the community have fallen in the 1990s. The opening of a state prison in 1988 added another source of stable employment and income. Most of the economic growth, particularly since 1990, has been driven by the visitor industry. Although there is no direct way to track this industry, employment in trade, services, and transportation—the sectors that provide the most visitor-related jobs—grew at an annual rate of 5.9 percent. Retail sales from summer visitors have grown at an 9.9 percent annual rate (inflation adjusted) since 1987.
    • The DOD Economic Analysis of Eielson Realignment Is Seriously Flawed

      Goldsmith, Scott (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska., 2005)
      The DOD analysis of the economic impact on Fairbanks of the realignment of Eielson air base concludes that the net loss of 2,940 military and civilian jobs at Eielson would result in the loss of 1,770 additional jobs in the Fairbanks MSA (Fairbanks North Star Borough). This would represent a loss of 8.6% of all jobs, based on an estimate of 54,469 total jobs in the Borough. The loss of 8.6% of all jobs represents the 4th largest hit as a percentage among all 234 regions that would by effected by implementation of the BRAC recommendations. Netting out those bases recommended for closure, and thus available for redevelopment, the negative economic impact on Fairbanks would be exceeded in only one other region (Clovis, New Mexico).