• Alaska Sustainable Gross State Product

      Larson, Eric (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska., 1999)
      Over the past ten years, the idea of "sustainable development" has been promoted as a way to reconcile economic development and environmental protection. With this popularity has come many different -- and often conflicting -- definitions and interpretations of "sustainability." To help clarify the meaning of "sustainable development," this paper offers a very basic definition of sustainability. This particular definition is measurable and allows us monitor whether or not we are achieving sustainability. This paper presents the assumptions underlying the basic definition of sustainability and then describe the methods for measuring it using an indicator called "sustainable gross state product." Presented at the "Can the Last Frontier Have A Sustainable Future" conference in Anchorage, Alaska.
    • 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.
    • Implications of Oil Supply Uncertainty on a Small Oil-Producing Regional Economy

      Goldsmith, Scott (Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska., 1994)
      The state of Alaska has an economic and fiscal structure that is unique among the states. The petroleum industry, including exploration and development, production, transportation, and refining, accounts for nearly half of gross state product (the state equivalent of gross domestic product). In theory it is a simple matter to devise a rule that has the dual effects of neutralizing cycles in economic activity associated with the life cycle of petroleum exploitation and maximizing the benefits to residents from the expenditure of the petroleum wealth. Of the many complicating factors that make it difficult to devise and apply such a rule is the uncertainty regarding the size of the endowment, which is also one of the most interesting. How much it is appropriate to spend today depends directly on the size of the endowment not yet collected. This paper reviews a model for answering the public policy question of when to spend, with a special focus on how uncertainty complicates the debate. It also looks at the process of developing a plan for implementing the model within the context of the Alaska political and fiscal structure. Presented at the Second OPEC/Alaska Energy Conference in Anchorage, Alaska on May 7, 1994.