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.

Nearly 70% of Alaskans rely on relatively inexpensive natural gas from Cook Inlet. That gas heats homes and businesses, generates electricity, and fuels industrial processes. But growing demand has depleted 80% of the known Cook Inlet gas reserves. Many Alaskans are concerned about where Southcentral Alaska will get affordable energy in the future. The information presented here is not a product of ISER research. It is a summary of statements, opinions, and projections of those attending the forum.

Nearly $50 billion of the $312 billion of total U.S. research and development expenditures in 2004 (preliminary) consisted of university research. Excluding federally funded research and development centers administered by universities, like the Los Alamos National Laboratory, total research-related revenues of U.S. universities were $43 billion in FY 2004, continuing a positive trend stretching back at least to the early 1950s. The federal government is the largest source of funding for university research, accounting for 64 percent in 2004. Internal university funding (institutional funding) is next in order of importance, contributing 18 percent of the total. State and local governments account for nearly 7 percent, as does the category of other (including nonprofit organizations). Private industry is the smallest category of contributor, providing less than 5 percent. Total research and development spending (including not only academic but also government and private research) in Alaska in 2003, the most recent year for which complete information is available, was $321 million. Alaska ranked 48th among the states, consistent with the size of its economy, measured by gross state product. Academic research was a higher share of total research and development, as reflected by Alaska’s rank of 43rd among the states. This paper updates the June 2004 ISER analysis entitled The Economics of University Research.

The big differences among Alaska’s school districts—in remoteness, climate, community amenities, and energy sources—also mean big differences in school operating costs. ISER’s new estimates of the geographic cost differences among Alaska’s 53 districts range from 7 percent to more than 100 percent above costs in Anchorage. The existing differentials are set in state law and have been used since 1998; the legislature will decide whether to adopt any changes. Keep in mind that the differentials are just one factor in a complex formula used to determine aid for individual districts. That formula begins with a base amount per student, for students in all districts, that the legislature sets each year. The proposed differentials are higher than the existing ones, which range from 1 to 70 percent above Anchorage’s costs. This summary is based on a more detailed report, Alaska School District Cost Study Update, by Bradford Tuck, Matthew Berman, and Alexandra Hill.

Alaska’s Bristol Bay sockeye salmon fishery is the world’s largest fishery for this species. Between 1980 and 2005, annual catches averaged 24 million fish, with an annual average ex-vessel value of US$165 million. Historically, the Bristol Bay sockeye salmon fishery has accounted for 20-40% of the total value of Alaska salmon fisheries. Similar to most other Alaska salmon fisheries, Bristol Bay fisheries are managed to achieve escapement goals for several major river systems flowing into Bristol Bay. Fish- ing is allowed during period “openings” over the season to catch returning salmon surplus to escapement goals. In general, the current management system is reasonably successful from a biological point of view, in the sense that managers are usually able to control fishing effort to achieve escapement goals. Our initial fishery data analysis supports key model relationships that we have hypothesized have important implications for how prices, runs, and management may affect the Bristol Bay fishery. For example, the higher the ex-vessel value of the fishery, the more rapid the rate of permit outmigration from the Bristol Bay region.

Since we published the first Kids Count Alaska data book in 1996, Alaska’s children and teenagers have seen changes for the better and for the worse. This information comes from many sources, as cited in the tables and figures. Our contribution is mostly pulling it all together—to help adults see trends and think about how to make life healthier and safer for Alaska’s children. In this data book, we look at (1) the indicators of children’s well-being the Kids Count program uses nationwide; and (2) other measures that reflect conditions Alaskan children face— and that illustrate the sharp differences among regions of a state twice the size of the 13 original American colonies.

Because affordability is essentially an issue of fairness, or equity, it is ultimately the task of the public policymaker to define “affordability” and to indicate factors to be considered in measuring “affordability.” We look first at factors that might be considered in discussing affordability. The FCC has addressed the issue of affordable universal service in some detail and has suggested principles that should be taken into account when policymakers attempt to determine affordable rates for telephone service. Major portions of that discussion are incorporated into Section II of the Task 1 report. Identification of potential variables that might be used to measure the factors influencing affordability is contained in Section III, and is organized around identified factors. Additional material is included in the appendix. Consideration of alternative affordability standards is incorporated in the present report, as well as suggestions we received from carriers in Section IV. Summary comments and observations are presented in Section V. Task 2 collected and analyzed a broad range of data, including extensive information from the 2000 U.S. Decennial Census and other U.S. sources, data from the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, survey results from Alaska Local Exchange Carriers, and other state sources.

The Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Alaska Anchorage developed and conducted a Web-based survey of 219 traveling parties who went on a bear viewing excursion from the Homer area during the summer of 2004. All of the bear viewing excursions were taken with one business. The survey was developed in February 2005 and administered over the Web during the period 11 February through 2 March 2005. Respondents were contacted by individual email messages using email addresses that they had voluntarily provided at the time of their excursion. Most bear viewers (69%) in the sample come from lower-48 U.S. states. About 20% come from foreign countries. Only about 10% come from Alaska. About one-third of the respondents stated that bear viewing was the primary purpose of their trip to Alaska. People in the sample spent an average of about 17 days on their trips – far longer than the overall Alaska summer tourism average of about 10 days.

When the US purchased Alaska from the Russians in1867 it quickly stepped into Russia's role in the colonial relationship. The US exploited salmon as the primary base resource from about 1878. Gold was discovered in lode deposits in the 1880s in the southeast of Alaska (Juneau and Treadwell), about the same time as the Lena goldfields of Irkutsk began to step up operations. We anticipate that Alaska contains or has demonstrated most of the elements that we can expect to see in the foreseeable development of other post-Soviet Arctic regions, including Alaska's nearest neighbor Chukotka, one of Russia's poorest and least modernized regions. This article was written for the 'Beringia' issue of the Northern Expanses journal which was a joint effort of the US National Park Service as part of the International Decade of Indigenous People.

Over the past fifteen years, Alaska’s salmon industry has experienced dramatic losses in income, market share, permit and boat values, and tax revenues to communities and the state. The economic crisis in the salmon industry—driven by competition from farmed salmon and other factors—has prompted numerous task forces and summits to call for improved quality, new products, better marketing, and other measures to enable Alaska’s salmon industry to compete more effectively in world salmon markets. However, there has been relatively little discussion of restructuring Alaska’s salmon fisheries....In this paper, we argue that public debate and action on restructuring have been limited by several factors: the complexity and controversial nature of restructuring, the absence of leadership on this issue from either the industry or government, and the ambiguity of responsibility and authority within state government for the economic success of Alaska’s fisheries. The Board of Fisheries and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game have a clear mandate to conserve Alaska’s salmon and authority to enact regulations necessary to achieve that objective. But that mandate and authority do not extend to the more complex and difficult objective of managing Alaska’s salmon resources for the “maximum benefit” of Alaskans, as the Alaska Constitution requires. Editor’s Note (September 2005): Fran Ulmer and Gunnar Knapp wrote this paper in November 2004. Near the end of the paper, they discuss the Chignik salmon cooperative and the then-pending Alaska Supreme Court decision about whether the Board of Fisheries had the authority to issue an allocation to the co-op. Page 34 says, “if the Supreme Court upholds the decision of the Superior Court [that the Board did have this authority], it will have the effect of extending the extent to which the board has clear authority to restructure fisheries for economic purposes.” Since the paper was written, there have been several court decisions affecting the status of the Chignik fishing cooperative. The fundamental legal issues at stake relate to the board’s authority and the legislature’s intent in the Limited Entry Act. As of fall 2005, the future of the co-op was uncertain, pending a final ruling by the Alaska Supreme Court. This continuing legal battle reinforces a central point of the paper: that absence of clear authority to make changes in fishery management represents an important obstacle to restructuring. The authors have also written a more recent short paper on restructuring, “Changing Alaska’s Salmon Harvesting System: What Are the Challenges?” in Understanding Alaska, Research Summary No. 5, September 2005.