ALBERTA HERITAGE FUND VS. ALASKA PERMANENT FUND: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

摘要

Alaska and Alberta have many similarities. Both are relatively young with sparsely populated settlements located in the widely varied and often unpredictable northern environment. Both regions' economies are dominated by natural resources, and as a result, are susceptible to the often-volatile swings of economic boom and recession. One key function of government is to implement public policies that will reduce such volatility and create an environment of stability and sustained prosperity for its citizens. In the early seventies, Albertans and Alaskans shared a common desire to reduce the volatility of their resource-based economies. During late 1973 and through 1974 the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) initiated strategies that would effectively quadruple the world price of oil. Therefore, the governments of both Alberta and Alaska began to receive oil and gas royalties that were far beyond their expectations. This large and sudden windfall reminded many that the dependency of government revenues on uncontrollable world resource prices could be short lived, and in many cases fortunes could be reversed. The concerns of many that the revenue streams from natural resource revenues were unsustainable led to ideas of a "rainy-day" fund. Many argued that non-renewable resources could be transformed into renewable ones by the existence of an endowment-type fund. Thus, a gradual transition away from dependence on non-renewable resources could be facilitated, while the responsible management of these resources could be undertaken. Although Alaska began considering such a fund as early as 1969, the existence of large revenue surpluses provided the perfect opportunity for both regions to begin seriously debating the merits of such a public policy. In 1976 both the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund and the Alaska Permanent Fund were created. A fundamental objective of each jurisdiction was to provide economic stability by setting aside government reve- nues from natural resource royalties. When they were created, these two funds had a similar purpose: to save for a time when natural resource revenue would begin to decline. It was hoped that during boom times, the economies would have the opportunity to diversify, while in the meantime, a "nest-egg" would provide security and stability for the future. Although the two funds were created with similar purposes, the policies that governed them evolved quite differently. In terms of management, structure, governance, and objectives, the two funds would follow very different paths and produce markedly different results for their citizens. This paper compares the two regions' funds and the policy options that have affected their growth and successes. However, to provide context for the analysis there is a brief overview of each region. As well, each fund is described in detail.