Dynamic Models Using the Oil and Gas Revenues Norwegian Case

8/12/2019 Dynamic Models Using the Oil and Gas Revenues Norwegian Case

1/21


2/21

ARTIKLER FRA STATISTISK SENTRALBYR NR. 133REPRINT FROM BARKER, T. AND V. BRAILOVSKI EDS.): OIL OR INDUSTRY?

USING THE OIL AND GAS REVENUES:THE NORWEGIAN CASEByOlav Bjerkholt, Lorents Lorentsenand Steinar Strm

VIRKNINGER AV BRUKAV OLJE- OG GASSINNTEKTER I NORGE

STATISTISK SENTRALBYRO S L O K O N G S V I N G E R 1 9 8 2

ISBN 82-537-16524ISSN 0085-431x


3/21


4/21

PREFACE

The production of crude oil and gas has become of increasing importance in the Norwegian economy. In recent economic debate in Norwaya central issue has been the impact of the use of revenues on the econo-mic development in the next decades.

The present article discusses theoretical aspects of depletionpolicy and attempts to calculate the consequences of two alternativestrategies with regard to the use of oil and gas revenues. The calcu-lations are performed by means of the MSG model which recently has beenupdated and revised.

The authors are solely responsible for the assumptions and con-clusions in the article. The Central Bureau of Statistics gratefullyacknowledges the permission of the Academic Press to reprint the article.

Central Bureau of Statistics Oslo 24 December 1981

Arne Oien


5/21

OROR

Petroleumsvirksomheten i Norge har ftt et omfang som innebreren stor og stigende betydning for den konomiske utvikling i rene fram-over. Virkningene er petroleumsvirksomheten og srlig av bruken av olje-og gassinntektene har vrt et sentralt tema i politisk sammenheng i desiste rene.

I denne artikkelen drOftes noen teoretiske sider ved de valg somskal treffes i oljepolitikken og den inneholder ogs beregningsresulta-ter for virkningene av to alternative strategier nr det gjelder brukenav oljeinntektene. eregningene er utfOrt ved hjelp v modellen MSG somnylig har blitt oppdatert og revidert.

Byret har villet utgi artikkelen som et interessant eksempel panvendelse av MSG-modellen i en aktuell problemstilling. Forutsetningeneog konklusjonene i artikkelen str helt ut for forfatternes regning.Statistisk Sentralbyr vil takke Academic Press for samtykke til opptrykkav artikkelen.

Statistisk Sentralbyr Oslo 24 . desember 1 9 81

Arne Oien


6/21

Using the Oil and Gas RevenuesThe Norwegian CaseOLAV BJERKHOLT LORENTS LORENTSENand STEINARSTRMCentral Bu reau of Statistics Oslo

I IntroductionThe use of oil and gas revenues is an important issue in each of thefive countries considered in this book. It is interesting to observehow the common analytic problem looks very different in the con-text of each individual economy. This is not surprising, however, inview of the differences between the countries in their oil reserves anddepletion and m ore generally in their social and economic structure,as shown earlier in Chapter 2.Some important factors of the Norwegian economy are that it is asmall and very open economy with a high level of consumption andsocial development, a high investment ratio, virtually full employ-men t and a good record of economic growth. Th e oil and gas reservesare large relative to the size of the economy and with a moderatelevel of production they will last far into the next century. As a con-siderable part of the Norwegian continental shelf has not yet beenexplored, no one would be very surprised if the reserves turned outto be so large as to last into the twenty-second century with theassumed level of annual production.O bviously then, the Norw egian situation is different both from theMexican case of needing to use oil and gas revenues to promoteeconomic and social development and from the Dutch and Britishcase of using oil and gas incomes in a transitional period of ratherlimited duration. The challenge facing the Norwegian economy is toadjust to quite considerable oil and gas revenues over a long periodof time.The oil and gas venture is of very recent origin in Norwegian


7/21

72. Bjerkholt et al.economic development. The first very modest assessments of theextent of the resource base were made about ten years ago but oiland gas incomes did not become substantial until the late 1970s. Theexpectancy of considerable oil and gas revenues was a major factor,however, behind the anti-recession policy pursued by the Norwegiangovernment from 1975. Domestic demand and employment werekept high. In the mid-1970s the traditional exports stagnated as in allother western countries, but in Norway some of the struggling indus-tries were given substantial financial support in various forms. Inthe course of a few years an external debt of about 20 billion dollarswas incurred. The manufacturing sector has hardly grown since 1974in spite of the powerful stimulus to Norwegian industry provided bythe exploration and production of crude oil and gas. Governmentpolicy has been to enlarge this stimulus by trading oil concessions forindustrial development, providing the Norwegian petrochemicalindustry with low-priced raw materials, and to some extent givingpreferential treatment to the domestic suppliers of the North Seainstallations. The loss of competitive edge in these years could beseen as a natural and necessary adjustment in a transition to aneconomy relying on oil and gas revenues as a major source of income.The fear of losing competitive position too rapidly and stretchingforeign credit too far in view of the uncertainty of the future oilprice caused a reversal of policy in 1978 with restrictions of domesticdemand and a comprehensive prices and incomes freeze through1979.The net revenue from oil production will be large in proportion tothe Norwegian economy. Official forecasts estimate oil and gas pro-duction in 1980 as 50 million tonnes oil equivalents (mtoe). At thislevel oil and gas will constitute almost one third of the value ofNorwegian exports in 1980, while the gross product of the petroleumsector is of the same magnitude as that of the whole of manufactur-ing industry. This is also the case for fixed capital formation witheach sector counting for about 12 per cent of the national total. As acontrast employment in oil production is less than 0.5 per cent oftotal employment, while employment in manufacturing industryconstitutes well above 20 per cent of total employment.Tax revenues from oil constitute 75 per cent of the gross domesticproduct in the oil sector (after an allowance for gross investments).This is somewhat more than 50 per cent of all other direct taxes onpersons and companies and somewhat less than 20 per cent of allgeneral government revenues.In the years to come a moderate increase in oil and gas productionup to a relatively stable level of some 60 mtoe per year is foreseen.


8/21

Oil and Gas: The Norwegian Case 173In a parliamentary report in 1974 the government introduced 90mtoe per year as 'an illustration of a moderate production level'. In areport to the parliament in 1980 the same target quantity was main-tained. In the analysis which follows we shall assume that by 1990a production level of 75 mtoe has been attained.A major issue in economic policy in Norway at present is how touse the oil income. Even at a low level of domestic spending of theincome, Norwegian industry may contract. For manufacturing inparticular, the positive stimulating effects of extra domestic incomeson demand may be more than counteracted by a deterioration ininternational competitiveness.The dilemma facing the government is as follows. Can the domesticuse of the oil and gas revenues be partially suspended in view of thepolitical and popular pressures to reap the benefits? Can the oil andgas revenues be used without disruptive effects on industrial struc-ture? Norwegian political attitudes are perhaps less prone to acceptchanges in industrial structure than those of some other countriesbecause of the close connection between the regional populationpattern and the industrial structure. The question in the longer termis, however, not whether changes in industrial structure should beavoided but rather in what way they should be promoted.liOptimal Depletion PoliciesHow should a country in Norway's situation administer its depletionpolicy? There is by now a growing literature on resource manage-ment in open economies, for instance Aarrestad (1978), Dasgupta,Eastwood and Heal (1978), Kemp and Long (1980) and Hoel (1980).The main issue in these theoretical contributions has been the dis-cussion of what characterises the optimal path of resource extrac-tion. In (Dasgupta et al. 1978) the depletion policy is derived from amaximisation of discounted future utility of consumption given theopportunities of saving by domestic investment in real capital, byforeign investment or by withholding oil and gas in the fields. InHoel (1980) the same problem is discussed with the exception thatthe optimal depletion policy is derived from an efficiency criterion(maximising wealth at a future point in time, given the consumptionpath).Provided that the rate of return on foreign investment is exogen-ously given on the world market, i.e. independent of the wealth ofthe considered economy, a major conclusion reached is that 'choos-ing an optimal depletion policy' becomes a very simple asset manage-ment problem (Dasgupta et al. 1978). The necessary condition fordynamic efficiency means in this case that the rate of return on the


9/21

74. Bjerkholt et al .three assets involved should be equated. Thus, domestic investment,foreign investment and resource depletion are such that the marginalproductivity of domestic capital is equal to the rate of return offoreign investment and the net marginal revenue from the resourcedepletion has to grow at a rate equal to this world market rate ofreturn. H ence, the well known H otelling rule is obtained. If the econ-omy in question is a price-taker in the world m arket for the resource,the net m arginal revenue will be equal to the net price (world marketprice minus extraction costs). As in traditional theory of trade,dom estic production, including the produ ction of oil and gas, w ill bedetermined by w orld market prices and hence be independent of thepreferences of the economy. The decision on the optimal depletionprofile can therefore be separated from that on the optimalconsum ption path. This conclusion has to be changed if one assum esthat there are imperfections, for instance in the foreign financialmarkets, such as when the rate of return on foreign investmentdepends on the amount which is invested abroad (Dasgupta et a l.1978; Hoel, 1980). If the rate of return decreases when the wealthinvested abroad increases, no separation is possible. Moreover, thestandard Hotelling result on an increasing net price of the resourceproduct m ight change. Since the net price should now grow at a rateequal to that of the marginal revenue from foreign investments, thenet price will decline over time whe n foreign investments are pushedso far that the marginal revenue is negative (Hoe , 1980).A small open economy such as that of Norway has probably nosuch influence on the world market interest rates. According to thetheory reviewed prev iously, the Norw egian production and depletionpolicies can therefore be separa ted from the qu estion of preferences,and depletion can be treated as a simple asset managem ent problem.It seems to be the case, however, that the net price of oil and gas isincreasing at a higher rate than the average yield on foreign invest-ment. Hence, it could be optimal to save more of the resource for afuture gain. Furthermore, the average of the marginal productivityof real domestic capital is obviously not in line with foreign rates ofreturn. While the international, real rate on loans is less than themarginal productivity of capital in Norway, the rate of return frominvesting in some countries other than No rwa y is higher, (see Karte-voll, Loren tsen and StrO m, 1980; H ill, 1979). It is therefore temptingto conclude that the management of the Norwegian assets could beimproved by reducing the rate of depletion, and by investing in realcapital abroad rather than in Norway. But one ought to be careful.There are lots of imperfections, uncertainties and political considera-tions that change the assumptions underlying the neat Dasgupta-


10/21

Oil and Gas: The Norwegian Case 175EastwoodHeal world. Judging, for instance, from the Norwegiandiscussion on oil policy, the Norwegian depetion policy is certainlynot separated from the system of preferences and the consumptionpath. At first sight this policy seems to be non-optimal. On the otherhand one can think of imperfections and uncertainties that makeeven the Norwegian depletion policy optimalIn what follows we shall not undertake to try to determineoptimal depletion policies. We take as given the official Norwegiandepletion policy that aims at producing 70-90 mtoe per year. How-ever, by comparing rates of return and real interest rates we shall tryto shed some light on the optimality of current oil policy.Ill Alternative Ways of Using the Oil and Gas RevenuesThe revenues from the extraction of oil and gas can be split up intwo parts; one part is the remuneration to labour and capitalemployed in North Sea activities, the other part is the scarcity rentwhich the Norwegian government attempt to expropriate throughroyalties and special taxes. A considerable, but hopefully a diminish-ing, part of the scarcity rent is kept by the companies.The revenues over and above the remuneration to labour andcapital have no counterpart in the use of Norwegian resources. Thisscarcity rent can be considered as an extra income rather similar tomassive unilateral transfers, e.g. those of the Marshall aid programme.The fact that the transfers are embedded in the price is just a formalaspect of the situation.North Sea oil and gas production is at present mostly undertakenby multinational companies although an increasing share will beundertaken by the government's own company, Statoil, and to someextent also by Norwegian private companies. The main control overthe development of the volume of production is through the issuanceof concessions. In the short and medium term the actual productioncan be considered as predetermined, reaching 75 mtoe in 1990,although economic policy should, of course, allow for unexpecteddeviations from planned production.The projected level of production with moderate assumptions ofrelative oil price increases implies a huge surplus on current accountwith a 'normal' development of the rest of the Norwegian economy.The question is how the accumulated surplus should be managed asan asset and when it should be used and for what purpose.The current account of the balance of payments can be stated as:

A OG+AB+R+ 17--/


11/21

176Bjerkholteta .wh r A 0Gis the export of oil and gas,As other exports of goods and services,Bs total imports of goods and services,

is net interests and dividends from abroad, s net transfers from abroad, andis financial investments (net increases in wealth accumu-lated abroad).

There are the following ways in current account terms ofusing the surplus:a other exports can be reducedb imports can be increasedc transfers from Norway to other countries can be increasedd net foreign investment can be increaseddl) by reduction of foreign debts or increased lending,d2 by increased currency reserves, andd3 by investments abroad.Any combination of these possibilities is feasible. The implications incurrent account terms of using the surplus do not express the policychoices but are rather the end result of a policy. A policy alternativewould be for instance to boost consumption by cutting taxes. Theeconomic effects will work through the following steps.Demand for consumer goods and services will increase. Some partof this increase will be covered by imports, but prices and costs willincrease hi Norway. Norwegian firms competing with foreign firms inNorwegian markets will lose market shares. A further increase inimports will therefore take place. The 'traditional' export sectors willget reduced profitability. The least effective firms have to decreaseactivities or close down, thereby making resources available for theproduction of consumer goods and services. The result of using oiland gas revenues to increase consumption will therefore be a realloca-tion of labour, raw materials, energy and other inputs.

The Norwegian government can at present be described as being insearch of a policy strategy for the 1980s. The lack of a firm policy isdue partly to the uncertainty of the international situation causedinterahaby oil market shocks and partly to bewilderment withregard to handling the fruits of the oil bonanza.IV The Rate of Depletion and the Return on CapitalA fortune has been found below the North Sea. Some will surely findit natural that an unexpected increase in wealth such as this should


12/21

Oil and Gas: The Norwegian Case 177be used for investment rather than consumption. If we assume, how-ever, that the previous accumulation of wealth was consistent withnational preferences with regard to present and future consumption,some of the newly discovered wealth must be used for consumption.It is not necessary to start depleting the oil reserves in a physicalsense in order to increase consumption. If the expected rate ofincrease of the price of oil and gas is higher than the rate of intereston foreign loans, it will be better to borrow abroad to cover abalance of payments deficit due to increased consumption. Futureoil and gas incomes can be used to service the debts. If such credit isavailable, decisions on depletion policy can be separated fromdecisions on the development of consumption. In fact Norway hassuch credit-worthiness given its political stability and large oil andgas reserves. In our view this possibility deserves closer consideration.When the development of consumption has been decided, theconsequences for total savings are determined implicitly. If extensiveforeign borrowing is a realistic alternative the question of the rate ofdepletion becomes simply a question of the optimal portfolio oftotal savings. Norway as a nation can save through (i) accumulationof physical capital, (ii) accumulation of human capital, (iii) furtheraccumulation of natural capital, i.e. through lower depletion, and (iv)accumulation of foreign assets both real and financial.

An optimal composition of accumulation is characterised by thesame marginal return on all assets assuming the same risk on eachasset. The information on the return on these types of assets is how-ever rather limited. Assessments made in 1980 on the return onphysical capital in Norway converge on 6 7 per cent per annum withsomewhat lower figures for the later years of the 1970s. Reliableassessments on the return on education are not available but it seemsreasonable to assume that the returns are not less than for physicalcapital. The return on foreign bonds is around 3 per cent in 1980 inreal terms. The returns on foreign industrial investments are presum-ably higher but also with higher risks.The price gain in oil and gas was extremely high in the 1970sFrom 1973 the price of oil increased in real terms by 20 per centannually. We have assumed an average increase of 3 per cent per yearin real terms from 1980 to 1990

There is no particular reason to assume that decisions on depletionpolicy in Norway are based on the type of considerations discussedabove. On the basis of our assumptions we find, however, that in1990 the actual depletion may imply that rates of returns ondifferent assets are considerably equalised compared with the rates of1980


13/21

78O. B jerkholt et al .The empirical results in this chapter allow us to compare twoalternative ways of using the oil and gas revenues in the decadeahead. In the first alternative ( Reference scenario ) we assume that

all oil and gas reven ues are accu mu lated in foreign assets. Industrialinterests in Norway seem to favour this alternative. In the otheralternative ('Using revenues') the oil and gas revenues are useddomestically for consumption and investment. The balance of pay-ments surplus is kept at a more modest level, such that all foreigngovernment debt is repaid by 1985 and net foreign assets in 1990amo unt to 20 billion U S dollars. In this alternative we distribute sav-ings over the four different ways of accumulation in such a way thatdifferences in rates of returns are reduced.The Choice of Model ToolThe model chosen to study the problem outlined above is a multi-sectoral growth model of the Norwegian economy called MSG-4E.The model is a development from an earlier model which originatedin an empirical study of the growth potential of the Norwegianeconomy (Johansen, 1960, 1974; Longva, Lorentsen and Olsen,1980).MSG-4E traces out the long-term growth paths of the economy,especially the distribution of labour, capital and production overabout 30 industries, the changes in household consum ption patterns,and the development in the corresponding equilibrium prices.For each industry the input coefficients of labour, capital, energyand other m aterials are determined by cost m inimisation. The m ix ofoil and electricity as energy inputs is also determined endogenouslyfrom relative prices. For each industry there is assumed to b e a trendof technical change. The equilibrium commodity prices are thendetermined by unit costs taking into account the full inputoutputrelationships.On the quantity side the allocation of production by industry isdetermined by the final demand as in the traditional inputoutputmodel. Industry demand for capital and labour services is alsoderived. Imports are calculated from im port shares differentiated bycommodity and purchasing industry. Final demand is exogenous, inthe case of exports and government expenditures, and endogenous,in the case of household consum ption and private gross investment.Private gross investment is determined in a closed loop with thescale of production by industry. The scale of production determinescapital services and capital stock both by industry and by type ofasset. This then determines private gross investment by commodity.For given prices the commodity composition of household con-


14/21

O il and G as: T he Norw egian Case79sumption depends only on its total which is determined so that totalcapacity use is ensured.The model thus depicts an economy at full capacity utilisation.The m ain variables given exogenously are the total labour force, therate of return on cap ital, the parameters of technical change, and theexogenous components of final demand.The description given above outlines the main features of themod el and does not refer to the smaller features, found in the formu-lation of the model. Among these are submodels of capital deprecia-tion, indirect taxes and changes in commodity stocks. Someindustries a re specialy treated; for example they may have decreasingreturns to scale or exogenous prices.On the whole the model has been found to be quite well suited foran exercise where overall consistency in a general equilibrium sensewould appear to outweigh the need to pay attention to the details ofindividual industries. However, the model does project considerablechanges in industrial structure over a period of ten years and thisraises some 'questions as to the interrelation of the firm structu re andthe age structure of capital within the individual industries. Work isgoing on to improve the m odel in this aspect.The m odel does not include a calculation of results for the balanceof payments in current and capital account. A supplementary modelto calculate these variables has been hooked onto MSG which usesthe results from MSG together with exogenous information aboutinterest rates, transfers and some capital transactions. The modelspecifies five institutional sectors governm ent, financial institu-tions, oil and gas companies, shipping and 'others' and d eterminesthe items of current and capital account using exogenous informa-tion, econom etric relations an d de finitional balances.VI The Economic Impact of Domestic Use of Oil and Gas

RevenuesThe main result of our model computations is a breakdown, byindustry, of production, labour and capital which is consistent withthe inputoutput structure, the production functions and thebehavioural relationships of the model. The focus of this empiricalexercise is the transition from the industrial structure of 1980 to onethat is compatible with a substantial use of oil and gas revenues. Wecompare two scenarios for the target year 1980. In Table 1, themain assumptions and results are summarised.In the 'Reference scenario' GNP, private and government con-sumption and investment develop at very slow rates. The labourmarket is assumed to be in balance at full employment level and


15/21

180Bjerkholt et a lTable ssumptions and results for macroeconomic aggregates, Norway1980-90.

Billion Norwegian kroneReference Usingscenarioevenues198099099 0 Annual growth ratesper centReference Usingscenarioevenues1980-90 1980-90232.4100.3102.7120.0

46.363.718.35.7-96.7

Constant 1978 pr icesGNPImportsExportsPrivate consumptionGovernmentconsumptionInvestment

Curr ent pricesBalance of tradeCurrent accountForeign assets, net

71482.7.6.0120.042.5.8.6131.919.1.5,5140.266.6.6.353.08.7.4.466.30.8.2.2123.85.2186.44.7711.24.5there are no substantial changes in the economic structure, measuredby the industrial composition of gross product and employment.Although incomes from oil exports show a strong increase in the1980s, the domestic use of oil incomes peaks in 1980. From then onthe increase in net cash flow in the petroleum sector is used foramortisation of loans, financial investments abroad, development aidand increases in foreign exchange reserves. Only avery minor part ofthe oil and gas revenues is allowed to influence the domesticeconomy. The growth potential which oil income creates is hardlyused, but at the same time a cutback of oil income would not leavethe economy in an adverse situation, it would only affect the growthin foreign financial assets and development aid.In the alternative scenario the domestic use of resources is

increased by reducing traditional exports and increasing importshares. Labour and investment are transferred from exposed indus-tries to industries producing for domestic markets. Production inindustries exposed to foreign competition is cut down by reducingexports and increasing import shares proportionately except for'Crude oil and gas', 'Petroleum refineries' and 'Shipping'. The effectsof increased domestic costs on exports and imports have been cal-culated outside the model. Exports of 'Metals' and 'Basic chemicals'are maintained however, at 1980 levels, but increased import sharesmake even these industries diminish in gross production. Theseenergy-intensive and capital-intensive industries are hit to a lesserdegree by increased domestic costs. If oil revenues were ploughedback into the economy by allowing high wage increases one would


16/21

Oil and Gas: The Norwegian Case 181expect labour-intensive industries to have the most deterioration incompetitiveness. Calculations on the unit cost function in the modelreveal that a uniform increase in wages gives a rise in unit costs wh ichis surprisingly similar in all industries. This is because of the cost-price interrelationships between industries (also affecting capitalcosts) which diffuses the increase in labour costs and the material-labour-capital substitution which offsets most of the remainingeffects of changes in relative prices.The increase in the domestic use of resources as compared withwhat happens in the 'Reference scenario' benefits capital formationin private and governm ent sectors as well as private and governm entconsumption. The increase in investment which starts in 1981enlarges the productive capacity so much that by 1990 the economycatches up with a pure consumption expansion scenario (not shownin the table). This level of investment is consistent with the rate ofreturn on dom estic investment being reduced to around 3 per cent in1990.Table 2 Industry shares of gross national product, Norway 1980-90 (per cent).

Industry 1980990Reference scenariosing revenuesPrimary industries.5.2.0Mining and quarrying.4.3.3Manufacturing6.04. 21.0Electricity production.4.7.7Construction.2.1.9Oil and gas5.94.83.1Shipping.6.2.9Other transport.1.4.5Othe r private services8.11.33.5Goverment services3.82 .84.1Total00.000.000.0The structural change s over the decade are considerable as revealedin Tables 2 and 3. Table 2 displays the industry shares of GNP, cal-culated in current prices. Because of the compensatory effect of theequilibrium prices, the shares of Table 2 tend to underestimate thereshuffling of productive resources.Table 3 shows the employment by industry in rather greaterdetail. Total manufacturing is reduced from 21.6 per cent in 1980to 15.8 per cent in 1990 when oil and gas revenues are useddomestically, while there is only a very slight decrease in the refer-ence scenario. The increase in em ployment in 'Trade' and 'C onstruc-tion' as a consequence of using revenu es is quite notable.


17/21

182. Bjerkholt et al .Table Employment by industry, Norway 1980-90.

M illions man hourser cent of totalReferencesingeferencesingscenarioevenuescenarioevenues19809909909809901990Agriculture91.179.057.1.5.6.9Forestry0.07.44.7.7.6.5Fishing0. 16.73.8.4.5.4M ining and quarrying5.26.24.8.5.5.5Food manufacturing6.77.470.4.9.5.2Beverages and tobacco0.71.41.4.4.4.4Textile and clothing8.89.27.0.3.2.5

Wood products7.85.46.2.8.4.5Pulp and paper2.95.15.6.1.1.8Basic chemicals7.01.96.5.6.7.5Petroleum refineries.3.7.9.0.1.1Chemicals and mineralproducts0.25.67.9.4.4.5Metals8. 59.33. 8.0.2.7Machineries24.125.65.8.2.0.7Shipbuilding, platforms7. 19. 64.2.3.1.0Printing and pub lishing7. 59.70.7.6.9.9Total manufacturing38.761.900.71.60.85. 8Electricity distribution8.16.13.8.3.5.7Construction65.312.973.0.0.7.6Trade94.345.978.03.34. 05.0Crude oil and gas3.09.79.7.4.6.6Shipping.6707. 07.0.3.1.1Transportation64.113.912.7.9.8.8'Other private services28.814.346.64.46.17.2Government87.737.195.99.20.01.9Total,963.8,178.0,178.000.000.000.0

In order to benefit from the oil and gas revenues there must besubstantial industrial changes. F or this gain to ma terialise it is neces-sary that there be an active industrial policy and labour marketpolicy. Direct and indirect subsidies to ex posed industries introducedin the 1970s must be abolished. The overall reduction of employ-ment in m anufacturing will make strong demands on labour marketpolicy. Special consideration should be given to possibilities forfurther imports of services, e.g. in health and education. Such possi-bilities may ease the n ecessary reallocation of labour b y reducing thedemand for service employment in N orway. A greater use of labour-saving techniques in the sheltered sectors together with furtherinvestment in these sectors might also help to ease the reallocationof labour.


18/21

Oil and Gas: The Norwegian Case83VII ConclusionsIf the people of Norway are to bene fit from the oil and gas revenu es,they must be used domestically. Accumulation of foreign assetswould only postpone the domestic use of the revenues. If therevenues are to be used in a beneficial way, industrial changes mustbe accepted. It is necessary for long-range planning to accomm odatethese changes. For some individuals and local communities thesemay nevertheless imply considerable discomfort.O il revenues were used in the 1970 s. The results are clearly visiblein the structure of industry and employment. Further use of oil andgas revenues will continue this development. Some have fears thatthis will make the Norwegian economy dependent upon oil and thatit implies a development towards a Kuwait economy. Norway isalready dependent upon oil but the stage of development of the Nor-wegian economy makes it very different from the economies ofKuwait and all Third World oil countries. For Norway the use of oiland gas revenues means that some industries will expand faster andothers slower than otherwise. A few industries will probably have tocontract as a consequence. But it is important to keep in mind thatthe cause of these changes is not the oil and gas in itself, but the factthat Norway is becoming richer as a nation. Similar changes wouldhave been cau sed by intensified growth from other sources.There is a common belief that the manufacturing sector plays acrucial role in the progress and growth of an economy. However,attempts to protect this sector from a decline cannot achieve any-thing but less progress and growth. A nother belief is that Norwegianraw m aterials should be processed at home rather than b eing expor-ted in a crude state. An industrial policy based on such recomm enda-tions could also imply less growth in income and w elfare. Norwegiansshould confine- themselves to the rather comforting thought thattheir comparative advantage s are in the production of raw m aterialssuch as crude oil and gas and hydroelectric power, goods that thesurrounding world values more and more highly.Finally, oil and gas production will last a long time. It is too earlyto ma ke specific preparations for export industries to take over w henthe wells are dry. It would be wise to preserve productive power byinvestments in education, infrastructure and sheltered industries.ReferencesAarrestad, J. 'Optimal savings and exhaustible resource extraction in an openeconomy', Journal of Economic Theor y Vol. 19, No. 1, October 1978,pp. 163-479.


19/21

184. Bierkholteta .Dasgupta, P., Eastwood , R. and Heal, G. 'Resource manag ement in a tradingeconomy , Q uart erly Journal of Economics Vol. 92, No. 2, May 1978,pp. 297-306.Eide, E. Virkninger av statens oljeinntekter p norsk konomi', SosialOkonomenNo. 10, 1973, pp. 12-21.Hoel, M. 'Optimal resource extraction with imperfect international markets anda limited absorptive capacity', unpublished paper, U niversity of O slo,1980.Hill, T. P. Profits and R ates of R eturn OEC D, Paris, 1979.Johansen, L. A M ulti-sectoral S tudy o f G r owth North-Holland, 1960.Johansen, L. A M ulti-sectoral Study of Growth, (Second enlarged edition),North-Holland, 1974.ICartevoll, T., Lorentsen, L. and StrOm, S. `Kalkulasjonsrenten', SosialOkonomen

No. 6, 1980, pp .9-16.Kemp, M. C. and Long, N.V. Exhaustib le R esources O pt imality and T radeNorth-Holland, 1980.Longv a, S., Loren tsen, L. and Olsen, O. 'Energy in the multi-sectoral growthmodel MSG', paper presented at the Conference on Policy Issues in EnergySelf-Sufficient Economics, Oaxaca, M exico, 1980.


20/21

1 8 5

Utkommet serien Artikler fra Statistisk Sentralbyr ART)Issued in the series Articles from the Central Bureau of Statistics ART)

Nr 1 2 3dne Cappelen: Inntektsfordeling og konsum 1962 - 1978Income Distribution and Consumption980 87 s kr 11 00ISBN 82-537-1146-8 2 4dne Cappelen, Inger Holm og Paal Sand: MODIS IV Virknings-tabeller for 1978 MODIS IV Impact Tables for 1 9 7 89 876 s kr 11,00 ISBN 82 - 537 - 120 0 - 6 ISSN 0085-431X 2 5harlotte Koren: MIFO - En modell for analyse av folketrygdensalderspensjon MIFO - A Model for Analysis of the Old AgePension of the National Insurance 1981 43 s kr 10 00ISBN 82 - 537 - 1239 - 1 ISSN 0085-431X

2 6rik Biiirn: The Consumption Function and the Life CycleHypothesis: An Analysis of Norwegian Household DataKonsumfunksjonen og livsinntektshypotesen: En analyse avnorske husholdningsdata981 22 s kr 10 00ISBN 82-537-1248-0 ISSN 8 5 4 3 1 X 2 7rik BiOrn: Estimating Economic Relations from IncompleteCross-Section/Time-Series Data Estimering av konomiskerelasjoner p grunnlag av ufullstendige tverrsnitts-tids-seriedata981 21 s kr 10 00 ISBN 82-537-1593-5ISSN 0085-431X 28 Knut Eggum Johansen og Henning Strand: Macroeconomic Modelsfor Medium and Long-Term Planning MakroOkonomiske modellerfor planlegging p mellomlang og lang sikt981 35 S

kr 10,00 ISBN 82 - 537 - 160 3 - 6 ISSN 0085-431X 2 9n-Magritt Jensen: Jobb, barn og likestillingm kvinnerstilpasning til arbeid og familieork, Children and Equalityon the Adaptation of Women to Work and Family981 24 s.kr 10,00 ISBN 82 - 537 - 1617 - 6 ISSN 0085-431Xn130on Inge Lian: Trends in Demographic Structure in Norway1960 - 2000ndringer befolkningsstrukturen Norge1981 56 s kr 10,00 ISBN 82 - 537 - 1620 - 6 ISSN 0085-431X

131erry Barker: A Review of Models and Data in the NorwegianSystem of Economic Planning En oversikt over modeller og datanorsk konomisk planlegging 1981 32 s kr 10 00ISBN 82 - 537 - 1631 - 1 ISSN 0085-431X

133lav Bjerkholt Lorents Lorentsen and Steinar StrOm: Using theOil and Gas Revenues: The Norwegian Caseirkninger v brukav olje- og gassinntekter Norge 1982 19 s kr 10 00ISBN 82 - 537 - 1652 - 4 ISSN 0085-431XFullstendig oversikt over tidligere nummer av serien Artikler finnes inr 130.


21/21

Publikasjonen utgis i kommisjon hosH. Aschehoug Co. og Universitetsforlaget, Oslo,

og er til salgs hos alle bokhandlerePris kr 15,00

Omslag trykt hos Grndahl & Sn Trykkeri, Oslo

Dynamic Models Using the Oil and Gas Revenues Norwegian Case

Documents