A big difference is that Norway is a sovereign state and didn't have to deal with federal and inter-provincial politics like Alberta did. I have my doubts about whether or not a federal government that has done something like the National Energy Program would allow a province within their country to hold a sovereign wealth fund worth hundreds of billions, or even over a trillion dollars.
> A big difference is that Norway is a sovereign state and didn't have to deal with federal and inter-provincial politics like Alberta did.
As I understand it the Alberta Fund is completely controlled by the province. There is some national policies, especially with exports, that falls under the Feds, but how much (or little) flows into the Fund is completely up to the province.
It is on Alberta itself that it decided to have low/er provincial income taxes and no provincial sales tax. Those things were 'funded' by the resource revenues, which effectively came a sort-of cheque to the habitants of the province. And when oil prices went down, government funded went sideways.
IMHO Alberta shouldn't blame Ottawa for not setting aside something for a rainy day.
I am not saying that there is blame or not, it isn't so much blame as recognizing that there are different circumstances between Alberta and Norway that influenced the direction they went.
The big example is the National Energy Program which (aside from its economic impact on the province) basically tainted politics in Alberta and probably contributed to their hesitancy to contribute to a fund which could potentially be raided by the Federal government in the future.
This of course assumes that a balanced budget (or surplus) is something that even should be aimed for. Certainly one shouldn't go crazy with spending (especially when stimulus isn't needed), but the balanced idea seems to be a strange fiscal fetish that is over-focused upon.
