50 Years of Government of Alberta Budgeting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This briefing note uses a newly completed time series on the government of Alberta’s finances to present a broad overview of the government’s budgetary choices since fiscal year 1965–66. The note paints a picture using broad strokes that focuses on the government’s attempts to deal with volatile energy revenues. It shows that over the past 50 years the government has made a policy choice to allow volatility in energy revenues to create volatility in its budget. This policy choice has resulted in occasional bouts of severe spending contractions and likely encouraged higher rates of spending and lower taxation than would otherwise have been observed. These outcomes are the result of the government failing to heed the advice of economists, namely, to save energy revenues and in this way establish a steady and reliable source of revenue. In the note we describe a number of strategies the government has used over the years to reduce its reliance on energy revenue. Success came only after a dramatic cut to program spending in the mid-1990s. Only during this brief period in the mid-1990s was the government able to fund current expenditures without the need for energy revenues. To use a phrase made popular in the 2015 provincial election campaign, for that brief period in the mid-1990s, the government had managed to climb “off the energy roller-coaster.” But it could not stay off, and the government, with the support of voters, returned to a pattern of financing spending growth not with taxation but with energy revenues. At the time of writing this note, the current government is suffering the consequences of a budget based on spending and tax choices that require a heavy reliance on energy revenues to find balance. Getting off the energy roller coaster requires new revenue, cuts to program spending, or some combination of the two. To remain off the roller coaster requires a commitment of the sort previous governments have been unable to stick to.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".