OECD: Alberta Number-Two Country in the World

If you were asked to rank the various countries of the world according to their prosperity (which is the accumulated result of a country's economic output and various other factors), you would probably rank countries like the U.S., Switzerland and Germany right at or near the top.

Such a ranking would not be entirely wrong, of course, because if you look at very specific economic factors (e.g., only industrial output), countries like the U.S. and Germany will be high up on that list.

But each factor is part of the whole, or bigger, picture. While one country may be the world-leader in industrial output, for example, other sectors and various other economic factors drag it down in the aggregate.

Look at this way: imagine all the countries of the world as high-school students. Each one has to take and pass exams in a wide number of subjects (i.e., the various economic factors, indicators and sectors). One student will stand out for his or her accomplishments in one certain subject, but given his or her poor performance in many of the other subjects, his or her average or total grade may be no more than a near pass.

Of course, it's easy to say that Tom is a genius at maths, while Mary excels in history, but if you want to compare all the students in the school on graduation day, you take their average grades and then rank them accordingly. Some students will pass summa cum laude, that is, they have shown the best results in the largest number of subjects.

This, in essence, is what the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) has done. It assessed the performance of the world's countries on a range of "subjects" and then calculated the end result and expressed it as GDP per capita (the product of what an economy generates and how it is allocated to each person living in the country) – or the level of prosperity.

Based on this, the top four countries in the world are:

1. Luxembourg
2. Norway
3. United States
4. Ireland

But the list has been refined to include additional information. In particular, by treating Canadian provinces as if they were independent countries, the OECD ranking of the most prosperous countries in the world looks as follows:

1. Luxembourg
2. Alberta
3. Norway
4. United States
5. Ireland
6. Saskatchewan

Yes, you'd better believe it. This OECD ranking reveals a few interesting facts.

First, both Alberta and Saskatchewan are dragged down by the rest of Canada. Clearly, they'd be better off as independent countries.

Second, and this is my personal hypothesis, Alberta would probably be number one, instead of two, if it were truly independent. The OECD probably used current statistics and figures for Alberta and then simply "pretended" that Alberta was a sovereign nation without adjusting the numbers. With Alberta losing approx. $15 billion a year to Ottawa (give or take), that amount would have to be added to the economic performance of an independent Alberta. And with that extra boost, it is more than likely that Alberta would surpass Luxembourg and take the top spot.

Third, both these Western provinces could go it alone. This should serve as a warning to Ottawa and people like Stéphane Dion. People in these provinces are still willing to tolerate Ottawa to some degree, but if Ottawa should decide to go after the West in any shape or form, we'd see a drastic and quick rise in support of independence. And thanks to the OECD numbers, there's no denying the fact that both Alberta and Saskatchewan could do without Ottawa and Bay Street.

One shouldn't forget the precedent-setting unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo either. This has been widely recognized by the international community and even by Ottawa. As a result, there is very little that stands in the way of a unilateral declaration of independence by, say, Alberta.

Update: According to this, 40% of Alberta's oil could buy the United States of America!

Comments

[j.-Louis Girard]

Werner!

I had the pleasure to read your article in the Public Library!

I was glad about the explanations you give to your readers, in order to undestand better your interesting topic!

[SoContent]

At worst, we could have a free state in Alberta like Bavaria to the shudder of a lot of people back east (big bad smoke area).

Native lands and those in dispute would need to be settled once and for all, remain in native hands with treaties still in place so Alberta could look like the old Orange Free State with federal government enclaved lands and I'm certain that would be a 'divide and conquer' noose placed along our heads for even suggesting exiting confederation that would delay and sort of, shall we say, quasi departure slowdown tied up with courts.

Tourism would rise, who doesn't want to visit the world's and North America's newest country " strong and free'?

Yet in reality, most will stay in confederation bad or otherwise as the background of people with little social, cultural or language origins over hundreds of years does not exist to any sort of 'Albertan' or 'western' identity.

The road of multiculturalism for sure will never create any sort of identity at all for both bad and good debating points on that subject if provincial areas felt strong enough to ‘go it alone’. Having said that, many Asians were big supporters of Scottish devolution so on that argument, anything is possible if enough people do end up ‘fed up’ (bad pun).

This has come up a lot over the last thirty or so years on economic reasoning yet we don't have the caliber of leadership (yet) that would have the stamina to place and strongly debate the views of leaving or changing the confederation relationship in any articulate fashion. They much prefer in political circles to present the arguments as Us v. Them; Ottawa v West/Edmonton etc. and play people against each other as always is the case which in turn I feel no longer serves the immediate interests to grow as a society as 'its been done' and 'so what; what is there to prove?’

As for Manning and that whole Reform idea, I found that when it was first presented in 1986 as a waste of time in my opinion as Central Canada feel (look at comments from patronizing hack heads like Saunders and Simpson on issues to this day) the West/Alberta is an economic zone to be milked when and where appropriate as it suits policy analysts figuring out how to do so to appease the greater population areas of Canada within federalism.

At the time, and its been proven right, they would merge back into some sort of conservative framework. If proportional representation was around, its possible matters with Reform may have been a little different as a powerbroker to make certain interests would have been at the forefront.

Sorry, was never a Manning fan but I feel for a lot for the genuine grassroots people who had worked hard at seeing change ending up holding a rotting sack of bad potatoes on the ideology or what was the remnants of it.

After so many years now it’s truer then ever. As long as people are prepared to accept that way of doing things, that’s the way, it’s always going to be.

Lots of simpletons, yahoos or rednecks though go for the idea of going it alone if I dare say the word but you need leaders with some acumen and vision to create the interest that this is the way for our area to move towards. Don't see that happening.

Most people as much as they complain are pretty content creatures as long as it’s all right here in my backyard, don't bother me with this nonsense and pollsters/policy analysts/planners know this apathy pretty well.

You'll have enough critics to suggest what anti Canadians we are for even breathing the above article. Good job some of us can think for ourselves.

Hard to get agreement although a Bavarian model could work where Canada represents us in foreign affairs and we have autonomy for most everything else with opt outs. Would make a matter a lot easier, that’s for sure with no animosity.

However, the way things are, unless we see a total economic and social catastrophic collapse, expect to see Stelmach collect his pension after two terms as premier before this ever happens or is ever suggested again.

In short, it will never occur and it would take social, economic and major upheaval where people are left with little option before this route will ever be followed.

People, even in Alberta, are pretty content with the status quo. C'est la vie!

[Werner Patels]

Thank you, J.-L.

SoContent: I agree that it would take real leadership to pull it off. Also, as you said, people are still content with living in Canada, but this could change very quickly (e.g., another NEP -- Green Shift! -- or some other atrocity cooked up by the blasted East).

But it was also interesting to see a poll a few days ago (sorry, no link at this time) that found that most Albertans, IF given the chance to separate from Ottawa, would gladly join up with the U.S. If I recall, the exact wording was something like "If you have to choose between being an independent republic or becoming a new U.S. state, which one would you prefer?".

[Aaron]

I've often wondered if, in some traty records or land titles registry, there has appeared some territorial anomaly similar to the Republic of Madawaska whereby some enterprising individuals could set up a micronation in Alberta, and secede.