The Government Pension Fund

Global (GPFG) in Norway

Case s
 The Government Pension Fund
Global (GPFG) in Norway

This case has been proposed and commissioned by Philipp Weckherlin, to showcase best practices
in policy making from around the world

IN BRIEF: The sudden access to wealth from natural resources is

known to cause a number of challenges to the host country. It can
be destabilised by an abrupt, volatile and finite source of revenue
and/or be misled to act unsustainably with this inherited
asset/fortune. When oil production started in Norway in the early
1970s, the government was aware of the risks to the domestic
economy. From an early stage, the government worked to find
measures that would allow the sustainable and long-term
management of petroleum assets and revenues, creating wealth
that would outlive the period of oil production.

To this end, Norway established in 1990 a sovereign wealth fund –

the Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG). The fund has had
a positive impact in allowing the government to manage oil assets
and revenues sustainably, while saving and creating wealth for
future generations. Fiscal policy and investment guidelines have
continued to develop over the years. Currently, Norway’s GPFG
is the largest such fund in the world.

The key difference of GPFG with other similar funds is that it

effectively allows to convert oil assets into an investment portfolio,
allowing a systematic management of the funds, and
to live off the returns of the investment rather than the common
practice of spending the value of the asset itself.
The Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG) in Norway

THE CHALLENGE Apart from fisheries and forestry, the country

In 1969, oil was discovered in the Ekofisk offshore had developed industrial capabilities around
field in the North Sea, marking the beginning of hydroelectricity which became useful in the
Norway’s oil wealth.[1] It soon became apparent later development of its domestic oil industry.
that the management of oil assets and revenues [4] Therefore, when the rush of oil wealth
would be decisive for the Norwegian economy. arrived, the country already had fairly well-
developed industrial capabilities and a well-
Revenues from natural resources such as oil, gas established democratic administration, which
and minerals are known to be finite and volatile. limited the chances of experiencing wasting
When generated revenues are large enough, there natural resources assets and the
are three main risks for the host country, the first “resource curse”.
two concerning governance, the third economic
stability: During the early years after the discovery of oil,
political leaders in Norway were mainly
• From an ownership view, natural resources concerned about participating in oil activities
assets belong to the public. Politics acting as and managing oil wealth. In response to these
trustees for the public have to make sure, the asset concerns, the Storting – the Norwegian
values are managed sustainably so that future parliament – began structuring the oil industry
generations also can participate in the reveneue, in the early 1970s. In 1971, the “Ten Oil
generated by these assets Commandments” were formulated to guide
• From a governance perspective, there is a risk of the nation’s petroleum policy.[3] One year
falling into “the resource curse”, by which countries later, the state-owned oil company Statoil was
mismanaging revenues suffer corruption, poverty of created, and the Petroleum Directorate was
the local population, established as a separate body to administer
and even conflict.[2] natural resources and regulate safety and work
• From an economic angle the country can environment issues.[5]
experience the wasteful spending of wealth,
inflation, and deindustrialisation. This Despite these early attempts to improve the
phenomenon is known as the “Dutch disease”, in structure of the oil industry, economic risks
reference to the 1960s economic crisis in the were not being effectively addressed, and
Netherlands after the discovery of North Sea parliamentary debates in 1973 and 1974
natural gas.[3] expressed concerns that Norway might
experience the “Dutch disease” itself. In
In the case of Norway, before the discovery response, in February 1974 the Ministry of
of oil there was an historical tradition of state Finance submitted a white paper, “The role of
involvement in economic management and petroleum activity in Norwegian society”,
an economic model that was reliant on explaining how oil wealth should be used to
natural resources. develop a better society. One of the report’s
main arguments was that democratic
institutions should control all aspects of
petroleum policy, focusing on control over the
pace of extraction operations.

CENTRE FOR PUBLIC IMPACT

The Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG) in Norway

The idea behind this consideration was not only The committee also proposed investing the
to promote the longer duration of resources but fund in international markets to prevent the
also to soften the fluctuation of oil prices that, at overheating of Norway’s economy.[3]
the time, were exposed to the international oil
crisis.[3] [5] However, the group was unsure of the state’s
ability to commit to a long-term savings fund
The public response to the report was divided, instead of spending oil revenues, and it included
but a political consensus emerged that recommendations for budget regulation to limit
supported a few years of moderating petroleum public expenditure.[4] The committee’s proposal
activities. This position softened over time, and entered the political agenda and the idea of the
in 1982 the Norwegian government established a fund continued to mature during the 1980s.[8]
committee to review the future of petroleum
activities.[4] The Norwegian SWF was established in 1990 by
act of parliament, the 1990 Government Pension
THE INITIATIVE Fund Act. The SWF was initially called the
The IMF defines a Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF) Petroleum Fund, and in 2006 it was renamed as
as a “government-owned investment funds, set the Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG) –
up for a variety of macroeconomic purposes. as it is known today. The fund is not a separate
They are commonly funded by the transfer of entity, but was established as a deposit account
foreign exchange assets that are invested long at the Central Bank of Norway – Norges Bank –
term, overseas.”[6] where the government deposits petroleum
revenue through regular transfers. The official
The idea of a Norwegian SWF as an instrument owner of the GPFG is the Ministry of Finance,
for the long-term management of oil revenues acting on behalf of the Norwegian people. The
was presented in 1983 by the Tempo Committee, Ministry of Finance determines the investment
a group of experts appointed by the government strategy and ethical guidelines of the fund and
to review the future of petroleum activities.[4] monitors the operational management, which is
The committee recommended that the delegated to Norges Bank. However, the
government store oil revenues in an SWF and Ministry reports to the Storting, which has to
only spend the real return on the investment assent before the Bank can implement any
portfolio of the fund.[7] Doing this, the significant change to the investment strategy of
Norwegian government swapped Oil assets in an the fund. Ultimately, Norges Bank’s dedicated
Investment Portfolio. By placing oil revenues in asset management team covers the GPFG
the SWF, portfolio’s daily operations, investing in the fixed-
the state would effectively separate the volatile income and equity markets and – since 2011 –
income from its national expenditure budget, in property.[9]
limiting the impact of a fluctuating surplus on
government spending.[3] while maintaining The GPFG is designed as a long-term
the Value of the assets. investment, while allowing outflows to cover
fiscal budget expenditure.

CENTRE FOR PUBLIC IMPACT

The Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG) in Norway

Fiscal regulation limits fund outflows, so that number of blacklisted companies the fund does
only the expected real return on the GPFG can not invest in, based on either ethical or
be allocated to the state budget. This regulation environmental grounds or both. This list is reviewed
protects the real value of the fund.[9] annually, and in 2017 the fund added 11
companies to its list of proscribed organisations.[7]
The two principal objectives of the GPFG are to:
• Support the long-term management of Initially, the structure of the fund was designed
spending the government’s revenues from oil mainly for bookkeeping purposes. Although
reserves, and in this sense the fund helps the government revenues from oil were being
government to hedge against “Dutch disease” transferred to the fund, it was observed that the full
and protect the Norwegian economy and amount was being returned to the fiscal budget on
maintain the value of the oil assets for future an ongoing basis to cover non-oil deficit. Economic
generations reforms in the country led to the first net allocation
• Facilitate savings to finance pension to the fund in 1996.[8] The Ministry of Finance
expenditure under the National Insurance transferred a surplus of NOK1,981,128,503 to be
Scheme.[8] invested internationally in sovereign bonds in line
with Norges Bank’s foreign exchange reserves.[7]
With these objectives in mind, the GPFG allows
the use of petroleum revenues without affecting In 1998, Norges Bank set up Norges Bank
the general flow of income, limiting the impact Investment Management, an asset management
of fluctuating surplus on government spending. unit to manage the GPFG on behalf of the Ministry
The fund also serves an ethical objective, based of Finance. That year, the unit invested 40 percent
on the principle of intergenerational equity. As of the fund in equities in order to diversify a
an instrument for long-term savings, the GPFG’s portfolio previously focused on government bonds.
investment strategy aims to maximise financial The portfolio has continued to diversify ever since,
returns at moderate risk in order to secure reaching a market value in May 2018 of NOK8.4
maximum benefits for future generations. In its billion.[7]
capacity as an instrument for state savings, the
GPFG differs from traditional funds, which are To avoid suffering from the “Dutch disease”, the
generally allocated for specific liabilities and Ministry of Finance implemented a fiscal law in
don’t protect similarly well the asset base. 2001 limiting outflows of cash for government
Compared to similar funds, the GPFG has a spending. The maximum amount was set at 4
higher risk-bearing capacity because it is not percent annually, which was an estimation of the
subject to short-term liquidity requirements and yearly return on the fund’s investments. This
has a long investment horizon.[9] initiative, restricting state expenditure from oil
revenues, prevented the overflow of oil money into
Another important element of the fund is its the economy, while also protecting the value of the
mandate to operate as a responsible investor fund.[9] As of April 2018, Norway’s GPFG was the
promoting sustainable development and good largest SWF in the world.[10]
corporate governance.[9] The fund’s first ethical
guidelines were implemented in 2004 and were
later updated in 2009. As a result, there are a

CENTRE FOR PUBLIC IMPACT

The Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG) in Norway

THE PUBLIC IMPACT In 2016, the Norwegian economy had the

The fund has been successful in managing large highest Human Development Index value in the
oil and gas revenues in a responsible way, world and one of Europe’s lowest
providing positive financial returns to benefit unemployment rates, with skilled jobs being
Norwegian society. The GPFG has also been created in the oil and gas sector for the benefit
essential to the short-term cycle management of the local population. In terms of its politics,
of the economy, acting as a tool for stimulating the country has managed to remain a well-
economic activity through fiscal policy at times functioning and stable democracy, and was
when there was a risk of low employment and ranked in 2017 the third least corrupt country in
low growth.[7] the world.[12] Norway has thus successfully
managed to escape the “resource curse” and
The GPFG, which has been managed by Norges become per capita one of the richest countries
Bank Investment Management since 1998, is an in the world.
active investor in some 9,000 companies
worldwide. Through its strong ethical The fund is also known for its strong ethical
investment guidelines, the fund promotes good standards. Most SWFs are used to maximise
corporate governance standards and profits, regardless of the impact of their
encourages businesses to implement sound investment. Instead, Norway’s GPFG follows the
environmental and social standards.[7] rules determined by the Council of Ethics, a
group of experts in international law, economics,
Since oil production began in Norway in the human rights, and environmental policies. The
1970s, 50 percent of oil reserves have been fund will not invest in companies that fail to
consumed; it is estimated that the remaining comply with its social and environmental
reserves will last for at least another 50 years. standards, regardless of their profitability.
However, from the first transfer of NOK1.98 Consequently, in early 2016, the GPFG excluded
million in 1996, the value of the fund has 73 companies from its investment portfolio
increased to NOK8.4 billion as of May 2018, based on ethical grounds. The group of
exceeding all expectations of the first 20 years of blacklisted companies included large
its existence.[7] Overall, the GPFG has enabled organisations such as Philip Morris, Wal-Mart,
revenues generated from oil to be more Daewoo International, and Rio Tinto.[13]
sustainable and long-lasting while the value of
the asset base was maintained and not just Even though returns on its investments have
spend. historically been positive, the Norwegian
government is aware that this might not always
The success of the GPFG is due in great part to be the case in future. Value fluctuations are
political constraints. The government does not expected, and the fund investment strategy is
spend oil revenues – instead the full income believed to be designed to manage such risks,
from petroleum activities is invested in the fund. while contributing to a stable business climate
[9] The government will only dispose of the and a sustainable world economy.[7]
expected yearly return on the fund, which was
limited to 4 percent by its 2001 fiscal policy and Written by Cristina Figaredo
reduced to 3 percent in 2017.[11]

CENTRE FOR PUBLIC IMPACT

The Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG) in Norway

WHAT DID AND DIDN’T WORK

All cases in our Public Impact Observatory have
been evaluated for performance against the
elements of our Public Impact Fundamentals.

Legitimacy
Stakeholder Engagement
Even though economic experts were engaged
to design the instrument, and broad political
consensus allowed a lasting solution, there was
little engagement of broader Norwegian
society.[3]

Norwegian officials frequently considered the

problem of exploiting its petroleum resources
from a technical and economic perspective.
Academics and other independent experts
were drafted in to help develop government
policy in Norway. Most notably, a team of
economists and civil servants was appointed in
1982 by the Ministry of Finance to form the
Tempo Committee, a consultative group that
proposed the idea of the fund.[3] The
committee was chaired by the economist and
civil servant Hermod Skånland, who later
became governor of Norges Bank.[7] Under his
leadership, the group laid the foundations of
subsequent petroleum management policy in
Norway. Important elements were the proposal
to create a petroleum fund and the use of fiscal
regulation to limit spending.[4] The creation of Norwegian civil society groups were not
an SWF aimed to end the limitation on engaged directly in the design of the policy.
production: the surplus generated by oil and However, they were represented in parliament
gas activities would not put the economy at risk to a certain extent by the political parties to
if it were stored in a fund investing in external which they were linked. In Norway, there is not
capital markets.[3] a clear distinction between political parties and
the broader civil society.

CENTRE FOR PUBLIC IMPACT

The Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG) in Norway

Many parties are affiliated with civil society groups According to the former Norwegian prime
such as business associations, farmers, trade minister, Jens Stoltenberg, there is a broad
unions, the Church, and environmental consensus on the Norwegian government’s
organisations. Consequently, parliamentary management of petroleum revenues through the
debates fulfil to some extent the role of a larger pension fund and fiscal regulation. The main
civil society.[3] Since it was the parliamentary reason for this consensus, Stoltenberg believes,
consensus that created the fund, the political is the example of many other countries around
parties associated with specific social groups would the world being unable to manage oil and gas
be expected to represent their own social group’s wealth in a sustainable and responsible way, but
interests when deciding to create the fund. rather spending large revenues too quickly –
examples that Norway would very much like to
Even though the direct involvement of potential avoid.[7]
interest groups was limited, private companies in
the oil sector did play a role in transitioning to the Stoltenberg acknowledges that one of the
fund-based management model for oil revenues. challenges faced by the government was to
Oil sector companies had not been convinced by protect the fund and “avoid using too much
the 1974 arguments in favour of the policy to money too fast”. At the same time, the former
moderate production volumes. At the time, a prime minister considers everyone
broad political consensus in favour of protecting underestimated the size the fund would reach,
the economy from “the Dutch disease” prevailed. as well as the capabilities of the Norwegian
[4] Nevertheless, as the oil sector continued to government to manage it.[7]
grow, so did the influence of oil companies against
the self-imposed moderation policy. The creation The commitment of political actors has been
of the GPFG put an end to the moderation on oil instrumental in the fund’s successful
and gas activities, allowing oil companies to transformation of finite oil wealth into a long-
produce at full capacity without risking economic term economic resource for the country. As
stability. Booming oil revenues were transferred outlined in the Challenges section above, the
directly to the fund and funnelled into risks of the “resource curse” and “the Dutch
international capital markets, protecting Norway disease” result from the mismanagement of a
from the overheating of their economy.[3] sudden access to abundant natural resources.
Norway did not want to fall into the trap of
Political Commitment
spending such revenues immediately without
There have been several changes of government taking into account the adverse long-term
since the GPFG was established in 1990. However, impact on the economy.
regardless of who was in charge of the Ministry of
Finance, all administrations agreed on – and During the first years of the fund, the
backed – the principles and objectives of the fund. government did not manage to save any
revenues; instead, it surrendered to the urge to
spend all the money quickly.

CENTRE FOR PUBLIC IMPACT

The Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG) in Norway

However, the government was committed to The commitment of political actors to

make the GPFG work for the long-term benefit intergenerational equity has been strong
of the country, and led reforms in the throughout the existence of the fund. As the
Norwegian economy that resulted in the former finance minister Kristin Halvorsen has
Ministry of Finance successfully making the pointed out: “the current generation does not
first deposit of oil revenues in 1996.[8] Since have a right to ‘burn’ through the oil reserves in
then, government self-regulation has continued the course of one or two generations, but must
to limit public expenditure of petroleum leave some of the benefits for future
revenues and protect the value of the fund. generations”.[3]

Of all the self-imposed restrictions on the Public Confidence

management of the GPFG, one of the most Early oil industry policy in Norway was mainly
laudable was the 2001 fiscal rule to limit the concern of high-level political actors and
annual government spending of the fund’s technocrats, and academics and independent
returns. The Storting adopted the proposal of experts supported the technocratic approach of
the Ministry of Finance to restrict such the government. Accordingly, the creation of the
spending to 4 percent of the fund’s value. This fund was largely the preserve of civil servants
limit was an estimate of the yearly return on and economists, primarily from the Ministry of
the fund, and it was aimed at preventing oil Finance.[3]
money flooding the economy. When political
opposition later argued against the 4 percent There is limited evidence of direct public
limit on annual government spending, the support for the creation of the fund. However,
governor of Norges Bank proposed a further many parties in Norway are affiliated with civil
reduction to protect the fund from such society groups, including farmers, business
spending. Once again, the broad political associations, trade unions, environmental
consensus in favour of protecting the value of groups, and others. As a result, agreements
the fund prevailed, and in 2017 the self- reached in the Storting tend to represent the
imposed limit was effectively reduced to 3 wider civil society in Norway,[3] and the GPFG
percent.[3] was created in 1990 through an act of
parliament. The broad political consensus was
In terms of managing the fund, the work and achieved thanks to the cross-party goal of
commitment of three state entities allows the protecting the Norwegian economy from the
ongoing growth of the fund: risks that arise from substantial oil revenues.
• Norges Bank manages the fund’s
operations with a mandate from the According to Norway’s Ambassador to Canada,
Ministry of Finance Mona Elisabeth Brother, the majority of
• The Ministry of Finance owns the fund, Norwegians are proud of the fund, regardless of
deciding on the investment strategy and their own political opinions. Citizens often
ethical guidelines discuss such fund-related issues as the ethical
• The Storting approves any major changes guidelines and the public spending of the fund’s
to the fund’s investment strategy. savings, and the ambassador considers that:

CENTRE FOR PUBLIC IMPACT

The Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG) in Norway

“As we [the people of Norway] engage in the The relationship between the objectives of
discussions around the fund, it is clear that maximising return and limiting risk is a starting
Norway's GPFG is more than a national point for measuring the performance of the
instrument for savings – it represents a fund. Consequently, a performance metric
nationwide philosophy to safeguard and build considered in the fund’s annual reports is the
financial wealth for future generations”.[14] ratio between excess return and relative risk,
called the information ratio. Between 2013 and
Policy 2017, the average information ratio was 0.73;
Clear Objectives however, this result it is not sustainable over
time, and the Executive Board has accepted a
The objective of the GPFG, as defined in the ratio of 0.42 percent since 1998 – when Norges
1990 Government Pension Fund Act, states Bank Investment Management was
that the fund “shall support government saving established.[15]
to finance the National Insurance Scheme’s
expenditure on pensions and support long-term In terms of risk limits set by the Ministry of
considerations in the use of petroleum Finance, Norges Bank is required maintain the
revenues”.[7] With such long-term thinking, the expected relative volatility – or tracking error –
GPFG avoids short-term economic instability below 1.25 percent. At the end of 2017, the
and secures the longer duration of finite oil relative volatility was 0.33 percent.
wealth.
As of May 2018, the growth of the fund to
Later policy and regulation have continued to NOK8.4 billion and the lack of “Dutch disease”
clarify the objectives of the fund, shaping it into to date in the Norwegian economy suggest that
a responsible investor following firm ethical the fund is delivering so far, both as an
guidelines. While maintaining its commitment instrument for long-term savings and in its
to the long-term sustainability of wealth short-term capacity of supporting the
creation for the Norwegian people, the GPFG sustainable management of oil revenues.
also considers the ethical and environmental
impact of its investments, which is uncommon
among SWFs.[13]

While the fund does not have any more specific

objectives than those stated above, the Ministry
sets specific objectives for Norges Bank as the
manager of the GPFG to maximise the long-
term return on the fund’s investment portfolio,
while committing to a moderate level of risk.

CENTRE FOR PUBLIC IMPACT

The Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG) in Norway

Evidence Feasibility
The fundamental elements of the GPFG’s Norway in the 1980s and 1990s did not present
design and structure are drawn from the hard- legal or fiscal barriers that could limit the
won experience of the Norwegian authorities. feasibility of the GPFG. Moreover, from an HR
Specifically, the fund has two key principles perspective, suitable resources were designated
underpinning its macroeconomic policy: the to support the management
government transfers oil revenues directly to of the fund.
the fund; and the capital is invested in
international markets. These principles were The GPFG was established under the 1990
consolidated after two learning experiences in Government Pension Fund Act, and was
different areas of the Norwegian economy. therefore backed by primary legislation.
Similarly, the fiscal environment supported the
The first lesson derived from Norway spending fund’s creation, and since then Norway’s public
its oil revenues in the 1970s and 1980s on the institutions have continued to refine and
domestic economy in a way that was at times improve fiscal regulations in order to protect the
excessive and in practice failed to follow any value of the fund. The most notable reform was
limiting principles or clear guidelines. the 2001 fiscal rule limiting government
spending. This policy was updated in 2017 to
The second lesson was the experience of the restrict public spending even further.
Norwegian National Insurance Scheme, later
known as Government Pension Fund Norway Norges Bank’s 1998 creation of Norges Bank
(GPFN), which was established in 1967. At the Investment Management, an asset
time, the Norwegian authorities had high management unit to manage the GPFG on
expectations of the future importance and size behalf of the Ministry of Finance, provided
of the fund. Unfortunately, the scheme was further financial security. In the same year, the
ultimately used to fund government projects, unit invested 40 percent of the fund in equities
diminishing its capacity to become a reserve for to diversify a portfolio previously focused on
the future. In the planning phase of Norway’s oil government bonds. The portfolio has continued
fund therefore, one of the objectives was to to diversify ever since reaching a market value of
avoid the mistakes made in the formation NOK8.4 billion (as of May 2018). Having a
GPFN. Therefore, the formation and structure dedicated team managing the fund’s investment
of the GPFN served as evidence for the portfolio has made it more feasible for the GPFG
subsequent creation of the GPFG.[16] to secure the long-term value of the fund and the
creation of wealth for future generations.[7]

CENTRE FOR PUBLIC IMPACT

The Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG) in Norway

Action active investments, and identifying sustainable

long-term investment opportunities.[7]
Management

The management of the fund was considered Measurement

fully during the design phase and was well The measurement of the fund’s impact has
implemented. The Storting sanctions the historically been considered in terms of
overall level of risk of the fund, and – based on financial performance. Norges Bank’s annual
the decision of the Storting – the Ministry of and quarterly reports provide market value and
Finance adopts a general framework and financial metrics, explaining how the fund
guidelines for asset management to be creates value.
implemented by Norges Bank’s Executive
Board, which delegates certain powers to Norges Bank’s mandate is to maximise the
Norges Bank Investment Management. GPFG’s value. To this end, the Ministry of
Authorisations and duties are delegated Finance sets specific objectives for risk and
downwards through the levels of governance, return, against which it measures the fund’s
while reporting on risk and return are managed performance. Norges Bank reports annually on
upwards.[7] the information ratio (see Clarity of Objectives
above): between 2013 and 2017, the average
In the 1990 Act, the Storting granted formal information ratio was 0.73, which is difficult to
responsibility for the fund to the Ministry of sustain over time, so the Executive Board is
Finance. Therefore, the Ministry – representing satisfied with a ratio of 0.42 percent.[15]
the citizens of Norway – is the official owner of
the GPFG and determines the investment Ever since Norges Bank Investment
strategy and ethics guidelines. However, the Management was established in 1998, the fund
Ministry issued a separate mandate for Norges has held assets in the fixed-income and equity
Bank to manage the fund.[17] markets; since 2011, the portfolio has also
invested in property. Historical returns on the
The GPFG is set up as a deposit account at fund’s investments indicate that the year 2017
Norges Bank, to which the Ministry of Finance ended with:
transfers petroleum profits to invest in
international capital markets. Within Norges • Equity returns of 19.44 percent, compared
Bank, there is a unit dedicated to the to 8.72 in 2016
management of the GPFG portfolio called • Fixed-income returns of 3.31 percent, down
Norge Bank Investment Management, which from 4.32 percent in 2016
reports regularly on the performance of the • Significant growth in the fund’s property
fund. Reports are publicly available on Norges holdings – at 7.52 percent as against 0.78
Bank’s website, including annual and quarterly the previous year.
reporting as well as yearly reports on its strategy
for responsible investment. These reports
address contributions to international
standards, exercising ownership rights on

CENTRE FOR PUBLIC IMPACT

The Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG) in Norway

Total returns have tended to fluctuate in line Norges Bank has also shown alignment with the
with market variations over the years. However, objectives of the fund through the years,
the market value of the fund has grown creating a dedicated unit to manage its long-
steadily, reaching NOK8.488 billion term assets, implementing ethical guidelines to
at year end 2017. act as a responsible investor, making
recommendations to further limit public
Additionally, Norges Bank reports yearly on the spending of fund earnings, and contributing to
fund in its role as a responsible investor, the overall transparency of the fund through
promoting ethical and sustainable investment regular performance reports.[7]
standards. It has assessed 2,902 companies
within its focus areas, participating in 7 In terms of the broader Norwegian society,
academic projects, submitting 17 reports to citizens are in the main proud of the fund and
international actors and organisations, and engage in daily discussions about fund-related
adding 11 companies to its investment blacklist issues. Norwegian civic society seems to share
in 2017. [7] the GPFG’s philosophy of protecting and
creating financial wealth so that it can continue
Alignment to benefit future generations.[14]
The actors involved in creating and managing
the GPFG display a strongly aligned interest in
protecting its investment and safeguarding the
Norwegian economy. Also, from a private sector
perspective, the fund put an end to the previous
moderation policy, which aligned with the
interest of oil companies to produce oil and gas
at full capacity (see Stakeholder Engagement
above).

Since the fund was established in 1990, there

have been a number of governments. However,
whatever their political complexion, the
different administrations have supported the
principles and rules of the fund.
Moreover, fiscal policy has continued to
develop, and further investment guidelines
have been implemented in line with the GPFG’s
objectives.

CENTRE FOR PUBLIC IMPACT

The Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG) in Norway

Bibliography

[1] Norway’s sovereign wealth fund excludes 73 [10] The Resource Curse, Melissa Mittelman,
companies for ethical reasons, Andrea Barolini, 19 May 2017, Bloomberg
5 February 2016, Lifegate
[11] The Management of the Government
[2] The Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund Pension Fund in 2013, Norwegian Ministry of
Addresses the Interrelated Challenges of Finance, April 2014, Meld. St. 19 (2013–2014)
Climate Change and Sustainable Development Report to the Storting (white paper)
– A Model for Regulating Other Sovereign
Wealth Funds (SWF), Anita M. Halvorssen, 10 [12] The Government Pension Fund 2018—
September 2009, Asian Society of International Preliminary and unofficial translation from
Law and the National University of Singapore Norwegian. For informational purposes only,
Meld. St. 13 (2017–2018), Ministry of Finance,
[3] The Fund, Norges Bank, 2018 Government.no

[4] Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute [13] The Norwegian Fiscal Policy Framework,
Managing and Spending Natural Resource Ministry of Finance, 15 May 2018, Government
Revenues, Parliamentary Briefing, January of Norway
2015, Natural Resource Governance Institute
[14] The Government Pension Fund Norway,
[5] Norway’s oil history in 5 minutes, Folketrygdfondet.no
Government.no, 2013
[15] 10 Commanding Achievements, Norwegian
[6] Definition of Dutch disease, Lexicon Petroleum Directorate, 2010
Financial Times, consulted on May 22, 2018,
Financial Times [16] Managing Resource Abundance and
Wealth: The Norwegian Experience, Jonathon
[7] What Dutch disease is, and why it's bad, The W. Moses and Bjørn Letnes, 2017, Oxford
Economist explains, 5 November 2014, The University Press
Economist
[17] The Rise of Sovereign Wealth Funds: An
[8] Norway: Public Debate and the Overview of the Challenges and Opportunities
Management of Petroleum Resources and Ahead, Alexandru Cosmin Buteică, Cătălin
Revenues, Indra Overland, 2018, Public Emilian Huidumac Petrescu, Hyperion
Brainpower
[18] International Journal of Econophysics &
[9] The Norwegian Oil Experience: A toolbox for New Economy . 2017, Vol. 10 Issue 1, p147-158.
managing resources?, Helge Ryggvik, 2010, 12p.
Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture
(TIK-CENRE), University of Oslo

CENTRE FOR PUBLIC IMPACT

The Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG) in Norway

[19] Governance framework - Government

Pension Fund Global (GPFG), Ministry of
Finance, Government.no

[20] Corruption Perception Index 2017,

Transparency International, 2018

[21] Learning by failing. The origins of the

Norwegian oil fund, Einar Lie, 2013, University
of California, Berkeley

[22] Norway: Public Debate and the

Management of Petroleum Resources and
Revenues, Indra Overland, 26 October 2017,
Public Brainpower

[23] Sovereign Wealth Funds—A Work Agenda,

Monetary and Capital Markets Department and
Policy Development and Review Department,
29 February 20008, International Monetary
Fund

[24] The Norwegian Government Pension Fund

-- A Success Story, Ambassador Mona Elisabeth
Brother, 19 January 2015, Huffington Post

CENTRE FOR PUBLIC IMPACT

Email us:
[email protected]
Twitter: @CPI_Foundation
Instagram: @CPI_Foundation
Linkedin: Centre for Public Impact
Facebook: @centreforpublicimpact