The Lucky Country and lessons from Norway

Marina Karpathios
11:30am July 14 2026

When a country has something the world wants, how should it use the proceeds? Norway offers some answers. (Image: Panoramic aerial view of Alesund, Norway showcasing colorful buildings and fjords, via Pexels)

Winning the lotto is a double-edged sword. While the fortune may solve many problems, it also provokes a loaded question - what should you do with the cash?

 

Countries face a similar dilemma.

 

When nations discover they are sitting on a (sometimes literal) goldmine and realise they've won the geographic lottery by virtue of oil, gas or mineral wealth, they arrive at a crossroads. Splash out today or save some for a rainy day?

 

There is, of course, a third option. 

 

Many choose a middle path, opting for a way to absorb shocks and invest intergenerationally via sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) - a giant, diversified, publicly owned investment portfolio, designed to grow and preserve national wealth.

 

Think of it as a country's ETF investment account.

 

The concept is built on a simple idea of economic delayed gratification.

 

Resource booms can generate extraordinary wealth, but commodities are finite and prices are notoriously fickle. SWFs allow countries to convert a temporary windfall into a lasting financial asset, while helping smooth the ups and downs of commodity cycles.

 

At their simplest, SWFs work like this:

  • The country earns revenue from natural resources, often through taxes, royalties or state ownership

  • A portion of those proceeds is redirected into an investment fund

  • The fund invests globally across assets such as shares, infrastructure, property and bonds

  • Governments spend only a portion of the investment returns, allowing the fund to continue growing over time

 

Norway's trillion-dollar lesson

Enter Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global. Widely touted as the crème-de-la-crème of SWFs, what it lacks in a catchy name it more than makes up for by virtue of all other metrics.

 

After discovering vast oil and gas reserves in the North Sea, Norwegian policymakers faced a challenge common to resource-rich nations. They knew they had to play their cards carefully to avoid overheating their economy.

 

Economists have several (ominous) names for this phenomenon - “the paradox of plenty”, "resource curse", "Dutch disease". Put simply, this is when a flood of cash from the resources pushes up costs, crowds out other industries and leaves a country vulnerable when commodity prices inevitably fall.

 

The Norwegian answer to this problem was remarkably fiscally disciplined. 

 

Established in 1990, the fund was designed to transform finite petroleum wealth into a permanent financial asset. Rather than pouring the proceeds back into the domestic economy (and risk overheating it), the fund invests almost exclusively overseas, helping insulate Norway from the swings of oil markets.

 

Today, it owns stakes in thousands of companies around the world, including Westpac, and has grown into one of the largest investment funds on the planet, with assets valued at an eye-watering A$3 trillion.

 

A key ingredient has been restraint. Norway follows a fiscal rule that broadly limits spending to the expected long-term return generated by the fund, currently estimated at around 3 per cent.

 

Why didn’t Australia copy Norway? 

Australia has a sovereign wealth fund too.

 

The Future Fund, established in 2006, is worth more than $250 billion and describes itself as Australia's SWF. But unlike Norway's model, it wasn't built to capture proceeds from mining or energy exports.

 

Instead, its primary purpose is to help meet the Federal Government's future public sector superannuation liabilities.

 

On paper, the direct beneficiaries are current and former public servants whose retirement obligations the fund helps support.

 

But the broader argument is that all Australians benefit indirectly because the liabilities are funded in advance, reducing pressure on future taxpayers and government budgets.

 

Australia's resources boom generated enormous wealth. Iron ore, coal, LNG and gold underpinned export earnings, employment, investment and government revenue for decades.

 

But rather than channelling a significant share of that windfall into a single, highly visible national fund, much of the benefit flowed through the broader economy - governments funded services and infrastructure, households built wealth through superannuation and property.

 

SWFs are built different 

Norway's model is often seen as the gold standard, but SWFs come in many forms.

 

Singapore has used sovereign investing as part of a broader nation-building and economic development strategy. Gulf nations, including UAE and Saudi Arabia, have used sovereign funds to manage oil wealth while diversifying their economies. In central Asia, resource-rich Kazakhstan adopted a similar approach to managing commodity revenues.

 

Each approach reflects a country's unique priorities, institutions and sources of wealth.

 

Australia's Future Fund sits in a different category, focused less on managing resource wealth and more on strengthening the government's balance sheet.

 

National treasures in the Lucky Country 

Lightning rarely strikes twice. Then again, the Lucky Country has built a habit of defying the odds. 

 

The sovereign wealth fund conversation is resurfacing because some argue Australia is uniquely positioned for another chance at the Powerball, albeit the next opportunity may look very different from the last.

 

Critical minerals, renewable energy and artificial intelligence infrastructure are attracting growing investment interest.

 

Westpac economics estimates Australia's data centre investment pipeline could exceed $155 billion, while the broader energy transition pipeline may clear $200 billion.

 

Combined, the investment pipeline is approaching 13 per cent of GDP - rivalling the scale of the mining boom of yesteryear. 

 

Unlike traditional resource projects, data centres rely on a different mix of assets, including land, power, water, grid infrastructure, construction labour and planning approvals.

 

If Australia provides the land, energy systems, critical minerals and institutional stability needed to power the AI economy, how much of the resulting value should flow back to the public?

 

Australia already has a SWF. What it doesn't have is a Norway-style model built around resource revenues.

 

As demand grows for Australia's critical minerals, renewable energy capacity and AI-related infrastructure, policymakers may once again confront the question Norway faced decades ago:

 

When a country has something the world wants, how should it use the proceeds?

Don't miss

Related articles

Australia to shake up the salt market with giant BCI project

By James Thornhill and Josh Wall

The numbers behind Australia’s critical minerals drive

By James Thornhill
Editor, Westpac Wire

Commodities, bifurcation and a bit of luck

By Justin Smirk
Senior Economist, Westpac

Browse topics