Rich in resources but plagued by remoteness from markets, small population and high costs, Alaska has struggled since statehood to realize the full promise of its natural wealth.

With oil production on the decline, the economy isn't looking particularly rosy going into the future. That's left policymakers wondering how much the state can give up in order to advance the developments -- on and off the North Slope -- that leaders believe would best serve the state's interests. Aside from the Mother Lode projects, like Prudhoe Bay or the proposed Pebble Mine, those developments aren't necessarily eyed favorably by the private sector. That leaves Alaska politicians to advocate various levels of subsidies -- call them incentives, credits, inducements, loans or grants -- to get what they want.

"We have to be competitive, and we have to look at what our goals and policies are as a state," Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage, said. Everyone wants more production in Cook Inlet, on the North Slope, more renewable energy projects. "The question then becomes what levers and triggers are available to the government to encourage those things. It's one we're really grappling with this year. You don't want to give incentives for things that don't have to be incentivized."

Alaska lawmakers want to send a message that the state is open for business, and to create a competitive environment. But Outside companies may not be willing to invest in the state without a little extra incentive.

"The state is so large in area, and so small in population, there is this inclination for the state to come in and be the bank for a lot of things," Rep. Charisse Millett, R-Anchorage, said. "There is a fine line where the state has to help the private sector get over that threshold ... but the expectation that the state can bear the burden of all the development is a little much."

The state has loans for fisheries and small businesses, grants for renewable energy projects like wind systems and in-river turbines, and tax and royalty breaks for oil, gas and possibly geothermal power. Then there's the $500 million the state is authorized to spend on private sector work on a massive natural gas pipeline to Canada.

Mineral resources aren't the only target for incentives; Gov. Sean Parnell announced on Friday he'll seek a tax break for cruise lines. The news came shortly after his return from a Florida cruise ship conference, where tourism industry representatives told him the same thing oil companies are saying: Alaska's regulatory environment and high taxes make it a difficult place to do business.

At the same time, politicians say the state can't just give everything away. Some call for the state to fund its own projects instead -- everything from gas exploration in Cook Inlet to an in-state natural gas pipeline.

Alaska's economy is narrow and dependent on resource extraction, according to Stephen Haycox, a University of Alaska professor who has written extensively about Alaska's resource history. That fact has set the stage for politicians to offer what they can to get what they -- and their constituents -- want.

"Every Alaska politician has one primary responsibility: Pursue any economic development project that exists or can be projected," Haycox said.

Economic development takes precedence over all other issues for the state's leaders, he said. It's not that they don't care about other concerns, such as the environment, that can be at odds with resource development; "It's that there's nothing besides resource development and federal spending from which to construct an economy in Alaska, and as oil goes down, job insecurity goes up," Haycox said.

Yet there's really no telling how well incentives have worked in the past.

"One of the problems is that the state does create these incentives and never really goes back to see how effective they have been," said Scott Goldsmith, an economist with the Institute of Social and Economic Research in Anchorage. "We're sort of operating in a vacuum, without really knowing how well these things work."