Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
Reason Foundation: Arkansas' Proposed Economic Development Amendment is Fatally Flawed
LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 10 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
Arkansas' proposed economic development amendment is fatally flawed
Policymakers in Arkansas and across the country must understand that states and cities cannot subsidize their way to prosperity.
John C. Mozena
October 9, 2026
Voters in Arkansas are being asked to approve a constitutional amendment that would authorize powerful and unaccountable economic development districts and vaguely defined corporate subsidy programs, opening the door to long-term fiscal instability, public corruption, and other ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 10 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news: * * * Arkansas' proposed economic development amendment is fatally flawed Policymakers in Arkansas and across the country must understand that states and cities cannot subsidize their way to prosperity. John C. Mozena October 9, 2026 Voters in Arkansas are being asked to approve a constitutional amendment that would authorize powerful and unaccountable economic development districts and vaguely defined corporate subsidy programs, opening the door to long-term fiscal instability, public corruption, and otherharmful outcomes. With this proposal, Arkansas is doubling down on an outmoded and disproven model of economic development that tries to overcome broad business climate challenges through targeted subsidies to a few fortunate or well-connected companies.
This model, of course, does not work. After more than three decades of increasingly large and complex economic development subsidy models deployed across the country, the real-world evidence is clear that state or local governments cannot subsidize their way to prosperity. The simplest way to recognize this in action is that places that hand out more in corporate subsidies end up no better off by any meaningful measure of economic growth than those that don't.
Rather than engaging in what could reasonably be described as corporate welfare, leaders in Arkansas--or any other state--would do better to focus on broad-based policy reforms in areas such as taxation, regulation, land use, infrastructure, and workforce development that are of critical importance to all businesses, not just a favored few.
Proposal overview
The "Arkansas Create Economic Development Districts Amendment" on the ballot as "Issue 3" in November was created by Senate Joint Resolution 15, which passed the legislature by a wide bipartisan margin. If approved, it would allow the legislature to create a class of economic development districts in which unelected, poorly accountable boards would exercise powers normally reserved to mayors, city councils, and other elected officials. It would also allow the legislature to create corporate subsidy programs that are specifically exempted from the Arkansas Constitution's preexisting fiscal guardrails.
The ballot measure is described as "concerning economic development in the State of Arkansas, and authorizing the General Assembly to provide for the creation of economic development districts within cities, counties or cooperative areas to promote economic development within the economic development district." However, the actual text of the amendment being approved by voters contains radical departures from the state's long-time constitutional and fiscal norms, with perhaps the most radical provision being, "Property located within an economic development district created by the General Assembly shall be exempt from taxation except for taxes, assessments, or other charges levied by the economic development district of which the property is a part."
Supporters of the measure have introduced enabling legislation that would constrain that broad constitutional reassignment of taxation power. The proposed Arkansas Economic Development District Act would establish mechanisms to ensure that property and business owners in economic development districts would still effectively pay property, sales and use, and alcohol taxes to the state, county, or municipal governments through a system of "charges" calculated to largely mirror prevailing tax rates.
However, that law did not pass the Arkansas Legislature in its most recent session, putting voters in the position of approving a constitutional amendment that would make some property owners in the state "exempt from taxation" and create potentially massive corporate subsidy grant and loan programs, then trusting legislators to implement effective governance structures after the fact.
An Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration analysis of the amendment also pointed out that the ballot language simply says that property within an economic development district "shall be exempt from taxation," but does not limit that exemption to ad valorem taxes such as property, sales, and use taxes. This creates the potential for future problems should economic development district boards or property owners use this provision to challenge other tax liabilities.
Complicating matters even further is the very real possibility that even if the legislature does pass the Arkansas Economic Development District Act as proposed, there is no guarantee that any legislative guardrails placed on the broad constitutional language will be upheld by the state's courts, which have shown themselves willing in recent years to strictly construe constitutional language, even when that conflicts with what the legislators who wrote the amendment may have intended it to mean. In 2007, while ruling against a previous effort to use a constitutional amendment to implement Tax Increment Financing in the state, the Arkansas Supreme Court warned, "We have said that legislative interpretation of constitutional provisions is never binding on the courts, and when there is some doubt or ambiguity in the provision, legislative interpretation is persuasive and only entitled to some consideration." As detailed below, this is further complicated by amendment language that gives it primacy not just over state law, but over every other part of the Arkansas Constitution.
Economic development policy: Promises versus real-world results
The Economic Development Districts Amendment proposal enjoys wide support in the Arkansas Legislature, passing the state Senate by a 28-6 margin and the House by 74-21. Its support is strongly bipartisan, with 100% of the Democratic minority caucus and 74% of the Republican majority voting in favor.
Supporters of the amendment argue that it would "level the playing field with our neighboring states" by creating the kinds of subsidy programs that exist elsewhere in the country. The Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce supports the amendment, pointing to TIF district programs and other economic development subsidy programs in Texas, Louisiana, Missouri, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky, and other states as reasons that Arkansas lags behind many economic growth metrics.
This argument assumes such programs effectively create economic growth. The consensus among economists, however, is that economic development subsidy programs play little role in influencing site selection decisions or long-term economic outcomes, and that the few gains they may rightfully claim come at unsustainable costs to taxpayers and communities.
To be fair, Arkansas is far from alone in this, and despite their outmoded model and the clear real-world evidence against them, incentive programs such as those proposed in Arkansas remain common across the country.
Despite these negative outcomes, one reason for the continued popularity of these programs is that they allow elected officials and other policymakers to be seen to be "doing something" about the economy, freeing them from doing the harder--and potentially more politically costly--work of taking on more fundamental policy reforms in areas such as taxation, fiscal policy, regulatory reform, land use, energy policy, infrastructure financing, and more. (This is why 2022, the first major post-COVID election year, saw governors and mayors announce three times as many billion-dollar subsidy deals as in any other year in modern history as voters pressured them for action amid post-pandemic economic turmoil.)
These types of subsidy programs also tend to suffer from what is known as "smokestack chasing," where local officials prioritize attracting large, headline-grabbing factories, headquarters, and other megaprojects. As the name suggests, this kind of model is an artifact of an earlier economic era and is becoming increasingly irrelevant today. As renowned urbanist (and prominent economic development subsidy critic) Richard Florida recently explained, "The factors that drive location decisions in a knowledge economy--talent, innovation, and quality of place--are not the ones that incentives were ever designed to address."
This is one reason the evidence strongly suggests that, in the long term, it would be far more economically beneficial for policymakers in Arkansas and elsewhere to focus on the other end of the corporate spectrum: encouraging entrepreneurship and small business formation through policies that benefit businesses of all sizes.
However, this is not what Arkansas' proposed programs do. Instead, they largely double down on a strategy of business attraction and high-profile "transformative" megaprojects. While these kinds of deals may generate political benefits, they also come with huge costs, and their long-term results rarely live up to their promises. One study of Michigan's economic development programs found that subsidy deals that had been big enough to generate front-page headlines in the state's largest newspaper between 2000 and 2020 had promised more than 123,000 jobs, but that according to the state's own records only 11,000 jobs were ever actually created--a success rate of just 9%.
In many cases, these deals fell through or evolved because companies changed their plans to meet changing business conditions. It was a real-world demonstration of just how limited state and local government subsidies' leverage is over corporate decision-making as companies rolled back or canceled construction, hiring, and other plans in Michigan despite having subsidy agreements in hand.
The idea that state and local government subsidies are rarely the deciding factor in corporate site selection is not controversial, even within the site selection industry itself. In the trade magazine Area Development's most recent annual survey of corporate site selectors, more respondents ranked "incentive competitiveness," "speed and certainty of incentive approval," and "availability of tax credits" as "minor considerations" than as "very important factors" to their site selection decisions.
If it isn't a lack of economic development programs slowing Arkansas' economic growth compared with its neighbors, then what factors are truly at play? One potential way to consider this issue is that Arkansas ranks just 27th among U.S. states in the Fraser Institute's respected Economic Freedom index, scoring no higher than 6.4 out of 10 on Fraser's measurements of labor market freedom, taxes, and government spending thanks to challenges such as the state's high sales tax burden and proportionally large government workforce. Of its neighbors, Arkansas only ranks better than Louisiana (one spot behind in 28th place) and 39th-place Mississippi, and is far behind 2nd-place Tennessee, 4th-place Texas, 11th-place Oklahoma, 14th-place Kansas and 22nd-place Missouri.
Even if we accept supporters' arguments that subsidy programs are critical to economic growth, Arkansas' economic development agencies are far from limited in their existing toolsets, with the state's Department of Finance and Administration listing 41 different current or former "business incentives and credits" available to companies doing business in the state. While some of these programs are highly specific--few businesses will be able to take advantage of the state's $15 income tax credit per ton of rice straw on purchases of more than 500 tons for ethanol or energy production--many are available to businesses simply building, expanding, or hiring in the state.
The price tag for these existing programs is not trivial. In 2025, Arkansas' annual financial report disclosed $21.9 million of tax abatements for economic development purposes, including $2.9 million in film tax credits and $2.1 million in R&D tax credits. (This figure does not include a wide variety of other economic development costs to taxpayers such as grants, bond service payments, loans, or site preparation expenses.)
Additionally, any consideration of new subsidy programs must account for the potential to impose significant fiscal burdens long after they're gone. Consider the former InvestArk sales and use tax credit program, which offered companies already doing business in Arkansas credits of up to 50% of their sales and use tax liability for investing $5 million or more in new construction, expansion, or modernization within the state. In Arkansas' 2025 annual fiscal report, InvestArk tax credits accounted for $14 million in tax abatements, more than all other economic development programs combined, despite the program having sunset in 2017. In the eight years since the program's sunset, InvestArk participant businesses have redeemed $241,379,000 in tax credits.
Arkansas' history of economic development constitutional amendments
Like most states, Arkansas' Constitution has a strong array of longstanding restrictions on the power of state or local governments to favor some property owners over others, or to use the tax code to engage in economic central planning. Some of these limitations include:
[T]he General Assembly may delegate the taxing power, with the necessary restriction, to the State's subordinate political and municipal corporations, to the extent of providing for their existence, maintenance and well being, but no further. - Article 2, Sec. 23
The power to tax corporations and corporate property, shall not be surrendered or suspended by any contract or grant to which the State may be a party. - Article 16, Sec. 7
All real and tangible personal property subject to taxation shall be taxed according to its value, that value to be ascertained in such manner as the General Assembly shall direct, making the same equal and uniform throughout the State. - Article 16, Sec. 5(a)
The following property shall be exempt from taxation: public property used exclusively for public purposes; churches used as such; cemeteries used exclusively as such; school buildings and apparatus; libraries and grounds used exclusively for school purposes; and buildings and grounds and materials used exclusively for public charity. - Article 16, Sec. 5(b)
All laws exempting property from taxation, other than as provided in this Constitution shall be void. - Article 16, Sec. 6
No county, city, town or other municipal corporation, shall become a stockholder in any company, association, or corporation; or obtain or appropriate money for, or loan its credit to, any corporation, association, institution or individual. - Article 12, Sec. 5.
However, the drafters of the Arkansas Create Economic Development Districts Amendment functionally repeal those and other provisions of the state constitution where economic development is concerned by giving it an effective super-constitutional status over every other provision of the constitution with clauses such as:
"Any provision of this Constitution, including without limitation amendments to this Constitution, that conflicts with or is in any way inconsistent with this amendment is repealed or deemed modified to give precedence to this amendment."
"This amendment supersedes all previous constitutional provisions, amendments, laws, or judicial interpretations that conflict with this amendment's terms."
"If this amendment conflicts with any existing constitutional provision, amendment, law, or judicial interpretation, this amendment shall prevail and be given full force and effect."
It also weakens the Arkansas Constitution's existing fiscal guardrails through the simple mechanism of redefining the term "debt" for economic development districts by declaring that "A program created or a loan or grant made by an economic development district that is secured by a pledge of ad valorem taxes or financed by the issuance of any bonds or other obligations payable from ad valorem taxes of the economic development district does not constitute or create a debt for the purpose of any provision of this Constitution."
The amendment's authorization of new economic development grant and loan programs also effectively repeals preexisting constitutional safeguards against using taxpayer funds for private purposes at every level of government within the state with its provision that, "Notwithstanding any other provision of the Arkansas Constitution, the General Assembly may provide for the creation of programs and the making of loans and grants of public money" for a broad array of purposes that include "development and diversification of the economy," "elimination and prevention of unemployment and underemployment," "development or improvement of transportation or commerce," and "development or improvement of real estate...that contributes to economic development."
This effective repeal of the Arkansas Constitution's longstanding fiscal guardrails, so far as economic development is concerned, ends a string of constitutional amendments in recent decades that have eroded previously rigid constitutional limitations in pursuit of economic growth through central government economic planning.
Amendment 78 in 2000 created a tax increment financing (TIF) mechanism in the form of "redevelopment districts," but the state's Supreme Court ruled that it conflicted with the state's constitutional school funding structures and limited what property taxes TIF districts could capture.
In 2004, Arkansas voters approved Amendment 82, which allowed the state to issue economic development bonds in amounts up to 5% of the state's annual general revenues.
Amendment 97 removed that 5% cap in 2016 and expanded the power of counties and municipalities to issue economic development bonds. The amendment also effectively repealed the Arkansas Constitution's Article 12, Sec. 5 provision that a county or municipality was not allowed to "obtain or appropriate money for, or loan its credit to, any corporation, association, institution or individual" by creating a broad "economic development" exception.
These previous efforts to weaken Arkansas' longtime fiscal conservatism and separation of public and private funds have not delivered on their supporters' promises. There is no reason to believe that the Arkansas Create Economic Development Districts Amendment will perform any differently, especially given the deep flaws within the proposed structure of the districts it creates.
Challenges with district boards
The Economic Development Districts Amendment is being presented as a "Tax Increment Financing" proposal, but that is not what the constitutional amendment actually creates. Tax increment financing, or "TIF," is an economic development model in which taxing authorities set a baseline level of pre-development tax receipts for a particular property, then redirect some or all of future incremental growth in tax receipts from that property to fund grants, loans, bond debt, infrastructure improvements, or other public expenses, while the baseline revenues continue flowing to taxing authorities as before.
TIF districts have a wide array of problems in theory and practice, and a broad academic consensus holds that they generally capture growth that would have happened regardless, or at least incentivize growth in one place at the expense of growth elsewhere. But even setting those serious concerns aside, there are two immediate problems with simply portraying Arkansas' proposed Economic Development Districts as the kind of TIF districts in operation in every other state but Arizona.
The first, as noted above, is that the actual language of the constitutional amendment before voters does not require districts to operate under the TIF model. Under the plain language of the amended constitution, district boards could dramatically reduce or even eliminate all property, sales, and use tax collections within their borders.
To be fair, the proposed legislation creating the structure for economic development districts did require a TIF-style model in which municipal and county governments would receive the equivalent of baseline tax revenues from districts. The most recent version of the legislation confirms that "All property within an economic development district is exempt from the payment of ad valorem property taxes," but makes it subject to "property charges" collected by district boards that "shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as ad valorem property taxes," and implements a similar structure for sales and use taxes. District boards could also impose their own millage-based "property charges" and percentage-based "sales charges" on local property owners and businesses.
However, there is no guarantee those structures will be in place in whatever legislation is eventually passed into law. There is also no guarantee that those (or other) ex post facto legislative restrictions on a constitutional amendment approved by voters in November's election would be subject to the interpretation of state courts that have already made it clear that they are not bound by legislative intent when it comes to interpreting constitutional language regarding Arkansas' economic development programs.
The second major problem with the enabling legislation is the nature of the economic district boards themselves. They would wield potentially immense power within their districts, with each city or county deciding for itself what the "restrictions on the powers of the board of the economic development district" would be.
The proposed power of these district boards goes far beyond setting tax rates. They are envisioned as central economic planning authorities, running their districts in accordance with an economic development plan that "detail[s] the goals, strategies, and initiatives to be undertaken to stimulate economic development within an economic development district."
Concerningly, there is no requirement that any member of these boards have any qualifications in developing a functional forward-looking central economic plan, a task that has eluded experts throughout history. These boards would have the broad power to favor some businesses over others through their power to "Determine that a venture or facility is beneficial to the economic development district."
Boards could exercise zoning and land-use planning authority and could make grants or forgivable, no-interest loans to district businesses, waive or reduce utility franchise fees, pay for infrastructure, purchase and sell property, contract with vendors, and issue property and sales tax abatements.
Boards would also be allowed to issue bonds backed by district revenues. While the amendment sets out a mechanism to require voter approval for economic development bonds issued by "a county, municipality, or other political subdivision," an Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration analysis of the amendment points out that it is unclear whether economic development districts are "political subdivisions" for purposes of that requirement and, therefore, whether any bonds they issue would require voter approval. This creates a plausible situation in which a city or county could find itself responsible for a district's bond debt, even though the bonds were approved at best only by voters within the district and, at worst, only by the members of the district's board.
These boards would consist of five to nine members, with the only requirements being that all must live within the city or county that created the district, at least one must be a property or business owner within the district, and at least one must have no ownership interest in any district property or business. All board members would be appointed by the relevant mayor or county judge, subject to confirmation by the local city council or county commission.
While these districts could wield immense power and last up to 30 years before needing reauthorization, creating one would require only a single public hearing and a majority vote by the city council, county commission, or other creating authority.
Whether in Arkansas or anywhere else in America, fundamental government powers such as taxation should be held by elected officials who are directly responsible to voters.
Transparency and potential for corruption
The proposed structure and governance of Arkansas' economic development districts fail to account for the large and growing body of evidence against giving unelected authorities power over public funds in the pursuit of economic prosperity. Any system that allows decisions on transferring large amounts of public money to private corporations to be made behind closed doors is a breeding ground for public corruption. (In Michigan, a recent string of economic development corruption scandals has led the state's attorney general to call for the abolishment of the state's primary economic development agency, the Michigan Economic Development Corporation.)
As legislatively envisioned, Arkansas' economic development districts could create at least the appearance, if not the reality, of this kind of corruption by giving broad governmental powers to boards of appointed, poorly accountable insiders. This is worsened by loopholes baked into the legislation's transparency measures, including allowing a district board to go into executive session to avoid open-meeting requirements if there is a confidentiality requirement "under a contract to which the economic development district is a party." These nondisclosure agreement (NDA) measures are pervasive in the economic development world, and would allow board members to effectively sign away the public's right to know by entering into an NDA regarding any discussions they would prefer not to have in public. When combined with a broad Freedom of Information Act exemption for records that "would give an advantage to competitors or bidders," boards would have dangerously broad powers to hide their deliberations from public view.
Conclusion
The Arkansas Create Economic Development Districts Amendment will not create economic growth and prosperity in the state. Its fundamental flaw is its reliance on outmoded, costly, and ineffective central planning-based economic development policy models that have failed time and again across the country.
Beyond those common flaws, Arkansas' proposed amendment has other specific structural problems that advocate against its implementation, including:
* It asks voters to approve a grant of tremendously broad powers to economic development district boards, without any certainty that any eventual laws passed to structure and restrain those powers will both live up to supporters' promises and survive review by strict-constructionist courts.
* Its proposed enabling legislation creates an environment in which an appointed board with no meaningful qualifications and deep potential conflicts of interest could be given the power to exercise near-total control over a district, wielding governmental powers such as approving zoning and land use plans, setting taxes, buying and selling property, building infrastructure, making grants and loans to local businesses, issuing bonds and generally micromanaging their district's economy in accordance with their economic development plan.
* It effectively completes the repeal of the Arkansas Constitution of 1874's longstanding fiscal protections by exempting anything plausibly described as "economic development" from the constitution's prohibitions against using taxes for purposes other than public services, mixing business and government, or treating some taxpayers better than others. These restrictions exist for good reason, and eliminating them puts Arkansas' taxpayers at risk.
Policymakers in Arkansas and across the country must understand that states and cities cannot subsidize their way to prosperity, but must rather do the hard work of implementing free-market, limited-government, and fiscally rigorous policies that make them good places for anyone to start and grow good businesses that create good jobs, rather than favoring a chosen few.
Policies that promote growth and broad-based prosperity include low taxes, high-quality educational options, predictable regulatory environments, fiscally conservative government operations, affordable and reliable energy, functional infrastructure, liberal labor policies, effective public safety, and other factors potential residents or business owners consider. Arkansas has a long way to go on many of these core economic competitiveness best practices, and its leaders would be better off focusing there than on creating a powerful new corporate welfare tool, especially as other states are finally coming to grips with the risks inherent in such programs.
Everyone wants to live in a place with a good quality of life that offers them a real opportunity for growth and prosperity. Whether in Arkansas or anywhere else in America, that goal will not be achieved by ceding government power and taxpayer dollars to corporate welfare cronies.
* * *
John C. Mozena is the president of the Center for Economic Accountability and a senior fellow at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/arkansas-proposed-economic-development-amendment-is-fatally-flawed/
* * *
Arkansas' proposed economic development amendment is fatally flawed
Policymakers in Arkansas and across the country must understand that states and cities cannot subsidize their way to prosperity.
John C. Mozena
October 9, 2026
Voters in Arkansas are being asked to approve a constitutional amendment that would authorize powerful and unaccountable economic development districts and vaguely defined corporate subsidy programs, opening the door to long-term fiscal instability, public corruption, and other ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Oct. 10 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news: * * * Arkansas' proposed economic development amendment is fatally flawed Policymakers in Arkansas and across the country must understand that states and cities cannot subsidize their way to prosperity. John C. Mozena October 9, 2026 Voters in Arkansas are being asked to approve a constitutional amendment that would authorize powerful and unaccountable economic development districts and vaguely defined corporate subsidy programs, opening the door to long-term fiscal instability, public corruption, and otherharmful outcomes. With this proposal, Arkansas is doubling down on an outmoded and disproven model of economic development that tries to overcome broad business climate challenges through targeted subsidies to a few fortunate or well-connected companies.
This model, of course, does not work. After more than three decades of increasingly large and complex economic development subsidy models deployed across the country, the real-world evidence is clear that state or local governments cannot subsidize their way to prosperity. The simplest way to recognize this in action is that places that hand out more in corporate subsidies end up no better off by any meaningful measure of economic growth than those that don't.
Rather than engaging in what could reasonably be described as corporate welfare, leaders in Arkansas--or any other state--would do better to focus on broad-based policy reforms in areas such as taxation, regulation, land use, infrastructure, and workforce development that are of critical importance to all businesses, not just a favored few.
Proposal overview
The "Arkansas Create Economic Development Districts Amendment" on the ballot as "Issue 3" in November was created by Senate Joint Resolution 15, which passed the legislature by a wide bipartisan margin. If approved, it would allow the legislature to create a class of economic development districts in which unelected, poorly accountable boards would exercise powers normally reserved to mayors, city councils, and other elected officials. It would also allow the legislature to create corporate subsidy programs that are specifically exempted from the Arkansas Constitution's preexisting fiscal guardrails.
The ballot measure is described as "concerning economic development in the State of Arkansas, and authorizing the General Assembly to provide for the creation of economic development districts within cities, counties or cooperative areas to promote economic development within the economic development district." However, the actual text of the amendment being approved by voters contains radical departures from the state's long-time constitutional and fiscal norms, with perhaps the most radical provision being, "Property located within an economic development district created by the General Assembly shall be exempt from taxation except for taxes, assessments, or other charges levied by the economic development district of which the property is a part."
Supporters of the measure have introduced enabling legislation that would constrain that broad constitutional reassignment of taxation power. The proposed Arkansas Economic Development District Act would establish mechanisms to ensure that property and business owners in economic development districts would still effectively pay property, sales and use, and alcohol taxes to the state, county, or municipal governments through a system of "charges" calculated to largely mirror prevailing tax rates.
However, that law did not pass the Arkansas Legislature in its most recent session, putting voters in the position of approving a constitutional amendment that would make some property owners in the state "exempt from taxation" and create potentially massive corporate subsidy grant and loan programs, then trusting legislators to implement effective governance structures after the fact.
An Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration analysis of the amendment also pointed out that the ballot language simply says that property within an economic development district "shall be exempt from taxation," but does not limit that exemption to ad valorem taxes such as property, sales, and use taxes. This creates the potential for future problems should economic development district boards or property owners use this provision to challenge other tax liabilities.
Complicating matters even further is the very real possibility that even if the legislature does pass the Arkansas Economic Development District Act as proposed, there is no guarantee that any legislative guardrails placed on the broad constitutional language will be upheld by the state's courts, which have shown themselves willing in recent years to strictly construe constitutional language, even when that conflicts with what the legislators who wrote the amendment may have intended it to mean. In 2007, while ruling against a previous effort to use a constitutional amendment to implement Tax Increment Financing in the state, the Arkansas Supreme Court warned, "We have said that legislative interpretation of constitutional provisions is never binding on the courts, and when there is some doubt or ambiguity in the provision, legislative interpretation is persuasive and only entitled to some consideration." As detailed below, this is further complicated by amendment language that gives it primacy not just over state law, but over every other part of the Arkansas Constitution.
Economic development policy: Promises versus real-world results
The Economic Development Districts Amendment proposal enjoys wide support in the Arkansas Legislature, passing the state Senate by a 28-6 margin and the House by 74-21. Its support is strongly bipartisan, with 100% of the Democratic minority caucus and 74% of the Republican majority voting in favor.
Supporters of the amendment argue that it would "level the playing field with our neighboring states" by creating the kinds of subsidy programs that exist elsewhere in the country. The Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce supports the amendment, pointing to TIF district programs and other economic development subsidy programs in Texas, Louisiana, Missouri, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky, and other states as reasons that Arkansas lags behind many economic growth metrics.
This argument assumes such programs effectively create economic growth. The consensus among economists, however, is that economic development subsidy programs play little role in influencing site selection decisions or long-term economic outcomes, and that the few gains they may rightfully claim come at unsustainable costs to taxpayers and communities.
To be fair, Arkansas is far from alone in this, and despite their outmoded model and the clear real-world evidence against them, incentive programs such as those proposed in Arkansas remain common across the country.
Despite these negative outcomes, one reason for the continued popularity of these programs is that they allow elected officials and other policymakers to be seen to be "doing something" about the economy, freeing them from doing the harder--and potentially more politically costly--work of taking on more fundamental policy reforms in areas such as taxation, fiscal policy, regulatory reform, land use, energy policy, infrastructure financing, and more. (This is why 2022, the first major post-COVID election year, saw governors and mayors announce three times as many billion-dollar subsidy deals as in any other year in modern history as voters pressured them for action amid post-pandemic economic turmoil.)
These types of subsidy programs also tend to suffer from what is known as "smokestack chasing," where local officials prioritize attracting large, headline-grabbing factories, headquarters, and other megaprojects. As the name suggests, this kind of model is an artifact of an earlier economic era and is becoming increasingly irrelevant today. As renowned urbanist (and prominent economic development subsidy critic) Richard Florida recently explained, "The factors that drive location decisions in a knowledge economy--talent, innovation, and quality of place--are not the ones that incentives were ever designed to address."
This is one reason the evidence strongly suggests that, in the long term, it would be far more economically beneficial for policymakers in Arkansas and elsewhere to focus on the other end of the corporate spectrum: encouraging entrepreneurship and small business formation through policies that benefit businesses of all sizes.
However, this is not what Arkansas' proposed programs do. Instead, they largely double down on a strategy of business attraction and high-profile "transformative" megaprojects. While these kinds of deals may generate political benefits, they also come with huge costs, and their long-term results rarely live up to their promises. One study of Michigan's economic development programs found that subsidy deals that had been big enough to generate front-page headlines in the state's largest newspaper between 2000 and 2020 had promised more than 123,000 jobs, but that according to the state's own records only 11,000 jobs were ever actually created--a success rate of just 9%.
In many cases, these deals fell through or evolved because companies changed their plans to meet changing business conditions. It was a real-world demonstration of just how limited state and local government subsidies' leverage is over corporate decision-making as companies rolled back or canceled construction, hiring, and other plans in Michigan despite having subsidy agreements in hand.
The idea that state and local government subsidies are rarely the deciding factor in corporate site selection is not controversial, even within the site selection industry itself. In the trade magazine Area Development's most recent annual survey of corporate site selectors, more respondents ranked "incentive competitiveness," "speed and certainty of incentive approval," and "availability of tax credits" as "minor considerations" than as "very important factors" to their site selection decisions.
If it isn't a lack of economic development programs slowing Arkansas' economic growth compared with its neighbors, then what factors are truly at play? One potential way to consider this issue is that Arkansas ranks just 27th among U.S. states in the Fraser Institute's respected Economic Freedom index, scoring no higher than 6.4 out of 10 on Fraser's measurements of labor market freedom, taxes, and government spending thanks to challenges such as the state's high sales tax burden and proportionally large government workforce. Of its neighbors, Arkansas only ranks better than Louisiana (one spot behind in 28th place) and 39th-place Mississippi, and is far behind 2nd-place Tennessee, 4th-place Texas, 11th-place Oklahoma, 14th-place Kansas and 22nd-place Missouri.
Even if we accept supporters' arguments that subsidy programs are critical to economic growth, Arkansas' economic development agencies are far from limited in their existing toolsets, with the state's Department of Finance and Administration listing 41 different current or former "business incentives and credits" available to companies doing business in the state. While some of these programs are highly specific--few businesses will be able to take advantage of the state's $15 income tax credit per ton of rice straw on purchases of more than 500 tons for ethanol or energy production--many are available to businesses simply building, expanding, or hiring in the state.
The price tag for these existing programs is not trivial. In 2025, Arkansas' annual financial report disclosed $21.9 million of tax abatements for economic development purposes, including $2.9 million in film tax credits and $2.1 million in R&D tax credits. (This figure does not include a wide variety of other economic development costs to taxpayers such as grants, bond service payments, loans, or site preparation expenses.)
Additionally, any consideration of new subsidy programs must account for the potential to impose significant fiscal burdens long after they're gone. Consider the former InvestArk sales and use tax credit program, which offered companies already doing business in Arkansas credits of up to 50% of their sales and use tax liability for investing $5 million or more in new construction, expansion, or modernization within the state. In Arkansas' 2025 annual fiscal report, InvestArk tax credits accounted for $14 million in tax abatements, more than all other economic development programs combined, despite the program having sunset in 2017. In the eight years since the program's sunset, InvestArk participant businesses have redeemed $241,379,000 in tax credits.
Arkansas' history of economic development constitutional amendments
Like most states, Arkansas' Constitution has a strong array of longstanding restrictions on the power of state or local governments to favor some property owners over others, or to use the tax code to engage in economic central planning. Some of these limitations include:
[T]he General Assembly may delegate the taxing power, with the necessary restriction, to the State's subordinate political and municipal corporations, to the extent of providing for their existence, maintenance and well being, but no further. - Article 2, Sec. 23
The power to tax corporations and corporate property, shall not be surrendered or suspended by any contract or grant to which the State may be a party. - Article 16, Sec. 7
All real and tangible personal property subject to taxation shall be taxed according to its value, that value to be ascertained in such manner as the General Assembly shall direct, making the same equal and uniform throughout the State. - Article 16, Sec. 5(a)
The following property shall be exempt from taxation: public property used exclusively for public purposes; churches used as such; cemeteries used exclusively as such; school buildings and apparatus; libraries and grounds used exclusively for school purposes; and buildings and grounds and materials used exclusively for public charity. - Article 16, Sec. 5(b)
All laws exempting property from taxation, other than as provided in this Constitution shall be void. - Article 16, Sec. 6
No county, city, town or other municipal corporation, shall become a stockholder in any company, association, or corporation; or obtain or appropriate money for, or loan its credit to, any corporation, association, institution or individual. - Article 12, Sec. 5.
However, the drafters of the Arkansas Create Economic Development Districts Amendment functionally repeal those and other provisions of the state constitution where economic development is concerned by giving it an effective super-constitutional status over every other provision of the constitution with clauses such as:
"Any provision of this Constitution, including without limitation amendments to this Constitution, that conflicts with or is in any way inconsistent with this amendment is repealed or deemed modified to give precedence to this amendment."
"This amendment supersedes all previous constitutional provisions, amendments, laws, or judicial interpretations that conflict with this amendment's terms."
"If this amendment conflicts with any existing constitutional provision, amendment, law, or judicial interpretation, this amendment shall prevail and be given full force and effect."
It also weakens the Arkansas Constitution's existing fiscal guardrails through the simple mechanism of redefining the term "debt" for economic development districts by declaring that "A program created or a loan or grant made by an economic development district that is secured by a pledge of ad valorem taxes or financed by the issuance of any bonds or other obligations payable from ad valorem taxes of the economic development district does not constitute or create a debt for the purpose of any provision of this Constitution."
The amendment's authorization of new economic development grant and loan programs also effectively repeals preexisting constitutional safeguards against using taxpayer funds for private purposes at every level of government within the state with its provision that, "Notwithstanding any other provision of the Arkansas Constitution, the General Assembly may provide for the creation of programs and the making of loans and grants of public money" for a broad array of purposes that include "development and diversification of the economy," "elimination and prevention of unemployment and underemployment," "development or improvement of transportation or commerce," and "development or improvement of real estate...that contributes to economic development."
This effective repeal of the Arkansas Constitution's longstanding fiscal guardrails, so far as economic development is concerned, ends a string of constitutional amendments in recent decades that have eroded previously rigid constitutional limitations in pursuit of economic growth through central government economic planning.
Amendment 78 in 2000 created a tax increment financing (TIF) mechanism in the form of "redevelopment districts," but the state's Supreme Court ruled that it conflicted with the state's constitutional school funding structures and limited what property taxes TIF districts could capture.
In 2004, Arkansas voters approved Amendment 82, which allowed the state to issue economic development bonds in amounts up to 5% of the state's annual general revenues.
Amendment 97 removed that 5% cap in 2016 and expanded the power of counties and municipalities to issue economic development bonds. The amendment also effectively repealed the Arkansas Constitution's Article 12, Sec. 5 provision that a county or municipality was not allowed to "obtain or appropriate money for, or loan its credit to, any corporation, association, institution or individual" by creating a broad "economic development" exception.
These previous efforts to weaken Arkansas' longtime fiscal conservatism and separation of public and private funds have not delivered on their supporters' promises. There is no reason to believe that the Arkansas Create Economic Development Districts Amendment will perform any differently, especially given the deep flaws within the proposed structure of the districts it creates.
Challenges with district boards
The Economic Development Districts Amendment is being presented as a "Tax Increment Financing" proposal, but that is not what the constitutional amendment actually creates. Tax increment financing, or "TIF," is an economic development model in which taxing authorities set a baseline level of pre-development tax receipts for a particular property, then redirect some or all of future incremental growth in tax receipts from that property to fund grants, loans, bond debt, infrastructure improvements, or other public expenses, while the baseline revenues continue flowing to taxing authorities as before.
TIF districts have a wide array of problems in theory and practice, and a broad academic consensus holds that they generally capture growth that would have happened regardless, or at least incentivize growth in one place at the expense of growth elsewhere. But even setting those serious concerns aside, there are two immediate problems with simply portraying Arkansas' proposed Economic Development Districts as the kind of TIF districts in operation in every other state but Arizona.
The first, as noted above, is that the actual language of the constitutional amendment before voters does not require districts to operate under the TIF model. Under the plain language of the amended constitution, district boards could dramatically reduce or even eliminate all property, sales, and use tax collections within their borders.
To be fair, the proposed legislation creating the structure for economic development districts did require a TIF-style model in which municipal and county governments would receive the equivalent of baseline tax revenues from districts. The most recent version of the legislation confirms that "All property within an economic development district is exempt from the payment of ad valorem property taxes," but makes it subject to "property charges" collected by district boards that "shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as ad valorem property taxes," and implements a similar structure for sales and use taxes. District boards could also impose their own millage-based "property charges" and percentage-based "sales charges" on local property owners and businesses.
However, there is no guarantee those structures will be in place in whatever legislation is eventually passed into law. There is also no guarantee that those (or other) ex post facto legislative restrictions on a constitutional amendment approved by voters in November's election would be subject to the interpretation of state courts that have already made it clear that they are not bound by legislative intent when it comes to interpreting constitutional language regarding Arkansas' economic development programs.
The second major problem with the enabling legislation is the nature of the economic district boards themselves. They would wield potentially immense power within their districts, with each city or county deciding for itself what the "restrictions on the powers of the board of the economic development district" would be.
The proposed power of these district boards goes far beyond setting tax rates. They are envisioned as central economic planning authorities, running their districts in accordance with an economic development plan that "detail[s] the goals, strategies, and initiatives to be undertaken to stimulate economic development within an economic development district."
Concerningly, there is no requirement that any member of these boards have any qualifications in developing a functional forward-looking central economic plan, a task that has eluded experts throughout history. These boards would have the broad power to favor some businesses over others through their power to "Determine that a venture or facility is beneficial to the economic development district."
Boards could exercise zoning and land-use planning authority and could make grants or forgivable, no-interest loans to district businesses, waive or reduce utility franchise fees, pay for infrastructure, purchase and sell property, contract with vendors, and issue property and sales tax abatements.
Boards would also be allowed to issue bonds backed by district revenues. While the amendment sets out a mechanism to require voter approval for economic development bonds issued by "a county, municipality, or other political subdivision," an Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration analysis of the amendment points out that it is unclear whether economic development districts are "political subdivisions" for purposes of that requirement and, therefore, whether any bonds they issue would require voter approval. This creates a plausible situation in which a city or county could find itself responsible for a district's bond debt, even though the bonds were approved at best only by voters within the district and, at worst, only by the members of the district's board.
These boards would consist of five to nine members, with the only requirements being that all must live within the city or county that created the district, at least one must be a property or business owner within the district, and at least one must have no ownership interest in any district property or business. All board members would be appointed by the relevant mayor or county judge, subject to confirmation by the local city council or county commission.
While these districts could wield immense power and last up to 30 years before needing reauthorization, creating one would require only a single public hearing and a majority vote by the city council, county commission, or other creating authority.
Whether in Arkansas or anywhere else in America, fundamental government powers such as taxation should be held by elected officials who are directly responsible to voters.
Transparency and potential for corruption
The proposed structure and governance of Arkansas' economic development districts fail to account for the large and growing body of evidence against giving unelected authorities power over public funds in the pursuit of economic prosperity. Any system that allows decisions on transferring large amounts of public money to private corporations to be made behind closed doors is a breeding ground for public corruption. (In Michigan, a recent string of economic development corruption scandals has led the state's attorney general to call for the abolishment of the state's primary economic development agency, the Michigan Economic Development Corporation.)
As legislatively envisioned, Arkansas' economic development districts could create at least the appearance, if not the reality, of this kind of corruption by giving broad governmental powers to boards of appointed, poorly accountable insiders. This is worsened by loopholes baked into the legislation's transparency measures, including allowing a district board to go into executive session to avoid open-meeting requirements if there is a confidentiality requirement "under a contract to which the economic development district is a party." These nondisclosure agreement (NDA) measures are pervasive in the economic development world, and would allow board members to effectively sign away the public's right to know by entering into an NDA regarding any discussions they would prefer not to have in public. When combined with a broad Freedom of Information Act exemption for records that "would give an advantage to competitors or bidders," boards would have dangerously broad powers to hide their deliberations from public view.
Conclusion
The Arkansas Create Economic Development Districts Amendment will not create economic growth and prosperity in the state. Its fundamental flaw is its reliance on outmoded, costly, and ineffective central planning-based economic development policy models that have failed time and again across the country.
Beyond those common flaws, Arkansas' proposed amendment has other specific structural problems that advocate against its implementation, including:
* It asks voters to approve a grant of tremendously broad powers to economic development district boards, without any certainty that any eventual laws passed to structure and restrain those powers will both live up to supporters' promises and survive review by strict-constructionist courts.
* Its proposed enabling legislation creates an environment in which an appointed board with no meaningful qualifications and deep potential conflicts of interest could be given the power to exercise near-total control over a district, wielding governmental powers such as approving zoning and land use plans, setting taxes, buying and selling property, building infrastructure, making grants and loans to local businesses, issuing bonds and generally micromanaging their district's economy in accordance with their economic development plan.
* It effectively completes the repeal of the Arkansas Constitution of 1874's longstanding fiscal protections by exempting anything plausibly described as "economic development" from the constitution's prohibitions against using taxes for purposes other than public services, mixing business and government, or treating some taxpayers better than others. These restrictions exist for good reason, and eliminating them puts Arkansas' taxpayers at risk.
Policymakers in Arkansas and across the country must understand that states and cities cannot subsidize their way to prosperity, but must rather do the hard work of implementing free-market, limited-government, and fiscally rigorous policies that make them good places for anyone to start and grow good businesses that create good jobs, rather than favoring a chosen few.
Policies that promote growth and broad-based prosperity include low taxes, high-quality educational options, predictable regulatory environments, fiscally conservative government operations, affordable and reliable energy, functional infrastructure, liberal labor policies, effective public safety, and other factors potential residents or business owners consider. Arkansas has a long way to go on many of these core economic competitiveness best practices, and its leaders would be better off focusing there than on creating a powerful new corporate welfare tool, especially as other states are finally coming to grips with the risks inherent in such programs.
Everyone wants to live in a place with a good quality of life that offers them a real opportunity for growth and prosperity. Whether in Arkansas or anywhere else in America, that goal will not be achieved by ceding government power and taxpayer dollars to corporate welfare cronies.
* * *
John C. Mozena is the president of the Center for Economic Accountability and a senior fellow at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/arkansas-proposed-economic-development-amendment-is-fatally-flawed/
Lumina Foundation: Best Colleges Aren't Always the Most Famous
INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana, Oct. 10 -- The Lumina Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
The best colleges aren't always the most famous
Debra Humphreys
Oct. 8, 2026
About the Author
Washington Monthly's rankings look beyond prestige to ask which colleges serve students well, keep costs manageable, and create opportunity.
-
I was honored to join the Washington Monthly and New America to mark the release of Washington Monthly's 2026 College Guide and Rankings.
Lumina Foundation has supported Washington Monthly since 2009, and for good reason: its rankings bring a different lens to how we ... Show Full Article INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana, Oct. 10 -- The Lumina Foundation issued the following news: * * * The best colleges aren't always the most famous Debra Humphreys Oct. 8, 2026 About the Author Washington Monthly's rankings look beyond prestige to ask which colleges serve students well, keep costs manageable, and create opportunity. - I was honored to join the Washington Monthly and New America to mark the release of Washington Monthly's 2026 College Guide and Rankings. Lumina Foundation has supported Washington Monthly since 2009, and for good reason: its rankings bring a different lens to how wedefine excellence in higher education. Washington Monthly published its first college rankings in 2005 after examining the shortcomings of more traditional rankings.
While the methodology has evolved, the basic goal has remained consistent: Rather than reward institutions primarily for wealth, prestige, and selectivity, what are colleges actually doing for students and for the country?
You can see that approach in its flagship Best Colleges for Your Tuition--and Tax--Dollars ranking, its Best Colleges for Research ranking, and its new Best Colleges for Rural America ranking.
That approach especially matters now.
Students and families are asking hard questions about cost and whether a degree will pay off. Employers are asking whether graduates have the skills they need. Artificial intelligence is reshaping both how students learn and the work they need to be prepared to do.
Those conversations should be grounded in evidence and good information.
What we measure signals what we truly value.
And what we measure shapes the information students and families have when they make one of the most consequential decisions of their lives.
Washington Monthly's rankings ask whether institutions enroll and serve students from diverse backgrounds, whether students graduate with manageable debt, and whether the education they receive helps them build better lives and contribute to their communities. Those questions often point us toward institutions that do not dominate the national conversation--regional public universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and colleges serving rural students and communities.
There is something deeply American about that focus.
Our history includes repeated efforts--imperfect and incomplete, but enormously consequential--to broaden access to education beyond a privileged few: from the growth of public schools to land-grant colleges to the GI Bill to the landmark federal education laws of 1965.
The institutions recognized in the Washington Monthly rankings are part of that tradition. They are opening doors and creating opportunity, not simply benefiting from long-established prestige.
That focus on value is also central to Lumina Foundation's work.
When Lumina set its first national attainment goal in 2008, about 38 percent of working-age adults held a college degree or other high-quality credential. Today, that number is about 55 percent.
That is real progress. But attainment alone is not enough.
Our Goal 2040 is that by 2040, at least 75 percent of adults in the U.S. labor force will have a college degree or other credential of value leading to economic prosperity.
Those two words--of value--are critical.
A credential should lead somewhere. It should help people build careers, provide for themselves and their families, adapt as the economy changes, and contribute to their communities and nation.
And there is real urgency to showing, not just telling, students and families where higher education is delivering that value.
In a Lumina-Gallup survey, only 38 percent of Americans reported having a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in higher education, down from 57 percent in 2015. Yet our surveys also show that the vast majority of current students are confident their education is giving them the skills they need for the jobs they want.
We should take that disconnect seriously.
The answer is not to tell skeptical students and families that they are wrong. Cost is real. Debt is real. Families are right to ask whether what they are paying for will prepare students for the world they are entering.
The institutions highlighted in these rankings can help re-engage students and families who have become most skeptical of higher education by showing that college can still be affordable and accessible, and lead to real opportunity.
Higher education has to make sure more institutions deliver on that promise.
As I wrote earlier this year, the bachelor's degree isn't obsolete--but it does need an upgrade.
At its best, a bachelor's degree does more than prepare someone for a first job. It gives graduates the knowledge and capabilities to build a career, adapt as the world changes, and continue learning throughout their lives.
As AI reshapes learning and work, colleges should more intentionally connect classroom learning to careers, expand meaningful work-based learning, engage employers, and ensure graduates can think critically, solve complex problems, communicate clearly, exercise judgment, and use new technologies effectively and ethically.
Those capabilities are not becoming less important because of AI. They are becoming more important.
The challenge before us is to make higher ed better, not defend it as it exists today.
That requires information that helps students, families, and policymakers distinguish between reputation and results. The Washington Monthly rankings help broaden our definition of excellence and refocus the conversation on the question that matters most:
What value are we creating for students--and for the country?
* * *
Original text here: https://www.luminafoundation.org/news-and-views/the-best-colleges-arent-always-the-most-famous/
* * *
The best colleges aren't always the most famous
Debra Humphreys
Oct. 8, 2026
About the Author
Washington Monthly's rankings look beyond prestige to ask which colleges serve students well, keep costs manageable, and create opportunity.
-
I was honored to join the Washington Monthly and New America to mark the release of Washington Monthly's 2026 College Guide and Rankings.
Lumina Foundation has supported Washington Monthly since 2009, and for good reason: its rankings bring a different lens to how we ... Show Full Article INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana, Oct. 10 -- The Lumina Foundation issued the following news: * * * The best colleges aren't always the most famous Debra Humphreys Oct. 8, 2026 About the Author Washington Monthly's rankings look beyond prestige to ask which colleges serve students well, keep costs manageable, and create opportunity. - I was honored to join the Washington Monthly and New America to mark the release of Washington Monthly's 2026 College Guide and Rankings. Lumina Foundation has supported Washington Monthly since 2009, and for good reason: its rankings bring a different lens to how wedefine excellence in higher education. Washington Monthly published its first college rankings in 2005 after examining the shortcomings of more traditional rankings.
While the methodology has evolved, the basic goal has remained consistent: Rather than reward institutions primarily for wealth, prestige, and selectivity, what are colleges actually doing for students and for the country?
You can see that approach in its flagship Best Colleges for Your Tuition--and Tax--Dollars ranking, its Best Colleges for Research ranking, and its new Best Colleges for Rural America ranking.
That approach especially matters now.
Students and families are asking hard questions about cost and whether a degree will pay off. Employers are asking whether graduates have the skills they need. Artificial intelligence is reshaping both how students learn and the work they need to be prepared to do.
Those conversations should be grounded in evidence and good information.
What we measure signals what we truly value.
And what we measure shapes the information students and families have when they make one of the most consequential decisions of their lives.
Washington Monthly's rankings ask whether institutions enroll and serve students from diverse backgrounds, whether students graduate with manageable debt, and whether the education they receive helps them build better lives and contribute to their communities. Those questions often point us toward institutions that do not dominate the national conversation--regional public universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and colleges serving rural students and communities.
There is something deeply American about that focus.
Our history includes repeated efforts--imperfect and incomplete, but enormously consequential--to broaden access to education beyond a privileged few: from the growth of public schools to land-grant colleges to the GI Bill to the landmark federal education laws of 1965.
The institutions recognized in the Washington Monthly rankings are part of that tradition. They are opening doors and creating opportunity, not simply benefiting from long-established prestige.
That focus on value is also central to Lumina Foundation's work.
When Lumina set its first national attainment goal in 2008, about 38 percent of working-age adults held a college degree or other high-quality credential. Today, that number is about 55 percent.
That is real progress. But attainment alone is not enough.
Our Goal 2040 is that by 2040, at least 75 percent of adults in the U.S. labor force will have a college degree or other credential of value leading to economic prosperity.
Those two words--of value--are critical.
A credential should lead somewhere. It should help people build careers, provide for themselves and their families, adapt as the economy changes, and contribute to their communities and nation.
And there is real urgency to showing, not just telling, students and families where higher education is delivering that value.
In a Lumina-Gallup survey, only 38 percent of Americans reported having a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in higher education, down from 57 percent in 2015. Yet our surveys also show that the vast majority of current students are confident their education is giving them the skills they need for the jobs they want.
We should take that disconnect seriously.
The answer is not to tell skeptical students and families that they are wrong. Cost is real. Debt is real. Families are right to ask whether what they are paying for will prepare students for the world they are entering.
The institutions highlighted in these rankings can help re-engage students and families who have become most skeptical of higher education by showing that college can still be affordable and accessible, and lead to real opportunity.
Higher education has to make sure more institutions deliver on that promise.
As I wrote earlier this year, the bachelor's degree isn't obsolete--but it does need an upgrade.
At its best, a bachelor's degree does more than prepare someone for a first job. It gives graduates the knowledge and capabilities to build a career, adapt as the world changes, and continue learning throughout their lives.
As AI reshapes learning and work, colleges should more intentionally connect classroom learning to careers, expand meaningful work-based learning, engage employers, and ensure graduates can think critically, solve complex problems, communicate clearly, exercise judgment, and use new technologies effectively and ethically.
Those capabilities are not becoming less important because of AI. They are becoming more important.
The challenge before us is to make higher ed better, not defend it as it exists today.
That requires information that helps students, families, and policymakers distinguish between reputation and results. The Washington Monthly rankings help broaden our definition of excellence and refocus the conversation on the question that matters most:
What value are we creating for students--and for the country?
* * *
Original text here: https://www.luminafoundation.org/news-and-views/the-best-colleges-arent-always-the-most-famous/
Hispanic Access Foundation: El Aire Que Respiramos Concludes With New Insights Into Air Quality in Latino Communities Across the U.S.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 -- The Hispanic Access Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
El Aire Que Respiramos Concludes with New Insights into Air Quality in Latino Communities Across the U.S.
08 October 2026
After three years of community-based air quality monitoring, Hispanic Access Foundation concluded El Aire Que Respiramos (The Air We Breathe), a Latino community science initiative designed to better understand air quality in Latino communities, while equipping residents with localized information and tools to take informed action. Through the project, community members engaged ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 -- The Hispanic Access Foundation issued the following news release: * * * El Aire Que Respiramos Concludes with New Insights into Air Quality in Latino Communities Across the U.S. 08 October 2026 After three years of community-based air quality monitoring, Hispanic Access Foundation concluded El Aire Que Respiramos (The Air We Breathe), a Latino community science initiative designed to better understand air quality in Latino communities, while equipping residents with localized information and tools to take informed action. Through the project, community members engagedin scientific data collection, analysis, education, and advocacy, helping bridge the gap between scientific knowledge and everyday experiences while strengthening understanding of fine particle pollution and its potential impacts on community health and well-being.
Launched in 2023, El Aire Que Respiramos placed PurpleAir sensors at 12 community sites, including churches and other trusted spaces serving Latino communities. The project monitored PM2.5--fine particulate matter measuring 2.5 micrometers or less--and provided communities with hyper-local information about the air they breathe.
The project's findings show that air pollution is not experienced equally or uniformly across communities. Monitoring revealed significant differences between locations, as well as seasonal and episodic increases associated with factors including wildfire smoke, transportation and freight activity, temperature inversions, industrial activity and regional geography.
In 2025, for example, the Hollywood, California monitoring site recorded an annual average PM2.5 concentration of 11.4 ug/m(3), above the EPA safe annual standard of 9 ug/m(3). La Mirada, California, recorded an average of 10.37 ug/m(3), while Blue Island, Illinois, recorded 9.40 ug/m(3). Other locations, including El Paso, Texas, and Indio, California, recorded annual averages below the federal standard but still experienced periods of elevated pollution.
"These results reinforce why local data matters," said Hilda Berganza, Hispanic Access Climate and Energy Transition Program Manager. "Air quality can look very different from one community to another and from one season to the next. By placing monitors directly in the communities we serve, we were able to better understand those differences and give residents information that connects something invisible--the air around us--to their everyday lives."
The findings also demonstrate how local conditions can shape exposure. In California communities, monitoring reflected the influence of transportation, freight corridors, industrial activity, wildfire smoke and the geography of the Los Angeles Basin. In South Texas, fluctuations were associated with transportation emissions, windblown dust and regional and transboundary factors, including seasonal agricultural burning. In Caldwell, Idaho, monitoring reflected seasonal effects from winter temperature inversions and wildfire smoke.
"El Aire Que Respiramos was never only about collecting numbers, it was about making information accessible to the people who live with these conditions every day," said Maite Arce, President and CEO of Hispanic Access Foundation. "When communities have access to information about their own neighborhoods, they are better equipped to understand what is happening around them, share their experiences and help shape the decisions that affect their families. That is how data becomes a tool for community leadership."
PM2.5 is especially important to monitor because these particles are small enough to travel deep into the lungs and can pose significant health risks. Through El Aire Que Respiramos, participating communities gained access to localized, real-time information that complemented broader regional air quality monitoring and helped make conversations about pollution more tangible and relevant at the neighborhood level.
Beyond the data, the project sought to build awareness and strengthen community capacity. Educational resources and outreach helped residents better understand PM2.5, recognize how local and seasonal conditions can affect air quality, and connect environmental information with opportunities for community engagement. Community members also used this information to take protective measures on poor air quality days, including wearing masks and limiting outdoor activities.
The project also strengthened Latino leadership in policy and environmental spaces where community voices have historically been underrepresented. As Site Leaders developed greater technical knowledge of PM2.5 and other major air pollutants, they reported increased confidence in their ability to advocate for their communities and bring local experiences into conversations about public health and clean air. By connecting community knowledge, scientific data and advocacy, El Aire Que Respiramos helped create pathways for Latino leaders to inform the decisions and solutions that affect their communities.
As El Aire Que Respiramos concludes, Hispanic Access Foundation will carry these lessons forward through its conservation and community work, using the findings to inform future education, storytelling and engagement and to continue elevating the experiences and leadership of Latino communities in conversations about clean air.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hispanicaccess.org/news-releases/3156-el-aire-que-respiramos-concludes-with-new-insights-into-air-quality-in-latino-communities-across-the-u-s
* * *
El Aire Que Respiramos Concludes with New Insights into Air Quality in Latino Communities Across the U.S.
08 October 2026
After three years of community-based air quality monitoring, Hispanic Access Foundation concluded El Aire Que Respiramos (The Air We Breathe), a Latino community science initiative designed to better understand air quality in Latino communities, while equipping residents with localized information and tools to take informed action. Through the project, community members engaged ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 -- The Hispanic Access Foundation issued the following news release: * * * El Aire Que Respiramos Concludes with New Insights into Air Quality in Latino Communities Across the U.S. 08 October 2026 After three years of community-based air quality monitoring, Hispanic Access Foundation concluded El Aire Que Respiramos (The Air We Breathe), a Latino community science initiative designed to better understand air quality in Latino communities, while equipping residents with localized information and tools to take informed action. Through the project, community members engagedin scientific data collection, analysis, education, and advocacy, helping bridge the gap between scientific knowledge and everyday experiences while strengthening understanding of fine particle pollution and its potential impacts on community health and well-being.
Launched in 2023, El Aire Que Respiramos placed PurpleAir sensors at 12 community sites, including churches and other trusted spaces serving Latino communities. The project monitored PM2.5--fine particulate matter measuring 2.5 micrometers or less--and provided communities with hyper-local information about the air they breathe.
The project's findings show that air pollution is not experienced equally or uniformly across communities. Monitoring revealed significant differences between locations, as well as seasonal and episodic increases associated with factors including wildfire smoke, transportation and freight activity, temperature inversions, industrial activity and regional geography.
In 2025, for example, the Hollywood, California monitoring site recorded an annual average PM2.5 concentration of 11.4 ug/m(3), above the EPA safe annual standard of 9 ug/m(3). La Mirada, California, recorded an average of 10.37 ug/m(3), while Blue Island, Illinois, recorded 9.40 ug/m(3). Other locations, including El Paso, Texas, and Indio, California, recorded annual averages below the federal standard but still experienced periods of elevated pollution.
"These results reinforce why local data matters," said Hilda Berganza, Hispanic Access Climate and Energy Transition Program Manager. "Air quality can look very different from one community to another and from one season to the next. By placing monitors directly in the communities we serve, we were able to better understand those differences and give residents information that connects something invisible--the air around us--to their everyday lives."
The findings also demonstrate how local conditions can shape exposure. In California communities, monitoring reflected the influence of transportation, freight corridors, industrial activity, wildfire smoke and the geography of the Los Angeles Basin. In South Texas, fluctuations were associated with transportation emissions, windblown dust and regional and transboundary factors, including seasonal agricultural burning. In Caldwell, Idaho, monitoring reflected seasonal effects from winter temperature inversions and wildfire smoke.
"El Aire Que Respiramos was never only about collecting numbers, it was about making information accessible to the people who live with these conditions every day," said Maite Arce, President and CEO of Hispanic Access Foundation. "When communities have access to information about their own neighborhoods, they are better equipped to understand what is happening around them, share their experiences and help shape the decisions that affect their families. That is how data becomes a tool for community leadership."
PM2.5 is especially important to monitor because these particles are small enough to travel deep into the lungs and can pose significant health risks. Through El Aire Que Respiramos, participating communities gained access to localized, real-time information that complemented broader regional air quality monitoring and helped make conversations about pollution more tangible and relevant at the neighborhood level.
Beyond the data, the project sought to build awareness and strengthen community capacity. Educational resources and outreach helped residents better understand PM2.5, recognize how local and seasonal conditions can affect air quality, and connect environmental information with opportunities for community engagement. Community members also used this information to take protective measures on poor air quality days, including wearing masks and limiting outdoor activities.
The project also strengthened Latino leadership in policy and environmental spaces where community voices have historically been underrepresented. As Site Leaders developed greater technical knowledge of PM2.5 and other major air pollutants, they reported increased confidence in their ability to advocate for their communities and bring local experiences into conversations about public health and clean air. By connecting community knowledge, scientific data and advocacy, El Aire Que Respiramos helped create pathways for Latino leaders to inform the decisions and solutions that affect their communities.
As El Aire Que Respiramos concludes, Hispanic Access Foundation will carry these lessons forward through its conservation and community work, using the findings to inform future education, storytelling and engagement and to continue elevating the experiences and leadership of Latino communities in conversations about clean air.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hispanicaccess.org/news-releases/3156-el-aire-que-respiramos-concludes-with-new-insights-into-air-quality-in-latino-communities-across-the-u-s
Hispanic Access Foundation Statement on EPA Rollback of Federal Methane Protections
WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 -- The Hispanic Access Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Hispanic Access Foundation Statement on EPA Rollback of Federal Methane Protections
08 October 2026
Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its plans to weaken the 2024 Methane Rule in the coming days, rolling back federal protections designed to reduce methane and harmful air pollution from oil and gas operations. In response, Maite Arce, president and CEO of Hispanic Access Foundation, issued the following statement:
"Every family deserves clean air to breathe and a healthy ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 -- The Hispanic Access Foundation issued the following news release: * * * Hispanic Access Foundation Statement on EPA Rollback of Federal Methane Protections 08 October 2026 Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its plans to weaken the 2024 Methane Rule in the coming days, rolling back federal protections designed to reduce methane and harmful air pollution from oil and gas operations. In response, Maite Arce, president and CEO of Hispanic Access Foundation, issued the following statement: "Every family deserves clean air to breathe and a healthycommunity in which to live, work, and raise the next generation. Weakening federal methane protections puts that future, and communities living closest to oil and gas operations, at greater risk. Latino families are among those disproportionately exposed to methane and other harmful air pollutants where they live, work, worship, and attend school. Rolling back these protections would only deepen that burden and put the health and well-being of our communities at risk."
"The 2024 Methane Rule established common-sense protections requiring oil and gas operators to regularly find and repair leaks, reduce routine flaring, address major pollution events, and modernize equipment to reduce unnecessary emissions. These safeguards protect public health while preventing valuable energy resources from being wasted.
"These protections were shaped through extensive public engagement, including input from community leaders, health experts, industry representatives, advocates, and hundreds of thousands of people who called for strong methane standards. The communities most affected by pollution should continue to have a meaningful voice in decisions about the air they breathe and the health of their families.
"At Hispanic Access Foundation, we see the power of local leaders who have the information, tools, and opportunities to advocate for healthier communities. Strong federal protections help ensure those voices lead to lasting change. Weakening these protections leaves families and local leaders to shoulder the consequences of pollution without the strong federal safeguards every community deserves.
"We urge EPA to reverse course and maintain strong, enforceable federal methane protections. Protecting clean air is about more than reducing emissions, it is about protecting our families, strengthening communities, using our energy resources responsibly, and ensuring the next generation inherits a healthier future."
The 2024 EPA Methane Rule established federal standards to reduce methane pollution from new and existing oil and gas operations. The standards require operators to regularly identify and repair leaking equipment, eliminate routine flaring at new oil wells, replace certain polluting equipment, and identify and respond to major "super-emitter" events. Federal methane protections help protect public health, reduce wasted energy resources, and address harmful air pollution.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hispanicaccess.org/news-releases/3155-hispanic-access-foundation-statement-on-epa-rollback-of-federal-methane-protections
* * *
Hispanic Access Foundation Statement on EPA Rollback of Federal Methane Protections
08 October 2026
Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its plans to weaken the 2024 Methane Rule in the coming days, rolling back federal protections designed to reduce methane and harmful air pollution from oil and gas operations. In response, Maite Arce, president and CEO of Hispanic Access Foundation, issued the following statement:
"Every family deserves clean air to breathe and a healthy ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 -- The Hispanic Access Foundation issued the following news release: * * * Hispanic Access Foundation Statement on EPA Rollback of Federal Methane Protections 08 October 2026 Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its plans to weaken the 2024 Methane Rule in the coming days, rolling back federal protections designed to reduce methane and harmful air pollution from oil and gas operations. In response, Maite Arce, president and CEO of Hispanic Access Foundation, issued the following statement: "Every family deserves clean air to breathe and a healthycommunity in which to live, work, and raise the next generation. Weakening federal methane protections puts that future, and communities living closest to oil and gas operations, at greater risk. Latino families are among those disproportionately exposed to methane and other harmful air pollutants where they live, work, worship, and attend school. Rolling back these protections would only deepen that burden and put the health and well-being of our communities at risk."
"The 2024 Methane Rule established common-sense protections requiring oil and gas operators to regularly find and repair leaks, reduce routine flaring, address major pollution events, and modernize equipment to reduce unnecessary emissions. These safeguards protect public health while preventing valuable energy resources from being wasted.
"These protections were shaped through extensive public engagement, including input from community leaders, health experts, industry representatives, advocates, and hundreds of thousands of people who called for strong methane standards. The communities most affected by pollution should continue to have a meaningful voice in decisions about the air they breathe and the health of their families.
"At Hispanic Access Foundation, we see the power of local leaders who have the information, tools, and opportunities to advocate for healthier communities. Strong federal protections help ensure those voices lead to lasting change. Weakening these protections leaves families and local leaders to shoulder the consequences of pollution without the strong federal safeguards every community deserves.
"We urge EPA to reverse course and maintain strong, enforceable federal methane protections. Protecting clean air is about more than reducing emissions, it is about protecting our families, strengthening communities, using our energy resources responsibly, and ensuring the next generation inherits a healthier future."
The 2024 EPA Methane Rule established federal standards to reduce methane pollution from new and existing oil and gas operations. The standards require operators to regularly identify and repair leaking equipment, eliminate routine flaring at new oil wells, replace certain polluting equipment, and identify and respond to major "super-emitter" events. Federal methane protections help protect public health, reduce wasted energy resources, and address harmful air pollution.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hispanicaccess.org/news-releases/3155-hispanic-access-foundation-statement-on-epa-rollback-of-federal-methane-protections
Foundation for Economic Education Issues Commentary: How Italy Lost the 21st Century
DETROIT, Michigan, Oct. 10 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary:
* * *
October 9, 2026
How Italy Lost the 21st Century
Marta Roels
A country can remain beautiful, wealthy, and famous while its economy stops moving.
-
In the Italian comedy Quo Vado?, Checco Zalone plays a 39-year-old who lives with his parents and clings desperately to his permanent government job. Even when transferred to an Arctic research station, he refuses to surrender his posto fisso--permanent government job. The joke works because it captures a national ideal: security from change. ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Oct. 10 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary: * * * October 9, 2026 How Italy Lost the 21st Century Marta Roels A country can remain beautiful, wealthy, and famous while its economy stops moving. - In the Italian comedy Quo Vado?, Checco Zalone plays a 39-year-old who lives with his parents and clings desperately to his permanent government job. Even when transferred to an Arctic research station, he refuses to surrender his posto fisso--permanent government job. The joke works because it captures a national ideal: security from change.Yet when an entire economy seeks protection from disruption, stability can become stagnation.
At the turn of the century, Italy was a G7 industrial power, admired for its fashion, automobiles, machinery, food, and design. Since then, a rigid labor market, complex taxation, slow courts, small family firms, heavy public debt, demographic decline, and the constraints of the euro have combined to undermine growth. Italy has not dramatically collapsed; it has lost time.
Between 2000 and 2022, Italian labor productivity fell by roughly 4%, while the EU average rose around 20%. From 2000 to 2024, industrial output declined by an average of 1.1% annually, the worst performance in the Union. Italy began with sophisticated infrastructure and skills, unlike a former centrally planned economy struggling to build capitalism. Its failure was increasingly an inability to move resources toward more productive activities. New businesses, technologies, and jobs require changes to old arrangements. Italy repeatedly chose to preserve them instead. The challenge is not a shortage of world-class products or talented people. It is the difficulty of shifting capital and labor from established uses to more promising opportunities. That failure becomes especially costly as technology and global markets evolve.
Labor protections aim to prevent arbitrary dismissal, but dosage matters. When permanent contracts are costly, and dismissals are legally unpredictable, employers may hire fewer workers, outsource, rely on temporary workers, or avoid expansion. Italian capitalism consequently remains dominated by small, often family-owned businesses. Many produce exceptional goods, but their size restricts access to financing, professional management, research, and economies of scale. A workshop can craft magnificent shoes yet struggle to fund artificial intelligence, expand abroad, or shoulder compliance costs. Protecting firms from change can also prevent them from growing. The country has mastered the survival of existing businesses without making expansion equally attractive. This distinction matters in a digital economy, where fixed costs of research, data infrastructure, and international distribution can overwhelm small enterprises.
Italy's tax-to-GDP ratio reached 42.8% in 2024, well above the OECD average. More damaging than the rate alone is the combination of high taxation with extraordinary complexity. Exemptions, deductions, social contributions, sectoral rules, and administrative duties accumulate until hiring or investing becomes a bureaucratic obstacle course. Most individual rules have a defensible purpose; together they impose a heavy burden. Enterprise is rarely stopped by one prohibition. Hundreds of small costs wear it down. The resulting uncertainty also diverts entrepreneurs' attention: time spent interpreting rules is time not spent winning customers, improving products, or raising workers' productivity.
The courts compound the problem. In 2023, Italian civil and commercial cases took an average of 511 days at first instance, 703 on appeal, and 1,003 before the Court of Cassation. Enforcing a contract through every level can therefore take years. Slow justice raises lending costs, deters investors, favors incumbents, and makes personal relationships a substitute for effective institutions. A business that needs payment today cannot afford to wait indefinitely for a judgment. Slow enforcement is particularly damaging to newcomers, who lack the reserves and relationships available to large, established companies. A formal right offers little comfort if vindicating it requires years.
Blaming the euro for everything is tempting but mistaken. Italy's problems preceded monetary union: public debt exceeded 100% of GDP in the early 1990s, and productivity weaknesses were already evident. The lira once provided an escape route: depreciation could temporarily restore export competitiveness when domestic costs rose. With the euro, that option disappeared, making productivity gains and institutional reform more urgent. The common currency exposed structural weakness rather than creating it. Devaluation can change prices, but it can't turn a tiny firm into an innovative multinational or speed up a court.
Italy's public debt remained around 138% of GDP by the middle of the decade, second only to Greece in the EU. Weak growth makes that burden harder to sustain. Interest payments squeeze investment and tax cuts, make refinancing more sensitive to market conditions, and leave governments with less room to respond to crises. Political incentives reinforce inertia: established pensioners, workers, professions, and firms can defend existing benefits, whereas the entrepreneurs who might create tomorrow's jobs do not yet have a political voice.
Italy's median age approaches 49, nearly one-quarter of residents are over 65, and fertility is exceptionally low. Aging puts pressure on pensions and healthcare while strengthening political preferences to preserve accumulated assets. Young people, by contrast, need new housing, jobs, companies, and opportunities. Many struggle to secure permanent employment or earn enough to live independently. Slow advancement in hierarchical family firms delays responsibility and experience. A year without meaningful work means lost skills and contacts as well as lost income. Repeated across generations, such delays create a society with educated young people who have too few opportunities to become experienced professionals or entrepreneurs.
The outcome is stark. From 2004 to 2024, real household income per person rose by approximately 22% across the EU. In Italy, it fell by roughly 4%; only Greece performed worse. Economic decline need not mean empty shops or abandoned cities. Italy still has savings, homes, infrastructure, internationally competitive exporters, and world-famous destinations. Wealth created in earlier decades can sustain living standards for a long time. But inheriting prosperity is not the same as generating new wealth.
Italy has taught the world how to appreciate food, art, design, and leisure. La Dolce Vita remains a genuine achievement. Yet enjoying the fruits of past success is different from creating opportunities for the next generation. Workers, professions, businesses, bureaucracies, and pensioners have each secured protections; collectively, these protections have helped freeze the economy. Italy's lesson extends beyond Italy: prosperity is not a monument completed once and admired forever. It is an ongoing process. A country that puts protecting yesterday ahead of creating tomorrow eventually receives the bill.
* * *
Marta Roels
Marta Roels is a journalist at Wprost and Business Insider Poland, and author of analyses at the Warsaw Enterprise Institute. She specializes in the Benelux countries and Italy. She covers international relations, demography, economics, and geopolitics. She has published in Onet, Nowa Konfederacja, the Mises Institute, Gazeta Prawna, and Gazzetta Italia. She holds a degree in Applied Linguistics and Polish Philology.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/how-italy-lost-the-21st-century/
* * *
October 9, 2026
How Italy Lost the 21st Century
Marta Roels
A country can remain beautiful, wealthy, and famous while its economy stops moving.
-
In the Italian comedy Quo Vado?, Checco Zalone plays a 39-year-old who lives with his parents and clings desperately to his permanent government job. Even when transferred to an Arctic research station, he refuses to surrender his posto fisso--permanent government job. The joke works because it captures a national ideal: security from change. ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Oct. 10 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary: * * * October 9, 2026 How Italy Lost the 21st Century Marta Roels A country can remain beautiful, wealthy, and famous while its economy stops moving. - In the Italian comedy Quo Vado?, Checco Zalone plays a 39-year-old who lives with his parents and clings desperately to his permanent government job. Even when transferred to an Arctic research station, he refuses to surrender his posto fisso--permanent government job. The joke works because it captures a national ideal: security from change.Yet when an entire economy seeks protection from disruption, stability can become stagnation.
At the turn of the century, Italy was a G7 industrial power, admired for its fashion, automobiles, machinery, food, and design. Since then, a rigid labor market, complex taxation, slow courts, small family firms, heavy public debt, demographic decline, and the constraints of the euro have combined to undermine growth. Italy has not dramatically collapsed; it has lost time.
Between 2000 and 2022, Italian labor productivity fell by roughly 4%, while the EU average rose around 20%. From 2000 to 2024, industrial output declined by an average of 1.1% annually, the worst performance in the Union. Italy began with sophisticated infrastructure and skills, unlike a former centrally planned economy struggling to build capitalism. Its failure was increasingly an inability to move resources toward more productive activities. New businesses, technologies, and jobs require changes to old arrangements. Italy repeatedly chose to preserve them instead. The challenge is not a shortage of world-class products or talented people. It is the difficulty of shifting capital and labor from established uses to more promising opportunities. That failure becomes especially costly as technology and global markets evolve.
Labor protections aim to prevent arbitrary dismissal, but dosage matters. When permanent contracts are costly, and dismissals are legally unpredictable, employers may hire fewer workers, outsource, rely on temporary workers, or avoid expansion. Italian capitalism consequently remains dominated by small, often family-owned businesses. Many produce exceptional goods, but their size restricts access to financing, professional management, research, and economies of scale. A workshop can craft magnificent shoes yet struggle to fund artificial intelligence, expand abroad, or shoulder compliance costs. Protecting firms from change can also prevent them from growing. The country has mastered the survival of existing businesses without making expansion equally attractive. This distinction matters in a digital economy, where fixed costs of research, data infrastructure, and international distribution can overwhelm small enterprises.
Italy's tax-to-GDP ratio reached 42.8% in 2024, well above the OECD average. More damaging than the rate alone is the combination of high taxation with extraordinary complexity. Exemptions, deductions, social contributions, sectoral rules, and administrative duties accumulate until hiring or investing becomes a bureaucratic obstacle course. Most individual rules have a defensible purpose; together they impose a heavy burden. Enterprise is rarely stopped by one prohibition. Hundreds of small costs wear it down. The resulting uncertainty also diverts entrepreneurs' attention: time spent interpreting rules is time not spent winning customers, improving products, or raising workers' productivity.
The courts compound the problem. In 2023, Italian civil and commercial cases took an average of 511 days at first instance, 703 on appeal, and 1,003 before the Court of Cassation. Enforcing a contract through every level can therefore take years. Slow justice raises lending costs, deters investors, favors incumbents, and makes personal relationships a substitute for effective institutions. A business that needs payment today cannot afford to wait indefinitely for a judgment. Slow enforcement is particularly damaging to newcomers, who lack the reserves and relationships available to large, established companies. A formal right offers little comfort if vindicating it requires years.
Blaming the euro for everything is tempting but mistaken. Italy's problems preceded monetary union: public debt exceeded 100% of GDP in the early 1990s, and productivity weaknesses were already evident. The lira once provided an escape route: depreciation could temporarily restore export competitiveness when domestic costs rose. With the euro, that option disappeared, making productivity gains and institutional reform more urgent. The common currency exposed structural weakness rather than creating it. Devaluation can change prices, but it can't turn a tiny firm into an innovative multinational or speed up a court.
Italy's public debt remained around 138% of GDP by the middle of the decade, second only to Greece in the EU. Weak growth makes that burden harder to sustain. Interest payments squeeze investment and tax cuts, make refinancing more sensitive to market conditions, and leave governments with less room to respond to crises. Political incentives reinforce inertia: established pensioners, workers, professions, and firms can defend existing benefits, whereas the entrepreneurs who might create tomorrow's jobs do not yet have a political voice.
Italy's median age approaches 49, nearly one-quarter of residents are over 65, and fertility is exceptionally low. Aging puts pressure on pensions and healthcare while strengthening political preferences to preserve accumulated assets. Young people, by contrast, need new housing, jobs, companies, and opportunities. Many struggle to secure permanent employment or earn enough to live independently. Slow advancement in hierarchical family firms delays responsibility and experience. A year without meaningful work means lost skills and contacts as well as lost income. Repeated across generations, such delays create a society with educated young people who have too few opportunities to become experienced professionals or entrepreneurs.
The outcome is stark. From 2004 to 2024, real household income per person rose by approximately 22% across the EU. In Italy, it fell by roughly 4%; only Greece performed worse. Economic decline need not mean empty shops or abandoned cities. Italy still has savings, homes, infrastructure, internationally competitive exporters, and world-famous destinations. Wealth created in earlier decades can sustain living standards for a long time. But inheriting prosperity is not the same as generating new wealth.
Italy has taught the world how to appreciate food, art, design, and leisure. La Dolce Vita remains a genuine achievement. Yet enjoying the fruits of past success is different from creating opportunities for the next generation. Workers, professions, businesses, bureaucracies, and pensioners have each secured protections; collectively, these protections have helped freeze the economy. Italy's lesson extends beyond Italy: prosperity is not a monument completed once and admired forever. It is an ongoing process. A country that puts protecting yesterday ahead of creating tomorrow eventually receives the bill.
* * *
Marta Roels
Marta Roels is a journalist at Wprost and Business Insider Poland, and author of analyses at the Warsaw Enterprise Institute. She specializes in the Benelux countries and Italy. She covers international relations, demography, economics, and geopolitics. She has published in Onet, Nowa Konfederacja, the Mises Institute, Gazeta Prawna, and Gazzetta Italia. She holds a degree in Applied Linguistics and Polish Philology.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/how-italy-lost-the-21st-century/
FGA Applauds Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen for Protecting Welfare Dollars From Fraud, Waste, and Abuse
NAPLES, Florida, Oct. 10 -- The Foundation for Government Accountability posted the following news release:
* * *
FGA Applauds Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen for Protecting Welfare Dollars From Fraud, Waste, and Abuse
October 9, 2026
LINCOLN, NE -- The Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) applauds Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen for filing a state plan amendment that restricts how cash welfare benefits can be spent, keeping Nebraska's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program focused on the basic needs it was designed to meet.
Governor Pillen's amendment will block TANF cash ... Show Full Article NAPLES, Florida, Oct. 10 -- The Foundation for Government Accountability posted the following news release: * * * FGA Applauds Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen for Protecting Welfare Dollars From Fraud, Waste, and Abuse October 9, 2026 LINCOLN, NE -- The Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) applauds Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen for filing a state plan amendment that restricts how cash welfare benefits can be spent, keeping Nebraska's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program focused on the basic needs it was designed to meet. Governor Pillen's amendment will block TANF cashfrom being spent on tattoos, vaping products, video games, theme park tickets, psychic services, and pornography. The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has issued guidance on how states can adopt these commonsense restrictions, and Governor Pillen is among the governors stepping up to advance the Trump administration's War on Fraud.
"Nebraskans work hard for every dollar they earn. When some of those dollars go to cash welfare, Nebraskans are making a promise to their neighbors: If you hit a rough patch, we've got your back and we'll help you get back on your feet. Too often, that promise is broken--and it's the truly needy who suffer the most," said MiMi Greene, State Government Affairs Director at FGA, who is speaking alongside Governor Pillen at today's press conference. "Every dollar wasted on tattoos, vape pens, or psychic readings is a dollar that cannot be spent feeding, clothing, and sheltering families in need."
"Governor Pillen saw a loophole that let welfare dollars slip away from needy families, and he closed it. That takes courage, and it takes the type of leadership Nebraskans know Governor Pillen will always deliver. Because of his action, Nebraska families can count on a program that works for them. And Nebraska taxpayers can trust that this program honors their generosity," continued Greene.
* * *
The Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) is a non-profit think tank that promotes public policy solutions in all 50 states to create opportunities for every American to experience the American Dream. To learn more, visit TheFGA.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://thefga.org/press/fga-applauds-nebraska-governor-jim-pillen-protecting-welfare-dollars/
* * *
FGA Applauds Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen for Protecting Welfare Dollars From Fraud, Waste, and Abuse
October 9, 2026
LINCOLN, NE -- The Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) applauds Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen for filing a state plan amendment that restricts how cash welfare benefits can be spent, keeping Nebraska's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program focused on the basic needs it was designed to meet.
Governor Pillen's amendment will block TANF cash ... Show Full Article NAPLES, Florida, Oct. 10 -- The Foundation for Government Accountability posted the following news release: * * * FGA Applauds Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen for Protecting Welfare Dollars From Fraud, Waste, and Abuse October 9, 2026 LINCOLN, NE -- The Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) applauds Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen for filing a state plan amendment that restricts how cash welfare benefits can be spent, keeping Nebraska's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program focused on the basic needs it was designed to meet. Governor Pillen's amendment will block TANF cashfrom being spent on tattoos, vaping products, video games, theme park tickets, psychic services, and pornography. The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has issued guidance on how states can adopt these commonsense restrictions, and Governor Pillen is among the governors stepping up to advance the Trump administration's War on Fraud.
"Nebraskans work hard for every dollar they earn. When some of those dollars go to cash welfare, Nebraskans are making a promise to their neighbors: If you hit a rough patch, we've got your back and we'll help you get back on your feet. Too often, that promise is broken--and it's the truly needy who suffer the most," said MiMi Greene, State Government Affairs Director at FGA, who is speaking alongside Governor Pillen at today's press conference. "Every dollar wasted on tattoos, vape pens, or psychic readings is a dollar that cannot be spent feeding, clothing, and sheltering families in need."
"Governor Pillen saw a loophole that let welfare dollars slip away from needy families, and he closed it. That takes courage, and it takes the type of leadership Nebraskans know Governor Pillen will always deliver. Because of his action, Nebraska families can count on a program that works for them. And Nebraska taxpayers can trust that this program honors their generosity," continued Greene.
* * *
The Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) is a non-profit think tank that promotes public policy solutions in all 50 states to create opportunities for every American to experience the American Dream. To learn more, visit TheFGA.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://thefga.org/press/fga-applauds-nebraska-governor-jim-pillen-protecting-welfare-dollars/
FFRF Urges Iowa City to End Divisive Prayer After Satanic Controversy
MADISON, Wisconsin, Oct. 10 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
October 9, 2026
FFRF urges Iowa city to end divisive prayer after satanic controversy
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is calling on an Iowa city council to end its practice of opening meetings with religion after its mayor allowed a pastor to counter a satanic invocation.
As FFRF points out, the controversy shows why governmental prayer is inappropriate. In a letter sent Friday to Ottumwa Mayor Benjamin Foote and the City Council, the state/church watchdog criticizes the city's ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Oct. 10 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * October 9, 2026 FFRF urges Iowa city to end divisive prayer after satanic controversy The Freedom From Religion Foundation is calling on an Iowa city council to end its practice of opening meetings with religion after its mayor allowed a pastor to counter a satanic invocation. As FFRF points out, the controversy shows why governmental prayer is inappropriate. In a letter sent Friday to Ottumwa Mayor Benjamin Foote and the City Council, the state/church watchdog criticizes the city'sresponse to an invocation delivered by former City Council member Matt Dalbey, a member of the Satanic Temple of Iowa, at the council's Oct. 6 meeting.
Dalbey delivered the invocation under a policy adopted by the council in January that allows individuals of diverse religious and nonreligious perspectives to participate. His remarks encouraged reason, knowledge, truth, individual autonomy and freedom from arbitrary authority. He urged those present to judge individuals by their actions rather than their adherence to religious conventions. Dalbey also invoked the "Luciferian impulse" to seek knowledge and concluded his remarks with "Hail Satan."
Shortly afterward, New Life Center Pastor Rick Bick approached the microphone without being recognized and demanded that the council "reverse the curse" he claimed Dalbey had placed upon the city. Bick insisted that the satanic invocation was unwelcome and called for an immediate religious response.
Council member Cara Galloway tried to maintain order, explaining that Bick could express his objections during the public comment portion of the meeting. But Mayor Foote overruled her, interrupting official proceedings to accommodate the pastor's demands. Foote initially called for a 30-second "time of prayer" response, then changed his request to a "moment of silence." The mayor later doubled down in comments to Fox News Digital, saying Dalbey's invocation did not represent the community.
"This is not a reflection of our community," Foote said. "As the mayor of my hometown in Iowa, I know the people of Ottumwa, and the invocation read at the start of Tuesday's meeting does not represent the faith or the values of families who call this city home."
FFRF highlights the shortcomings of such a perspective.
"Government officials cannot invite citizens of diverse religious and nonreligious perspectives to deliver invocations and then permit one religious group to effectively veto or 'correct' an invocation simply because it does not conform to their preferred theology," writes FFRF Legal Counsel Christopher Line.
FFRF strongly objects to the mayor's suggestion that minority religious beliefs or nonbelief somehow fall outside the values of his community.
"The mayor does not speak for the religious beliefs of every Ottumwa resident, nor does he have the authority to declare that minority religious or nonreligious perspectives fall outside the community's values," FFRF's letter states.
FFRF clarifies that the Satanic Temple is a nontheistic religious organization whose members do not believe in a literal Satan. Its invocation expressed philosophical principles, not an attempt to "curse" the city.
While the city subsequently issued a statement acknowledging that it cannot discriminate among invocation speakers and does not necessarily endorse the religious messages delivered at its meetings, FFRF calls attention to how the council's actual conduct contradicted its professed commitment to religious neutrality.
FFRF reminds the City Council the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that legislative prayer practices cannot discriminate against minority religions. In Town of Greece v. Galloway, the court upheld a legislative prayer practice in part because the town welcomed invocation speakers of different religious perspectives, including atheists. The court emphasized that government bodies must maintain a "policy of nondiscrimination" and avoid "aversion or bias ... against minority faiths."
The controversy exposes problems with the city's invocation policy itself. Resolution No. 18-2026 describes invocations as an opportunity to "include our Creator into our decision-making," language that presumes a shared belief in a creator and suggests religion should influence official government decisions. Galloway, the lone vote against adopting the invocation policy, had warned that opening meetings with religious exercises would inevitably require accommodating perspectives that some residents found objectionable. Following the Oct. 6 controversy, Galloway reiterated her concerns.
"Opening with an invocation means allowing viewpoints that may not reflect our own," she said. "And responding to someone's invocation is a slippery slope to putting a financial liability on the taxpayers and allowing for others to object or respond."
FFRF commends Galloway for recognizing that religious neutrality requires protecting unpopular beliefs, not merely those favored by the majority.
"This entire controversy demonstrates exactly why government meetings should not begin with religious rituals," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "Government is supposed to serve everyone, not referee theological disputes. City council members who feel the need to pray about liquor licenses, sewers and variances can pray on their own time and dime."
FFRF is asking the Ottumwa City Council to discontinue invocations entirely and focus on the secular business of governing. The controversy was the predictable consequence of introducing religious exercises into a governmental setting, FFRF notes. FFRF has requested a written response detailing what steps the council will take to address the incident and prevent similar discriminatory treatment in the future.
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with about 40,000 members nationwide, including hundreds of members in Iowa. FFRF's purposes are to defend the constitutional principle of separation between church and state, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-urges-iowa-city-to-end-divisive-prayer-after-satanic-controversy/
[Category: Religion]
* * *
October 9, 2026
FFRF urges Iowa city to end divisive prayer after satanic controversy
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is calling on an Iowa city council to end its practice of opening meetings with religion after its mayor allowed a pastor to counter a satanic invocation.
As FFRF points out, the controversy shows why governmental prayer is inappropriate. In a letter sent Friday to Ottumwa Mayor Benjamin Foote and the City Council, the state/church watchdog criticizes the city's ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Oct. 10 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * October 9, 2026 FFRF urges Iowa city to end divisive prayer after satanic controversy The Freedom From Religion Foundation is calling on an Iowa city council to end its practice of opening meetings with religion after its mayor allowed a pastor to counter a satanic invocation. As FFRF points out, the controversy shows why governmental prayer is inappropriate. In a letter sent Friday to Ottumwa Mayor Benjamin Foote and the City Council, the state/church watchdog criticizes the city'sresponse to an invocation delivered by former City Council member Matt Dalbey, a member of the Satanic Temple of Iowa, at the council's Oct. 6 meeting.
Dalbey delivered the invocation under a policy adopted by the council in January that allows individuals of diverse religious and nonreligious perspectives to participate. His remarks encouraged reason, knowledge, truth, individual autonomy and freedom from arbitrary authority. He urged those present to judge individuals by their actions rather than their adherence to religious conventions. Dalbey also invoked the "Luciferian impulse" to seek knowledge and concluded his remarks with "Hail Satan."
Shortly afterward, New Life Center Pastor Rick Bick approached the microphone without being recognized and demanded that the council "reverse the curse" he claimed Dalbey had placed upon the city. Bick insisted that the satanic invocation was unwelcome and called for an immediate religious response.
Council member Cara Galloway tried to maintain order, explaining that Bick could express his objections during the public comment portion of the meeting. But Mayor Foote overruled her, interrupting official proceedings to accommodate the pastor's demands. Foote initially called for a 30-second "time of prayer" response, then changed his request to a "moment of silence." The mayor later doubled down in comments to Fox News Digital, saying Dalbey's invocation did not represent the community.
"This is not a reflection of our community," Foote said. "As the mayor of my hometown in Iowa, I know the people of Ottumwa, and the invocation read at the start of Tuesday's meeting does not represent the faith or the values of families who call this city home."
FFRF highlights the shortcomings of such a perspective.
"Government officials cannot invite citizens of diverse religious and nonreligious perspectives to deliver invocations and then permit one religious group to effectively veto or 'correct' an invocation simply because it does not conform to their preferred theology," writes FFRF Legal Counsel Christopher Line.
FFRF strongly objects to the mayor's suggestion that minority religious beliefs or nonbelief somehow fall outside the values of his community.
"The mayor does not speak for the religious beliefs of every Ottumwa resident, nor does he have the authority to declare that minority religious or nonreligious perspectives fall outside the community's values," FFRF's letter states.
FFRF clarifies that the Satanic Temple is a nontheistic religious organization whose members do not believe in a literal Satan. Its invocation expressed philosophical principles, not an attempt to "curse" the city.
While the city subsequently issued a statement acknowledging that it cannot discriminate among invocation speakers and does not necessarily endorse the religious messages delivered at its meetings, FFRF calls attention to how the council's actual conduct contradicted its professed commitment to religious neutrality.
FFRF reminds the City Council the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that legislative prayer practices cannot discriminate against minority religions. In Town of Greece v. Galloway, the court upheld a legislative prayer practice in part because the town welcomed invocation speakers of different religious perspectives, including atheists. The court emphasized that government bodies must maintain a "policy of nondiscrimination" and avoid "aversion or bias ... against minority faiths."
The controversy exposes problems with the city's invocation policy itself. Resolution No. 18-2026 describes invocations as an opportunity to "include our Creator into our decision-making," language that presumes a shared belief in a creator and suggests religion should influence official government decisions. Galloway, the lone vote against adopting the invocation policy, had warned that opening meetings with religious exercises would inevitably require accommodating perspectives that some residents found objectionable. Following the Oct. 6 controversy, Galloway reiterated her concerns.
"Opening with an invocation means allowing viewpoints that may not reflect our own," she said. "And responding to someone's invocation is a slippery slope to putting a financial liability on the taxpayers and allowing for others to object or respond."
FFRF commends Galloway for recognizing that religious neutrality requires protecting unpopular beliefs, not merely those favored by the majority.
"This entire controversy demonstrates exactly why government meetings should not begin with religious rituals," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "Government is supposed to serve everyone, not referee theological disputes. City council members who feel the need to pray about liquor licenses, sewers and variances can pray on their own time and dime."
FFRF is asking the Ottumwa City Council to discontinue invocations entirely and focus on the secular business of governing. The controversy was the predictable consequence of introducing religious exercises into a governmental setting, FFRF notes. FFRF has requested a written response detailing what steps the council will take to address the incident and prevent similar discriminatory treatment in the future.
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with about 40,000 members nationwide, including hundreds of members in Iowa. FFRF's purposes are to defend the constitutional principle of separation between church and state, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-urges-iowa-city-to-end-divisive-prayer-after-satanic-controversy/
[Category: Religion]