From reading groups and guest speakers, to professional development for educators and media mentions by the White House, ACRE has had another successful semester of economics, education, and policy research. We hope you’ve been able to come to one of our events on campus, or read some of our many materials online.

Distinguished Speaker Series & Colloquium

Michael Munger (right) with Jeremy Horpedahl

Our final guest speaker for the Fall 2023 semester was Michael Munger from Duke University, who gave a public talk on “Monopoly Power, Political Power, and the Problem of Platforms,” and also joined BT����students in several classes. Munger followed two other speakers this semester: Emily Hamilton from the Mercatus Center, who spoke about housing policy and affordability; and David Bernstein from George Mason University Law School, who spoke about the history of racial classification in the United States. Professor Bernstein was also the keynote speaker for and a participant in our annual ACRE Colloquium, which brought students and professors from across Arkansas together for a weekend to discuss the ideas in Bernstein’s book.

Fall Reading Groups

Students in Dr. Jacob Held’s “Landmark Supreme Court” reading group

Our reading groups set an ACRE record this semester! More students applied than ever before, resulting in a wait-list to participate. One of those groups visited Southern Methodist University in October for a weekend discussion event with students at other universities, and keynote speaker Dr. Bart Wilson from Chapman University. Our Spring 2024 reading groups will be announced soon, and we look forward to having another good response from BT����students.

K-12 Programs

ACRE’s K12 program has hosted a number of professional development opportunities for educators across Arkansas. This past month’s engaging topics included: “Economic Mysteries in Economic History: What was Roaring about the Twenties?” and “The 2023 Economics Nobel Prize: Claudia Goldin, Women, & Work.”�� Looking ahead, the ACRE educator reading group will continue this spring. For a full list of K12 offerings, to sign up for the K12 newsletter, or request a classroom visit this spring, go to

Government Transparency in Arkansas

AFOIA in the State Constitution:

Lately in Arkansas there has been a lot of discussion about government transparency, both during the Special Session of the Arkansas General Assembly in September and in the aftermath of the legislative session, from which a citizen initiative emerged proposing the incorporation of Arkansas’s Freedom of Information Act (AFOIA) into the state constitution. ACRE Policy Analyst Dr. Joyce Ajayi has continued tracking these developments and offering her expertise to help support the public debate on the issue. In November, she participated as a panelist at a town hall meeting on this topic in Conway and also authored an op-ed, “,” published in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. In the piece, she elaborates on the consequences and implications of incorporating AFOIA into the state constitution, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of both advantages and drawbacks.

Looking ahead, Joyce, along with a team of researchers across Arkansas, is co-authoring the Arkansas Civic Health Index. This publication will offer a comprehensive analysis of Arkansas’s civic health, including aspects like web transparency. The report, set to be released in December, will provide insights into the civic and political engagement landscape in Arkansas, showcasing strengths, weaknesses, challenges, and opportunities.

Media

As part of my role as Director at ACRE and a BT����professor, I regularly appear in the media and write popular essays about economics. A few of those outreach activities stood out as especially interesting and important this semester.

• I once again appeared on PBS’s Arkansas Week program and how that relates to public policy, such as the state budget.
• The Charles Koch Foundation featured an essay I wrote explaining��. That essay summarizes a lot of the principles we use to think about fiscal policy at ACRE in our research and educational outreach.
• Lastly, a somewhat light-hearted blog post that I wrote about the cost of a , surprised me by getting picked up by a lot of media sources, as well as the a claim the White House made. I was not expecting that, but I am glad that someone is reading my work!

New Employees

ACRE is set to accomplish even more in the coming year with the addition of two outstanding individuals to our team. Elise Ormonde and Heidi Saliba each bring unique skillsets and perspectives to ACRE’s research and outreach. We are fortunate to welcome them, and you can read more about both here.

All of us at ACRE hope that you have a wonderful last few weeks of 2023, and we look forward to sharing more about all of our events, research, and student programs in 2024.

Arkansans have seen multiple reductions to their taxes, especially income taxes, in recent years. Starting from a top income tax rate of 7 percent a decade ago, income tax rates have gradually been reduced. The top individual income tax rate has already been lowered to 4.4 percent, and there have been other changes made to reduce income taxes for lower-income Arkansans (who don’t pay that top rate) as well.

What has been the effect of all those changes? And what are the next steps for tax reform in Arkansas?

In our latest publication we have once again teamed up with experts at the Tax Foundation to look at those questions in detail. Our 2016 book with the Tax Foundation comprehensively overviewed the tax system in Arkansas seven years ago. Much has changed since then.

Our new book:

• has the latest tax information since 2016,
• focuses on ways that the income tax burden in Arkansas could be reduced, both for individuals and businesses, and,
• provides suggestions for new reforms – since many of those we suggested in 2016 have now been enacted.

There has been a lot of conversation over the past few years about in Arkansas, but no one has laid out a path to achieving this goal. In our book, we show what it would take and how long it would be before the income tax could be eliminated. It could take as long as 27 years under a conservative approach, but it could also be done as quickly as 8 years under an aggressive approach with some budget cuts.

In addition to eliminating the income tax, our book suggests several other intermediate and other tax reforms that would benefit Arkansas taxpayers, including a reduction of the top personal income tax rate to 3 percent (from the current 4.4 percent). The table below shows the effect of that change on several sample taxpayers. The income levels of the first four sample taxpayers represent the in Arkansas for different family structures, with the fifth sample taxpayer roughly representing a taxpayer at the 95th percentile (just inside the top 5 percent).

Notes: calculations assume that taxpayers are taking the standard deduction, and that two-earner families have income evenly split between earners. Does not include the one-time $150 credit in 2024.

The table shows taxes owed under three scenarios. The first scenario assumes that there were no changes made in 2015 or any year afterwards – this is the highest tax burden in the table and is provided for historical context on the importance of recent tax reductions. The second scenario is current tax law, as it will apply in 2024 (and future years if no further changes are made). The final scenario shows tax burdens under a hypothetical 3 percent top income tax rate in Arkansas. Finally, the table shows the savings compared to current tax law under a 3 percent top rate, or if the income tax is eliminated. The results are also presented in the figure below, showing the potential tax reductions as a percent of income for these same five families.

In addition to these potential individual income tax rate reductions, our book discusses several changes to the corporate income tax. The first change is also about tax rates and involves reducing the corporate income tax rate in tandem with personal income tax rate reductions, as the legislature has done with most recent tax reductions. But the other changes are structural in nature, changing how the corporate income tax works in Arkansas, as well as other business taxes.

The recommended changes for business taxes include:

1. Permanent expensing of capital investment
2. Repealing the state franchise tax, which taxes the net worth of businesses
3. Eliminating the business inventory tax
4. Expanding net operating loss provisions, so that businesses are taxed over the business cycle rather than for individual years

Each of these changes individually would improve Arkansas’s competitive environment for business growth and attracting new firms. Improving competitiveness is important because currently Arkansas currently ranks 40^th in the Tax Foundation , trailing all of our neighboring states and having the second lowest rank in the South (only Alabama is slightly lower).

There are many paths that Arkansas could take to move forward with future tax reforms. Our latest book provides a menu of options for policymakers to consider when making further reductions in the tax burden imposed on individuals and businesses.

Since our last blog post titled “Enhancing Arkansas FOIA for Accountability and Transparency” on Tuesday morning, September 12, there have been significant developments. By Tuesday night, lawmakers had introduced a new set of Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (AFOIA) bills. Notably, and are among the ones to keep an eye on. The newly proposed bills specifically target exemptions of records related to the security of the Governor.��The current version of the bill has a lot more support from within the legislature and with FOIA stakeholders, such as media organizations

These newly proposed bills are a significant improvement over the previous ones. However, while it’s entirely reasonable for public officials, like all citizens, to have the right to safeguard themselves and their families, it’s crucial to strike a balance by preserving and upholding transparency and public trust in government.

Under the, there is a predefined list of exempt items, and this list can always be expanded. However, considering Governor Sanders’ intention to extend the list of exemptions within the AFOIA, specifically to include executive security, it becomes essential to assess the unintended consequences of certain language in the current Senate Bill 10 and House Bill 1012. These bills, despite their improvements, still broadly exempt “Data, records, communications” related to the executive office.

��The flip side of broad exemptions in FOIA is that they carry a risk of misuse, where government officials could wrongly withhold information that should be accessible to the public. As highlighted by the Center for Public Integrity in the , the more exemptions that are introduced into open records laws, the greater the concerns about government transparency and the erosion of public trust in the process.

This is especially critical because leadership changes over time, and we shouldn’t rely on the false notion that our laws are only as enduring as a leader’s term in office. According to a 2014 article by Berliner, D. titled “The Political Origins of Transparency,” published in The Journal of Politics, one of the main purposes of FOI laws is to establish transparency as a fundamental part of government rules and procedures, which should be difficult to undermine in the future. Understanding this role is crucial for comprehending why FOI laws are enacted.

How might public trust be undermined?

The ongoing discussions during this special session reveal the areas in which AFOIA reforms might erode public trust, particularly with the initial introduction of bills that aimed to align the Governor’s internal deliberations with Federal . That move blurred the line between genuine security concerns and needless secrecy, potentially widening the trust gap between Arkansans and their elected representatives.

As the trust gap between Arkansans and their elected representatives widens, the credibility deficit is expected to grow. This basic logic undergirds findings by the . As demonstrated in Table I, people have the highest level of trust in the level of government that is closest to them. These findings do not vary by political party, time, or the topic under consideration.

Table I also shows that as of January 2023, Congress is the least-trusted level of government. On the opposite end of the spectrum, city governments hold the highest levels of confidence and trust. The data paints a convincing picture when you consider that citizens use as the basis of their trust in state and local governments.����

Following the literature, Arkansans, like other Americans, tend to trust their state and local governments more than the federal government. This makes intuitive sense, considering trust is built among individuals who view each other as equals, worthy of mutual respect and dignity.��

For the majority of Arkansans, it is difficult to say that the people can effectively ensure accountability within their federal representation, except through the ultimate recourse of participating in elections. Given that elections are the most pragmatic and cost-effective means of holding elected officials accountable for most Arkansans, accountability tends to be a rather abstract and elusive concept, particularly at the federal level. Instead, it is better practiced and realized at the state and local levels.

The data also bear out this premise since 63 percent of survey respondents said they trusted city governments to do what is right. A mere 58.5 and 39.9 percent of respondents said they trusted state governments and Congress, respectively, to do the right thing.

It is reasonable to surmise that as the Arkansas state government becomes more and more like Congress on issues such as transparency, public trust will approach levels currently attributed to Congress. Such a decline in public trust could harm the credibility and legitimacy of the state government.

Deloitte, one of the largest consulting firms in the United States, recently that aimed to improve trust in state and local governments. Results of the study support findings on the inverse relationship between social distance and levels of trust between citizens and their government. One of three key themes in the Deloitte study was that “the more local the institution, the more trusted it became.” The inverse also held true. The federal government was ranked among the least trusted institutions included in the survey.��

Finally, also published the results of a poll that gauged the differences among local, state, and federal governments. The results were once again in line with the majority of data already analyzed.

Given all the data on public trust, why would Arkansas want to look more like the federal government in terms of administrative procedure on FOIA? There is no compelling reason to support such action. All the data indicate that people trust the government closest to them. While the concerns about Governor Sanders’ safety are well-founded, there is also substantial data to advise Arkansas executive leadership in exploring alternative approaches to ensure her safety and that of her family.��

Alternative approaches to ensure the safety of public officials can be explored without compromising the principles of open government. One of the clearest alternatives is to enhance the security detail for Governor Sanders and her family.����

Also, it is worth noting that various states, including Arkansas, in certain instances, have employed practices like redacting sensitive information when there are security threats. Some states also require confidentiality agreements for FOIA access to certain records in such cases, issue non-disclosure orders, or utilize balancing tests to weigh potential harm against public interest.��

Rather than adopting exemption procedures at the state level that mirror those of the federal government, Arkansas should prioritize its identity as a state dedicated to transparent governance. As discussed in our previous blog post, Arkansas has already taken steps to improve transparency. It’s essential that we continue to build on this progress rather than undermine it.

Dr. Joyce Ajayi and Mr. Joseph Johns are policy analysts at the Arkansas Center for Research in Economics (ACRE) at the University of Central Arkansas in Conway. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the University of Central Arkansas.

On Friday, September 8, 2023, Governor Sarah Sanders announced that a would begin at the Arkansas Capitol on Monday, September 11. In her announcement of the special session, the Governor hinted at potential amendments to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (AFOIA). She specifically mentioned a desire to protect “internal deliberations within the executive branch” from public scrutiny, citing concerns for both her personal safety and that of her family. These concerns stemmed from that arose during her gubernatorial campaign and afterwards.

Following the Governor’s announcement, and were filed in the Arkansas Legislature. Both bills had several objectives, including the limitation of public access to records related to the security of the executive branch; this encompasses communications, processes, and travel arrangements, retroactively to January 2022.��

The bills also sought to restrict access to any documents, communications, or other forms of deliberative processes of Arkansas state agencies, boards, or commissions, including records associated with contract bids and discussions, attorney-client privilege, and legal strategy, especially during periods when the state is facing legal action.

From a cursory read of both bills, it was clear that there was substantial reliance on , a carve-out to the Federal-level FOIA that allows the federal government to withhold documents and records related to internal deliberations that occur before any final administrative decision is made.��

It is essential for Arkansas residents to understand that Exemption 5 in the Federal FOIA has been cited as the reason for denying the release of federal interagency deliberative documents on more than between FY 2008 and FY 2022. It is this same exemption that Governor Sanders proposed to narrow the scope of AFOIA.��

At the start of the session on Monday, September 11, there was growing concern that those two bills were undermining the AFOIA. As of today, Tuesday, September 12, two new bills, and , have been introduced.��

A quick review of these two new bills shows that the “deliberative exemption privilege,” has been removed, which is a positive development. However, some provisions of the two new bills, like the one involving “Records reflecting communications between the Governor or his or her staff and the secretary of a cabinet-level department,” will still be exempt.��

Moreover, Section 4, Paragraph (30), requires a credible threat of litigation for attorney-client exemption, while Section 4, Paragraph (31), states that all “502(b)” material is exempt even without a threat of litigation.��

Invariably, these new bills may still pose challenges for the public in accessing certain information.

Without doubt and without reservation, Arkansans should be able to protect themselves and their families from physical harm and deprivation. However, the language proposed within the amendment to the AFOIA law would create unintended negative consequences. Some of these could include shielding the conduct of corrupt or inefficient government actors from public view and hiding embarrassing or otherwise unsightly internal deliberations about policy priorities. It is important to remember that any proposed legislation will become permanent and needs to be carefully considered and vetted to assuage any concerns about unintended consequences moving forward.

��

What should residents know about the current Arkansas Freedom of Information Act?

The current AFOIA has been praised by many, including Eliza Gaines, publisher of WEHCO Media Inc., the parent company of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. She said that AFOIA “” Likewise, Assistant Senate President Pro Tempore, Clarke Tucker [D-Little Rock], praised Arkansas’s FOIA as “.” Also, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin echoed this sentiment on the Arkansas , where it’s noted that the AFOIA is considered one of the most comprehensive and robust frameworks for open-records and open-meetings laws in the United States.

What are the key elements that contribute to the praise of the AFOIA?

1. Presumption of Open Records: This means that unless specific exemptions apply, all government records are considered open to the public, thereby promoting transparency.

��

1. Presumption of Open Meetings: This also means that unless specific exemptions apply, AFOIA provides for transparency in government proceedings by requiring that meetings conducted by government bodies touching on public business are open to the public, allowing citizens to observe and participate in the democratic process.

��

These aspects of the current AFOIA are its notable strengths. Hence, consistent court rulings in Arkansas have reinforced the public’s right to access government records and public meetings, contributing to a culture of transparency.

��

How is Arkansas performing in terms of transparency at both the state and local levels?

Despite the past praise from members of the Arkansas press and the state legislature, there is still much work to be done to achieve government transparency in practice.

In the Sunshine Review’s�� 2013 Transparency Report Card titled “,” Kristin McMurray wrote that a review was conducted to evaluate the online transparency of various levels of government across the United States. The findings showed that Arkansas received an overall grade of C- in online transparency, with the state government earning the best score of any level of government (B), while its cities, school districts, and county governments received grades of C, C-, and F, respectively. Notably, Arkansas’s counties were ranked as the least transparent among all the counties in the country at the time.��

Moving forward to 2015, the Center for Public Integrity produced the , which ranked Arkansas as the 32nd-most transparent state in the nation. This report utilized a mixed-method cross-disciplinary approach to measure the extent to which each state fulfilled its commitment to providing transparent and accountable governance to its residents. States were evaluated across various categories of transparency and accountability, including the strength of their public records laws such as FOIA. In this regard, Arkansas in State Integrity Investigation, with one of the contributing factors being our open records law. In the report, the authors noted that while Arkansas did offer robust overall protections for disclosing records, it also had various exceptions and gaps that obstructed the release of certain records.

The report highlighted that some states may have robust general protections for record release but simultaneously, countless exemptions and loopholes that impede such record releases, thereby impacting their overall ranking.

Although there haven’t been any updated editions of these reports since 2013 and 2015, they continue to provide a valuable foundation for evaluating Arkansas’s present transparency performance.

�� It’s also crucial to acknowledge that substantial improvements have been made since 2015. Regarding state-level transparency, AFOIA laws have been periodically updated and revised to address evolving challenges. For instance, during the past legislative session, the Arkansas General Assembly enacted . It mandates that public records custodians must respond to FOIA requests in time if no responsive records exist or if exemptions apply, and they must identify the relevant exemptions. Additionally, the Act allows that responses could be delivered via email.

Also, Arkansas maintains a designed to offer easy access to government spending data, contracts, and other essential information, which should improve public access to government activities. While the state’s transparency website has not seen extensive use, it still reflects a commitment to keeping the Sunshine Laws relevant.��

In the “,” authors Rachel J. Cross, Michelle Surka, and Scott Welder categorized state transparency websites. Arkansas was placed in the second tier, known as “Advancing states.” It earned this ranking because its transparency website provides easy access to state spending, which can be downloaded and searched by recipient, keyword, and agency. The “advancing states” ranking is attributed to states that have less spending data available to the public than “leading states,” which hold the first place ranking in the Report.��

When compared to its neighboring states, Arkansas’s transparency website outperformed those of Missouri, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Oklahoma. Each of those neighboring states received either a D or a D- for their promotion of web-based fiscal transparency. Among the neighboring states, only Louisiana received a higher grade (A-) for its fiscal transparency website, surpassing Arkansas’s B- grade.

At the local government level, the Arkansas Center for Research in Economics (ACRE) conducts research to assess local government web transparency and publishes the Access Arkansas: County and City Web Transparency Report. This report focuses on Arkansas’s 75 counties and 112 first-class cities (cities that at the last federal census have a population exceeding 2,500 people), ranking them based on fiscal, administrative, and political web transparency.

Key findings from the Report related to AFOIA at the local government level reveal that the situation is bleak. Only a few counties (10 out of 75) and first-class cities (23 out of 112) publish online information on how residents can make FOIA requests. Similarly, a significant number of counties (35 out of 75) and first-class cities (35 out of 112) lack online accessibility for procurement information, such as government contract bids and winners.��

On political transparency, while officials’ names (97%), office phone numbers (97%), and email addresses (91%) are commonly available, there’s a glaring absence (0%) of financial disclosure and conflict of interest statements available online from counties.

Also, regarding information on meetings like quorum courts which is vital for public participation and scrutiny, not so many counties (only 33 out of 75) and first-class cities (just 51 out of 112) adequately publish such information. Regarding quorum court records, only 44 percent publish times and locations of public meetings, while only 12 percent of Arkansas counties publish archived videos. While we at ACRE do not know the intent of this discrepancy, it is reasonable to say that once a meeting of the Quorum Court adjourns, the conversation and decisions in that court will be lost to history in the absence of such items being made public.��

At the state transparency level, ACRE has conducted limited research on AFOIA. This is because AFOIA laws have been periodically updated and revised to address evolving challenges. As a result, ACRE’s focus over the years has been on researching the expansion of AFOIA to include web transparency at the state level. However, Governor Sanders’ proposed amendments would significantly roll back the progress made in the area of AFOIA concerning state government records. This move could set a precedent for local governments to follow, undermining ongoing local transparency efforts.

What would be the impact of adopting the Governor’s proposed amendments to AFOIA? We will address that in more detail in Part 2 of this blog post, coming soon.

��

Dr.Joyce Ajayi and Mr. Joseph Johns are policy analysts at the Arkansas Center for Research in Economics (ACRE) at the University of Central Arkansas in Conway. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the University of Central Arkansas.

by Jeremy Horpedahl, Director, Arkansas Center for Research in Economics

Welcome back from summer! We at ACRE are excited for the new academic year to begin at BT����and for all the students to return to campus.

BT����students will have a lot of opportunities through ACRE to learn more about the world of economics and many related areas. Our fall��reading groups��began this week. One group will learn��about “Humanonmics,” or how economics and the humanities can be combined, rather than being opposed. Another group will study several landmark Supreme Court cases, including many that impact businesses and economic freedom. Demand for these reading groups has been very high this year, with more than twice as many applications as we have available spots. Students are excited to read and discuss these important topics!

Alongside our reading groups, students and the broader BT����community will have the chance to hear from some great speakers as part of our��Speaker Series. Our first speaker is����from George Mason University Law School, who will also be our keynote speaker for the ACRE Colloquium in October. Both of these events will be related to Bernstein’s latest book,��Classified: The Untold Story of Racial Classification in America.��Senior Research Fellow from the Mercatus Center, will join us October 26.�� She will discuss recent trends in state and local reforms to the regulations standing in the way of of housing construction.�� ��from Duke University’s��Political Science Department will speak about “Monopoly Power, Political Power, and the Problem of Platforms” in late November.

I’m also very excited to give you a few updates about ACRE’s team. Recently, ACRE promoted Terra Aquia to be our Educational Programs Manager. Terra is a long-time ACRE employee, and has an even longer relationship with us dating back to her days as a BT����undergrad and ACRE Fellow. Terra is now managing many of the ACRE programs I described above, plus others such as our��. Congratulations Terra!

ACRE is also excited to welcome two new employees this Fall. Heidi Saliba (Masters of International Business, St. Thomas University) will join ACRE as policy analyst, as well as assisting us with managing our research. Ms. Saliba brings a host of academic skills to ACRE from her background, including a decade of work at the University of Florida in areas such as coordinating research programs, communications, and technical writing. Elise Ormonde (BA in Economics, Hendrix College) will be starting as a Research and Program Coordinator, where she will assist with many of our student programs as well as assisting our researchers, spanning all of the areas ACRE works on. She recently completed her undergraduate degree in economics, and her skills and excitement for learning about economics will bring a lot to our growing team at ACRE.

ACRE said farewell to�� Analyst Zachary Burt this summer. Zachary began is career with ACRE in 2019 as a program assistant, and eventually led the center’s research and analysis�� of occupational licensing and property rights. We will miss his contributions, but wish him the best in his next chapter.

We’ve also tried to keep everyone updated throughout the summer through social media of our many recent accomplishments, but here are a few important ones I wanted to highlight.

• ACRE Analyst Zachary Burt, ACRE-Affiliated scholars Dr. Thomas Snyder and ACRE Student Fellow Caleb Vines’ paper, “?” was recently published in the Journal of Applied Business and Economics.
• The Southwest Business and Economics Journal recently published research by ACRE analysts Dr. Joyce Ajayi and Joseph Johns, ACRE-Affiliated Scholar Dr. Mavuto Kalulu, and co-writer Ashley Phillips. The article, “,” appeared in Vol. 28 of the journal.
• Lastly, if the title “Bootleggers, Baptists and Ballots” interests you, I hope you’ll check out , “Why We Can’t Have Nice Things,” where I speak with Eric Boehm from about the political dynamics that drive Arkansas’ local alcohol legalization elections

One final note: we are very excited that this is ACRE’s ninth year of full operations, but that also means that an important anniversary is just around the corner. For our 10th anniversary in 2024, we are planning some special events for the many students and others that have been involved with ACRE over the years. If you are reading this and are one of those ACRE alums now out there in the world, please send me a note to let me know how you are doing. We’d love to see you again as we celebrate ACRE’s many past successes next year!

Each semester, The Arkansas Center for Research in Economics (ACRE) gives BT����students the opportunity to apply for scholarships by participating in one of its weekly reading groups, such as the economics group, law group, philosophy group and Biz@Bear group. This academic year $28,700 was awarded for 70 reading group scholarships among 59 students.

“The goal of these groups,” explains ACRE Director and Associate Professor of Economics Jeremy Horpedahl, “is to get students thinking and talking about interesting ideas.” Students have an opportunity to learn from each other and interact with professors in a more casual environment. Students of all majors are encouraged to apply and those accepted are responsible for weekly readings and discussions.

Reading Group participants often receive opportunities to travel. This March, 13 BT����students in the��ACRE Economics Reading Group participated in a summit at Southern Methodist University (left).�� UCA, SMU, and Northern Michigan students met with Economist����from Harvard University. Dr. Glaeser authored several of the group’s readings.

Past reading group topics include “Economics, Evolution and the Environment,” “Capitalism, Socialism, and Human Flourishing,” “Landmark Supreme Court Cases,” and “Dr. Seuss and Philosophy.” For more information on reading groups visit this page or watch message from ACRE Director and BT����Associate Professor of Economics Dr. Jeremy Horpedahl about past reading groups.

In addition to its reading groups, ACRE also provides student scholarships to its annual colloquium, which brings together students and faculty from universities across Arkansas. ACRE provided $3,500 in scholarships to this year’s event, “The��Terrors of the First Night: Taverns, Commerce, and the Violent Birth of British-American “Liberty” 1765 — 1766,” which was held at the Winrock Rockefeller Institute. Seven BT����students received scholarships to attend, along with 13 students from other Arkansas universities.

We are both happy and sad that Christy Horpedahl has left her role as Assistant Director of the Arkansas Center for Research in Economics. She begins a new position as an Editor for

Christy Horpedahl came to ACRE almost seven years ago as ACRE’s Program Manager. Her ability to run programs, guide strategy, and conduct operations ultimately led to her becoming Assistant Director. A large part of her job at ACRE was to figure out concrete ways to make our dreams for Arkansas happen. When team members came up with new ideas, Christy had a knack for figuring out how to make them reality. She championed the minimum viable product as a way to validate the idea. If the idea held up in the early stages, she would envision and initiate the many small steps it takes to turn complex ideas into real products. In terms of strategy, Christy is the person who asks about the alternative return on investment. The question of how to best utilize our resources and people to produce the best possible work is always at the forefront of her mind.��

Christy had a strong hand in almost all ACRE’s publications. Writing, editing, graphic design-she did it all and did it well. She also helped to expand our research areas and increase the quality of work through her insight into quality research and her operational assistance. That’s not surprising given her educational background. Christy holds degrees from St. John’s College and from the University of Chicago.

Christy is also a champion of property rights. It was Christy who led the charge on civil asset forfeiture projects, heir property, and eminent domain issues. She assisted ACRE researchers and other partners in getting critical information in Arkansas by using Freedom of Information Act requests, and navigated the complex stakeholder relationships surrounding the issue as the Arkansas legislature debated forfeiture reform bills.��

She has always understood that ACRE could be even more effective with the right partnerships. To that end she created and strengthened partnerships with other organizations including the Arkansas Policy Foundation, the Institute for Justice, among others. Christy always thought about how our work in Arkansas fits into larger conversations and issues.

She developed and executed a variety of new educational programs for Arkansas learners. For example, she introduced and spearheaded the ACRE Cubs program for Biz@Bear students, an interdisciplinary, business-focused extracurricular program for freshman students of the Biz@Bear residential college. She also acted as a mentor to a handful of BT����women, including ACRE student worker and research assistant Alex Tatem and past ACRE fellows Maleka Momand and Terra Aquia.

Momand said on her mentorship from Christy:

“Christy was an incredible mentor and influence during my time at the University of Central Arkansas. Her love of reading is infectious, and I remember fondly our regular coffee chats at the ACRE house. I think what is most remarkable about those conversations is that her advice was never pedantic, and she always emphasized my freedom to choose my own path. She is a champion of curiosity and wit and helped me get started down the path I’m on today. For that, I’m incredibly grateful.”

Maleka Momand is the CEO of Esper, a software company that helps government agencies create and manage public policy. She was recently named a Forbes 30 Under 30 Recipient.

While we will all miss working with and learning from Christy Horpedahl, we are so excited to watch her flourish in her new role! Thank you for everything Christy!

By Alex Kanode

The 2021 legislative session saw many changes concerning licensing of occupations in Arkansas.��

The Red Tape Reduction Working Group released a stating that there were 704,141 occupational licenses in Arkansas. That amounted to 52 percent of the state’s labor force at the time, according to the , or slightly more than one in every two jobs in the state.��

Occupational licensing refers to sets of requirements that a person must meet before they are legally allowed to work in a given profession. These can be fees, education, experience, or criminal background. Reform in occupational licensing remained a prominent issue for the legislature in 2021.��

Proponents of occupational licensing claim that it can be a way to protect consumers, but it can also be a way to protect producers from competition. High fees, lengthy education requirements, and excessive criminal background checks can keep people out of work. ACRE Scholar and BT����Associate Professor of Economics Dr. Thomas Snyder found evidence of this in his paper “The Effects of Arkansas Occupational Licensure Regulations”. If Arkansas reduced the number of lower income licenses to that of their neighbor Missouri, there could potentially be a .75% decrease in the state unemployment rate.

The Arkansas 93rd General Assembly passed general licensing reforms for many groups, including those below the poverty line, military service members, veterans and their spouses. When it is easier to get a license, it’s easier to earn a living. The legislature did a great job helping these groups. However, there are still improvements Arkansas legislators can make moving forward, especially with people looking to move to Arkansas from other states.

For people just starting out, licensing fees can be a serious impediment to working. Some licenses require $100 or more in fees to be able to work. That $100 can be a large barrier, especially on top of the education and experience requirements someone has to go through.

, with lead-sponsors Senator Ben Gilmore (R-26) and Representative David Ray (R-40) was designed to make it easier for people to work. This bill introduced an application fee waiver for people with incomes below 200% of the federal poverty line. People on programs such as Medicaid, SNAP, or unemployment are also eligible. This reduces one of the barriers to people finding work.

Another example is , sponsored by Senator Ricky Hill (R-29) and Representative Roger D. Lynch (R-14). This legislation improved portability of licenses for military service members, veterans and their spouses. Most licenses are determined at the state level, which makes it costly and difficult to move from one state to another.

However, Act 135 only improved portability for military service members and their spouses. There are still licensed people looking to move to Arkansas who aren’t married to someone in the military. The Arkansas legislature considered a bill, sponsored by Representative Tony Furman (R-28), that would have expanded the license portability improvement to all potential Arkansans.

This policy, known as Universal Recognition, is gaining traction across the United States. Nearby states , , and have all passed universal recognition legislation in the last year. Universal Recognition legislation usually stipulates that if an applicant has had a license in another state for at least a year and is still in good standing with that state’s board, they receive a license in the state they’re applying to. Applicants also often have to reside in the state they’re applying in and pass a criminal background check. This allows for easy transfer of experienced workers between states.

Unfortunately, HB1667 did not make it out of committee. During the April 1st House Public Health and Safety Meeting, legislators expressed fears that licensing boards wouldn’t be able to discover if applicants had medical malpractice lawsuits or a criminal history. But even with a criminal background check, the process would be much quicker than license transfers are currently. Arkansas legislators should watch how similar laws are working in nearby states. It’s now much easier for licensed individuals to leave Arkansas for Missouri than it is for a Missouri licensee to work here.

The legislature did a lot of good for Arkansas in the 2021 session. Lawmakers improved access to work for people below 200% of the poverty line by removing the barrier of upfront fees. They improved portability of skills for military members, veterans, and their spouses by allowing for automatic recognition of other states’ licenses. These weren’t the only changes. There were improvements for licensing people with a criminal history, ensuring that people don’t have to earn two licenses for the same job, and many more changes for specific licenses.��

All of this should be praised, but legislators should also look forward to future improvements to make Arkansas open for business.

What changes to civil asset forfeiture in Arkansas were made during the recent legislative session?

ACRE Research and Program Assistant Zach Burt analyzed “The Arkansas Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2021,” also known as in “” in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on June 5th.

Burt defines civil asset forfeiture as “a legal mechanism that allows law enforcement and prosecutors to confiscate property used to commit a crime. Most often, seized property is cash, vehicles, and firearms, though sometimes it can be land or houses.”

Burt writes:

Sponsored by Senator Alan Clark, R-Lonsdale, the act attempts to change how spouses, parents and other innocent owners try to get back property that police seized from another person suspected of criminal activities.��

However, the act will do little to reform the process of civil forfeiture in the state because it fails to address the core problem: Arkansas law enforcement is focused on seizing property with low-dollar values, very different from the mythology of cartel members hauling hundreds of thousands of dollars across Interstate 40.”

Burt contrasts Act 1023 with , also by Clark, which failed to garner enough support to become law. Senate Bill 197 “would have offered new and necessary protections for Arkansans.”

Burt writes:

SB197 would have made civil asset forfeiture a criminal process rather than a civil one. This means cases would have to be dealt with in criminal courts, where citizens are guaranteed the right to an attorney.��In civil courts, Arkansans do not have this right, and must pay for legal representation out of their own pockets.

According to research done by the Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm, the average legal costs for contesting seizures nationally amount to $3,000. No rational person would pay that much to get back property worth only $1,300, the median currency amount forfeited by law enforcement agencies across the country. However, such high legal costs relative to the low-dollar value of property seized is the norm in Arkansas.”

For more on this topic, ACRE Director and BT����Professor of Economics Dr. David Mitchell recently explained how often and how much property was taken through civil asset forfeiture since 2010 at a state Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on December 18, 2020 at the State Capitol.

A copy of the data and graphs he used in his presentation to committee members can be viewed . You can watch the meeting (Mitchell’s presentation begins at 1:42:27 p.m.).

For more on this topic, check out Burt’s “” published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on March 22.

By Caleb Taylor

How diverse is the support for allowing nurse practitioners to practice up to their level of training?��

The consensus that nurse practitioners should be allowed to do more is “widespread,” according to a “A Broad Consensus on Expanding Nurse Practitioners’ Scope of Practice,” by ACRE Director and BT����Associate Professor of Economics Dr. David Mitchell.

Mitchell writes:

Arkansas, like many states, faces a growing shortage of primary care physicians. However, other states are ahead of us in dealing with this problem by empowering nurse practitioners to provide more primary care services. Currently, Arkansans are restrained from getting care and services that our nurse practitioners have already been expertly trained in. These are procedures patients need and nurse practitioners are trained to provide.��

The consensus that nurse practitioners can safely do more is widespread.”

According to Mitchell, groups part of this consensus include:

• ��
• ��
• ��
• ��
• ��
• ��
• ��
• ��
• ��

You can read the rest of “A Broad Consensus on Expanding Nurse Practitioners’ Scope of Practice” here.

For more on the topic, check out our one-pager infographic.

You can read another of Mitchell’s recent publications on this issue “Addressing Arkansas’s Health Services Shortages By Empowering Nurse Practitioners” here.

Mitchell spoke before both the House and Senate Public Health, Welfare, and Labor committees on February 20 and February 26, 2019 about the need for increased scope of practice for nurse practitioners in Arkansas.

Members of the Senate Public Health, Welfare and Labor committee considered sponsored by Senator Dave Wallace. You can watch the livestream of the committee meeting . Members of the House Public Health, Welfare and Labor committee considered sponsored by Representative Robin Lundstrum. You can watch the livestream of the committee meeting .

Both bills failed narrowly in committee, but this legislation will likely be deliberated on again in the current legislative session in 2021.����

For more of ACRE’s research on nurse practitioners, check out our labor market regulation page.

Mitchell is also the co-author with Jordan Pfaff and Zachary Helms of an ACRE Policy Brief�� entitled “Solving Arkansas’s Primary Care Problems by Empowering Nurse Practitioners.”