21st Century Ar Task Force

Building a 21st Century Economy in Arkansas

October 2008FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TASK FORCE FOR THE 21st CENTURY ECONOMY

Building a 21st Century Economy in Arkansas

Findings and Recommendations of the Task Force for the 21st Century Economy

Task Force for the 21st Century Economy

Dianne Lamberth, Chair

Judy Adams

John Barnes

Gary Campbell

Clay Curtner

Guy Fenter

Bill Ferren

James Hendren

Gene Hill

Mike Maulden

Mickey Pierce

Brad Lacey

Pat Lea

Sam Walls

John Ahlen

Mac Dodson

Gene Eagle

Maria Haley

Chris Masingill

Randy Zook

Morris Jenkins

October 31, 2008

B U I L D I N G A 2 1 s t C E N T U R Y E C O N O M Y I N A R K A N S A S

I

F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s o f t h e Ta s k Fo r c e f o r t h e 2 1 s t C e n t u r y E c o n o m y

ContentsForeword

Executive Summary: Recommendations of the Task Force ...............................................................1

Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................7

The 21st Century Economy ................................................................................................................8

Role and Scope of Economic Development ........................................................................................ 11

Education ............................................................................................................................................. 11

K-12 Education ......................................................................................................................... 12

Post Secondary Education .................................................................................................... 12

Workforce Education .............................................................................................................. 13

Other Education Recommendations .................................................................................. 14

Research and Development ............................................................................................................ 15

Entrepreneurship ............................................................................................................................... 15

Risk Capital .......................................................................................................................................... 16

Existing Business Innovation .......................................................................................................... 17

Infrastructure ...................................................................................................................................... 17

Direct Economic Development Policies ....................................................................................... 18

Programs and Services for the 21st Century Economy ................................................................... 21

Education ............................................................................................................................................. 22

K-12 Education ......................................................................................................................... 22

Post Secondary Education .................................................................................................... 22

Workforce Education .............................................................................................................. 22

Other Education Recommendations .................................................................................. 23

Research and Development ............................................................................................................ 23

Entrepreneurship ............................................................................................................................... 23

Risk Capital .......................................................................................................................................... 24

Existing Business Innovation .......................................................................................................... 24

Infrastructure ...................................................................................................................................... 25

Direct Economic Policies .................................................................................................................. 25

A Constitutional Issue: Arkansas as an Equity Investor in 21st Century Firms........................ 27

Organization of Economic Development Activities in Arkansas ................................................. 31

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 35

Afterword: Additional Issues for Consideration ............................................................................... 37


III


A. Task Force for the Twenty First Century

Economy Interim Report

B. Act 1024

C. Complete List of Suggested Roles, Scopes and

Strategies

D. Inventory of State Economic Development

Programs

E. Minutes of Task Force Meetings and

Documents Presented to the Task Force

January 30, 2008—April 7, 2008

January 30, 2008

February 12, 2008

ASTA Presentation

AECD Strategic Plan

March 11, 2008

Arkansas: A Natural For Business

The Future of Arkansas Higher Education

Next Steps for Arkansas’s Future

Three Forces Changing Our Nation’s Future

April 7, 2008

ABED Initiative Study

Characteristics of a 21st Century Economy

Arkansas Research Alliance

F. Minutes of Task Force Meetings and

Documents Presented to the Task Force

April 22, 2008—October 22, 2008

April 22, 2008

Education, Regionalism Seen as Economic Development Keys

May 6, 2008

Arkansas in the Global Economy

The Rules Have Changed

May 13, 2008

Building a Better Future

Arkansas: A State of Character

June 3, 2008

Delta Training and Education Consortium

June10, 2008

Factors of Production

July 8, 2008

July 22, 2008

July 28, 2008

August 12, 2008

September 2, 2008

September 11, 2008

September 17, 2008

September 23, 2008

Resource Guide for Technology-based Economic Development

September 30, 2008

October 3, 2008

October 14, 2008

October 22, 2008

G. Additional Resources Presented to the Task

Force

Missouri Downtown Economic Stimulus Act (MODESA)

Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Engaging and Energizing Arkansans for a Brighter Economic Future: Executive Summary

Report of the Task Force for the Creation of Knowledge-Based Jobs

H. Access to Success: Increasing Arkansas’s

College Graduates Promotes Economic

Development

Appendixes

Appendixes may be found on accompanying CD.

October 31, 2008

Governor Mike BeebeMembers of the Arkansas General Assembly

Governor Beebe and Honorable Members:

It is with great pleasure that I present to you the findings and recommendations of the Arkansas Task Force for the 21st Century Economy. Since its inception, as required by Act 1024 of 2007, the members and staff of the Task Force have worked diligently to understand the emerging economic conditions of the 21st Century and their impacts upon Arkansas. The charge of the Task force was to:

• define the role and scope of economic development in Arkansas,

• define the programs and services needed for the state and its communities to be globally competitive within the role and scope of 21st Century economic development,

• determine the advisability of removal of the constitutional prohibition on state equity investments in private enterprise by economic development agencies; and,

• study the organizational structure necessary for an efficient and effective 21st Century state economic development system.

ForewordDianne Lamberth, Chair

I would like to compliment you, the Governor and the Legislature, for your vision in seeing the need to identify the challenges and opportunities of the 21st Century Economy and then to prepare our state to be competitive within it. I also want to express my appreciation for the expertise that was assembled on this task force by your appointments. My thanks go to all of the members of the Task Force for their spirited conversation and debate, their many long hours of dedicated work, and their commitment to this project. The Task Force members are:

Appointed by the GovernorDianne Lamberth, Batesville, ChairJudy Adams, ForemanGuy Fenter, CharlestonBill Ferren, Pine BluffGene Hill, CamdenMike Maulden, Little Rock

Appointed by the Speaker of the House of RepresentativesJohn Barnes, Little RockMickey Pierce, StuttgartBrad Lacey, Conway

Appointed by the President Pro Tempore of the SenatePat Lea, BatesvilleClay Curtner, NewportSam Walls, Little Rock

Appointed by Accelerate ArkansasGary Campbell, Fort SmithJames Hendren, Little Rock

Representing the Arkansas Science and Technology AuthorityJohn Ahlen, President

Representing the Arkansas Development Finance AuthorityMac Dodson, PresidentGene Eagle, Vice President, Finance

Representing the Arkansas Economic Development CommissionMaria Haley, Executive DirectorRandy Zook, President and CEO, Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce and Associated Industries of Arkansas

Representing the Office of the GovernorChris Masingill, Little Rock, Director of Agency and External Affairs

This body of work would not have been possible without the dedicated Staff from AEDC, ADFA, the Governor’s Office and Institute for Economic Advancement at UALR They have labored tirelessly to provide us with the research and support we needed and to put together this final document. I would like to thank them for their quality work and keeping us on schedule:

Arkansas Economic Development CommissionLisa Cogbill, Communications Specialist

Office of the GovernorValerie Hendrix, Administrative AssistantAmanda Richardson, Administrative Assistant

UALR Institute for Economic AdvancementJames L. Youngquist, DirectorTeresa A. McLendon, Senior Research SpecialistRandall G. Wright, Associate DirectorTonya G. Hass, Assistant Research Extension SpecialistMichael L. Gerfen, Coordinator, Workplace Skills Enhancement ProgramJan L. Gibson, Business ManagerVaughan S. Wingfield, Associate Research SpecialistSusan M. Jackson, Desktop Publisher

Our work could not have been completed without the participation of dozens of representatives from communities and organizations around the state who presented us with information about issues and gave us their insights about programs and institutions that are successfully leading us into the future.

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to be of service to Arkansas, and look forward to seeing our recommendations help us to build an economy bright with the promise of prosperity.

Sincerely,

Dianne Lamberth, Chair

Between 1950 and 2000, the State of Arkansas took steps to move its

economy from an agriculture base to a manufacturing base by creat-

ing the agencies, programs, and incentives needed to attract manu-

facturing companies to Arkansas. The strategies that worked then

are no longer eff ective in providing the jobs and incomes we need to

support the people of Arkansas. We exist in a global, highly competi-

tive economy of instantaneous communications and rapid change.

Businesses that are to grow in today’s highly competitive environ-

ment demand a more highly skilled and educated workforce than

in the past, as well as a physical and human resource infrastructure

that is more advanced than the 20th Century infrastructure.

The Task Force for the 21st Century Economy was established by the

86th General Assembly of Arkansas to study the role and scope of

economic development in the 21st Century in Arkansas, and to iden-

tify the programs and services needed for continued development

in Arkansas. Additional objectives mandated to the Task Force were

to examine the constitutional prohibition on state equity invest-

ments and the current structure of the state’s economic develop-

ment agencies in light of the needs of a 21st Century Economy.

Role & Scope of Economic Development

Economic development is influenced by—and affects—nearly every

aspect of life in Arkansas. The Task Force identified nine roles of eco-

nomic development, and during its many months of work, developed

recommendations for changes in policies and strategies for each role,

and each scope within. The highest priority recommendations of the

Task Force for role and scope of economic development are described

on pages 11-201, and are listed on page 2:

1 A complete list of all role, scope, and strategy statements of the Task Force is found in Appendix C.

Executive

Summary:Recommendations

of the Task Force


2


Role Recommendation K-12 education: Enhance science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)

educator talent by providing salary enhancements for Nationally Board Certifi ed math and science teachers as an economic development investment.

Phase out the number of students that opt out over the next six years by strongly encouraging school districts to adopt curriculum models that will eventually make opting out unnecessary.

Post-secondary education: Enhance incentives to encourage students to go into STEM four-year degree programs, including secondary math and science education.

Workforce education: Review and coordinate the existing workforce training programs to support the Arkansas Economic Development Commission’s (AEDC’s) targeted industries with an emphasis on best practices and support of the state’s strategic economic development initiatives.

Education Adopt the recommendations of the Task Force on Higher Education Remediation, Retention, and Graduation.

Pass a constitutional amendment to Amendments 60 and 65 of the Arkansas Constitution that would eliminate the interest rate caps for the Arkansas Student Loan Authority (ASLA).

Research and development: Expand the job-creating research and development capabilities of our universities through sustained state investment in research infrastructure and science and engineering talent.

Entrepreneurship: Develop an economics and entrepreneurship curriculum appropriate for grades K-16, including classes in personal fi nance.

Risk capital: Increase the availability of risk capital for state supported investment in early stage technology start-ups.

Existing business innovation: Expand research and development (R&D) incentives for industry; fi nancially support business retention and expansion activities through AEDC’s existing Business Retention and Expansion program, the Arkansas Science and Technology Authority’s (ASTA’s) Arkansas Manufacturing Solutions, and a variety of Arkansas Development Finance Authority (ADFA) programs; and increase incentives for existing businesses to modernize their processes through R&D and modernization of their equipment.

Infrastructure: Create a 21st Century cyberinfrastructure.

Economic development activities: Make Arkansas globally competitive in business and industry recruitment.


3


Programs and Services

The Task Force was charged with studying

“the programs and services needed for the

state and its communities to be globally

competitive within the role and scope of

21st economic development.” As the Task

Force identified its priority strategies,

the role, scope and strategies became

the framework within which a subset of

the economic development programs

emerged as particularly relevant in the

near term to global competition and the

scope of 21st economic development.

The Task Force recommends that the

following 26 programs, initiatives,

and constitutional issues be given

priority consideration in the near-term

as being key to competitiveness and

contributing to economic development

in the 21st Century Economy.

The 26 programs are:

Education Programs

STEM Teacher Fund

STEM Scholarships

Workforce Training Programs

SMART Core

Higher Education Remediation, Retention, and Graduation

Programs

Usury Laws (Amendments 60, 65)

Research and Development

Arkansas Research Alliance

Arkansas Research Matching Fund

Endowed Chairs

Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship Curriculum

Risk Capital

Phase Zero SBIR

Product Development

Risk Capital Matching Fund

Equity Investor Tax Credits

Seed Capital Investment Fund

Existing Business Innovation

R&D Tax Credits

Applied Research Tax Credit

University Research Tax Credits

Infrastructure

Connect Arkansas

Broadband Applications

High Performance Computing

Optical Networking

Direct Economic Development

Quick Action Closing Fund

Advertising and Marketing

Dedicated Funding

Super Project Funding (Amendment 82)

Usury Laws (Amendments 60, 65)


4


The process used to identify the 26 programs previously listed was

much less ambitious than thoroughly reviewing all of the economic

development programs to determine which programs contribute

to economic development in the 21st Century Economy and which

programs should be expanded, reduced or eliminated. This more

detailed examination was not feasible within the restricted timeframe

allotted to the Task Force.

The Task Force recommends that another task force be created to thoroughly review all the economic development programs of the state of Arkansas to determine which programs contribute to economic development in the 21st Century Economy, and which programs should be expanded, reduced, or eliminated.

State Equity Investments

The Task Force was asked to answer the question of whether

Arkansas should amend its constitutional prohibition on state equity

investments in private sector firms. A discussion of this issue may

be found on pp. 27-30. In response to this query, the Task Force

recommendation is as follows:

For the purpose of attracting and growing its own high technology and knowledge-based businesses to Arkansas it is advisable to remove the constitutional prohibition on state equity investments in private enterprise by economic development agencies. Further, the state should be authorized to receive, in exchange for its equity investments, stock or other securities that reflect a right to share in the growth and profits of such technology-based companies. It is also recommended that the funding shall be in the manner as provided by the General Assembly, which shall also provide for funding and implementation.

Organizational Structure

The Task Force was mandated to study the organizational structure

necessary for an efficient and effective 21st Century state economic

development system. In particular, the Task Force studied the three

primary economic development agencies in Arkansas: the Arkansas

Development Finance Authority (ADFA), the Arkansas Economic


5


Development Commission (AEDC), and the Arkansas Science and

Technology Authority (ASTA). As a result of its investigation, the Task

Force makes the following recommendations:

Arkansas should create an economic development plan that has input from, and involves, all state economic development agencies.

The Governor’s Work Force Cabinet should study the consolidation of workforce development activities where possible and provide closer linkages with state economic development agencies.

A web portal should be designed as the primary starting point for all clients and interested parties wanting to research starting, locating, or expanding a business. All state services, programs, and incentives that support economic development, and other relevant private and nonprofit resources, should be linked from there.

Resources should be dedicated to further study the structure and effectiveness of the state’s economic development organizations because economic development is ever changing and the continuing review will provide information about 21st Century demands on the organizations.

ADFA, AEDC, and ASTA should colocate their operations.

The Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce should review Oklahoma’s Business Round Table concept and consider creating a similar structure tailored to fit the needs of Arkansas.

Arkansas should create a dedicated revenue stream for funding 21st Century businesses development.

Funding for AEDC and ASTA should be appropriated to accomplish the Task Force recommendations.

The budget for ADFA should be increased to accomplish the Task Force recommendations.

These are the principle recommendations of the Task Force.


6


Other Issues for Consideration

In addition to these topics, the Task Force considered and discussed a

variety of issues that may impact economic development in the 21st

Century. Although formal recommendations about these issues were

not developed for them, they bear mention. They are:

• The special opportunity that exists for the development

of policies related to energy production and

consumption, and “green” and sustainable industries.

• The effect of Arkansas’s current usury

law on economic development.

• The special challenge that exists regarding Arkansas’s

physical infrastructure, especially in creating a

21st Century infrastructure while maintaining

and expanding our current infrastructure.

• The balance of funding for marketing and advertising

expenditures by state development agencies, given the

types of jobs that will enhance our 21st Century Economy.

The challenges that face Arkansas in the 21st Century are considerable,

but not insurmountable. The Task Force believes that the way to get to

a thriving 21st Century Economy is to adopt all the recommendations

described herein. It is important to understand that we will not reach

our goals by going halfway. All of the recommended roles, scopes,

programs, services, and changes in structure and Constitutional

prohibitions are essential elements of a 21st Century Economy.

B U I L D I N G A 2 1 s t C E N T U R Y E C O N O M Y I N A R K A N S A S7

F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s o f t h e T a s k F o r c e f o r t h e 2 1 s t C e n t u r y E c o n o m y

The 86th General Assembly of the State of

Arkansas in its Regular Session of Session of 2007

through Act 1024 established The Task Force for

the Twenty-First Century Economy (21st Century

Task Force). (Act 1024 may be found in Appendix B.)

Mission and Purpose

The Mission and Purpose given to the 21st Cen-

tury Task Force is to:

1. Define the role and scope of economic

development in Arkansas.

2. Define the programs and services

needed for the state and its communities

to be globally competitive within

the role and scope of 21st Century

economic development.

3. Determine the advisability of removal of

the constitutional prohibition on state

equity investments in private enterprise

by economic development agencies; and,

4. Study the organizational structure

necessary for an efficient and

effective 21st Century state

economic development system.

Task Force Membership and Staff

The 21st Century Task Force consists of 17

members. Members have been appointed by Gov-

ernor Mike Beebe, Speaker of the House Benny C.

Petrus, and President Pro Tempore of the Senate

Jack Critcher. Accelerate Arkansas nominated two

of its members with the approval of the Governor.

The Executive Director of the Arkansas Economic

Development Commission (AEDC) or her desig-

nee, the President of the Arkansas Development

Finance Authority (ADFA) or his designee, and the

President of the Arkansas Science and Technology

Authority (ASTA) or his designee serve on the Task

Force ex-officio. Governor Beebe appointed Dianne

Lamberth of Batesville as Chair. The members are:

GovernorJudy Adams, Foreman

Guy Fenter, Charleston

Bill Ferren, Pine Bluff

Gene Hill, Camden

Mike Maulden, Little Rock

Speaker of the HouseJohn Barnes, Little Rock

Mickey Pierce, Stuttgart

Brad Lacey, Conway

President Pro Tempore of the SenatePat Lea, Batesville

Clay Curtner, Newport

Sam Walls, Little Rock

Accelerate ArkansasGary Campbell, Fort Smith

James Hendren, Little Rock

Arkansas Science and Technology AuthorityJohn Ahlen, President

Arkansas Development Finance AuthorityMac Dodson, President

Gene Eagle, Vice President, Finance

Arkansas Economic Development CommissionMaria Haley, Executive Director

Randy Zook, Deputy Director, Administration

and Finance

Morris Jenkins, Division Director, Strategic

Planning and Legislative Affairs

Introduction



Staff

The staff for the 21st Century Task Force is

led by Chris Masingill, Director of Agency

and External Affairs for Governor Beebe. Lisa

Cogbill of the Arkansas Economic Development

Commission provided administrative and

logistics assistance to the Task Force. James

Youngquist, Teresa McLendon, Randall Wright,

Michael Gerfen, Tonya Hass, Jan Gibson,

Vaughan Wingfield, and Susan Jackson of

the Institute for Economic Advancement

at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock

provided facilitation, work program design,

research, and other assistance as needed to

the Task Force and its work committees.

As reported in its Interim Report issued

July 31, 2008, the Task Force began its work by

holding work sessions to learn about the missions,

organizations, and structures of the Arkansas

Development Finance Authority, the Arkansas

Economic Development Commission, and the

Arkansas Science and Technology Authority. It also

heard presentations from Accelerate Arkansas, the

Departments of Education and Higher Education,

and Innovate Arkansas.

Following the initial work sessions, the Task

Force traveled to eight communities in Arkansas

to hear presentations about local and regional

economic development issues and innovative

solutions for the 21st Century economy.

Specifically, the Task Force met in Batesville,

Jonesboro, Helena-West Helena, El Dorado, North

Little Rock, Texarkana, Fort Smith, and Rogers.

During these meetings, Task Force members heard

16 presentations and spoke with representatives

of 33 communities around the state. Presentations

delivered to the Task Force at these meetings

are described in the Interim Report of the Task

Force, which may be found in Appendix A. Copies

of presentations delivered to the Task Force

and minutes from all Task Force meetings are in

Appendix E.

The Task Force gained important insights

during these meetings by listening to community

and economic development leaders explain their

approaches to the 21st Century Economy. Many of

these approaches are discussed in the part of this

report that addresses Role and Scope of Economic

Development.

At the conclusion of the community meetings,

the Task Force held a series of discussions during

23 meetings to analyze the information they

had received and develop its recommendations,

expending more than 1,000 man hours of

work. This report details the findings and

recommendations of the Task Force, in response to

its four charges from the Legislature in Act 1024.

The 21st Century Economy

In its research on the 21st Century Economy,

Accelerate Arkansas found a helpful comparison

between the characteristics of the “Old” (20th

Century) and the “New” (21st Century) economies.

It appears in Figure 1.

The ability to develop a competitive 21st

Century Economy will only be possible where the

culture values character, a strong work ethic, and

educational attainment and where citizens influ-

ence community, regional, and state investments in

the public goods and services needed to sustain a

competitive economic environment. The Task Force

identified some of the shifting conditions of the

21st Century Economy as:



1. Globalization of the economy;

2. Support of knowledge-based growth;

3. Rapid changes in production processes, energy resources, and water supply propelled by risk, innovation, and technology;

4. Local and regional policies, investments, and institutions that shape knowledge-based development around existing, new, and emerging clusters of economic activity;

5. A distinctive quality of place that is essential for attracting and maintaining the talent needed for knowledge-based growth; and

6. Robust broadband connectivity that provides access to high-performance computing and communications.2

Businesses that are to grow in today’s highly com-petitive environment demand a more highly skilled and educated workforce than in the past, as well as a physical and human resource infrastructure that is more advanced than the 20th Century infrastructure.

Figure 1Keys to the Old and New Economies

ECONOMY-WIDE CHARACTERISTICS: OLD ECONOMY NEW ECONOMY

Markets Stable Dynamic

Scope of Competition National Global

Organizational Form Hierarchical, Bureaucratic Networked, Entrepreneurial

Potential Geographic Mobility of Business Low High

Competition Between Regions Low High

INDUSTRY:

Organization of Production Mass Production Flexible Production

Key Factor of Production Capital/Labor Innovation/Knowledge

Key Technology Driver Mechanization Digitization

Source of Competitive Advantage Lowering Cost Through Economies of Scale Innovation, Quality, Time to Market, & Cost

Importance of Research/Innovation Moderate High

Relations with Other Firms Go it Alone Alliances and Collaboration

WORKFORCE:

Principal Policy Goal Full Employment Higher Wages and Incomes

Skills Job-specifi c Skills Broad Skills, Cross-Training

Requisite Education A Skill Lifelong Learning

Labor-Management Relations Adversarial Collaborative

Nature of Employment Stable Marked by Risk and Opportunity

GOVERNMENT:

Business-Government Relations Impose Requirements Assist Firms’ Innovation and Growth

Regulation Command and Control Market Tools, Flexibility

Source: Atkinson, Robert D., Randolph H. Court, and Joseph M. Ward. THE STATE NEW ECONOMY INDEX: Benchmarking Economic Transfor-mation in the States. Progressive Policy Institute, July 1999, p. 5.

2 Task Force for the 21st Century. Interim Report, July 2008.



Since agriculture and manufacturing provide

a base for our current economy, they must receive

support in raising their global competitiveness.

Increasingly often, this is done in these industries

by adopting higher levels of technology and hiring

a more educated and skilled workforce. Along with

these changes in manufacturing and agriculture,

the lion’s share of the industries that are growing

today are those which have a high level of tech-

nology, and employ a higher proportion of highly

skilled and educated workers than other indus-

tries—knowledge-based industries.

Knowledge-based growth and development

reflect a highly skilled/educated workforce capable

of responding to economic and technological

change in the medium and long term. The market

recognizes and rewards this with improved earning

potential.

As the Task Force stated in its Interim Report,

“for Arkansas’s economy—and its people—to

flourish in the 21st Century, the role and scope

of economic development must be adapted to

the current circumstances, and the programs and

services provided must enhance the global com-

petitiveness of the state and the communities that

lie within.”

The Task Force gained important insights by

traveling to communities around the state and

listening to community and economic develop-

ment leaders explain their approaches to the 21st

Century Economy. Many of these approaches are

discussed in the part of this report that addresses

Role and Scope of Economic Development.



Although economic development occurs as a

result of investments made by the private sector,

there are many areas of state government policy

that can influence the rate and magnitude of

economic development. Many of these deal with

policy impacts on conditions present in the state

and improve the attractiveness of the area to inves-

tors. Others are policies that may more directly

impact an individual investment decision, such as

a tax incentive to act a certain way, or a program

that assists existing businesses in improving their

competitiveness in their markets.

Some of the policies may impact economic de-

velopment in a relatively short period of time. The

effects of others may not be felt for years, or even

decades. Nevertheless they all play some role in

changing the landscape of Arkansas, thus changing

the state’s potential for economic development.

The Task Force was charged with studying “The

role and scope of economic development in Ar-

kansas in the twenty-first century.” The Task Force

defined the areas of state policy that play a part in

the economic development of Arkansas, and within

each policy, the specific subsets of the policies that

most directly affect economic development in the

21st Century. During its deliberations, Task Force

members identified nine policy areas that play

roles in economic development.

The scopes of state policies can have an im-

pact on economic development in the future and

are many and varied; the roles and scopes recom-

mended by the Task Force are listed in Appendix

A of this document. The Task Force understands,

however, that state policies require resources to

implement—resources that are scarce in Arkansas.

For that reason, the Task Force has prioritized the

recommended scopes of action by the state. After

much discussion, the Task Force identified strate-

gies that can be used to specify, influence, and

better implement economic development policies

within their respective role and scope.

The roles and scopes identified by the Task

Force that can be employed as most crucial to our

success are described in the following pages, along

with the Task Force’s recommended strategies.

Education

Education was a topic of discussion at virtually

every meeting of the Task Force and in each com-

munity that the Task Force visited. The expert pre-

sentations, community discussions, and the experi-

ence brought to the Task Force by its members all

underscore that in the 21st Century, more than ever

before, success will be determined by the presence

of a skilled, knowledgeable, highly educated, and

highly trained talent base.

The increasing level of technology requires

firms to employ large numbers of scientists, mathe-

maticians, engineers, computer programmers, and

technologists. Research and development activities

are carried on by highly educated scientists. Entre-

preneurship requires creativity, a thorough un-

derstanding of the marketplace as well as specific

product-related knowledge. New technologies are

entering the market so quickly that most people

beginning their careers in the 21st Century will

work in many different jobs, for many different em-

ployers, and in several different occupations over

their lifetime. This requires the ability to grasp new

concepts quickly and engage in a lifelong process

of learning.

Role and Scope of Economic Development



Specifi cally, the Task Force for the 21st Century

Economy examined the roles of K-12 education, post-

secondary education, and workforce education.

K-12 Education

High quality K-12 education is essential for our

children if they are to survive and thrive in a 21st

Century world, with its global, knowledge-based

economy. While recognizing that the primary re-

sponsibility for educating our youth lies with their

parents, the state’s K-12 education policies play a

distinct role in economic development. K-12 educa-

tion provides the basis for our future workforce,

and can provide students with the skills and char-

acter they will need to continue learning through-

out their lives. At this level of education children

can learn values that will help them to excel in the

workplace: discipline, determination, curiosity, co-

operation, competitiveness, prudence, judgment,

and problem solving.

In a special way, the subjects of science, tech-

nology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) play

a major role in the 21st Century Economy. The com-

petitiveness of the American workforce in the 21st

Century will be in a great way dependent upon

the number of workers with high STEM skill levels,

and the comfort level of all workers in dealing with

STEM-related tasks. This knowledge comes from

being taught by teachers who are themselves com-

fortable with, and skilled in, STEM subjects.

The highest priority recommendation of the

Task Force is:

Enhance science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)

educator talent by providing salary enhancements for Nationally Board

Certified math and science teachers as an economic development investment.

The recommended strategy is to provide and

fund a program of economic development incen-

tive grants for the best STEM teachers in order to

encourage them to enter the class room and to stay

in the classroom, including better pay for STEM

teachers. This can be achieved by investing $1 mil-

lion in a fund for a program managed by AEDC that

would reward nationally certified STEM teachers

with an additional payment of $5,000 per year.

Additionally, the Task Force is concerned

that every student receive the rigorous educa-

tion they will need to succeed in the 21st Cen-

tury, which will not happen when students are

allowed to “opt out” of STEM coursework

With this in mind, the Task Force

recommendation is to:

Phase out the number of students that opt out of the Smart Core curriculum

over the next six years by strongly encouraging school districts to adopt

curriculum models that will eventually make opting out unnecessary.

Post-secondary Education

Arkansas’s policies regarding post-secondary ed-ucation play an important role in economic develop-ment by making the high quality education needed for 21st Century jobs available at aff ordable costs to state residents. It is in the colleges and universities that students fi nish their preparation for careers in science, technology, mathematics, and engineering: the most needed skills in the 21st Century workforce. In another link to economic development, the educa-tion of K-12 teachers through the post-secondary system provides the state with resources needed to educate children for the jobs of the future. As previ-ously stated, the Task Force endorses the recom-mendations of the Task Force on Higher Education Remediation, Retention, and Graduation.




Task Force is:

Enhance incentives to encourage students to go into STEM four-year

degree programs, including secondary math and science education.

The recommended strategy to enhance STEM

education incentives is to encourage students to

go into STEM four-year degree programs by creat-

ing a STEM scholarship program that offers assis-

tance that is hard to get but easy to keep. This type

of scholarship program will encourage students

to attempt difficult college programs and stay in

them until graduation. The program would cost $5

million to fund, can be managed by the Arkansas

Department of Higher Education, and would pro-

vide up to $5,000 per year per student.

Workforce Education

In the 21st Century Economy, workers with tech-

nical training are needed to staff a large proportion

of 21st Century jobs. A high school diploma today is

simply not enough education to provide employers

with the level of skill needed to perform many of

the jobs available. The state’s workforce education

policies provide a role in economic development by

providing much of the skilled technical workforce

needed to staff 21st Century companies.


Task Force is:

Review and coordinate the existing workforce training programs to support the Arkansas Economic Development

Commission’s (AEDC’s) targeted industries with an emphasis on best practices and support of the state’s strategic economic

development initiatives.

(Note that this recommendation is similar to

the one found on page 31 referring to a study of

consolidation of workforce training programs by

the Governor’s Workforce Cabinet.)

The recommended strategy is to review and co-

ordinate the existing workforce training programs

to support AEDC’s targeted industries, as follows.

• Study successful workforce training models

presently in place at the University of

Arkansas at Fort Smith and Mid-South

Community College in West Memphis

to determine if these programs can be

replicated across the state; provide existing

workforce centers with adequate support

to sustain and expand their mission.

• Strengthen current P-16 efforts

by providing proven models for

instructional alignment in each grade

level in the areas of mathematics,

literacy, science, and history in support

of the core curriculum requirements.

• Establish a system for workforce

training that allows students to enter

the system while in high school

and proceed, seamlessly, toward a

proficiency in workforce training

or a baccalaureate degree.

• Students will receive concurrent college

credit while participating in this career

pathway and may take advantage

of multiple entry and exit points as

they work toward being adequately

prepared with rigor for the workforce

or the baccalaureate degree.

• The system will require a phased-

in requirement that all state funded



vocational-technical programs affiliate

with a two-year or four-year institution of

higher education to provide for regional

workforce training centers available

to students from all high schools in

the region, and special funding will be

provided to these programs to train

workers for high-demand occupations.

• Course offerings will be supportive of

the strategic initiatives established by

the Arkansas Economic Development

Commission, which identifies the needs of

the state in each region. Priority funding

will be assigned to these courses.

• All high school juniors and seniors

will have the opportunity to earn

early college credit by providing

adequate funding for secondary

technical centers that are affiliated

with a program of higher education.

• Performance-based funding will be

established for regional secondary centers

in the areas of concurrent credit, national

credentials, and degree attainment.

• College participation will be increased

by providing incentives for students

who are not likely to participate. This

will be accomplished by providing

needs-based grants for low income and

minority students: by providing some

financial assistance for adult students

and through innovative course delivery.

• We should create a statewide common

course numbering system and a common

transfer system for use by all institutions,

based on a common curriculum.

Other Education Recommendations

The education and training policies of Arkansas

are so critical to the 21st Century Economy that

they must be examined in depth because every

facet of education and training policy will influence

our future success or failure. Moreover, the ability

of our youth to obtain advanced training past high

school, particularly college degrees, is conditioned

upon their preparation, motivation, and financial

resources available to them.

Arkansas communities recognize the impor-

tance of education to their local and regional

economies, and many have taken steps to empha-

size and encourage education by:

• Providing scholarships to high

school graduates who demonstrate

good work skills in high school;

• Strengthening the linkages between

local high schools and regional training

centers and college campuses;

• Establishing best practices for

math and science education;

• Connecting higher education resources

to the local economy; and

• Emphasizing university research

and student entrepreneurship.

In addition to communities, the Task Force

considered the work of the Task Force on Higher

Education Remediation, Retention, and Graduation.

The Task Force endorses the recommendations described in their

recent report, Access to Success: Increasing Arkansas’s College Graduates

Promotes Economic Development.



To provide sufficient loans to students entering college-level

training programs, the Task Force recommends passage of a constitutional

amendment to Amendments 60 and 65 of the Arkansas Constitution that would eliminate the interest

rate caps for the Arkansas Student Loan Authority (ASLA).

More about this can be found in the

section titled Afterword: Additional Issues for

Consideration.


Research and development are the source

of advances in knowledge and technology and

one of the drivers of change in the 21st Century

marketplace. Institutions performing these

activities employ highly educated and skilled

scientists and engineers, who themselves can

become a magnet for the location of business

operations involved with innovation and new

product development. Research universities also

prepare the types of employees desired by high-

tech and knowledge-based firms. Advances made

in the research and development process can

become the basis for new product and service

development, and creation of new businesses,

and assist our firms in competing in the global

economy. For these reasons, a substantive level

of research and development activities in a

state can provide a platform for a healthy 21st

Century Economy. By encouraging research and

development, Arkansas’s policies play a significant

role in economic development. These policies also

provide a signal about our intentions and interest

in advancing technology to firms looking for

location alternatives.


Task Force is:

Expand the job-creating research and development capabilities of our universities through sustained state

investment in research infrastructure and science and engineering talent.

The recommended strategy to expand the re-

search and development capabilities of our univer-

sities is to:

• Create a fund to implement

recommendations that will be coming from

the Arkansas Research Alliance, and provide

sufficient funding for implementation.

• Sufficiently fund programs to make

matches required for federal and other

non-state government grants.

• Focus university research on

applied, job-creating research.

• Recruit research “superstars,”

groom research faculty, and

support new research faculty.

• Build relationships between research

universities and undergraduate

institutions, to make facilities and

equipment available to faculty.

Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship—the formation of new

businesses by individuals and groups to take new

products and services to the market—provides

extraordinary opportunities for Arkansas in the

21st Century. The Task Force heard that the state’s

entrepreneurial spirit and success illustrate that

communities that embrace entrepreneurship can

grow their own knowledge-based companies,



jobs, wealth, and economic well being. According

to the U.S. Small Business Administration, in 2006

there were more than 25 million small businesses

in the U.S.; these firms accounted for over half of

the country’s private employment and generated

60 to 80 percent of the net new jobs every year for

the past decade. 3 Entrepreneurs tend to have roots

in the states where their businesses are created,

and are less likely than recruited firms to leave for

“greener pastures” elsewhere. Large firms may also

have greater difficulty reacting to the rapid chang-

es in technology and markets that characterize the

21st Century Economy.

At the heart of every small business is an

entrepreneur—a person who saw an opportunity

in the market, who was courageous and adventure-

some enough to strike out on his own rather than

cling to the security of employment in an existing

business, who took the risk necessary and invested

dollars and sweat and skills to build something

of his own. Entrepreneurship policies of Arkansas

affect the rate of new business formation through

their impacts on Arkansans’ attitudes about busi-

ness creation, and their knowledge about how our

economy, our businesses, and their own personal

financial dealings work.


Task Force is:

Develop an economics and entrepreneurship curriculum

appropriate for grades K-16, including classes in personal finance.

Risk Capital

Every business depends upon the existence of

risk capital in order to grow. The more risk involved

in starting or growing the business, the more dif-

3 http://www.score.org/small_biz_stats.html

ficult and costly it is for business owners to acquire

sufficient capital. The most difficult risk capital

to acquire from the private sector is capital for

early stage business start-up activities, the actions

that must be performed to take a new product or

service from the original invention to its first sales

in the market. The state plays a role in economic

development by providing access to the highest-

risk capital that would otherwise be unavailable

through the private sector. Risk capital is even

more crucial for technology-based businesses,

which may have large capital demands early in the

development process of bringing a new product or

service from the initial invention to initial sales in

the marketplace.


Task Force is:

Increase the availability of risk capital for state supported investment in early stage technology start-ups.

The recommended strategy to increase the

availability of risk capital is to:

• Support Phase Zero Small Business

Innovation Research (SBIR) (to attract

Federal SBIR), by providing proposal

writing assistance and increased funding

in support of SBIR grant requests for

start-up technology companies.

• Increase funding for Product

Development and SBIR Bridging.

• Match Risk Capital Investment Funds.

• Offer Investor Investment Tax Credits.

The recommended strategy to increase state

supported investment in early stage technology

start-ups is to:



• Fund the existing Risk Capital Matching Fund.

• Expand funding of the Seed Capital

Investment Fund.

• Encourage Arkansas state retirement

funds to invest in nonpublically traded

Arkansas technology companies.

• Eliminate the cap on the state incentive

tax credits for investment in start-up

technology companies and angel funds.


Businesses operating in Arkansas provide the

foundation for our future economy, providing jobs

for Arkansans and increasing the wealth in the

state. Policies that support innovation in existing

businesses impact our economic development by

providing them with opportunities to increase their

competitiveness and profitability, increasing the

probability that they will thrive and grow in the

long run. By their nature as drivers of business de-

velopment, the full scope of policies that encour-

age innovation among existing business will affect

economic development in the 21st Century.


Task Force is:

Expand research and development (R&D) incentives for industry; fi nancially support business retention and expansion

activities through AEDC’s existing Business Retention and Expansion program, the Arkansas Science and

Technology Authority’s (ASTA’s) Arkansas Manufacturing Solutions, and a variety of Arkansas Development Finance Authority (ADFA) programs; and increase

incentives for existing businesses to modernize their processes through R&D and modernization of their equipment.

The recommended strategy to expand the

research and development (R&D) incentives for

industry is to:

• Decrease the equity investment

requirement necessary for the R&D tax

credit from $400,000 to $200,000.

• Make the Applied Tax Credit transferable.

• Make the University Tax

Credits transferable

• Expand the Research & Development

tax credit to include the transportation

and installation costs of equipment.

Infrastructure

Businesses do not exist in a vacuum; they can

only operate in an environment that provides

them with the physical infrastructure needed

to get their products and services to market:

transportation, water, wastewater and other

waste disposal, electricity and natural gas,

telecommunications, and other physical assets

external to the firm. The state’s infrastructure

policies can determine the viability of the state

as a location for business, thus affecting our

future economic development. In addition to the

traditional infrastructure, 21st Century businesses

are highly dependent upon the existence

and reliability of high speed, high bandwidth

telecommunications—“cyberinfrastructure.” The

Task Force heard in communities across the state

that broadband connectivity is an advantage in

global economic competitiveness and that the lack

of affordable broadband is a barrier to economic

growth. Any area of the state missing an element

of the infrastructure will be unable to develop

economically in the 21st Century.




Task Force is:

Create a 21st Centurycyberinfrastructure.

The recommended strategies to create a 21st

Century telecommunications cyberinfrastructure

are to:

• Develop rural broadband connectivity

to all feasible locations in Arkansas.

• Develop broadband applications.

• Support high performance computing.

• Develop optical networks.

Direct Economic Development

Policies

A variety of state policies are directed at spe-

cific economic development activities, including

marketing and promotion of the state as a location

for businesses, financial incentives for businesses

locating in Arkansas, providing technical assis-

tance to businesses, and providing assistance to

regions of Arkansas in creating the kind of environ-

ment in which businesses thrive and the quality

of place where talented people want to live. The

21st Century is characterized by a global economy

in which businesses may extend their operations

over many states, countries, and even continents,

and can choose from thousands of communities

in which to locate. Arkansas’s economic success

will depend on strategic assessments of the state’s

business mix and, if Arkansas’s entrepreneurs and

existing businesses leave important gaps, then

Arkansas must be a suitable and competitive

environment for the operations of new companies

attracted to the state.


Task Force is:

Make Arkansas globallycompetitive in business and

industry recruitment.

The recommended strategies to make Arkan-

sas globally competitive in business and industry

recruitment are to:

• Expand funding of the state

Quick Action Closing Fund.

• Increase agency funding for advertising

and marketing to be competitive with

neighboring states. (See Afterword:

Additional Issues for Consideration for

a relative implementation method.)

• Provide funding for economic development

from dedicated revenues, rather than

the general improvement fund.

• Expand Amendment 82 to lower the

threshold of firm size that would

qualify for funding assistance but

maintain the same rate of impact on

the economy as would larger firms.

• Pass a constitutional amendment to

Amendments 60, 62, and 65 of the Arkansas

Constitution that would eliminate the

interest rate caps for the state economic

development agencies and for the cities

and counties in Arkansas. (See Afterword:

Additional Issues for Consideration.)

In addition to the state strategies listed, the

Task Force heard about targeted local and regional

initiatives that (in addition to those listed previ-

ously in the discussion about role and scope) ap-

pear to be making a difference in the 21st Century



Economy. These complementary local strategies

that make Arkansas communities more globally

competitive include:

• local sales tax options used for

economic development activities;

• efforts to improve or enhance

quality of place;

• longer-term strategic initiatives to

systematically move communities forward;

• efforts to strengthen local business

and industry as a way to keep them

globally competitive and retain and

grow them in the community; and

• encouraging participation in

the global economy.

This page intentionally left blank.



State government’s economic development

policies and investments are implemented through

the programs and services of agencies and instru-

mentalities of the state.

The Task Force was charged with studying “The

programs and services needed for the state and its

communities to be globally competitive within the

role and scope of 21st Century economic develop-

ment.”

The Task Force heard presentations from each

of the economic development entities represented

by ex officio members of the Task Force. The lead-

ership from the Arkansas Economic Development

Commission, Development Finance Authority, and

Science and Technology Authority made detailed

presentations to the Task Force about their respec-

tive operations, including many relevant programs

and services. The Task Force also discussed the role

and scope of education at all levels in 21st century

economic development.

The Task Force explored the possibility of thor-

oughly reviewing all the economic development

programs to determine which contributed to the

21st Century Economy, which – if any – had be-

come outdated, which might be considered for ex-

pansion, and where there may be opportunities for

new policies, programs, and services. This objective

seemed to the Task Force to be considerable, and

the time available to carry it out limited.

The Task Force initially invested its time in its

careful definition of the role and scope of econom-

ic development in Arkansas in the 21st Century; it

defined nine areas of state policy that most directly

affect economic development in the 21st Century.

These are reported in the previous section of this

report. In the context of the discussion about role

and scope, the Task Force identified strategies,

tactics, programs, and services.

As the Task Force identified its priority strate-

gies, the role, scope and strategies became the

framework within which a subset of the economic

development programs and relevant state consti-

tutional issues emerged as particularly relevant to

global competition and the scope of 21st Century

economic development. The Task Force believes

this methodology is tactically sound and reveals a

solid core of programs that are key to competitive-

ness and contribute to economic development in

the 21st Century Economy. In the following subsec-

tions of the report, which parallel those used previ-

ously to describe role and scope, the Task Force

restates its priorities and identifies the subset of

programs and services offering the highest poten-

tial “for the state and its communities to be glob-

ally competitive within the role and scope of 21st

Century economic development.” In the following,

“Description” summarizes a program or service;

“Entity” identifies the lead agency or instrumen-

tality of the state; and “Citation” references the

relevant Arkansas Code section.

The Task Force recommends that the following 26 programs,

initiatives, and constitutional issues be given priority consideration

in the near-term as being key to competitiveness and contributing

to economic development in the 21st Century Economy.

Programs & Services for the 21st Century Economy



Education

K-12 Education

The highest priority scope of K-12 education policies recommended for Arkansas is to enhance STEM educator talent by providing salary enhancements for Nationally Board Certified math and science teachers as an economic development investment.

DESCRIPTION ENTITY CITATION/ACTION

An Act to promote economic development by creating a

science, technology, engineering, and math fund to increase

the state’s ability to compete for jobs in the 21st Century.

Arkansas Economic

Development Commission

Act 564 of 2007

An additional high priority scope of K-12 education policies recommended for Arkansas is to phase out the number of students that opt out of the Smart Core curriculum over the next six years by strongly encouraging school districts to adopt curriculum models that will eventually make opting out unnecessary.


The SMART Core Curriculum Arkansas Department

of Education

Modify Existing Program

Post-secondary Education

The highest priority scope of post-secondary education policies recommended for Arkansas is to enhance incentives to encourage students to go into STEM four-year degree programs, including secondary math and science education.


Create a STEM scholarship program that offers assistance

that is hard to get but easy to keep. This scholarship will not

penalize students who enroll in difficult degree programs,

encouraging them to stay in them until graduation.

Arkansas Department

of Higher Education

New Policy

Workforce Education

The highest priority scope of workforce education policies recommended for Arkansas is to review and coordinate the existing workforce training programs to support AEDC’s targeted industries with an emphasis on best practices and support of the state’s strategic economic development initiatives.


Create an initiative to review and coordinate

existing workforce training programs to

support AEDC’s targeted industries.

Arkansas Economic


New Policy



Other Education Recommendations

An additional high priority recommendation is to endorse the recommendations of the Task Force on Higher Education Remediation, Retention, and Graduation.


Various educational efforts related to remediation,

retention, and graduation. Education Departments

Education Departments

The Task Force recommends passage of a constitutional amendment to Amendments 60 and 65 of the Arkansas Constitution that would eliminate the interest rate caps for the Arkansas Student Loan Authority (ASLA).


Eliminate the interest rate caps for the

Arkansas Student Loan Authority

Arkansas Development

Finance Authority, Arkansas

Student Loan Authority

Constitutional Amendment

to Amendments 60 and 65


The highest priority scope of research and development policies recommended for Arkansas is to expand the job-creating research and development capabilities of our universities through sustained state investment research infrastructure and science and engineering talent.


Fund the recommendations from the Arkansas

Research Alliance [Act 563 of 2007] through the

Research Infrastructure Fund administered by the

Arkansas Science and Technology Authority

Arkansas Science and

Technology Authority

15-3-301

19-6-500

Fund the recommendations from Accelerate Arkansas

for the Arkansas Research Matching Program.



15-3-201

Establish the Endowed Chairs Program and

fund the recommendations from the Arkansas

Research Alliance for endowed chairs.

Arkansas Research Alliance New Policy

Entrepreneurship

The highest priority scope of entrepreneurship policies recommended for Arkansas extends to the development of an economics and entrepreneurship curriculum appropriate for grades K-16, including classes in personal finance.


Establish an economics and entrepreneurship curriculum New Policy



Risk Capital

The highest priority scope of risk capital policies recommended for Arkansas is increasing the availability of risk capital for state supported investment in early stage technology start-ups.


Support existing Phase Zero SBIR investments (to attract

Federal SBIR) for start-up technology companies.



15-3-109

Increase funding for the existing product

development and SBIR bridging program.



15-3-109

Match private risk capital investment funds by

financially supporting the existing Risk Capital

Matching Fund [Act 1025 of 2007].


Finance Authority

15-5-1601

Enhance existing investor investment tax credits

[Act 566 of 2007] for investments in start-up

technology companies and angel funds.

Arkansas Economic


15-4-3305 (f)

Expand funding of the Seed Capital Investment Fund. Arkansas Science and


15-3-121


The highest priority scope of existing business innovation policies recommended for Arkansas includes expanding research and development (R&D) incentives for industry; fi nancially supporting business retention and expansion activities through AEDC’s existing Business Retention and Expansion program, ASTA’s Arkansas Manufacturing Solutions, and a variety of ADFA programs; and increasing incentives for existing industry to modernize their processes through R&D and modernization of their equipment.


Enhance the existing research and

development (R&D) tax credit.

Arkansas Economic


15-4-2709 (b)(3)

Enhance the existing applied research tax credit. Arkansas Science and


26-51-1102 or 26-51-1103

Enhance the existing university research R&D tax credit. Arkansas Economic


15-4-2708(a)



Infrastructure

The highest priority scope of infrastructure policies recommended for Arkansas is the creation of a 21st Century cyberinfrastructure.


Support the ongoing effort [Act 604 of 2007] to develop rural

broadband connectivity for all feasible locations in Arkansas.

Connect Arkansas 4-112-101

Support the development of broadband and

high performance computing applications.

Public Universities ---

Support public high performance computing infrastructure

as an investment in economic development.

Research Universities ---

Develop optical networks for research and education. Public Universities ---

Direct Economic Development Policies

The highest priority scope of economic development activity policies recommended for Arkansas is to make Arkansas globally competitive in business and industry recruitment.


Expand funding of the state Quick Action Closing Fund. Arkansas Economic


Appropriation

Increase agency funding for advertising and marketing

to be competitive with neighboring states.

Arkansas Economic


Appropriation

Provide funding for 21st Century economic

development activities from dedicated revenues,

rather than from the general improvement fund.

Arkansas Economic


and Arkansas Science and


Appropriation

Expand Amendment 82 to lower the threshold of firm size

that would qualify for funding assistance but maintain the

same rate of impact on the economy as would larger firms.

Arkansas Economic


and Arkansas Development

Finance Authority

Constitutional Issue

Eliminate the interest rate caps for the state

economic development agencies and for

the cities and counties in Arkansas.


Finance Authority,

Arkansas Economic

Development Commission,

and Arkansas Science and

Techology Authority

Constitutional Issue



While the methodology is tactically sound, the

Task Force recognizes that its effort did not thor-

oughly review all of the economic development

programs. There is long-term value in assessing all

programs, but this strategic task was not feasible

within the limited timeframe allotted to the Task

Force. Therefore, the Task Force makes the follow-

ing recommendation.

The Task Force recommends that another task force be created to

thoroughly review all of the economic development programs of the state

of Arkansas to determine which programs contribute to economic development in the 21st Century

Economy, and which programs should be expanded, reduced, or eliminated.



As Arkansas enters the 21st Century, it sees an

investment community in need of restructuring.

Statistics show that the most difficult time to ob-

tain funding is the early period between research

and development and product introduction. It is

during this critical time when start-up companies

most desperately need funding and yet find their

access to it most limited. This early stage is the

riskiest and private investors are reluctant to assist,

waiting instead until later stages of the company’s

development. As a result, states wishing to attract,

create, and grow knowledge-based businesses

need to restructure public investments and offer

incentives for private investments.

As it attempts to grow and attract high tech-

nology companies to the state, Arkansas operates

under constitutional restraints that prohibit it in

many ways from taking a more active role in eco-

nomic development. Arkansas’s constitution pro-

hibits the state, and its counties and cities, from

providing public funds to private interests, and

more specifically prohibits the state from securing

any equity investment in any private venture.

Because this type of early stage investment by

the state is high risk, it is reasonable that the state

receive part of the high return that may be avail-

able from a liquidity event for the company, rather

than just royalties or interest. This produces new

funds, not at taxpayer expense, to continue to ad-

vance other technology start-ups. In the long run,

the ability to secure a return for its investment will

allow the state to generate significant economic

development with high paying jobs and wealth

creation with profits from previous investments

in prior start-ups, thus lowering the overall cost of

economic development to the citizens of the state.

Other states have begun a variety of govern-

ment sponsored programs designed to attract

and grow its own knowledge-based, high technol-

ogy businesses. Most notably, our neighbor Okla-

homa recently elected to use equity investment

as a tool to provide seed capital for technology-

based firms and research oriented businesses.

North Carolina was able to secure such a signifi-

cant return on one of its investments that it was

able to fund a large rural section of the state with

broadband access, a goal of many of the south-

ern states, including Arkansas. North Carolina

has used a public/private cooperative investment

effort in the field of biotechnology that has been

quite successful. The North Carolina fund, like the

one in Oklahoma, is managed by a professional

group of investment managers. Ohio recently

amended its law to provide for a form of equity

investment to attract small businesses and tech-

nology start-up companies. California and Mas-

sachusetts have long used equity investment as a

successful means of attracting high-risk technol-

ogy companies to their states.

There is a relevant example in Arkansas that

bears attention. A description of the Seed Capital

Investment Program was made at the Septem-

ber 17, 2008 meeting of the Task Force. The Seed

Capital Investment Program was established in

1985 to help build the state’s economy from within

by retaining Arkansas technology-based start-up

firms that might otherwise have to leave the state

to find early-stage investments.

A Constitutional Issue: Arkansas as an

Equity Investor in 21st Century Firms



The statutory language establishing the pro-

gram was artful. It placed the program at the Ar-

kansas Science and Technology Authority, an “in-

strumentality” of the state. The legislation spelled

out the programmatic use of funds in detail (ACA

15-3-121) that included a range of qualified securi-

ties the Authority’s board of directors could invest.

Qualified security includes equity investments.

Funding for the program was also unique. It

came from interest on the state’s invested daily

balance, which was not considered “tax revenue,”

and went into a revolving cash fund to be used for

investments. This funding was not seen as violat-

ing the constitution because case law had deter-

mined that nontax revenue used by an instrumen-

tality of the state could be used for investments in

qualified securities, including equity.

At the time (1985), there were numerous

predictions why such a structure would not work,

including: (1) it had never been done before; (2)

low public-sector salaries were too low to attract

talent; (3) no financial incentives existed for the

staff (which were under strict conflict of interest

provisions); (4) possible interference of political

influences; and (5) initial funding was too small to

sustain the effort. (The original recommendation

was for a $10 million fund, which was reduced to

$5 million; ultimately $1.8 million was appropri-

ated to the fund.)

After enactment, but before implementation,

the Arkansas Supreme Court handed down a deci-

sion that reversed the case law on which the eq-

uity investment authority was based. This removed

the possibility of equity investments but allowed

for investments in other qualified securities, such

as loans and royalties.

The Seed Capital Investment Program began

making loans in 1986. The current portfolio of

projects includes 7 loans to companies (valued at

$1.5 million), 5 royalty investments in companies

(valued at $1.2 million), and $1.3 million in the

state treasury for future investments. The total

value of the portfolio is $4.0 million. A total of $6.5

million has been invested and re-invested by the

fund since 1986.

Typically, a seed capital investment begins with

an application. If the application meets the criteria

for the program, the Authority’s staff requests a

business plan, which is required by the language

establishing the program. Staff due diligence

includes the review of the technology, market,

management, operations, and financial data. An in-

vestment memorandum summarizes the evaluation

and is presented to a committee of the Authority’s

board of directors, which has the option of making

an investment recommendation to the full board,

which must approve the investment.

One example of a seed capital investment is

the 1999 investment of $300,000 in the Ultima

Group of Hardy, Arkansas. The investment was

fully paid off after the company was purchased

by a larger firm in 2001. The investment showed a

return of $24,000.

The fund would not have lost further money

had equity investments been possible, but returns

could have been higher because a small number of

companies went through transitions where equity

participation would have increased returns.

There are several key safeguards that limit

the financial exposure of the state: the amount

of cash at risk is limited by the size of the invest-

ment fund; the statutory limit for investment in

any single company is $500,000; and the amount

invested any single year is limited by the appro-

priation that authorizes investing funds from the

investment fund.



Removal of the constitutional prohibition does

not automatically allow entities of the state to par-

ticipate in equity investments; that authority still

must be granted by specific legislative action.

The ability of the state to make equity invest-

ment should be through its economic develop-

ment agencies, Arkansas Economic Development

Commission, the Arkansas Development Finance

Authority, and the Arkansas Science and Technol-

ogy Authority. Some task force members are con-

cerned that the managing authority of any entity

whose job includes overseeing such investments

should be a professional management group, ei-

ther private or a cooperative public/private effort.

The General Assembly should ultimately legislate

the details of implementation.

The Task Force recommends that for the purpose of attracting and growing

its own high technology and knowledge-based businesses to Arkansas it is

advisable to remove the constitutional prohibition on state equity investments

in private enterprise by economic development agencies. Further, the

state should be authorized to receive, in exchange for its equity investments,

stock or other securities that reflect a right to share in the growth and profits of such technology-based

companies. It is also recommended that the funding shall be in the

manner as provided by the General Assembly, which shall also provide for funding and implementation.



The Task Force was mandated to study the or-

ganizational structure necessary for an effi cient and

eff ective 21st Century state economic development

system. In particular, the Task Force studied the three

primary economic development agencies in Arkansas:

the Arkansas Development Finance Authority (ADFA),

the Arkansas Economic Development Commission

(AEDC), and the Arkansas Science and Technology

Authority (ASTA). At the request of the Task Force the

Institute for Economic Advancement conducted a lit-

erature survey to identify how other states fund and

organize their economic development activities. The

survey included the states surrounding Arkansas plus

several considered to be competitors with Arkansas in

economic development. They were Alabama, Florida,

Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,

Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina,

Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. Findings related to

selected states are detailed in Appendix H.

Task Force Recommendations

Information resulting from the literature search,

research, and interviews was consolidated, orga-

nized and presented as a resource to inform the

discussions and final recommendations of the task

force. What resulted are nine recommendations re-

lating to issues of planning, structure, and funding

of economic development in Arkansas. The recom-

mendations are described in the following pages.

There is currently no single economic develop-

ment plan for Arkansas, although AEDC has a strate-

gic plan for its agency, which has been created with

input from state agencies, local and regional authori-

ties, and economic developers throughout the state.

The research undertaken by IEA demonstrated that

several of Arkansas’s successful competitors base

their economic development activities on a state-

wide strategic plan. A broad based plan can provide

a common foundation for the economic develop-

ment activities of all the state entities, providing a

synergistic eff ect for Arkansas’s development gains.

Arkansas should create an economic development plan that has input

from, and involves, all state economic development agencies.

The State of Arkansas currently has about 104

programs located in a variety of agencies that

are in some way involved in workforce develop-

ment. Many are involved in workforce develop-

ment whether they are the Workforce Investment

Boards, Apprenticeship Programs, Department of

Workforce Education programs, or the Incumbent

Worker Training Program. In the past some pro-

grams have failed to coordinate their efforts across

agency lines and have only recently, as a result of

the Governor’s Workforce Cabinet, begun breaking

down departmental barriers. To eliminate duplica-

tion of efforts, to be fiscally responsible, and to

encourage collaborative efforts towards common

goals, it may be helpful to have close communica-

tions and lines of authority among many of the

workforce development agencies and programs.

The Governor’s Work Force Cabinet should study the consolidation of

workforce development activities where possible and provide closer linkage with state economic development agencies.1

1 For a similar recommendation, see the recommendation

regarding workforce training on page 13.

Organization and Structure of Economic

Development Activities in Arkansas



A common characteristic of successful states

among those studied was the presence of an effec-

tive, well organized website for economic develop-

ment information. South Carolina was identified

as particularly effective because of its use of the

“One Stop Shop” format that provides a single web

page (portal) from which links have been created

that provide the customer (businesses with cur-

rent or potential operations in South Carolina and

residents interested in employment and training

programs) a seamless search experience.

A web portal should be designed as the primary starting point for all

clients and interested parties wanting to research starting, locating, or expanding a business. All state

services, programs, and incentives that support economic development, and other relevant private and nonprofit

resources, should be linked from there.

The task force believes there still remain sig-

nificant benefits to be realized by continued study

of the state’s economic development organiza-

tions and their effectiveness. An in-depth study

providing Arkansas with the level of detail needed

to make an informed decision of this magnitude

requires a minimum time frame of 18 to 24 months.

The Task Force recommends dedicating resources to further study the structure

and effectiveness of the state’s economic development organizations

because economic development is ever changing and the continuing review will provide information about 21st

Century demands to the organizations.

A number of states surrounding Arkansas have

consolidated their economic development func-

tions, many by creating a department of com-

merce. A decision to merge the Arkansas Develop-

ment Finance Authority, the Arkansas Economic

Development Commission, and the Arkansas

Science and Technology Authority into a single

agency is a complex issue with multiple consider-

ations. Discussions to this end must involve all the

affected agencies, and must be viewed as a long-

range possibility. In the meantime some significant

benefits could be obtained through colocation of

the agencies. There are advantages to colocation:

a higher level of cooperation among the agencies,

better interagency communication, and more ef-

fective strategic planning.

The Task Force recommends that ADFA, ASTA and AEDC

colocate their operations.

According to research performed for the Task

Force, the Oklahoma Business Roundtable is the

state’s primary economic development support

organization with 132 companies representing

more than 200,000 workers across Oklahoma. It

provides a venue for private sector leadership to

engage with public sector economic development

professionals in the state, creating an environment

in which state economic development plans are in

step with the needs of the business community in

Oklahoma. Additionally, the organization leverages

the state funding for economic development by

providing financial support for receptions, meet-

ings, seminars, targeted research studies, trade

and investment missions, and other domestic and

global promotion activities. In 2007 the Roundtable

directly or indirectly assisted in attracting $1.31 bil-

lion in new business investments. An organization

similar to this could be quite useful in economic

development efforts in Arkansas, and could poten-

tially be a good fit with the existing Arkansas State

Chamber of Commerce/Association of Arkansas

Industries (ASCC/AIA).



ASCC/AIA should review Oklahoma’s Business Round Table concept and

consider creating a similar structure tailored to fit the needs of Arkansas.

In the states surrounding Arkansas and those

competing with us, economic development activi-

ties are performed in a variety of different state

agencies and organizations, making a direct com-

parison of funding patterns difficult. However, the

research performed for the Task Force indicated

that those states that have effective economic

development provide their development agencies

with dedicated revenue streams sufficient to pur-

sue their strategic economic development goals.

A direct comparison can be made by looking

at two similar agencies, the Arkansas Science and

Technology Authority (ASTA) and the Oklahoma

Center for the Advancement of Science and Tech-

nology (OCAST). Both agencies were created to

help grow their state’s knowledge-based economy.

Each has designed their own infrastructure of ex-

pertise and equipment needed to conduct nation-

ally competitive research and development. OCAST

implements programs and initiatives to impact the

entire technology development pipeline from basic

research through commercialization and applica-

tion, as does ASTA. The difference between ASTA

and OCAST is the greater level to which, Oklaho-

ma’s agency has been funded. ASTA’s FY 08 fund-

ing was $9.6 million, while the FY 2009 budget for

OCAST will be $22.4 million.

Resources for state agencies are scarce, but

economic development expenditures must be

viewed as an investment in our future, which will

pay dividends to Arkansas in the forms of more and

higher paying jobs—and repay the state’s invest-

ment through increased tax revenue. The Task

Force believes that funding levels for economic

development organizations in Arkansas be made

sufficient to pursue the goals that are set, and

competitive with funding in surrounding and com-

peting states. To this end, the Task Force has three

recommendations:

The Task Force recommends

• that Arkansas create a dedicated revenue stream for funding 21st Century businesses development;

• increasing funding for AEDC and ASTA to accomplish the Task Force recommendations; and

• increasing the budget for ADFA (which is self funded) to accomplish the Task Force recommendations.



Over the course of many months, and after lis-

tening to the comments and recommendations of

dozens of community and organizational represen-

tatives and state agency directors, the work of the

Task Force is at an end. The mandate to the Task

Force was to define the role and scope of economic

development in Arkansas; define the programs

and services needed for the state and its commu-

nities to be globally competitive within the role

and scope of 21st Century economic development;

determine the advisability of removal of the consti-

tutional prohibition on state equity investments in

private enterprise by economic development agen-

cies; and study the organizational structure neces-

sary for an efficient and effective 21st Century state

economic development system. The preceding

pages describe the findings and recommendations

of the Task Force in completing these assignments

as charged.

The Task Force believes that if carried out, their

recommendations will provide the state with a

solid foundation upon which to build a thriving

economy in today’s 21st Century.

Conclusion



During its meetings, many additional issues

were brought to the attention of the Task Force,

both opportunities and challenges for Arkansas’s

development in the 21st Century. A Special 21st

Century Opportunity: Energy and Sustainable “Green”

Industries outlines how unique strengths that exist

in Arkansas could be used to the state’s 21st Cen-

tury economic advantage. The Effect of Arkansas’s

Usury Limit on State Agencies: Constitutional

Amendments explains how provisions can have

unintended consequences when circumstances

change. A Special Challenge: Arkansas’s Infrastruc-

ture discusses the eroding state of physical infra-

structure, especially highway infrastructure; the

particular challenge is how to fund traditional

infrastructure in a time of transition caused by

increasing fuel prices and changing driving behav-

iors. Rebalancing Economic Development Advertis-

ing Expenditures illustrates the imbalance between

advertising expenditures for economic develop-

ment and tourism. These are each described below,

however, they may also illustrate the kinds of chal-

lenges faced by 21st Century economic developers

who, in periods of rapid change, will have to find

balance between more traditional approaches to

economic development on the one hand and the

emerging roles necessary to take advantage of

21st Century opportunities on the other, with both

competing for limited financial resources.

A Special 21st Century Opportunity: Energy

and Sustainable “Green” Industries

Energy consumption and environmental con-

siderations are issues that drive many of the chang-

es in the 21st Century. A great deal of attention is

being focused upon the opportunities that exist for

sustainable industrial development and the use of

emerging technologies in the reduction of carbon-

based energy consumption.

In one of its meetings, the Task Force heard that

the previous technology revolution (i.e., computer

technology) transformed places like Austin, North

Carolina’s Research Triangle and Seattle. The next

technology revolution, sustainability technology,

can transform Arkansas. Arkansas has been blessed

with relevant competitive advantages to build an

economic sector based on sustainability. These

advantages include:

• Wal-Mart, the largest funnel for consumer

demand and the largest proponent of

sustainability; the largest consumer goods’

supplier cluster with 1,300 companies;

• adjacency to a large energy

center, the world’s busiest cargo

airport and the highest global

concentration of plant scientists;

• one of America’s largest agri-

business centers; and

• Winrock International, which focuses

on energy and green industries.

There is an opportunity to transform Arkan-

sas into a technology cluster, often referred to as

a “Green Valley.” Arkansans have already planted

the seeds to succeed in sustainability technolo-

gies related to alternative energy and biofuels,

food and agriculture, transportation and logistics,

eco-tourism, and bioscience. The jobs generated

Afterword: Additional Issues

For Consideration



by emerging growth in sustainability will keep our

best graduates in Arkansas.

The Southern Growth Policies Board (SGPB)

met in September 2008, to discuss why it was so

crucial that in their strategic plans for 21st Century

economic development southern states include a

strategy to attract green industries or industries

in the business of making products that enhance

the environment. The meeting focused on how

to encourage economic opportunities relating to

bio-products, alternative energy, and/or energy

efficiency. Statistically, these industries and ven-

tures are showing huge investment returns and are

bringing significant numbers of jobs into the area.

The SGPB meeting dealt with keeping in mind that

states needed to have a broader vision of what

might be the industries of the future in the South

and downplayed the reliance upon the manufac-

ture and commercialization of an individual prod-

uct. Instead, states were asked to devote more

energies into unique and innovative companies

whose internal plans and goals were energy-relat-

ed and had a proven track record or other reliable

predictors of future success.

Due to time constraints, the Task Force has not

adequately addressed these issues and possible

actions. However, on a preliminary basis, the Task

Force suggests that Arkansas develop a strategy to

• attract green industries or industries

in the business of making products

that enhance the environment;

• encourage economic opportunities

relating to bioproducts, alternative

energy, and/or energy efficiency;

• support the innovative use of

technologies to promote energy

conservation and/or energy efficiency;

• promote cross-industry collaboration

(e.g. nano-energy, green

automotive technology); and

• prepare workers for green collar jobs.

The Effect of Arkansas’s Usury Limit on

State Agencies: Constitutional Amendments

As discussed in the meetings of the Task Force

for the 21st Century Economy, the Arkansas Munici-

pal League is working on a possible constitutional

amendment that would improve and simplify

public finance in Arkansas. Those changes could

involve changes to Arkansas Constitutional Amend-

ments 60, 62, 65, and 78. The Arkansas Municipal

League has already adopted a list of suggested

changes to Arkansas law.

Knowing that an amendment will be intro-

duced, the Task Force for the 21st Century Economy

is recommending the passage of a constitutional

amendment to Amendment 60 and 65 of the Ar-

kansas Constitution that deals with the Arkansas

usury limit. The proposed amendment would raise

or eliminate the interest rate caps for the Arkansas

Student Loan Authority (ASLA) and the state eco-

nomic development agencies.

The usury limit is now 5% above the “dis-

count rate” (Primary Lending Rate) or 6.75% as of

10/20/08. A change should be made to Amend-

ments 60 and 65 dealing with the Arkansas usury

limit, which causes a problematic impediment,

particularly for taxable or variable rate bonds.

For variable rate bonds, investors or providers of

credit support are reluctant to make commitments

involving the purchase of bonds when a variable

bond interest rate is capped at an unreasonably

low level for a long period of time.

Arkansas is the only state that has a prescrip-

tive usury provision in its Constitution. In recent



years, Congress has enacted laws preempting the

Arkansas usury provision for Arkansas banking

institutions; however, the usury provision is still

applicable to transactions involving governmental

entities such as the ASLA. As a practical matter,

not much remains of the Arkansas usury provision

except with regard to consumer transactions and

transactions of state agencies, public corporations,

and local governments.

It is important to understand the Arkansas

usury law creates difficulties for ASLA in situations

where ASLA is considered the “borrower.” Arkansas

usury laws do not affect the interest rates charged

by ASLA on student loans since the United States

Congress mandates the interest rate for Federal

education loans. However, Arkansas usury laws do

affect interest rates charged to borrowers of the

Arkansas Development Finance Authority (ADFA),

the Arkansas Economic Development Commission

(AEDC) and the Arkansas Science and Technology

Authority (ASTA).

In the past, Arkansas’s usury provision has not

completely impaired ASLA’s ability to issue bonds

to fund student loans because ASLA has typically

issued auction rate securities. ASLA has been suc-

cessful in selling auction rate bonds (which do not

require a letter of credit from a major bank) that

included maximum interest rate provisions to ad-

dress Arkansas usury. Since the recent collapse of

the auction rate bond market, ASLA has been un-

able to issue bonds to fund student loans.

ASLA and ADFA have been working with the

Arkansas Congressional delegation on a possible

preemption of the Arkansas usury law. Preemp-

tion of the Arkansas usury provision is not a new or

unique concept. Congress, in two recent instances,

has preempted the Arkansas usury provision. One

preemption relates to transactions with depository

institutions in order that Arkansas banks are on the

same footing with banks in the rest of the country,

and a second relates to Arkansas car dealers fi nanc-

ing purchases of automobiles in Arkansas. In addition

to congressional preemption, for many years corpo-

rations have structured transactions in such a way to

permit the law of a state other than Arkansas to ap-

ply in order that lenders would be induced to enter

into the transaction. There is no assurance that this

preemption will be approved, and it does not look

promising. Some involved in the preemptive debate

at the Congressional level believe that usury is a state

issue and it should be addressed at the state level.

The financial distress caused by the current

global credit crisis has exasperated the challenges

of issuing bonds to fund the activities of ASLA,

ADFA, and AEDC. In some cases, these state agen-

cies are not able to approach the bond market

at all. Arkansas is greatly impacted by the usury

limits imposed by the Arkansas Constitution re-

sulting in no credit, higher costs, and inefficient

structures. These limits create severe limitations

to the access of capital for student loans and for

economic development activities. They need to be

modernized to allow Arkansas to access the credit

markets when needed. Arkansas has excellent

credit ratings. Arkansas is not leveraged like many

other states. Arkansas is in an excellent position to

compete globally for opportunities. We cannot and

should not rely on the Federal government to do it

for us. Usury must be addressed at the state level.

A Special Challenge: Arkansas’s Physical

Infrastructure

Like many other states in the U.S., Arkansas has

a large backlog of physical infrastructure needs.

Some rural areas of Arkansas are further behind

than most areas of the U.S., in that they have never

had the infrastructure available to them that they

need for industrial development, much less the in-

frastructure needed for 21st Century development.



In the course of its meetings throughout the state,

the Task Force heard from many economic develop-

ers and community leaders about critical infrastruc-

ture needs in their areas. Many cited a crucial need

for more and better transportation alternatives, in-

cluding our roads, railways, air, and water systems.

Others cited the inadequacy of the current electric

utility distribution system. Still others spoke about a

lack of adequate water and wastewater systems.

Additionally, the changes in fuel consumption

that are occurring with increasing costs of carbon-

based fuels will pose a challenge to Arkansas in

funding our highway system, since current fund-

ing is based on fuel taxes. If fuel usage declines

(or stays at its current level), the state will be hard

pressed to maintain the current highway system,

much less expand it. Another stress on state and

local treasuries is the increasing costs of fuel and

other carbon-based products consumed in the nor-

mal operation of their offices and institutions.

For these reasons, the Task Force advises that

while new programs and projects are undertaken

to move us toward a 21st Century Economy, Arkan-

sas can not afford to relent in its efforts to improve

and expand the traditional infrastructure: its roads,

water, wastewater, and energy distribution. A com-

munity without roads or water is unlikely to attract

or grow industry, whether high technology, knowl-

edge-based, or traditional manufacturing.

Rebalancing Economic Development Adver-

tising Expenditures

The State of Arkansas currently spends a sig-

nificant amount of advertising dollars on economic

development, primarily in two areas: the AEDC and

the Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism.

The relative spending in these two areas seems

out of balance. The State spends much more in

generating visitors for the tourism industry than it

spends on developing the knowledge-based jobs

that will dominate the 21st Century Economy. The

state should consider realigning the priorities in

this area. The Task Force recognizes that this would

be difficult because of sources of these funds, but

for the future in the 21st economy, it should be

considered.

21st Century Ar Task Force

Business

Transcript of 21st Century Ar Task Force