Jindal, megafund as well as fowl face gutting with deal

From the beginning of his term, Gov. Bobby Jindal’s administration’s soft underbelly has been his curious belief that government interference in the marketplace – a concept he almost universally rejects in every other situation – is suitable when it comes to stimulating large business activity. He now has fully exposed his gut and offers his opponents or dissenting lawmakers a magnificent opportunity to slice into it.

Jindal unwisely has continued the Louisiana Mega-Project Fund, created a few months before he took office, and more than doubled it size to pushing $420 million now. The fund is supposed to provide capital to firms that create 500 new jobs in the state and make a minimum initial investment of $100 million; the state can’t provide more than 30 percent of the total project cost, and until a few days ago never had been committed to use.

Then Jindal announced money from it would go to allow Fosters Farms to buy from Pilgrim’s Pride a chicken processing plant in Farmerville, where the state will subsidize half of an $80 million purchase price plus throw in $10 million for an upgrade. This would prevent the loss of many if not all of the 1,300 jobs there as well as buffer any ripple effects to local producers, the state argues as its rationale for this action.

The problem is this deal violates every aspect of the law governing the fund. It is not bringing new jobs, the investment initially for Fosters is only $40 million, and the state is providing over 55.5 percent of the project cost from the fund. Therefore, the law is going to have to be changed, and changed quickly, for the deal to happen.

There are two reasons apparently why Jindal is taking a $50 million square peg and trying to bang it into a round, money-losing hole. No governor likes to see jobs disappear because of the economic hardship and increased demands made on government that result – and because a rescue might incline the employees and others around them to cast votes towards Jindal’s way during his reelection campaign. Also, the “megafund” has been a bust to this point and needs some justification for its existence – even if it means altering its concept completely.

So for this to work legally, the Legislature will have to rewrite the law which operates over they very pot of money many of them increasingly are casting covetous eyes over as the state faces massive budget cuts particularly in the areas of health care and higher education. They have every reason to believe that as long as they are rewriting the law for the governor’s benefit, they can do it for their purposes, too.

Do not be surprised at all if a bill emerges from the Legislature that gives Jindal everything he wants with the changes – and also empties the fund of its remaining money. Legislators can have a field day arguing about how if the state is going to save jobs plucking chickens it sure can do the same thing with saving higher education, for example. Worse for Jindal, he pledged to have this wrapped up in May so legislators can use time as a weapon as well, dictating to the governor terms in order for a speedy resolution. If they are on the ball they will tell Jindal not to make too many more, if any, commitments from the fund or no changes will happen. Because the worst thing of all would be for the deal thereby to fall apart thus making Jindal look incompetent and unable to live up to promises.

It will be instructive on how much political capital Jindal will burn if he tries to resist the dismantling of the fund, when there are so many other larger issues he has to deal with such as health care reform. The blinders he has on this issue may cause a tunnel vision that prompts him to give in on far more important things in order to salvage the fund. And the largest irony is that the whole idea is doomed from the start: the reason why the subsidy became offered is because the operation loses money, and there’s no reason to suspect state money is going to create conditions that will make it profitable. So not only may Jindal end up sacrificing important parts of his agenda, it will be for a waste of taxpayers’ money.

Hopefully, if he doesn’t already, Jindal will recognize his predicament and take it like a man, suffering the indignity of legislators significantly if not totally depleting the legal bribery fund. For if he fights, while chickens may be the things getting gutted in Farmerville, in Baton Rouge it’s going to be the governor.

Redistricting options point to LA Democrat House reduction

I suppose it’s never too early to start discussing redistricting in Louisiana, even if we’re a little more than a year from the actual census and two years from the process. Certainly a couple of interest groups agree with their recent contributions to the debate.

The Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana came out with a plan that allegedly would remove “politics” from the process. It argues for creation of a “nonpartisan” body filled by presidents of state universities to select a plan, but did not endorse a specific plan. In contrast, the Louisiana Family Forum cut to the chase and produced one, assuming population decrease from the hurricane disasters of 2005 would remove a seat from the Louisiana House delegation, that essentially combined the Second and Third Districts and lopping off their outlying areas to surrounding districts.

But as I have argued elsewhere, the PAR plan is a pipe dream, it simply would not remove politics from the process, although with some alteration a process that balances political interests that would move redistricting, outside of the Legislature where it presently resides, could be accomplished. (The organization lists every salutary reference in the media to its activities on its website, which is why there’s no link to my critique on it.) In any event, the Legislature is highly unlikely to give away this power.

Recognizing this, the LFF plan gets to the heart of the matter with its presumed elimination of a seat. It fits the data well, follows judicial guidelines that districts within a state be compact, contiguous, and equiproportional, and therefore creates a massive problem for the state’s Democrats.

As mentioned elsewhere, the Third District represents somewhat of an outlier to the state’s political order with Democrat Charlie Melancon holding that position. Of course, it is not the biggest outlier since the election of Republican Anh “Joseph” Cao to the Second District who entirely contradicts this majority black Democrat district, an overwhelmingly Democrat district. So the combination of the two preserves every other district incumbent, all Republicans and all currently relatively new legislators who could be expected to stay a few more terms each, and packs Democrats into the second where, at best, a freshman Democrat with little influence will occupy the Second’s chair during the redistricting process.

But worse for Melancon, that occupant is likely to be a black Democrat who himself because of the population changes will be representing an endangered-for-elimination state legislative spot who will call upon his comrades in the Legislature to create a safe district for himself – an especially trenchant consideration given Cao’s upset win. Given the imperatives of geography and juridical considerations, the LFF plan is the optimal one to accomplish this given the lack of political heft a freshman would have to try to convince the Legislature to combine two districts that have GOP incumbents.

This makes Melancon the odd man out, with enough Republicans in the Legislature plus black Democrats willing to follow the path of least resistance, additionally discouraged from any other alternative by the presence of a Republican in the Governor’s Mansion with veto power over plans, to combine forces to accept something like the LFF plan. The significance of this is that the LFF has shown it can be done by the creation of a realistic plan.

This could change Melancon’s political calculations and make him willing to run in 2010 against GOP Sen. David Vitter. But he would give up sure reelection to another House term (thereby increasing future pension payments and lobbyist earning power) and at the end of 2012 when the redistricting would go into effect he will be 65 and perhaps ready to retire in any event. Melancon has said he has no plans to face off against Vitter and with Vitter looking stronger every day following his admission of a “serious sin” this may be too much of a gamble.

In the final analysis, the LFF plan presents not only a workable public policy solution, but also politically raises the odds that a single Democrat will continue to represent the state in the House after 2012.

Pare higher education first, then stabilize with megafund

Despite the feelings, and pretty decent arguments, of some, the fact of the matter is higher education in Louisiana is going to endure some significant cuts simply because much of what can be cut to balance the state’s budget already lies in that area. Since it must be done, a plan to do it in a way that best retains the capacity of higher education to serve as an input to economic development must be pursued.

As a part of the exercise, the appropriate level of reduction must be established, which means that, although a static figure has been produced of $219 million in deficit, revenue enhancement may reduce that figure if it proves too detrimental for higher education to serve its mission. To determine whether this is necessary, first reductions to the point of incapacitating the mission must be formulated.

In doing this, above all else, the paramount principle for the enterprise must be to target cuts and not make them across-the-board or indiscriminately. One decent start is the performance formula that is nearing completion, so long as procedures are put in place to prevent gaming the system and to recognize the mobile nature of today’s student population, i.e. if a student starts at one Louisiana public institution but graduates from another, each should share in the credit for that successful outcome. This means some institutions’ cuts will be buffered while others would become more severe.

Logically following this, consolidation of institutions should occur as well, for reasons that have been made obvious. That alone could reduce the deficit significantly. But it is not a short-term situation which does not remove its desirability, but such moves would be of limited utility for this upcoming year. Also vital but without a large initial impact would be reviewing the status of dedicated vs. non-dedicated funding by law and in the state Constitution. As recommended elsewhere, this process needs to begin this next fiscal year in order to better allocate funds to priorities such as higher education and reduce the needs for large cuts in deficit times in this area (and in health care), and the general law covering a response to a deficit needs alteration to put less burden on higher education. If nothing else, it prevents the long-term problematic nature of the current funding regime from becoming worse.

After these, it is up to the institutions themselves. Again, it is important to assess the management of each of them because some do a better job than others in efficient use of taxpayer dollars. Even some simple accounting measures should reveal this kind of information, and better-run institutions need to be rewarded for their thrift.

If as a result of this process it is determined the minimally-acceptable service level still would produce a deficit, three revenue sources should be considered. First, while some students will be unhappy at it, the fact is tuition at Louisiana state schools is a bargain compared to most states. Institutions are able to increase tuition costs as much as five percent and many students because of the Tuition Opportunity Program for Scholars won’t see any increase. However, this also means that, as far as overall state spending goes, a tuition hike won’t produce that much revenue, perhaps just in the tens of millions of dollars.

While some have suggested using the Budget Stabilization Fund, a giant savings account the state can draw a third from every other year, to stabilize the situation that probably is not wise. The Gov. Bobby Jindal Administration astutely recognizes the fiscal year after next could be even worse, and the federal spending bill runs out the following year from that, so the fund could be crucial in later years with the initial paring done this upcoming fiscal year.

But begging to be used is the so-called “megafund” initially designed by the Gov. Kathleen Blanco Administration to attract new business prospects of at least $100 million with 500 jobs created. Perhaps the biggest blindspot of the Jindal Administration has been its slavish devotion to the notion that it can bribe business into coming into the state with this fund of now over $400 million. Yet last week its purpose suddenly became altered when only $10 million of it was to be used not to create jobs, but to “save” them at a chicken-processing plant, and there has been talk of “saving” additional existing enterprises with it.

This demonstrates the bribery concept is not working, and at the same time if this money is to get used to subsidize retaining business, that’s a similar principle to retaining higher education. This is the optimal pot of money to be used this upcoming fiscal year should higher education need support. Unfortunately, it may take concerted legislative action to snap Jindal out of the spell of incentive-based economic development nonsense to allow this diversion.

If these strictures are adopted, higher education in the state would become positioned admirably to assist in economic development so desperately needed in Louisiana. Ignore them, and its ability in the near future to provide this crucial input would be severely impaired.

Some LA House members make Americorps mistake

Louisiana Republicans were doing pretty well in terms of voting in the people’s interest until encountering H.R. 1388 last week where they extended one of the biggest boondoggle giveaways in the federal government.

Appropriately called the GIVE Act, it vastly expands the Corporation for National Service (“Americorps”) giveaway program, where government pays “volunteers” to do whatever it thinks ought to be done, a make-work strategy that harkens back to the failed idea of the New Deal that government can tax and spend America’s way to prosperity, which in this case not only tremendously wastes money but crowds out genuine volunteerism. Regrettably, the bill advanced from the House on Wednesday even as the majority of Republicans voted against it.

Never one to shy away from throwing good (borrowed) money after bad, Democrat Rep. Charlie Melancon, the self-proclaimed thereby hypocritical fiscal conservative, voted for it as did all but one Democrat. But while Republican Reps. Steve Scalise, John Fleming, and Rodney Alexander did the right thing and voted nay, their party cohorts Anh “Joseph” Cao and Bill Cassidy lined up with the big spenders on this one.

Cao perhaps almost may be forgiven on this one. New Orleans has seen a tremendous influx of Americorps activities so his district probably by far receives more per capita spending this way than any other, and, further, the dependency Americorps fosters concerning citizens to their government fits in so well to New Orleans’ culture of dependency and attitude of entitlement that he might be lynched had he voted against it.

As flimsy as this excuse is for voting against both principle and the best interests of the American people as a whole, it’s much better than Cassidy’s. His explanation for a yea vote was that some of the resources would go to the nonprofit Teach for America program which has provided some teachers in his district and has been shown to do a superior job of teacher preparation.

However, there’s nothing in the bill that designates funds directly to the organization. In fact, in 2007 the organization received less than $10 million of its $75 million in donations from the federal government – less than any of individuals, corporations, or foundations. This means while such monies could be missed, they would not significantly impact the organization which has been in rapid growth mode. Either Cassidy sold out on this, or he didn’t do his homework if this is his rationale for voting for a potential tripling of this wasteful government spending.

In these times where reckless spending and the specter of bigger and bigger government threaten a prolonged recession in the near term and prosperity for future generations, all Louisiana members of Congress (but especially Cassidy and Melancon) need to pay attention and understand the damage they do to the country by approving such nonsense.

Helen Sadow, 1923-2009

(To understand why this is appearing in this space, read about my father. Thanks in advance for any comments that might be left.)


While my father was more about direct political action -- writing letters to policy-makers and newspapers, running for office, etc. -- my mother's contributions to politics were less publicly visible and stemmed from her vast enjoyment of philosophy. especially when they intersected with her deep religious faith. In an undergraduate philosophy class her Jesuit instructor once quizzed on some matter of philosophy and she volunteered an answer. He asked how she had formulated that and she said, "It's obvious" and gave a brief explanation. After class, he took her aside and told her that particular concept usually did not become understood even in a simple form to most students until the end of the semester and then some still never got it. The complexity of her level of understanding, he noted, he rarely ever encountered.


Probably her greatest pleasure came from exploring the nuances of the nexus of philosophy and theology; besides her poetry appearing in the high school yearbook of her senior year there is a telling passage in the "Class Will" section that reads "Helen Haddock, our argumentative senior, leaves her glamor to ...." Even as she very much enjoyed the contemplative aspect of philosophy and theology, she did extend that to the world of politics, basing her beliefs on incredibly logical and informed presuppositions. A few around Monroe probably remember her activity in the Republican women's club. But even earlier in life she extended belief to action. When she began working in the deep South in the 1940s, she was appalled at the segregationist culture and would subvert it in small ways, such as (only occasionally having access to a car) giving rides to black co-workers at her hospital who otherwise would have to walk.


Unlike my father, who read this space, my mother never was into computers. Regardless, some understanding about her should be left in cyberspace. So long, Mom.

Tobacco tax hike more motivated by politics than policy

An effort to raise taxes on cigarettes illuminates not just a pair of interesting public policy questions, but also a political battle that has taken on personal connotations for its sponsor.

Democrat State Rep. Karen Carter Peterson, the second in command in the House, plans to offer a bill to increase the state’s tobacco tax a dollar per unit to $1.36. This is on top of a projected increase in the federal tax of another dollar. She said it could raise in the neighborhood of $200 million a year just off cigarette pack sales to fund state coffers, although she does not propose that it specifically go towards health care. She opined that it would constitute “fair share” of health costs of these products to do this and could be used to avoid some budget cuts this year proposed by Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal.

There are a few policy dimensions to this idea. First, if used as a tactic to raise revenue for government, it is an unstable and unreliable means. While “sin taxes” may be the least objectionable form of government expropriation of the people’s resources because they simultaneously discourage presumed sub-optimal behavior, this concept creates an internal contradiction: discouraging the activity limits its usefulness as a revenue-raising agent because the decline it brings in behavior concurrently reduces the revenue. In other words, particularly in the long run, any revenue increases probably will be minimal. So if this just another way to raise revenue, it’s not going to be very effective.

Also, the best public policy tries to connect a revenue source to its public policy purpose. In this case, that implies that the revenue should go into health care spending, and even more directly to activities related to the presumed ills caused by smoking, But Peterson did not make that explicit which makes the budgeting process and its execution less predictable, increasing the potential for distracting adjustments in the middle of a fiscal year. It also can lead to political posturing, the mode in which former Gov. Kathleen Blanco operated when she championed a similar idea.

Still, one could argue that the health and fiscal benefits alone should justify such a tax; that is, a presumably healthier population encouraged by this move should reduce costs to government and by the private sector in treatment of diseases allegedly induced by smoking. Unfortunately, from a fiscal perspective, this isn’t even true. Studies show that while smoking cessation in the short run would cause health care costs to come down, in the long term health care costs as a whole probably would increase, simply because longer lives bring additional and typically even more costly medical complications. Bluntly, people dying earlier from believed smoking-related causes cost the health care system less than if they lived longer.

Understanding these aspects of the issue leads one to conclude that the motivation behind this idea really has a political, if not personal, basis. If Peterson really were concerned about smoking and general tobacco use, from the moment she was elected she would have stumped for this as a health issue. Instead, she catches this religion in the second year of a governor’s administration that has cut taxes and specific pet projects from legislators and now proposes to do the same for general government spending.

Peterson, it must be understood, like a significant portion of the Legislature, wants more, not less, government control over people’s lives. She, and others, have become increasingly upset with Jindal’s support of tax cuts, his refusal to consider tax increases (which has lead him to state he will not support this), his past vetoes of legislators’ pet projects, his present cuts in spending generally identified as welfare-related, and (if never spoken then surely in the background) Jindal’s unsteady handling of a legislator pay raise to full-time status issue last year that ended up with his veto and plenty of bad publicity for legislators. Therefore, this measure not only accomplishes the goal of, on the surface, appearing to improve public health and avoiding spending cuts, but at a deeper level satisfies a desire for bigger, more intrusive government, yet at the most basic level of all is an attempt simply to defeat Jindal for its own sake. Peterson’s challenging rhetoric implying she could defeat a veto lends credence to this belief.

As this bill wends it way through the legislative process, its argumentation will focus on matters of health, finance, and government power over people’s lives. But beneath it all, recognize it represents a struggle between those who want to empower government against those who wish to empower people, and that for some in the conflict it will take on very personal undertones.

"Cyberbabble" from Bossier causes credibility loss

There’s a new word being spawned that relates to efforts by area politicians and those living off of their efforts to justify the roughly $107 million taxpayers – including about $15 million and $35 million, respectively out of the pockets of Bossier Parish and Bossier City residents – have coughed up in the government venture capital project known as the Cyber Innovation Center. Prompt one of these individuals on the subject, and they produce, et voilà, “cyberbabble.”

Understandably, Bossier elected officials should be increasingly nervous as one of the biggest capital expenditure items in their governing bodies’ histories looks to be a failed gamble. The idea was provide a compelling reason for the Air Force to set up its cyber-warfare headquarters at Barksdale Air Force Base by creating an infrastructural hub at taxpayer expense.

Lost in the breathless predictions of as many as 10,000 jobs to be created was the hard, cold economic (a resource-poor cyber environment for which a new building could not compensate) and political (too many other national politicians interested in a piece of this pie) facts which thinking leaders should have considered before hanging this tab on the citizenry. To distract the public from the fact that there is not going to be anything close to what they hoped would constitute federal government stimulation of the industry here, given military decisions to dilute the cyber-warfare element, Bossier politicians have shifted their emphases from deeds to words.

In search of hypocrites, Melancon need only look in mirror

With his latest published comments, one must wonder just what kind of cipher has been going on three terms representing Louisiana’s Third District in the U.S. House of Representatives, who doesn’t have the intellect to understand he does exactly what he accuses political opponents of doing.

In an interview, Democrat U.S. Rep. Charlie Melancon accused Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal of being “hypocritical” in his televised response to the speech given by Democrat Pres. Barack Obama last month that touted an unprecedented increase in the amount of federal government spending and the deficit. Jindal had noted that he would refuse, as was his option, some spending directed to expanding the scope of unemployment benefits because of a tax increase they would entail that would depress economic activity. Melancon said this left him “puzzled” because Jindal had, as a congressman, voted for extending the time period for employment benefits to be received by people losing their jobs because of the destruction of the hurricane disasters of 2005, thereby to him meriting Jindal the “hypocritical” label.

But the puzzlement of Melancon is itself puzzling to anybody who can think clearly. The hurricanes wiped out a tremendous segment of productive capacity in the state for an extended period of time, unlike the current situation where productive capacity remains only slightly diminished. Further, then Jindal argued only for an extension of benefits, while now he fights an extension of coverage – two very different things that Melancon seems unable to distinguish.

More puzzling still is the utter lack of logic he expresses in his argument why Jindal ought to take the money and its conditions anyway – that the state’s unemployment trust fund may be more likely to run low because of increased demand the solution to which could be an increase in taxes on business anyway. Let’s see, take the money now and raise taxes for some job-killing into the indefinite future, as Melancon argues, or refuse that extra portion which can only go to the expanded purpose, accept the extra funds to cover the present scope of policy, and if any taxes have to be raised down the road they will be much more minimal, as Jindal suggests? If Melancon really believes his alternative is better, it only solidifies his big-government credentials.

Perhaps this explains why Melancon also appears to lack the capacity to understand just such a large hypocrite he is on the issue of government spending. Melancon regularly tries to convey the impressive that he is not a tax-and-spend liberal. Yet he voted for the budget-crippling spending package that denies every principle on this score that he claims to represent and tries to defend that by a display of ignorance of history, making the discredited argument that the big-government New Deal got the country out of the Depression when in fact it made matters worse (besides the historical record, common sense should tell him that a set of policies that depressed economic indicators more towards the end of the period than its beginning and lasted over a decade didn’t work).

Yet Melancon can’t dig a hole on this issue fast enough when he also tried to draw a parallel between economic conditions assumed these days by Obama and those inherited from the Democrat Pres. Jimmy Carter era, oblivious to the fact that Republican Pres. Ronald Reagan’s policies that brought the country out of the most severe recession other than the Depression in the twentieth century are exactly the opposite of those he now proposes – Reagan’s being broad-based and permanent tax cuts, restraint of government spending in many areas, and slashing regulation.

In a state known for its slick, vacuous politicians, Melancon seems determined to set a new standard on this account. And if he’s willing to go looking for elected hypocrites in the state, every time he passes by a mirror he need only look into it to find one.

Fiscal conservatism in pared LA budget vitally needed

The harshness of the budgetary conditions under which Louisiana must operate for at least the next couple of years illuminates the roadmap of reform of the Gov. Bobby Jindal Administration, as the policy preferences encapsulated in his fiscal year 2009-10 budget show.

Federal dollars once again play a prominent role in interpretation of these. As always, a good chunk – this year nearly half – comes from the federal government, but more than ever now. Until a few years ago, much came from regular federal programs of matching and formulaic grants, but with the hurricane disasters of 2005 a significant portion started coming to the state for that reason. Now for this upcoming year, another specialized portion from the federal government is on its way, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds better known as the deficit spending package, and it creates its own set of solutions and problems.

The impact of federal funds always complicates interpretation, and for Jindal this has led both to overstatement on his part and under-appreciation on the part of others concerning assessments of his fiscal policy. Last year, Jindal took credit for “cutting” the state’s budget which was lower considerably over the previous year’s. But backing out federal monies dedicated to disaster relief showed a small proposed increase in state spending on continuing operations, 3.31 percent or $466.5 million. The area over which Jindal had the most control, the non-dedicated, non-self-generated portion of the general fund, he asked for a 6.19 percent increase or $536.9 million.

Income tax cut bills desirable if used the proper way

State Sen. Nick Gautreaux’s bills, SB 6 that would eliminate the state income tax on individuals, estates, and trusts over 10 years starting next year, and SB 8 that would allow nonrecurring state surpluses to be given out in tax rebates, both have some good essentials but as is won’t achieve optimal economic development.

A cut in income taxes always is welcome but the question presently is whether legislators would be willing to risk this when the budget already seems seriously out of balance to the estimated tune of $1.75 billion (we’ll know more tomorrow when the official budget is released). No fiscal note on this request yet has been compiled, but the December Revenue Estimating Conference forecast predicts that individual income taxes will be over $2.8 billion in collection for next fiscal year – over a third of general fund revenues meaning the 10 percent reduction that would start halfway through the budget cycle would clip over $140 million from this pending budget, then $280 million or more each year in addition to the previous amount from there on out.

The forecast thinks state revenues will begin to pick up again in a couple of years, so as not to create budgetary chaos, a better plan might be first to drop rates sequentuially, then tackle the elimination of them. While it’s hard to tell exactly given the way the data are reported, the present two percent tax bracket appeared to bring in $111 million for fiscal year 2007-07, the four percent bracket $355 million, and the six percent bracket $2.179 billion. What could be done would be for the first three years starting next year would be slashing a percent off the lowest, then middle, then highest, or reducing (by tax year) state coffers by about $56 million, then $89 million more, and then finally $363 million. This would fit in with revenue projections with the most realistic withdrawal and opportunities to cut spending.

After those three years, then the cut by a tenth every year until elimination could happen. By then, the economic growth triggered by the first three years of reductions (starting with the lowest earners as the economy improves) will cushion the removal of the annual 10 percent. This may take three years longer but smoothes the process somewhat.

His amendment to allow usage of nonrecurring surpluses in rebates is an unobjectionable idea. But passage of this should not serve as a means to deflect attention from enduring tax cuts. Economists note that one-time rebates are far less effective in stimulating economic growth, simply because taxpayers know it is not recurring and they are reluctant to invest money of that nature.

Tinkering with SB 6 is a good start, and SB 8 won’t do any harm unless it is seen as the only cure necessary for a stagnant economic development climate.