Suchergebnisse

Now we know more about why the Environmental
Protection Agency last year suddenly
punted on one Louisiana case trying to expand its powers beyond its legal
authority, thanks to a similar case initiated by Republican Gov. Jeff Landry.

Last
week, a federal district court blocked
the EPA from creating rules that would allow use of disparate impact requirements
in its decision-making process. This process utilizes a disparate impact study,
which assesses whether proposed actions that may have differential impacts on
protected classes under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and assumes
foundationally that significant differences must connote racist intentions deemed
illegal.

Over two decades ago the U.S. Supreme Court
instructed the EPA that it couldn't impose this requirement, but only at the
tail end of the Republican Pres. Donald
Trump Administration did it issue a repeal. But before the rule became
final, predictably the new Democrat Pres. Joe Biden
EPA dropped it. Illegally imposing the rule threatens, in this instance, hundreds
of millions of dollars in state grant money from the federal government because,
as part of its role in approving these, EPA insists on including the language
that the state must follow.

That led to a special interest group ideologically
opposed to chemical facilities in its neighborhood, RISE
St. James, lodging a complaint that used disparate impact as a
justification to curtail development of these facilities. Louisiana argued that
doing this violated statute in that it constituted reverse discrimination, i.e.
to conjure a power not granted by statute made for an illegal race-based
approach, where statute only allowed race-based solutions in the case of intentional
discrimination and not simply on disparate outcomes as an indicator assuming
that.

The court agreed with the state that the EPA
showed no reluctance to trying to impose such a standard again, and so enjoined
it. Landry launched the case (GOP new Atty. Gen. Liz Murrill pushed it across the
goal line), which proved to be his last solo victory in that office (along with
other states, just as he exited office he
also beat the EPA in another case), which will have ramifications
nationwide as the EPA now can't overstretch its authority anywhere in
overseeing use of federal grant monies.

But an interesting side note to that case resonates
both to a case against the state the EPA abandoned last summer and to yet another now
overseen by Murrill still working its way through the courts. The only part
that the state didn't prevail upon was getting the court to declare that the
EPA had illegally coordinated with an interest group, the Sierra Club, in
having the case play out.

It turns out that the state's suspicion that coordination
of the Biden EPA with sympathetic private parties, spanning not just interest
groups but journalists, was much wider. Additionally, attorney general Landry
was, and now Murrill is, pursuing
another suit against the EPA for failure to respond to federal Freedom of
Information Act requests detailing communications between it and these parties.
The state asserts that the EPA is stonewalling production of these records, with
the request going back a couple of years surrounding previous efforts that the
EPA made to try to bludgeon the state with its permitting of chemical producers
from expanding their footprints on the basis that the attempts constituted "environmental
racism." This alleged that the state's decisions were a form of illegal racial
discrimination based upon the alleged impact the subsequent activities would
have on protected classes under the Civil Rights Act.

Landry stepped up to the plate and sued the EPA
for acting on the complaint, asserting that it exceeded its authority under
federal and in the process delegated authority to special interest groups.
Within a month, the EPA abruptly closed its investigation without any action –
an unusual resolution, since with almost every case it typically extracts
concessions. At the time, speculation was it had such a thin case using environmental
racism as a justification that if the case continued the judiciary could rule the
EPA had exceeded its authority. The recent ruling partially addresses that issue
insofar as to the use of disparate impact requirements.

Yet in light of the recent ruling, back then another
and perhaps even greater motivation existed for Biden's EPA to fold up –
evidence of coordination with outside sympathetic parties. Keep in mind that
only weeks earlier Landry and Missouri's attorney general had succeeded in another
federal court case where a number of federal agencies were enjoined from contact
with social media companies after finding sufficient evidence that they had
colluded to support Biden Administration policies and election activities. That
case, after enforcement was put on hold by the U.S. Supreme Court, will
be heard on Mar. 18.

Production of these public records not only would touch
upon the communications with the Sierra Club subject to the other suit, but
also apparently with a host of others entities, including special interests RISE
St. James, Concerned Citizens of St. John, and the Deep South Center for
Environmental Justice, as well as with journalists working with news outlets
including the Times-Picayune, The Advocate, the Guardian, WGNO,
WWNO, and MSNBC. These groups and outlets sympathize with climate alarmism and
other politically leftist issue preferences on issues of the environment and
race, and therefore are antipathetic to Landry.

Given the facts of the case before the Supreme
Court – Murthy
v. Missouri – it's not unreasonable to think that the EPA engaged in
similar tactics to collude with certain special interests and to influence
certain media outlets in order to impose its will on Louisiana. Indeed, that
behavior would be a variant of the "sue-and-settle"
tactics first employed by Democrat Pres. Barack
Obama and adopted by Landry's predecessor Democrat former Gov. John Bel
Edwards. With this, government would try to make end runs around the law by
having a friendly special interest sue over a certain practice, then give the
group its way – also preferred by government – through a court settlement. In
the present variation with the EPA, it would come though administrative law
processes, the complaint procedure.

And maybe that's another reason why the complaint last
summer was dropped like a hot potato, the threat of revelation that perhaps
there exists deep ties among these groups, and even these journalists, with the Biden EPA and its agenda. Continuing it further might have exposed them and opened up
litigation along the lines of Murthy v. Missouri.

Except that Louisiana and now Murrill don't plan on stopping with
discovery, through FOIA requests instead of as attendant to an administrative
law case. Which is the right thing to do to ensure oppressive government with
its beneficiary allies don't run roughshod over democracy.

If Bossier City Republican Councilor Vince Maggio
has any ambitions beyond his current political perch, he has an opportunity to
enhance those by putting the brakes on the runaway train of a Manchac
Consulting no-bid contract renewal to run city engineering and other services.

The politics
and legal
dubiousness of granting Manchac yet another shot at an uncompetitively-sought
deal for this service are well-known. Even though the contract doesn't expire
for four-and-half-months, the existing language – technically the original contract
with a half-dozen amendments to be extended by another – mandates renewal
within the week or else it can't add on an extra $26,000 monthly for additional
unspecified duties, hence the rush.

Of the many legal questions hanging over this
approach, all but a question about whether the contract's limitations violate
the city charter's empowerment of the mayor to hire and fire a permanent city
engineer, could
be resolved by formally withdrawing from a renewal and issuing a request-for-qualifications
within the next couple of months. If no action is taken, the contract automatically
renews next month at the current $169,000 per month level, although the city
would have to follow ordinance – which it never has done regarding the Manchac
contract thereby violating its own law – in (dubiously) declaring this service subject
to a single source provider for that to be legal.

In the city's multiple violations of city
procedures, ordinances, and charter that have typified the Manchac saga, Assistant
City Attorney Richard Ray broached a new defense trying to explain away all of
this and thereby legitimizing the idea that the city solicits just one entity,
grooves it a contract, and continually adds to it and extends without any
competition. At the Jan.
2 City Council meeting, Ray suggested that R.S. 38:2318.1 hamstrung
the city in its ability to bid professional services due to a "recent" change
in the law. He claimed that the state "does not allow bidding of professional services
by professional engineers," in that cost factors were disallowed in the letting
of such contracts.

Such an opinion at best was a misunderstanding.
The "change"
in 2021 actually hardly altered the substance of the statute, which had been in
effect since 2006 as the bill's
author noted, calling the amendment "technical" clarifying that not just
design services were subject to it. And since its original enactment, there has
been plenty of competitive bidding at the behest of local governments across
Louisiana, including after the amending bill came into effect.

For example, in 2011 Central
bid out and changed contractors who performed not just engineering services but
almost every city service through a competitive process. Alexandria routinely launches
competitive processes for engineering work. Each and many others do so without
violating the statute because they issue RFQs,
which gather information about the qualifications, capabilities, and experience
of interested parties before inviting them to submit detailed proposals. Then
they select what they consider the best and negotiate a contract with price. "Competitive
bidding" does not have to be on price basis, but upon judgment of the
suitability of a contractor to fulfill adequately or better the needs of the city

Ray did admit that the city could "research" the
issue and said his advice solely applied to requests for proposals, but at no
point did he surrender that a competitive RFQ was an option, sticking with the
misleading line that competition was not permitted. Regardless, nothing in
state law prevents Bossier City from competitive bidding through an RFQ for this
contract nor mandating that it must award through a no-bid, single source
process. At worst, any suggestion otherwise attempts to provide political cover
to handing over a sweetheart deal to a politically-preferred vendor.

If that pricing prohibition even applies in this case.
Ray alleged that statute covered public-private partnerships, even though there
is no other statute nor attorney general opinion that connects that issue to
R.S. 38:2318.1, which itself mentions P3 arrangements only in the context of
the state's Department of Transportation and Development. As no party Councilor
Jeff Darby
– a longtime critic of Manchac's preferred position – and Republican Chris Smith
noted, services under the Manchac contract went well beyond engineering
services and correctly questioned Ray's view.

Along with Republican Councilor Brian Hammons,
when the matter came to a vote they opposed moving it to a final reading scheduled
for this week. But the graybeards, who other than Darby had three times
previously approved extensions – councilors Democrat Bubba Williams
and Republicans David Montgomery
and Jeff Free
– held to form, joined by Maggio to pass it.Prudence dictates that the Council decline any contract
renewal now, have the city give notice that it won't renew it, and then send
out an RFQ to have a contractor in place by Jun. 1. (Besides, of course, the
many legal doubts swirling over the process and contract's validity that argue
for a reconceptualization – a course which the same councilors in the majority
plus Darby were all too eager to pursue when it came to them abrogating
their duty under the Charter to schedule a citizen referendum on term
limits.) It well could be Manchac, who in a response can point out it has a
track record of performance (whether it's all that great is another matter, as
Hammons often has questioned Manchac's penchant for frequent underestimation
and considerably of project costs) with the very tasks demanded. Solicitation
through an RFQ may do nothing to stop insider politics from prevailing, but at
least it creates a stream of public records that citizens can scrutinize to see
whether councilors really did make the best choice for further negotiation.

Maggio is the key here, being the only member of
the majority not to have dealt with the issue before and not wedded to Manchac,
for whatever reason, as are Free, Montgomery, and Williams. There's no rational
reason for him, or any other councilor, to capitulate to an arrangement that
disserves the citizenry by failing to assure it has the best arrangement
possible in appropriate services rendered at an appropriate price. And citizens
can't rely on Republican Mayor Tommy Chandler to back them up, because even
though he could veto a measure passed 4-3 and unlikely have that overridden,
despite almost three years ago complaining about how the previous Council
renewed the deal on the cusp of his assuming office, as most recently he has made
approving noises about the uncompetitive process.

So, it's on Maggio. He either can gain citizens'
confidence that indeed he wishes to spend wisely their money by abandoning the
graybeards, or he can work against citizen interests by joining the
good-old-boys network that puts special interests ahead of the public interest.
Either way, it's a vote that will be remembered next year at this time, in the
middle of city election campaigning.

Die Reaktionen von Wissenschaft und Politik auf die Pisa-Ergebnisse zeigten eine problematische Engführung der Bildungsdebatte. Für eine wirkliche Verbesserung müssen wir uns zunächst wieder an die eigentlich entscheidenden Fragen herantrauen. Ein Gastbeitrag von Kai Maaz, Sabine Reh und Tilman Drope.






Foto: Katerina
Holmes / Pexels.






DIE VIELEN ÖFFENTLICHEN REAKTIONEN auf die aktuelle PISA-Studie und die dort diagnostizierte nur mittelmäßige Leistungsfähigkeit des deutschen Bildungswesens bringen wenig Neues. Sie lassen
dominante, alte Denkmuster unangetastet, bildungspolitische Zielkonflikte bleiben ausgeblendet. Der Zustand der Schule wird nicht als Ausdruck vielfältiger gesellschaftlicher Problemlagen
verstanden, vielmehr wird in der Hauptsache ihr die Schuld am konstatierten Elend gegeben. Gleichzeitig wird weiter die Hoffnung gehegt, die Schule werde, richtig gesteuert, gesellschaftliche
Probleme heilen. Dass sie an einem solchen Anspruch nur scheitern kann, könnte man wissen. Denn dafür müssten alle Akteure sich endlich ehrlich den alten Denkmustern stellen und den mit ihnen
verbundenen Narrativen, Gefühlen und Zielkonflikten.



 



Da ist zunächst die Enttäuschung der Bildungsforscher und -forscherinnen darüber, dass die Bildungspolitik nicht einfach tut, was die Bildungsforschung besser weiß. So kritisieren manche, dass
Programme zur Verbesserung insbesondere des Mathematikunterrichts nicht dauerhaft installiert worden seien. Selbstverständlich wird niemand etwas gegen besseren Mathematikunterricht sagen wollen.
Wenn aber eine solche Kritik mit der Diskreditierung anderer Maßnahmen, etwa denen zur Schulsanierung und Schulsozialarbeit im Rahmen des angekündigten "Startchancenprogramm", verbunden wird,
zeigt sich eine problematische Engführung.



 



Die überschätzte Rolle
der einzelnen Lehrkraft



 



Denn die Annahme, dass guter Unterricht lediglich eine Frage des richtigen Vorgehens sei und losgelöst von den konkreten Handlungsbedingungen vor Ort wirken könne, bedient letztlich das alte
Denkmuster eines durch die einzelne Lehrkraft zu steuernden Verhältnisses von Input und Output. Es bleibt außer Acht, dass Schülerinnen und Schüler ihre fachlichen Fähigkeiten und Lernerfolge
miterzeugen; diese hängen daher auch mit den Lernbedingungen in einem intakten Schulgebäude und etwa der Begleitung durch sozialpädagogische Fachkräfte zusammen. Ganz abgesehen davon, dass die
für guten Unterricht nötigen Fachkräfte es vielleicht vorziehen, ihre auch woanders begehrten Fähigkeiten dort einzusetzen, wo sie sich nicht als Einzelkämpfer um ein funktionierendes WLAN
kümmern oder sich als Streitschlichter Gefahren für das leibliche Wohlergehen aussetzen müssen. 



 



In der Fokussierung auf den Fachunterricht setzen sich Qualitätsdebatten und Fragen einer "inneren Schulreform" fort, wie sie in den 1980er begannen und bald darauf mit Ideen eines neuen
Managements der Schulen und der Steuerung durch Monitoring und Evaluierung verbunden wurden. Die empirische Bildungsforschung, die sich fast parallel dazu im Laufe der 1990er Jahre zu einer
elaborierten Kompetenzforschung entwickelte, erzeugte zwar neues und teilweise auch schulfachlich ausreichend detailliertes Wissen über den Unterricht. Dennoch reichte eine in deren Folge
verbreitete neue Aufgabenkultur nicht aus, nachhaltig und flächendeckend erfolgreiches Lernen im Unterricht durchzusetzen. Im Gegenteil: Das Vertrauen in die Schule und ihre Leistungen sank und
sinkt noch immer.



 



Ein weiteres so altes wie dominantes Denkmuster zeigt sich, wenn Leistungssteigerung gegen Chancengleichheit ausgespielt wird. Hier werden die seit dem Sputnik-Schock oder dem ersten Ausrufen der
Bildungskatastrophe tradierten Ängste vor dem Verlust der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit des Landes seit den 1960er Jahren gegen die nur unwesentlich jüngere Skandalisierung systematischer Benachteiligung
unterer Sozialschichten immer wieder von Bildungspolitiker:innen und auch von Journalist:innen in Stellung gebracht. Heute wie vor 50 Jahren kann mit diesem Denkmuster sowohl der Appell an
Lernende und ihre Familien als auch die Unantastbarkeit des auf die Universität vorbereitenden Gymnasiums begründet werden. So wird mindestens implizit die Verwirklichung von Chancengleichheit
von der Leistungsorientierung benachteiligter Familien abhängig gemacht und inzwischen wieder – wenn auch vorsichtig – die Frage gestellt, ob nicht doch einfach mehr Druck helfe.



 



Die am Gymnasium ausgerichtete Gliederung des
Schulwesen wird kontrafaktisch begründet



 



Folgenreich ist zudem, dass die am Gymnasium ausgerichtete Gliederung des Schulwesens kontrafaktisch damit begründet wird, dass im internationalen Vergleich Länder mit Gesamt- bzw.
Einheitsschulsystemen hinsichtlich der (Spitzen-)Leistungen nicht überlegen seien. Wenn in unserem Land sehr viele Schülerinnen und Schüler am Gymnasium die für die gesellschaftliche Teilhabe
notwendigen Grundlagen erwerben, an anderen Schulformen zu viele aber entsprechende Ziele nicht erreichen, verdeutlicht das den Zielkonflikt: Das Festhalten am Gymnasium ist mit Blick auf die
Leistungsspitze möglicherweise noch rational, die Absage an eine gemeinsame Beschulung bis zur neunten oder zehnten Klasse ist es mit Blick auf faire Chancen beim Erwerb von Basiskompetenzen
sicherlich nicht.



 



Ein drittes Denkmuster zieht sich schließlich durch beinahe alle Debattenbeiträge der vergangenen Wochen. Es spiegelt sich in der Forderung (und Erwartung) schneller und punktueller Bearbeitung
immer wieder neu und je etwas anders diagnostizierter Probleme. Die Vorstellung, dass man durch Nachsteuerung an einzelnen Stellschrauben die Outcomes des gesamten Bildungswesens entscheidend
verbessern könne, besteht seit Jahrzehnten. Seitdem Mitte der 1970er Jahre großangelegte Bildungsreformen scheiterten und stattdessen Schulqualitätsdebatten begannen, wurde die Schule meist nicht
mehr als vielfach verknüpfter Bestandteil der sie umgebenden gesellschaftlichen Umwelt gesehen. Die in der Folge aufgesetzten bildungspolitischen Maßnahmen waren und sind stets auf das Innen der
Schule und des Unterrichts gerichtet und dürfen dabei auf keinen Fall Fragen der – horribile dictu – Schulstruktur oder der Gesellschaftsstruktur berühren. 



 



Dementsprechend fordert die Bildungspolitik Problemdiagnosen und Handlungsempfehlungen auch beinahe ausschließlich von einer Bildungsforschung ein, die beides evidenzbasiert anbietet.
Grundsätzliche Fragen an die Verfasstheit von Schule und Gesellschaft, etwa danach, welche Gründe es für eine nachlassende Identifikation der Lernenden mit ihren Schulen und vielleicht auch mit
den Zielen schulischer Bildung gibt, werden dabei nicht gestellt. Sie könnten im Moment evidenzbasiert auch nicht ohne Weiteres beantwortet werden. Symptome werden so in einer "educationalization
of social problems" zur Ursache gemacht. Als Folge dieses Denkens bestimmt die Individualisierung struktureller und somit politischer Fragen die Debatte um Schule und Bildung. Gesellschaftliche
Entwicklungen, deren problematische Auswirkungen sich in den Schulen zeigen, aber anderswo herrühren, sollen dennoch vorrangig in den Schulen gelöst werden.



 



Wirkt die Bildungsforschung zu bereitwillig mit
bei der Perpetuierung falscher Narrative?



 



Obwohl selbstverständlich an vielen Stellen im Bildungssystem Verbesserungsbedarf besteht, muss sich die Bildungsforschung die Frage gefallen lassen, ob sie an der Perpetuierung derart
vereinfachend-falscher Narrative nicht zu bereitwilligt mitwirkt. Nehmen wir die Situation von Schulen "in schwierigen Lagen". Sie würde nachhaltig eher durch eine auf sozialen Ausgleich bemühte
Stadtentwicklung verbessert werden – und nicht umgekehrt. Auch lässt sich zwar das Ziel anstreben, die Ungleichheit der Bildungschancen zu reduzieren, es ist jedoch unmöglich, den Zusammenhang
von familiärem Hintergrund und Bildungserfolg in Gänze aufzulösen. Seit über 50 Jahren wird überzeugend theoretisch erklärt und fortlaufend empirisch bestätigt, dass die Schichtung der
Gesellschaft Bildungsungleichheit zur Folge hat. Die Reduzierung letzterer muss also über die Abschwächung erster erfolgen – und nicht umgekehrt.



 



Den ständigen Anspruch an die Schulen und an die dort Tätigen, gesellschaftliche Missstände zu korrigieren, müssten diese eigentlich als Zumutung zurückweisen. Das gilt auch für die Illusion,
allein Bildung könne den individuellen Aufstieg ermöglichen. Damit die Lehrkräfte nicht wirklich irgendwann aufgeben, ist es unerlässlich, dass wenigstens die jeweils unterschiedlichen Lagen von
Schulen und Schüler:innen erkannt, benannt und berücksichtigt werden. Der landesweite Einsatz bereits erprobter Instrumente wie der Mittelzuweisung auf Grundlage von Sozialindizes ist hier
naheliegend.



 



Für eine erfolgreiche Arbeit vor Ort wäre es überdies an der Zeit, die verschiedenen Verantwortungsebenen aufeinander abzustimmen. Gemeint sind hier alle im System beteiligen Akteure, also
Schulträger, Schulaufsicht, Kommunen, Ministerialverwaltung, Landesinstitute und Qualitätsagenturen, Schulentwicklungsbegleitung und schließlich und vor allem auch die einzelnen Schulen, die alle
abgestimmt und gemeinsam arbeiten müssen. Die Erfahrungen zeigen, dass es den Ländern unterschiedlich gut gelingt, in den gegebenen Strukturen kohärente und passgenaue Angebote für die Schulen
vorzuhalten. Dies trifft umso mehr zu, wenn immer wieder verschiedene Programme von unterschiedlichen Anbietern implementiert werden.



 



Ein geteiltes Verständnis der Akteure, die Definition einer gemeinsamen Zielperspektive, ist dafür ebenso unerlässlich wie eine unterstützende Struktur, vielleicht eine neue Form intermediärer
Organisation. In dieser würden alle relevanten Informationen für die Auswahl, Implementation und Umsetzung einer Innovation oder Maßnahme an einer Schule gebündelt werden. So könnten Erkenntnisse
der Wissenschaft mit Gesetzesgrundlagen, Umsetzungslogiken der Verwaltung, politischen Interessen und Bedarfen der schulischen Praxis im Sinne einer kohärenten Schulentwicklung abgestimmt werden
und in Angeboten münden, die die unterschiedlichen Perspektiven zusammenbringen. Dafür müssten wir vielleicht aber auch diskutieren, was für eine Gesellschaft wir sein wollen und welchen Beitrag
die Schule dazu realistisch leisten kann.



 



Kai Maaz ist geschäftsführender Direktor des DIPF Leibniz-Institut für Bildungsforschung und Bildungsinformation;  Sabine Reh ist Direktorin der
Bibliothek für Bildungsgeschichtliche Forschung (BBF) des DIPF; Tilman Drope leitet den Arbeitsbereich BBF-Forschung am DIPF.




Kostenfreien Newsletter abonnieren




In eigener Sache: Blog-Finanzierung














Wie dieser Blog finanziell aufgestellt ist, warum er Ihre Unterstützung braucht – und welche Artikel im November am meisten gelesen
wurden. 



 



Mehr lesen...

It's that time of year, and despite all the budgetary drama unfolding on Capitol Hill, lawmakers have already finished most of their holiday shopping for their favorite children: Pentagon contractors. Through cryptic "program increases" to the defense budget appropriations for fiscal year 2024, most with no listed author and little to no justification, Congress has added more than $25 billion to the Pentagon's procurement and research accounts for fiscal year 2024. Based on the continuing resolution that Congress passed in November, Congress has until February 2 to either pass another stopgap measure, or pass a final Pentagon spending bill, at which point we should be able to see which program increases make the cut. If history is any indication, almost all of them will be in the final bill.In the meantime, a new database created by Taxpayers for Common Sense reveals each of these program increases, whether they fund projects that weren't funded at all in the Pentagon's budget request, and whether they fund projects requested in Unfunded Priorities Lists (UPLs), extra-budgetary wish lists that Congress requires military service branch and combatant command leaders to submit to Congress each year.The numbersLawmakers on the House Appropriations Committees got to work early, adding 479 program increases for a combined $9.5 billion. When their Senate counterparts got to work, they included 636 program increases in their bill worth nearly $15 billion — so all in all 1,115 program increases. Broken down by bill section, there were 172 increases for procurement between the House and Senate at a cost of $14 billion, and 943 for research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) at a cost of $10.5 billion. When the House version of the Defense Appropriations bill came to the floor, lawmakers added 11 more program increases for procurement, and another 90 for RDT&E, for a combined $1.1 billion.While these kinds of adds are nothing new, their numbers do seem to be growing, particularly in the RDT&E category. In fact, the number of RDT&E top-ups has grown by 72% in the past four years, from 600 for FY2021, to 776 for FY2022, to 996 for FY2023, up to 1,033 for FY2024. More troubling still is that 1,010 of the total 1,216 increases, or $14.5 billion of the $25.7 billion lawmakers have added to these accounts, are for projects the Pentagon didn't fund at all in its budget request.Are they earmarks?According to Congress, these increases aren't earmarks, but in practice, they often serve the same purpose and are not subject to transparency reforms traditional earmarks have faced since 2007.Traditional earmarks, rebranded by Congress as "congressionally directed funding" or "community project funding," support projects that fund a specific entity for a specific purpose in a specific place. This made them a favored tool for lawmakers to funnel taxpayer dollars into their district or state. But these earmarks come with rules, requiring members to put their names on them, and in the House's case, requiring members to list their earmarks on their websites. Program increases are not bound by these rules. They have no name attached (apart from amendments, which list their sponsors) and generally lack any accompanying justification. In the Senate Appropriations Committee report on the Pentagon spending bill, a section on "funding increases" stipulates that "funding increases shall be competitively awarded, or provided to programs that have received competitive awards in the past." So Congress seems to differentiate these increases from earmarks on the basis that they're competitively awarded, unlike traditional earmarks. In practice, that rationale breaks down.Next-gen earmarksOne program increase allocates $2 million for "urban subterranean mapping technology," a fancy name for tunnel detection. This increase has appeared in every Pentagon spending bill since FY2020, for a total of $17 million over five years, but there's almost no publicly available information about this project. That is other than Sen. Joe Manchin's (D-W.Va.) regular celebrations of funding for West Virginia-based Marshall University to research urban subterranean mapping technology in press release after press release after press release after press release, all of which were published before the funds they celebrate were formally awarded.Some adds are even more blatantly noncompetitive. In the House, someone added $7 million for "Omniblast water sensor technology." If that sounds weirdly specific, it's because it is. The Omniblast water sensor is a trademarked product, owned by a company called Advanced Materials and Devices (AMAD), Inc. It goes without saying that program increases for patented products can only be fulfilled by the patent owners, so AMAD Inc. is more than a shoe-in for any "competitive" award process. And while AMAD Inc. was awarded a contract for "a wearable underwater blast sensor" in 2022, it was the only bidder, suggesting a not so competitive process in the past.As to whether this funding, like an earmark, is meant to serve the political interests of a specific lawmaker, we can't know for sure without knowing the author. But AMAD Inc. is based in Reno, Nevada, in the district of Rep. Mark Amodei's (R-Nev.), who sits on the House Appropriations Committee. While AMAD Inc. hasn't made any political contributions to Rep. Amodei's campaigns, it did spend $150,000 on lobbying in 2022, and $120,000 on lobbying in the first three quarters of 2023, expenses paid to a lobbying firm called Cornerstone Government Affairs. Cornerstone donated $3,000 to Rep. Amodei so far in the 2024 election cycle, its first time contributing to any of his campaigns.Unjustified adds, unjustifiable secrecyAsked about these program increases, a Senate Appropriations Committee staffer pointed to the unfunded priorities they fund as a justification. But there are two problems with that argument. One is that Unfunded Priorities Lists (UPLs) are just that: unfunded, meaning the Pentagon didn't find them important enough to include in its $826 billion request. Almost by definition, items on these UPLs are non-priorities for the Pentagon. The second problem is that UPLs only accounted for about $1.9 billion of the $25.7 billion lawmakers added to the Pentagon's request for procurement and RDT&E. The staffer also argued that the Pentagon sometimes "relies upon congressional increases to keep production lines open or to sustain readiness of the military." This tack obfuscates the fact that for a lot of the funds Congress adds, it subtracts funds from elsewhere in the Pentagon budget. While the offsets for the committee adds are as opaque as their authors, the offsets listed in amendments overwhelmingly raid the Pentagon's Operations and Maintenance account. That's Congress' prerogative, but lawmakers can't raid O&M to pay for procurement and research adds and then say with a straight face that those adds are about supporting military readiness.All this isn't to say that none of these projects are worth funding. There's more than 1,200 of them, so surely some are. But with the lack of transparency for who requests and approves them, whether the funds are competitively awarded, and whether they align with any cogent national security strategy, who's to say? If lawmakers think cramming another $25 billion for procurement and research into a $826 billion budget of an agency that just failed its sixth audit is worthwhile, they should at least let us know who's adding what and to what end.

Deutschland und seine internationalen Partner hatten entschieden, die Darmstädter Beschleunigeranlage trotz explodierter Kosten weiterzubauen. Doch der wichtigste FAIR-Finanzierer nach der Bundesrepublik ist ausgerechnet Russland. Die Bundestagsopposition sieht millionenschwere Risiken – und kritisiert die Informationspolitik des Bundesforschungsministeriums.






FAIR-Baustelle in Darmstadt (Oktober 2023). Foto: GSI Helmholtzzentrum für
Schwerionenforschung/D.Fehrenz.






DIE OPPOSITION spricht von einer "Geheimniskrämerei der Bundesforschungsministerin". Auf acht von 15 Fragen der CDU-/CSU-Bundetagsfraktion zur im Bau befindlichen Beschleunigeranlage FAIR
reagierte die Bundesregierung im August mit einer Einstufung der Antwort als Verschlusssache. Diese sei "im Hinblick auf das Staatswohl erforderlich". 



 



FAIR steht für "Facility for Antiproton and Ion Research" und entsteht unter Federführung des GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung in Darmstadt. Seit dem Beschluss des
Bundesforschungsministeriums, FAIR zu realisieren, sind allerdings schon über 20 Jahre verstrichen. Und 16, seit die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, das Bundesland Hessen und neun weitere europäische
Staaten das FAIR-Communique unterzeichnet haben.



 



Ursprünglich sollten erste Experimente 2012 starten, die gesamte Anlage 2015/16 einsatzbereit sein. Doch regelmäßig gab es neue Hiobsbotschaften über immer neue Planungs- und Bauverzögerungen.
Parallel explodierten die Kosten. Inzwischen geht die Bundesregierung von weiteren mindestens 518 Millionen Euro für den deutschen Steuerzahler aus, die auf die bereits bewilligten 2,15
Milliarden draufkommen sollen – und dafür gibt es nur noch die Teilfertigstellung in Form einer "First Science" genannten Ausbaustufe. Als Jahr des Starts von "First Science" wird jetzt 2028
genannt.



 



Projektaus wäre fast genauso teuer wie
der Weiterbau, befanden die Experten



 



Dass überhaupt weiter noch gebaut wird, hat zwei Gründe: Erstens bestätigten unabhängige internationale Experten wiederholt und zuletzt nach einer weiteren wissenschaftlichen Begutachtung im
Herbst 2022, das FAIR weiter exzellente und weltweit einzigartige Forschung ermöglichen werde. Und zweitens, argumentierten die Experten, wären ein Projektaus und der Rückbau mittlerweile fast
genauso teuer wie "First Science". 



 



Allerdings hat FAIR seit Beginn des russischen Angriffskrieges auf die Ukraine ein weiteres sehr grundsätzliches Problem: Der zweitgrößte Partner beim Beschleunigerbau ist Russland mit einem
beträchtlichen Anteil an der Finanzierung und der Bereitstellung an Bauteilen. Die CDU-/CSU-Opposition im Bundestag wollte deshalb nochmal genauer wissen, wie es um den Umgang mit den
FAIR-Mehrkosten bestellt ist. Unterzeichnet hat die Antworten auf ihre kleine parlamentarische Anfrage der parlamentarische Staatssekretär im BMBF, Jens Brandenburg (FDP).



 



Doch schon auf die erste Frage der Unionsfraktion, ob die Bundesregierung die grundsätzliche Beteiligung Russlands an FAIR überhaupt noch für adäquat halte und falls ja, auf welcher Grundlage sie
davon ausgehe, dass Russland seine eingegangenen Verpflichtungen einhalte und umsetzen könne, lautet die Entgegnung: Das sei Verschlusssache, da es sich um Informationen handle, "deren
Kenntnisnahme durch Unbefugte für die Interessen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland oder eines ihrer Länder nachteilig sein kann". 



 



Das ist die für Verschlussache übliche Formulierung. Was genau für die Bundesrepublik potenziell nachteilig sein soll, dazu muss die Regierung keine öffentlichen Angaben machen und tut es auch
nicht. Die Folge aber ist: Die Antwort bekommen nur die Abgeordneten zu Gesicht. 



 



Wesentliche Baukomponenten für "relevante Ausbaustufen" stammen aus Russland



 



Selbiges gilt für die Antworten des BMBF im Namen der Bundesregierung auf die Fragen, ob es nach ihrem Wissen "Ausfuhrbeschränkungen für die vertragsgemäßen russischen Lieferungen von Komponenten
zur Realisierung von FAIR" gebe, welche Komponenten Russland seit Beginn des Krieges zugeliefert habe und falls nicht, wie die fehlenden Teile jetzt ersetzt werden. 



 



Noch im Oktober 2022 hatte das Bundesforschungsministerium für diesen Blog auf Anfrage gesagt, dass Russland "wesentliche Komponenten für relevante
Ausbaustufen von FAIR" liefere. 



 



Ebenfalls nichts sagen, zumindest nicht öffentlich, will das BMBF jetzt auch zu den Fragen der Opposition, mit welcher Finanzierungslücke aufgrund ausfallender russischer Zahlungen in den
kommenden Jahren zu rechnen sei, wie etwaige Zahlungsausfälle kompensiert werden könnten und welchen Beitrag dazu die anderen internationalen Partner außer Deutschland zu leisten bereit
seien. 



 



Selbst die Frage, ob zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt nach Kenntnis der Bundesregierung die Gesamtfinanzierung gesichert sei, bleibt – öffentlich – unbeantwortet, Grund: siehe oben, das deutsche
Staatswohl. Im Februar 2023 hatte das BMBF in der Antwort auf eine andere Oppositionsanfrage noch zu Protokoll gegeben, "dass die Gesamtfinanzierung für die gegenwärtige Beschlusslage (…) durch
die von der Expertenkommission bestätigte Mehrkostenrisiken nicht gesichert" sei. 



 



Die Passagen, die diesmal nicht als Verschlusssache deklariert wurden, enthalten teilweise bereits Bekanntes. "An Mehrkosten", heißt es da zum Beispiel, "werden die internationalen
Anteilseigner grundsätzlich entsprechend ihren jeweiligen Anteilen an FAIR beteiligt."



 



Wie groß ist die Gefahr, dass Deutschland
auf den Mehrkosten sitzenbleibt?



 



Wobei das "grundsätzlich" wichtig ist: Denn: "Eine rechtliche Verpflichtung zur Übernahme von eventuellen Mehrkosten besteht laut Konvention für die FAIR-Partnerstaaten jedoch nicht." Deshalb
hatte der FAIR Council als Gesellschafterversammlung, in dem alle Partner sitzen, im März 2023 beschlossen, dass Deutschland die Finanzierung der gesamten Mehrkosten von 518,2 Millionen
Euro übernimmt – wobei der Bund 449 Millionen zahlt und das Land Hessen den Rest. Die Bundesrepublik gehe damit "in Vorleistung", "um die unterbrechungsfreie Realisierung von FAIR zu
sichern", erläutert die BMBF-Antwort an die Unionsfraktion.



 



Bundesforschungsministerin Bettina Stark-Watzinger (FDP) sprach schon im März nach dem Beschluss von einem "Durchbruch", der die Ausbaustufe "First Science" ermögliche, bekannte Risiken
berücksichtige und einen Baustopp verhindere. So weit, so bekannt.



 



Wie groß aber ist die Gefahr, dass Deutschland auf den vorgestreckten Mehrkosten sitzen bleibt? Bis August hatten den BMBF-Angaben zufolge vier der acht internationalen Partner außer
Russland weitere Finanzierungszusagen für die Mehrkosten von FAIR übernommen: Rumänien, Slowenien, Finnland und Polen, wobei Polen sein Geld nur drauflegen will, wenn Teile von FAIR realisiert
werden, die gar nicht Teil der beschlossenen Ausbaustufe "First Science" sind. 



 



Verwirrend wird die Antwort der Bundesregierung dann ausgerechnet an einem Punkt, wo sie ebenfalls Auskunft zu geben bereit ist. "Werden die internationalen Partnerstaaten einen Beitrag zu den
jährlichen Betriebskosten leisten, und wenn ja, welchen (bitte um Darstellung je Staat)?", hatte die Unionsfraktion gefragt. 



 



Als Antwort weist das BMBF eine Tabelle aus, die den Beitrag aller acht Gesellschafterländer (plus dem assoziierten Vereinigten Königreich) außer Deutschland an den jährlichen Betriebskosten ab
2028 von geschätzten 240 Millionen Euro in Prozent angibt. An erster Stelle mit 17,36 Prozent: Russland. 



 



Sind die Russen noch
dabei oder nicht?



 



Wie das? Sind die Russen doch noch dabei? Hatte Bundesforschungsministerin Stark-Watzinger nicht schon kurz nach Kriegsausbruch verkündet, dass die Zusammenarbeit zwischen Deutschland und
Russland unter anderem in der Wissenschaft eingefroren werde und dass sich Russland durch seinen Angriff selbst aus der internationalen Gemeinschaft verabschiedet habe? 



 



Zudem hatte, worauf CDU/CSU hinweisen, das GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung/FAIR im März 2023 mitgeteilt, dass jegliche Zusammenarbeit mit russischen staatlichen Institutionen und
Wirtschaftsunternehmen mit sofortiger Wirkung ausgesetzt werde.



 



Thomas Jarzombek, der forschungspolitische Sprecher der Unionsfraktion, sagt: "Die Bundesregierung plant offensichtlich fest ein, dass Russland seinen jährlichen Anteil an den Betriebskosten von
FAIR in Höhe von über 41 Millionen Euro leisten wird." 



 



Ist das so? Auf Nachfrage teilt das BMBF mir mit, die internationale Gesellschafterversammlung von FAIR habe beschlossen, sämtliche Forschungskooperationen mit Russland einzufrieren und die
Zusammenarbeit mit russischen Instituten, die am Bau beteiligt sind, zu beenden. 



 



So weit, so klar. Doch dann wird es gedanklich komplex. "Strategische Investitionen in den Bau und Betrieb von relevanten Forschungsinfrastrukturen wie FAIR werden auch von den internationalen
Partnern mit einem zeitlichen Horizont von mehreren Jahrzehnten projektiert", erläutert ein Ministeriumssprecher. "Der russische Gesellschafter der FAIR GmbH betont in den FAIR-Gremien stets,
seinen Zahlungsverpflichtungen aus der völkerrechtlichen FAIR-Konvention nachzukommen. Die fortlaufende Zahlungsbereitschaft des russischen Gesellschafters kann jedoch derzeit nicht belastbar
eingeschätzt werden – ein kompletter Zahlungsausfall Russlands ist Gegenstand von internen Beratungen im Kreis der Gesellschafter (ohne Russland)."



 



Was auch die anderen Helmholtz-
Zentren brennend interessiert



 



Völkerrechtlich ist Russland also weiter zum Zahlen verpflichtet, aber weil die übrigen FAIR-Partner gleichzeitig die russischen Forschungsinstitute ausgesperrt haben, hält man es für möglich
(und wahrscheinlich?), dass Russland am Ende doch weitere Überweisungen für Bau- und Betriebskosten verweigert, auch wenn von offizieller russischer Seite etwas Anderes gesagt wird? Klingt nach
einem ziemlich wahrscheinlichen Szenario – das aber in der Tabelle zur Verteilung der Kosten unberücksichtigt bleibt.



 



Auf die Frage der CDU/CSU-Fraktion, wie "die ggf. gestiegenen Betriebskosten zukünftig im Haushalt abgebildet" werden sollen, also "zu Lasten welches Haushaltstitels" die etwa gestiegenen
Haushaltsmittel eingeplant würden, lautete die Antwort aus dem BMBF im August lediglich: Mit der Inbetriebnahme von FAIR würden die "Bedarfe zur Finanzierung der rein nationalen GSI-Forschung"
abnehmen und sollten dann für den Bundesanteil zur Finanzierung des Hochlaufs von FAIR genutzt werden. 



 



Den Verantwortlichen in den übrigen Helmholtz-Zentren dürfte es an dieser Stelle in den Ohren klingen: Gilt diese Logik – Finanzierung aus dem GSI-Forschungshaushalt – auch, falls Deutschland
nach einem Zahlungsausfall Russlands bei der Übernahme der zusätzlichen Betriebskosten von immerhin 41 Millionen Euro pro Jahr ebenfalls in Vorleistung gehen müsste? Und müssten die Zentren dann
womöglich mit ran, wenn das GSI zusätzlich zum schon hohen deutschen Betriebskostenanteil von 145 Millionen noch mehr drauflegen müsste? Welche Vorplanungen genau hat die Bundesregierung für
diesen Fall getroffen?



 



Viele Fragen, auf die man im BMBF hoffentlich bereits Antworten hat. Im öffentlichen Teil der Stellungnahme der Bundesregierung aus dem August zumindest suchte man sie vergebens.




Kostenfreien Newsletter abonnieren




In eigener Sache: Bitte unterstützen Sie meine Arbeit














Nutzerzahlen und Finanzierung: Wie steht es um den "Wiarda-Blog"? 



 



Mehr lesen...

As if Bossier City hasn't invited enough legal
repercussions by its continuing
refusal to follow its charter concerning a petition to vote to amend this
basic law, its long-standing regulations on public discourse at City Council
meetings threatens even more of these.

Required by law, the Council must allow
adequate citizen input in discussion of its actions during a meeting. It began
the practice of informing the public of its rights at its Aug,
18, 2020 meeting as a result of acts passed that year
by the Louisiana Legislature. Previous statute
noted that a "governing body may adopt reasonable rules and restrictions
regarding such comment period." This had been accomplished lastly at the Jan.
21, 2020 meeting.

However, through the Aug. 1, 2023 meeting, the announcing
that had commenced nearly three years earlier included only part of that
Resolution #5 of 2020, under the "Decorum" section, part of the subsection "Members
of the Public Addressing the Council," which reads:

Any Person desiring to address the Council shall
first receive the permission of the Meeting Chair and will be limited to the current
agenda item up for consideration. Each Add-on request, will also allow public comment prior
comment prior to being added on to the current agenda. Any person wishing to speak must step up
to the podium microphone and state their [sic] name and address for the record. They shall
address the Council in an audible tone of voice for the record, and unless further time is granted by
the Council, shall limit their address to three (3) minutes. A maximum of forty-five minutes will be
set aside for addressing the Council and no more than 4 speakers per side of the argument
discussion per Agenda item. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a body and not to any
member thereof. No person, other than the Council or at Council request, City Attorney, and
the person having the floor shall address the Council without the permission of the President
Pro-tem. No question shall be asked a Councilperson or the Mayor except through the
Meeting Chair.

Starting with the Aug. 15 meeting, Council Clerk
Phyllis McGraw's reading at the start of meetings of policy concerning comments
included additional material. This is a transcription of the statement, with
the post-8/1 added language in italics:

In accordance with
Louisiana open meetings law and the adopted Bossier City Council meeting rules
resolution, the City Council asks for order and decorum at our meetings ….
Anyone wishing to address the Council on any agenda item may approach the Council
and state their [sic] name and address for the record and shall be permitted three
minutes to make their comments on the particular item that is up for discussion
with up to four speakers per side. Any person making personal, impertinent,
or slanderous remarks or who shall become boisterous while addressing the
Council shall be forthwith by the president pro tem barred from further
audience with the Council unless permission to continue shall be granted by a
majority vote of the Council. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as
a body and not to any member thereof. No question shall be asked a council
person or the mayor except through the meeting chair.



The new read statement includes material from the "By
Persons" subsection, which reads:

Any person making personal, impertinent or
slanderous remarks or who shall become boisterous while addressing the Council
shall be forthwith, by the President Pro-tem, barred from further audience
before the Council, unless permission to continue by granted by a majority vote
of the Council.

Thus, the additional phrases weren't a new
development that required Council approval, but rather verbal elaboration of existing
resolution. Which amplified a potentially serious legal problem with that resolution.

Undoubtedly extending the remarks came as a result
of the increasingly sharp criticism that certain speakers have levied about
city councilor actions, turbocharged by the controversy surrounding adoption of
term limits. Some councilors, particularly Republican David Montgomery who by the
tone of his voice becomes livid, seem offended when a citizen speaker
challenges the notion that everything the Council has backed over the years has
been hunky-dory or that ulterior motives may exist behind certain actions, such
as the commission-for-petition swap in the works to try to forestall, if not
prevent, the electorate voting on whether to impose a three term lifetime and
retroactive limit on elected officials.

The problem is the new language is constitutionally
suspect, according to Scott Sternberg of the law firm Sternberg, Naccari, and White.
Sternberg is consulted and contracted widely by Louisiana media outlets concerning
government regulation of information transparency and free expression.

Sternberg notes the application of the language,
given its vagueness (for example, what is a "slanderous" comment) could lead to
content regulation of expression, a practice clearly prohibited by First
Amendment jurisprudence ("niceness"
policies generally are suspect), exacerbated by the apparent ability of the
Council to extend what could be lifetime bans on expression. Anything but
careful usage of those rules likely would draw legal action against the city, added
Sternberg, and the new language concerning banning individuals even opens to
city to facial legal challenges to the new policy's constitutionality in light
of a past attorney
general opinion that states a public body should exhaust other legal remedies
levied against an individual before taking the drastic step preventing
attendance at its meetings regardless of the justifications impeding attendance.Statute does provide for barring from a meeting because
of disruptive behavior, but this would occur on a case-by-case basis, not as a
blanket ban. Given the Louisiana Constitution's guaranteed right of direct participation
in public body deliberation, this could extend to a right to address public
bodies unless disqualified by a particular restricted act during discussion – allowing only for
a temporary disqualification on a discrete item for violating decorum – or universally but only if other legal remedies for regulated behaviors have been implemented.

Thus, the city is vulnerable to a legal challenge
merely by having the permanent ban stipulation in place, and begs for a
challenge if it were to enforce its rule citing remarks "personal, impertinent,
or slanderous" or "boisterous" speakers in anything more than the most delicate
way. This almost goes as far as the very facially constitutionally suspect
rules proposed
earlier this year by the Caddo Parish Commission which not only would have
banned targeted individuals from addressing the Commission, but from their
attending its meetings.

The Council would be wise to revisit this issue to
remove at the very least the power to ban permanently addressing it, and better
still it would refine the language of what it considers impermissible expression
and behavior to far greater precision.

Das Bundeswirtschaftsministerium macht ernst – und entzieht der AiF die Administration der Industrielle Gemeinschaftsforschung. Was bedeutet das für das traditionsreiche Förderprogramm – und was für die in der AiF organisierten Forschungsvereinigungen?






Foto: Screenshot von der AiF-Website.






ES IST ein förderpolitischer Paukenschlag, wenn auch kein ganz unerwarteter: Die Arbeitsgemeinschaft industrieller Forschungsvereinigungen (AiF) verliert nach 69 Jahren die administrative
Zuständigkeit für die "Industrielle Gemeinschaftsforschung" (IGF), eines der wichtigsten Programme zur Forschungsförderung im deutschen Mittelstand. Dieses Jahr umfasst der IGF-Titel im
Bundeshaushalt rund 197 Millionen Euro.



 



AiF-Hauptgeschäftsführer Michael-Bruno Klein schrieb vor dem Wochenende eine Mail an die 101 AiF-Forschungsvereinigungen und rund 250 Gutachter: "Heute teilte uns das BMWK mit, dass man
unser Angebot zur Übernahme der Projektträgerschaft des IGF-Programms leider nicht annehmen wird und man beabsichtigt, dem DLR Projektträger den Zuschlag zu erteilen", laut Klein "eine schlechte
und traurige Nachricht für die AiF und für die industrielle Gemeinschaftsforschung".



 



Für die AiF ist es das auf jeden Fall, waren AiF und IGF für viele in der Forschungsszene doch über Jahrzehnte so eng miteinander verwoben, dass sie fast Synonyme zu sein schienen. Rund 50
der 65 Mitarbeiter des AiF e.V. werden aktuell für die
Umsetzung und Begleitung der IGF eingesetzt; sie alle werden, wie Klein auf Anfrage bestätigte, jetzt ihr Jobs verlieren. 



 



Der neue Projektträger soll
schon am 1. September einsteigen



 



Und das offenbar sehr schnell: Der DLR-Projektträger soll die IGF-Projektträgerschaft bereits zum 1. September übernehmen, die Phase des Übergangs und der Übergabe von AiF auf IGF soll dann bis
Ende des Jahres abgeschlossen sein. 




Das BMWK, das Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz, das für die IGF-Finanzierung zuständig ist, übermittelt, es könne aus rechtlichen Gründen "zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt" keine Auskunft
geben. "Es handelt sich um ein laufendes Vergabeverfahren, das noch nicht abgeschlossen ist", sagt BMWK-Pressesprecherin Luisa-Maria Spoo. Fast gleichlautend die Antwort des
DLR-Projektträgers: "Zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt kann ich die Information leider nicht kommentieren", teilt Stefanie Huland von der DLR-Unternehmenskommunikation mit. "Sobald wir eine klare
Aussage haben, melde ich mich bei Ihnen."



 



Dass das BMWK eine tiefgreifende Veränderung bei der IGF wollte, hatte sich freilich seit längerem abgezeichnet. So hatte das Ministerium Ende Juni 2022 den seit 1996 laufenden Vertrag mit der
AiF zur Durchführung der IGF gekündigt und mitgeteilt, dass man die Umsetzung der IGF europaweit ausschreiben werde. Europaweit. Anna Christmann, BMWK-Beauftragte für die digitale Wirtschaft
und Start-ups, verwies hier im Blog auf die "europarechtliche Vorgabe, die IGF ordentlich auszuschreiben". Die AiF könne sich an der Ausschreibung genau wie andere Projektträger
beteiligen. Und unabhängig, wie es mit der IGF weitergehe, bleibe die AiF "entscheidend für die Innovation im Mittelstand", fügte Christmann hinzu. 



 



Also alles halb so wild? Die Jobs, die bei der AiF wegfallen, entstehen dann halt beim DLR neu, und wer am Ende die Antragsformulare bearbeitet, das Geld austeilt und schaut, dass alles
ordnungsgemäß ausgegeben wird, ist auch nicht wirklich entscheidend?



 



Eine überfällige innovationspolitische
Weichenstellung – oder eine "Demontage" der AiF?



 



Nicht, wenn es nach der AiF geht. Von einer fortgesetzten "Demontage" ist intern die Rede. Hauptgeschäftsführer Klein wiederum gibt zu Protokoll, die Arbeit der AiF sei "weit mehr" gewesen sei
"als nur eine verwaltende und abarbeitende Projektträgerschaft". Das BMWK habe sich gegen eine Organisation entschieden, die die IGF aktiv mitgestaltet und konstruktiv begleitet und damit
die Wirksamkeit des Programms erheblich erhöht habe. "In dem System der IGF, den AiF-Forschungsvereinigungen und AiF-InnovatorsNet bilden sich einzigartige Wertschöpfungsnetzwerke ab" –
Netzwerke bestehend aus kleineren und mittleren Unternehmen, Konzernen, Startups und Forschung, die  "effizient und zielgerichtet an der Lösung der transformativen Herausforderungen"
arbeiteten.



 



In dem von der AiF aufgebauten IGF-Gutachtersystem wird jeder Förderantrag paritätisch von Vertretern aus Wirtschaft und Wissenschaft bewertet, in einem mehrstufigen Verfahren, das an jene
der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) erinnert. "Die AiF sichert als neutraler, unabhängiger und vertrauenswürdiger Akteur die Grundlagen für die IGF", heißt es in einer externen Evaluierung
der AiF aus dem März 2023, aus der Klein stolz zitiert. Diese Funktion, sei "grundsätzlich unabhängig von den entsprechenden Forschungsprogrammen; allerdings werden Forschungsprogramme
entscheidend von der durch die AiF bereitgestellte Koordinierungsleistung und das damit verbundene Vertrauen begünstigt". 



 



Soweit die Evaluation. Allerdings hat das enge Verhältnis von AiF und IGF auch noch eine andere – nicht nur aus Sicht des BMWK problematische – Seite, die überhaupt erst dazu führte, dass man die
bisherige Konstruktion der Dauerbeauftragung beendete. So hatte der Bundesrechnungshof (BRH) bereits 2015 in einem Bericht kritisiert, das damalige Bundeswirtschaftsministerium sei
vermutlich nicht in der Lage, die erforderliche Fachaufsicht im IGF-Programm zu gewährleisten – und vermutete bei der AiF einen "Interessenkonflikt". Vor allem, weil die AIF-Mitglieder, mehr
als 50.000 mittelständische Industrieunternehmen, die sich in 101 Forschungsvereinigungen zusammengeschlossen haben, Mitgliedsbeiträge an die AiF bezahlten, deren Höhe sich an der Summe der von
ihnen eingeworbenen AiF-Fördermittel bemaßen. Was laut Rechnungshof bedeutete, dass die AiF einen hohen Anreiz hatte, immer alle Fördermittel zu vergeben, weil sie dann ja selbst ein größeres
Budget erhalte.



 



2018 und 2019 hatte es dann staatsanwaltschaftliche Ermittlungen bei einzelnen Forschungsvereinigungen gegeben, weil der Verdacht im Raum stand, diese hätten ihre Mitgliedsbeiträge direkt
mit eingeworbenen IGF-Fördermitteln bezahlt. Die Ermittlungen wurden jedoch allesamt ohne Ergebnis eingestellt. Doch schien sich die Sichtweise im Wirtschaftsministerium auf die AiF
spätestens zu diesem Zeitpunkt gewandelt zu haben. Sorgen vor Haftungsfragen mit Ansprüchen gegen das Ministerium und eventuell sogar gegen einzelne Ministeriumsmitarbeiter wurden laut.



 



Die Höhe des IGF-Budgets soll derweil 2024 laut BMWK-Haushaltsentwurf von 197 auf 176 Millionen Euro sinken, das wäre weniger als 2018 – wobei anders als damals auch noch 7,5
Millionen Euro für die Finanzierung der Projektträgerschaft vorgesehen sein sollen. 



 



Zwischendurch hoffte man in der AiF, über allerlei Reformen und neue Vertragskonstruktionen um die europaweite Ausschreibung der IGF herumzukommen; Konzepte, Vorschläge und Papiere gingen hin und
her zwischen AiF und Ministerium. Doch lautete die Entscheidung im BMWK: Nur die europaweite Ausschreibung der Projektträgerschaft sei "rechtssicher". Wenig später erklärte die für die IGF
zuständige Abteilungsleiterin im BMWK, bislang AiF-Senatsmitglied, mit sofortiger Wirkung ihren Rücktritt aus dem Gremium: Sie wolle wegen des bevorstehenden Ausschreibungsverfahrens zur
Programmadministration jeglichen Anschein der Befangenheit vermeiden.



 



Gravierende Folgen auch für
die AiF-Forschungsvereinigungen



 



War damit die Entscheidung gegen die AiF in Wirklichkeit bereits gefallen? In den Forschungsvereinigungen glauben manche das. Wer sich außer AiF e.V. und DLR noch um die Projektträgerschaft
beworben hatte, ist unbekannt. Ebenso wie derzeit noch die Gründe, die aus Sicht des BMWK ausschlaggebend für das Votum zugunsten des DLR waren – und die trotz positiver Evaluation auf einen
größeren Erfolg des Programms in neuen Händen hoffen lassen. 



 



Fest steht: Während sie in der AiF auf den Schaden verweisen, den die gewachsenen Strukturen um das Gutachterwesen nun nehmen könne, während in den AiF-Forschungsvereinigungen einige sogar
bereits vor einem drohenden "Ausbluten" der IGF warnen, sind die Folgen für die Forschungsvereinigungen selbst ebenfalls gravierend. Denn solange die Gleichung AiF gleich IGF galt, war
es leichter, die Unternehmen für eine Mitgliedschaft und das Zahlen der Mitgliedsbeiträge zu gewinnen, jetzt müssen neue Argumente her. Doch würde unter einer Krise der Forschungsvereinigungen
auch wiederum eine vom DLR administrierte IGF leiden – denn ohne Forschungsvereinigungen keine IGF.



 



Doch glaubt man im BMWK offenbar, den beabsichtigten IGF-Neustart besser ohne AiF-Administration hinzubekommen. Ein Neustart, den die Ampel auch in ihrem Koalitionsvertrag angekündigt
hatte. Darin steht, die Innovationsförderung und -finanzierung solle gestärkt und entbürokratisiert werden. Und konkret: "Die Förderprogramme wie 'Zentrales Innovationsprogramm Mittelstand
(ZIM)', 'Industrielle Gemeinschaftsforschung für Unternehmen (IGF)', 'INNO-KOM', 'go-digital' und 'Digital Jetzt' sowie das 'Innovationsprogramm für Geschäftsmodelle und Pionierlösungen (IGP)'
werden wir weiterentwickeln."



 



Apropos Weiterentwicklung: "Den schon eingeleiteten Prozess der Neuausrichtung und Fokussierung der AiF werden wir nur noch konsequenter fortsetzen", sagt Hauptgeschäftsführer Klein mit einer
Mischung aus Programmatik und Trotz. Zweites großes Standbein der AiF ist die Projektträgerschaft fürs ZIM. Und so wichtig die IGF-Durchführung für Selbstverständnis und Identität der AiF ist,
finanziell ist ZIM der viel größere Brocken: Fast 700 Millionen Euro schwer ist der Topf in diesem Jahr. Die Projektträgerschaft wird denn auch nicht vom AiF e.V. geleistet, sondern von der
AiF Projekt GmbH mit ihren rund 140 Mitarbeitern. 



 



Allerdings soll auch der ZIM-Topf, nachdem das BMWK vergangenes Jahr neue Vergaberegeln beschlossen hatte, nächstes Jahr massiv schrumpfen: auf nur noch 624
Millionen Euro. Und die ZIM-Durchführung soll in absehbarer Zeit ebenfalls neu ausgeschrieben werden; gemunkelt wird, dies könne schon 2024 passieren. Wie dann die Chancen für die AiF stehen,
vermag momentan keiner zu sagen. 




Kostenfreien Newsletter abonnieren






Möchten Sie diesen Blog unterstützen?

 Picture of me practicing aikido in a mask (seemed appropriate)As we look at another surge, another variant, and another school year of Covid, it might be worth thinking about the conditions that made this situation possible. The conditions are, as is so often the case, multiple, including the nature of the virus itself, technological, and economic conditions. What I would like to focus on briefly are the ideological conditions, or the way in which the virus took advantage of social contradictions as much biological weakness. 1) Exceptions. Some of the first news that came out about COVID stressed that some percentage, as high as about 60% would be completely asymptomatic. This news was sometimes meant to spread caution, to let people know that they could feel fine and still infect others, but for many this meant that there was a good chance that the disease would not affect them at all (I realize that asymptomatic and not being infected are not the same thing). The odds for many people seemed good. I think that this is particularly true for a country like the US were the ruling ideology is often about seeing oneself as an exception to a general rule. We are told that most will not make it rich, but believe that we will, or, a little closer to home, that most entering graduate school will not find tenure track jobs, but we believe ourselves to be the exception (or, in the words of The Wire, a "smart ass pawn."). COVID just become another general pattern that we see ourselves as exceptions to, something that happens to other people. 2) Essential Workers. The early year or so was in part defined by an increased awareness of how our lives were made possible by all sorts of workers, in food service, trucking, retail, logistics, all of whom produce distribute, and sell the goods we rely on. There was also an awareness of how we are dependent on teachers, nurses, and hospital staff in more ways than we imagined. It suddenly became clear that schools were not just for people who had children, but also for people who needed people who have children to show up to work; one thread in an otherwise invisible web of dependency and connection. There was a brief recognition of this fact; some of it was symbolic, banging on pots pans and impromptu airshows, but some of it was material as well, increased wages for essential workers. However, this fundamental fact of life became increasingly awkward as time went by, and there was a concerted effort to return to the normal state of not thinking about how the food got to the table or who the person behind the counter was as a person. First, there was the ghoulish demand that lives would have to sacrificed to start the economy. Then, there was just the mute compulsion of everyday life,  the gravitational pull of normal. Our entire way of life is predicated on not thinking about other people, on seeing ourselves as kingdoms within a kingdom, separate from nature and from our dependency on others. 3) The Mediasphere. I am no conspiracy theorist, and do not really care if COVID came from a lab leak or not (unless the lab also has an antidote, then I do not see how this changes anything), but I cannot imagine a virus more capable of taking advantage of the current economy and ecology of attention than COVID. Part of this goes back to the first point. There are radically different experiences with COVID from a person who is affected so slightly that they do not even know they have it to someone suffering from a set of chronic life altering conditions that have come to be known as long COVID. Combine this with a predominantly anecdotal way of thinking about the world, a focus on individual stories, situations, and perspectives and you have competing stories, which, thanks to social media, become competing realities, different worlds. Any attempt to create a dominate narrative, a collective consensus about what was at stake was hindered from the get go, first by a general distrust in government by some, which saw every precaution as a conspiracy of control, and then eventually by others, as the CDC and government gave in to the open conspiracy of capitalism, which needed us to return to work and consumption as soon as possible. The final situation of all this is almost one in which there is no consensus, no dominant view, but only competing divergent views with their own standards and sources of information.  I do not want to sound like Plato, but it seems to me that one of the benefits of living in a society is that we should not have to "do our own research," to learn a little about virology, vaccines, epidemiology, airflow, etc., just to go about our lives in a pandemic, we should, at least on some level expect that scientists and other experts to do that for us. 4) The future. I do not claim to know or understand everything about this virus, but if at least some of what I have read about its long term effects are true then we are all looking at a bleaker future, of getting sick more often, and with that decline in the quality of life there is a decline in quantity as well, post COVID heart attacks and strokes cut lives short. I do not know what people will make of this, but my fear is that it will become accepted just as we have accepted longer working hours, worsening pay, and a general decline in the quality of life. Add to this the impending climate collapse and it seems like we have two options, either come to accept that things are going to be a lot worse or choose to start making things better. It is clear to me that COVID was a "civilization or barbarism" moment, and for a brief second it seemed like we were choosing the former, choosing to support each other collectively. That moment was short lived, and we went back to barbarism, even doubled down on it, but I have some hope, even now, that the cost of that choice will still help us choose differently in the future. The other thing I learned from COVID is that events, even crises, have limited efficacy on their own. They change things, but how they do so is not determined. They make the conditions for history, but what happens in those conditions is up to us. 

Associate Director of Global Networks and Inclusion Maya Ranganath reflects on the goals, outcomes, and key learnings of this summer's 11th annual Africa Evidence Summit in Nairobi. The Summit would not be possible without our partners: the Network of Impact Evaluation Researchers in Africa, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and many others mentioned in the post below.https://medium.com/media/f17cd8514f9c798ca99f083c6c2054d7/hrefLow and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) disproportionately experience the world's greatest challenges — climate change, food security, and rampant inequality. Effective solutions to these problems must be evidence-informed and inclusive of scholars living in these countries. However, many LMICs face a shortage of researchers — only two percent of the world's research output is produced by African scholars. The evidence-informed policy community has marshaled significant momentum to address this problem and invest in LMIC research infrastructure. In fact, a recent report from the Center for Global Development identified a 26 percent increase in organizations with impact evaluation capacity since 2019. The Africa Evidence Summit, co-hosted by CEGA and the Network of Impact Evaluation Researchers in Africa (NIERA) this summer, further showcased this progress.Now with more than a decade of momentum, the Summit returned to Nairobi for its largest gathering yet: In a signal of the demand for more rigorous and locally-led evidence on what works to combat poverty, more than 500 researchers, policymakers, and practitioners attended. As every year, the Summit had four goals:Elevate the voices of African scholarsDisseminate new research findings to decision-makersSeed new collaborationsGenerate insights to advance evidence-informed policymaking and, specifically, ways to make the ecosystem more inclusiveTo this end, the Summit featured 21 research presentations from CEGA affiliated faculty, our fellows network, and partners (see here for a full list of presentations). It also included several panels that focused on meta-themes, including:Incentives, resources, and pathways for African-led publicationFunder perspectives on supporting African-led researchSupporting pro-poor growth in sub-Saharan Africa (led by event partner African Economic Research Consortium)Centering African voices in policy-making and advocacy (led by event partner Afrobarometer)Below we present some key insights from the event. Please see our takeaways document for more information.Evidence must be generated by, and in partnership with, local researchers…"To claim the 21st century as the turning point for Africa, African experts and scholars should step up to define, own, and drive the continent's development agenda," said Dr. Eliya Zulu, Executive Director of the African Institute for Development Policy (AFIDEP), in his keynote address.Summit co-host NIERA (comprised of alumni of CEGA's fellowship program) is leading this movement as the first all-African network of evidence generators. But greater investment is needed.As Rose Oronje, AFIDEP Director of Public Policy and Knowledge Translation and Head of Kenya Office, discussed, the low rate of publications by African scholars reflects a need for greater investments by governments in research infrastructure. Constantine Manda, 2012 CEGA Fellow and Assistant Professor at UC Irvine added, "We need to reform our institutions — for not just the number of publications, but the quality of them." "The incentive structure is broken and something needs to change," noted Chris Chibwana, Program Officer at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.…which requires re-aligning incentives, investing in research capacity, and collaborating.A variety of solutions were proposed. Oronje suggested including more editors from Africa on journals, "as they will be looking at research differently because they understand the context." Aurelia Munene, founder of Eider Africa, proposed engaging NGOs to complement African universities, training new faculty on supervision, and "providing researchers with a sense of belonging." Jordan Kyongo, Head of the East Africa Research & Innovation Hub at the UK's Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), added that "universities must support an enabling environment for students to [become] researchers." Manda urged scholars in high-income countries to "ask for invitations to present work to an African audience" to expose students to new research methods, insights, and questions.In this vein, collaboration is not only an important driver of innovation but also the keystone in inclusive evidence generation. The growing group of impact evaluators, big data researchers, and other evidence generators in LMICs relies on a close-knit community for intellectual partnership, capacity building, evidence dissemination, and funding. Indeed, the Summit would not have succeeded without its local partners (NIERA, AFIDEP, Afrobarometer, AERC, Busara, among others) and the many talented researchers who presented posters.From left to right: CEGA Fellows Jonathan Izudi, Bezawit Bahru, and Michel Ndayikeza listen to a presentation at AES 2023 | Luft VenturesEvidence is essential, but insufficient alone, for policy changeThe summit featured many research studies aimed to assist decision-makers to support vulnerable communities. A few highlights include:CEGA Faculty Co-Director Ted Miguel's study on the intergenerational impacts of child health investments in East Africa, which shows that deworming school children decreases under-five mortality in the children of those dewormed by one-fifth.A randomized control trial presented by Youth Impact's Thato Letsomo demonstrated that the ConnectEd intervention, which sends children a weekly math problem and provides tutoring phone calls, improved learning in Uganda by more than a standard year of schooling.University of Ghana's Edward Asiedu's study found that providing patients with information on their insurance coverage reduces their out-of-pocket expenditure on health.2021 CEGA Fellow Mary Nantongo's early-stage design to evaluate the impact of Uganda's Parish Development Model on the poverty levels, incomes, and participation in decision-making of beneficiary households.However, Dr. Zulu made a powerful point, saying "Evidence is essential, but not sufficient for policy. Researchers need to understand the key people and decisions being made in order to help." Building on this, Tricia Ryan from USAID led a presentation on evidence gap maps, a visual tool that identifies where more evidence is needed on a particular research subject. 2020 CEGA Fellow and Director of Research at the International Center for Evaluation and Development (ICED) Solomon Zena Walelign presented his evidence gap map, which found that more research is needed on how infrastructure interacts with the nutritional needs of people in LMICs, especially women, girls, and low-income consumers.CEGA's long history of working to shift norms in development economics toward greater leadership by African scholars has produced significant results. The Africa Evidence Summit reflects that growth, and we are excited to harness this community's momentum to advance our shared goals. Sign up for our Global Networks newsletter to hear first about next year's Summit.Supporting an inclusive evidence ecosystem: Insights from the 2023 Africa Evidence Summit was originally published in CEGA on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

While the battle still rages over term limits
hitting the ballot in Bossier City this fall, momentum appears headed in the
direction that some form, if delayed and diluted, of these will come into being
sooner rather than later.Last month, the turmoil
kicked off when a group of citizens had certified a petition, as authorized
under the city charter, that invoked one of the two methods to amend
the charter to include term limits. The petition
process allows for the City Council to amend the charter directly through
ordinance, using the exact language of the ballot propositions, within 30 days
of receipt; if not done, then the Council is required to call an election
within the next 90 days after with the exact proposition language put upon the
ballot. The other process has the Council form a charter review commission whose
members it and the mayor appoint, which then formulates amendments that the
Council must put on the ballot.Prior to the Aug. 8 deadline, at the last Council meeting
prior to that Aug. 1 Republican Mayor Tommy Chandler tried to have the enabling
ordinance introduced, but he missed the deadline which required unanimous Council
approval for the addition. Instead, councilors Republicans David
Montgomery, Jeff
Free, and Vince Maggio,
plus Democrat Bubba Williams
and no party Jeff Darby,
vetoed that – an atypical move, as the Council historically hardly ever has denied
putting tardy submissions on the agenda.Undeterred, Chandler tried
again at the next regular meeting, Aug. 15. He also submitted a resolution to
call the election, apparently as a backup plan in case the same bloc that
prevented consideration of the ordinance to amend voted it down. These reflected
the petition: that anyone serving as mayor or councilor could serve only three
terms in their lifetimes. Darby, Free, Montgomery, and Williams would be unable
to run for reelection under this language.Throughout all of this, apparently that bloc had
utilized mayoral appointee City Attorney Charles Jacobs – who works for both
the mayor and Council – to find outside counsel to review an alleged problem with
the petition. That counsel, Katie Bell who doesn't hold out having expertise in
the area of local charters, was misrepresented by Jacobs as not having worked
on city legal matters in any capacity, when in fact she had.Jacobs also prior to the most recent Council
meeting had refused to release the contents of the rendered opinion, which
originally was said to have an indeterminate release date but subsequently was
said to have come out just after the Aug. 1 meeting. Instead of making it
public immediately thereafter, he waited until this meeting to do so and
revealed a possible point of contention exploiting the charter's technical
demand that the petition be in the form of ordinance for the Council to
consider amendment by ordinance, but also that the charter asked for the
petition's language to be exportable to a ballot proposition called by
resolution in the form of a question, as by state statute. The petition opted
for the latter approach.Yet if the bloc against had a legal out on passing
an ordinance to amend, it had no clear option to use legal niceties as an
excuse to vote against a resolution to call an election to amend. The charter
language does not yield as it maintains the Council "shall" call that.
Opponents therefore could use the excuse of legal infirmity only if you bought
the argument that potential invalidity of one option of the petition method
spilled over to make the other option also invalid even as it seemed in adherence
with the charter and state law. Only invoking his microscopically thin reed convincingly
would prevent exposure of those casting a vote against not only as opposing term
limits, but also as violating the charter.So, another ploy became necessary to prevent a
vote on term limits regardless of outcome that could be politically damaging to
the bloc, which, as the opinion mentioned, was in statute stating that any
petition delivered to a registrar of voters must contain, among other things,
the year of birth of a signatory that the petition didn't have. Some doubt
exists about whether absence of this truly invalidated the petition, as other identifying
information seemed more than adequate, so in response the Council resolved to
have the Attorney General's office render a decision. In turn, they also
deleted the agenda items involving the ordinance – which had a problem anyway
in that the 30-day window had expired – and resolution, with only Republican Councilor
Chris Smith
in opposition.This series of events prompted Republican Councilor
Brian
Hammons to complain he previously had suggested obtaining an AG opinion,
and that there had been no need to waste taxpayer dollars and time on a the matter
that, if these were the problems allegedly with the petition, the city's legal
department could not have discovered. Jacobs, backed by Montgomery, in response
provided stream-of-consciousness verbiage that said issue clarification was
required first, whiffing entirely on the fact that clarification comes before opinion
rendering and that just as easily occurs in house as in now asking the AG to
reinvent the wheel.Hammons' more subtle point is that this all was a
delaying tactic. With great uncertainty in the opposition bloc's mind that it
could find a way to invalidate the petition and election, the goal of the
opposition bloc is to delay that election as long as possible, certainly past
the Nov. 18 general election runoff this fall, which has an effective Sep. 25
deadline for Council action to have commenced.Further, regardless of what reason the bloc may
use to forgo any resolution prior to that date, citizens could sue on the basis
of the charter's election insistence, because by the charter's wording it received
a certified petition and it in that instance the Council didn't have the choice
not to call the election. Perhaps this is why rumors, bolstered by some of the
rhetoric surrounding the issue at the Council meeting, have gained currency
that some kind of compromise will be brokered involving a charter review
commission summoned later this fall.With this, the bloc may try to cut off at the pass
momentum behind the petition wording by promising to call a commission whose
members they chose would approve of another form of term limits, along the
lines of a three-term limit starting with the 2025 term. Since all bloc members
are in their sixties, they unlikely would want to serve beyond well into their
seventies. In exchange, if they refuse to call the election, by ponying up a commission
they say will have term limits supporters throughout it (their appointees would
represent five of the nine votes), they would count on this defusing term
limits supporters from challenging that in court failure to call the election and
from not reorganizing anytime soon to petition again with the same language in
the form of an ordinance and including birth years of signatories.The longer the controversy drags on, the more
attention the bloc brings to its anti-term limits position that would prove to be
a political liability. Its members continue a rearguard action that ultimately
may win the battle legally, but they're still losing the war politically.

Paul Matzko









When Fox News settled for nearly $800 million with Dominion Voting Systems, it avoided having to admit that it promoted lies in its coverage of Trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 election results. That settlement is now the basis of an attempt by the Media and Democracy Project (MAD) to block a Philadelphia television station, Fox 29, from having its license renewed by the FCC. MAD's petition recently received a letter of support from Bill Kristol, the Never Trump conservative and a current editor at The Bulwark.
The MAD petition hinges on an infrequently enforced FCC policy about "news distortion." It is a high bar to clear. To qualify, the reported news must not only be false but falsified. That's the "distortion" angle. Selective reporting, like focusing on an unrepresentative framing of an event, wouldn't count. For example, a journalist could choose to do their segment at a post‐​George Floyd protest in the summer of 2020 either with a fiery backdrop late at night or in front of peacefully marching protesters earlier in the day. Neither choice would count as distortion. It could, however, be distortion if a journalist were to pay actors to stage a fake demonstration.
While I found much of Fox News's coverage of the 2020 election to be a shocking dereliction of journalistic responsibility — and friends don't let friends rely on *any* cable news channel as their primary source of information — I have my doubts about whether it rises to the level of news distortion. Selective, biased, or even knowingly false reporting isn't enough. Fox News would have had to manufacture the stories themselves, not just report on lies and rumors promoted by others.
But let's set that uncertainty aside for a second and simply assume that Fox News will be found responsible of news distortion by the FCC. Is that a good system that operates in the public interest? And should conservatives like Bill Kristol support such a system?
A quick look at the history of the news distortion standard offers a cautionary tale for those with an understandable but misguided desire to use State power to punish falsity. The news distortion policy was not created in a vacuum and was not a product of disinterested civil servants seeking to serve the common good. It was concocted under pressure from politicians who wanted to punish disfavored speech and suppress political dissent.
The news distortion policy began in 1969 with a series of FCC investigations into complaints about journalistic staging. These were not just complaints from ordinary citizens; they came from members of Congress. While the complaints covered quite a range of topics — from allegations of staged marijuana parties on college campuses to selective editing of interviews with whistleblowers on Pentagon waste — the most widely referenced involved news coverage of the 1968 Democratic National Convention protests in Chicago.
In particular, Democratic congresspeople were angry that journalists were, in their opinion, exaggerating police violence against protestors. One Senator accused a camera crew of dressing up a "girl hippie" with a bloody bandage and sending her up to the police line to shout, "Don't hit me," on cue. Supposedly wounded protestors would rise up like Lazarus as soon as the cameras turned off.
It's worth noting that none of the 1969 investigations found any merit to these complaints. And historians are in broad agreement that the '68 protests had plenty of certifiable police brutality and angry protestors without any need for journalistic fabrication. (I studied w/​David Farber; read his book!)
So what was the point of these news distortion claims? It was an attempt to abuse a government agency to delegitimize democratic opposition. (And Democratic opposition, for that matter.) If you were a pro‐​war Democratic congressman supporting the pro‐​war Democratic presidential nominee Hubert Humphrey as the DNC delegates defied the primary results that favored anti‐​war candidate Eugene McCarthy, you weren't appreciative of journalists drawing attention to your unpopular convention machinations. Nor would you appreciate exposes of the party's willingness to rely on sometimes brutal law enforcement tactics to suppress their critics.
So filing a complaint with the FCC for news distortion — which could then require the responsible news network to explain their conduct in a potentially embarrassing public spectacle — was a way of putting pressure on tv networks to shape future coverage in a way that was more favorable to the politicians filing the complaints.
In other words, complaints about news distortion were *themselves* an attempt at distorting the news!
We rightly condemn President Richard Nixon for sending Charles Colton to CBS in 1970 to threaten the network with targeted FCC regulatory enforcement if they didn't back off with their critical coverage of the Vietnam War effort. (It worked.) We should be just as condemnatory of how congress created a novel news distortion standard at the FCC in 1969 to suppress critical news coverage.
It's notable that the FCC's rules were capacious enough in '69 & '70 to enable both parties to simultaneously target their opponents. Nixon leaned on the fairness doctrine while congressional Democrats used news distortion. It's a reminder that when government agencies are granted the power to control speech — even accidentally — it creates an opportunity for political entrepreneurs to find ways to abuse those powers in order to extract maximum partisan advantage. That's an invitation for a constant, seesawing, no‐​holds‐​barred brawl for control of the levers of regulatory power; the temporary winner(s) get to punish their ideological enemies and reward their allies. Free speech gets caught in the crossfire.
With that history in mind, Bill Kristol's support for a newly invigorated news distortion policy comes across as naive. (To be fair, as you can see from the picture above, Kristol was merely a callow intern at the White House in 1970 when all this was happening.) The news distortion policy was censorship via the backdoor.
And conservatives have good reason to be leery of boosting the FCC's authority to police news content. As I have written about at length, while the FCC's various backdoor speech regulations have punished radicals from both Left and Right, conservatives have been a particular target. I used to ask liberal proponents of a revived Fairness Doctrine standard if they really wanted to gift these powers to the Trump administration. I suppose now I have to ask conservative proponents of an energized news distortion standard if they really want to gift these powers to the Biden (or Harris) administration.
Rather than calling for broader enforcement of the news distortion policy, small government conservatives should instead be calling for its repeal.
Crossposted from the author's Substack. Subscribe for weekly insights from the intersection of history, policy, and politics.

Let's break out the handkerchiefs and violins for
poor old Republican state Rep. Tanner Magee, who
says too many people are holding him accountable for him doing his job for him
to do his job.

After the veto session concluded, Magee revealed
he would not seek reelection. Magee at present serves as speaker pro tempore,
the second-ranked position in the House of Representatives. Last year he ran
for an appellate judgeship and lost convincingly. This resounding defeat plus
that a new governor, almost certainly a Republican and likely GOP Atty. Gen. Jeff Landry who has clashed with House
leaders on some issues, where governors typically have influence in legislative
chamber leadership selection when of the same party, also loom as factors that
may have played into Magee's decision.

His publicly articulated reason for letting go is
that, he says, "[State legislative politics is] moving more in a direction of a
D.C. style and I don't want to spend the next four years missing my kids and
being away from family and not really enjoying the process." This very much echoes
a recurring theme from Democrat Gov. John Bel Edwards,
who in his two terms typified dissent to his agenda as a divisive "Washington"
politics while agreement with it denoted a desire to "unify" and make progress.

Magee also said that "Much of my class, people I
came in with [beginning with the 2015 election cycle], really are not there
anymore, it's dwindling down, I miss them and I am going to miss them in the
future, but it's really changed." Finally, he asserted as a negative that "[Special
interest groups] are more interested in recording how you vote, than they are
passing meaningful legislation that will help people in Louisiana, because for
them politics is just a game."

These statements rival those issued by Edwards
from time to time in the sheer breadth and depth of sanctimony and hypocrisy,
beginning with the fact that Magee participated in an authoritarian
leadership team more interested in stamping out opposition when criticized,
whether internal to the chamber party or externally from the public, than in
trying to build a unifying consensus. As one example, when Republican state
Rep. Danny
McCormick last year resisted a bill favored by Magee and his boss GOP Speaker
Clay Schexnayder
and he rallied grassroots public resistance to it, Magee on the floor
disparaged the citizen input as manufactured, as if opposition to the measure inherently
was illegitimate and possible only as fakery of some kind.

And the wistful longing to hang with the class of
2016 legislators elected with him? Tell that to Republican state Reps. Raymond Crews
and Dodie Horton,
also elected then, who Schexnayder and Magee
punished with removal of their capital outlay projects because they had
backed a move to spend fewer dollars than leadership wished this fiscal year. Magee
publicly noted that if they weren't going to want to spend more collectively on
capital outlay, then their constituents could stand losing projects.

It's all right if you're in leadership to crack
the whip to encourage discipline. But then don't go around saying you don't
endorse "D.C. style" politics because in exerting power this way you're being
as confrontational as what happens in Washington, or in any other state capitol
for that matter.

But his most offensive remarks concern publicizing
his voting record, which he sees as antithetical to "meaningful" legislation,
as if the two can't coexist. Publicizing records is essential to democratic functioning
as a vital accountability linkage, facilitating the ability of voters to judge
whether their representatives satisfactorily express their interests. When a
particular viewpoint wins an argument, it does so through convincing majorities
of its wisdom who then pass that along to their representatives, according to
democratic theory. Unless that preferred policy seems manifestly unwise,
whereupon the legislator uses his judgment potentially to act contrary to it, representatives
act accordingly in line with the public to produce "meaningful legislation."
This can't happen without information about representatives' actions being publicized.

Except that to him Magee indicates exposure of records
is a bad thing, This implies he views the task of publicizing, engaged in by an
interested public, as a hindrance to good policy-making, as if he and his ilk
are the only ones who truly understand what's best for the people and if they
could operate without their votes disseminated to a wider audience that might
disagree, which apparently threatens their ability to produce good policy if
not their very legislative tenures, then things would be better.

The breath-taking arrogance and elitism of this
claim stands out. Such a statement shows Magee very much believes in old-style
Louisiana politics, where you act like a good old boy around your constituents,
have them vote for you because they think you're a good guy and that you "care"
(regular church attendance and social conservatism are plusses), and then once
elected you have license to engage in all sorts of wasteful spending and unneeded
government control over their lives. Just as long as the people don't know what
you're doing, you can do what you think is best, and you think you know what is
best for them even if they disagree on these accounts.

In other words, beleaguered Magee simply doesn't
like it when he gets criticism for stupid votes. By the Louisiana Legislature Log voting scorecard,
he hasn't done badly in the three years previous to this, averaging over 83, or
a bit below the House GOP average (higher scores mean more conservative/reform
voting, which is what the second-ranked leader of House Republicans ought to
aspire to). But he made stupid vote choices from time to time, most recently preventing
successful veto overrides of HB 81 and HB 466, both
of which could have used his affirmative vote (which almost every member of his
party gave) s these failed by close margins – important bills for supporting
parental rights as
previously explained.

And in doing that to Magee, forcing him to wield
power with people looking over his shoulder and telling him and the world when he
made what they explain are mistakes – where to him those actions of his promoted
"meaningful" policy and prevented the opposite because of the monopoly of
wisdom he dreams that he has – is no fun anymore, the inability to do whatever he
wants without consequences of criticism or electoral survival. It's most decidedly
not a game to them, because they have to live with the consequences of his
mistakes, magnified by his leadership position.

Maybe whiny Magee is a great guy, but by his
statements he simply isn't suitable to serve in any elective office. You don't
like the heat, get out of the kitchen; nobody is forcing you to wield power. Magee
is doing so, to which people who found his abilities and commitment
insufficient to improve the dismal governance those like him have foisted on
the state decade after decade advise: not to let the door hit him on the way
out.

The Maikop culture represents one of the most significant occurrences in the context of pre-urban agricultural and livestock communities of the Middle East and Caucasus. It covers the borderline area between south-west Asia and Eastern Europe, pre-Caucasian steppe and north Caucasus, where the cultural influences of southern peoples confront with tradition ofEuropean population for ages. (Image 1) The study of Maikop culture began by the end of 19th century after the discovery of exceptionally rich tombs in Maikop (1897) and two stone tombs in Carska, present-day Novosvobodna (1898). The most extensive research was done in the end of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century. After the seventies, in the20th century, several monographs and journals dealing with the Maikop culture were published, including general research by R.N. Munčaev, S.N. Korenevki and A.D. Rezepkin. The issue of Maikop culture is undoubtedly very interesting outside the Russian federation, but it mostly involves the review of the results from modern-day Russian research. This tendency isclearly visible in the works by A. Häusler, B. Govedarica, B. Lionne, F. Kohl, D. Anthony and others. The most important archaeological monuments of the Maikop culture are settlements and necropoles. Nowadays, we have information about several dozens of Maikop settlements and according to the material published, the most famous are Dolinsk, Ust-Džegutinsk,Galjugaevsk 1, Sereginsk, Psekupsk i Boljšetegensk. The settlements investigated are mostly situated in the river valleys, at lower grounds close to the river banks. In the Caucasus foothills, the settlements are located on the plains at hill slopes. They are mostly open settlements, while cave habitats are very rare. Burying was done in tumuli – kurgans. In thenorthern Caucasus, this tradition originates from the Chalcolithic, during fifth millennium BC. This phenomenon was further developed by the representatives of Maikop culture through the building of great multi-layered kurgans which apart from burial also had the role of sanctuary. Mounds are made of earth or of stone. In the case of earth kurgans, moundsare occasionally made only of a layer of humus, but they are most frequently mounds of mixed earth. Stone kurgans are made by placing stones over the tomb which was later covered with a layer of earth. Besides, in Maikop kurgans, frequently there are circular stone walls – kromlexes – which can be single or multiple depending on the phase of the burial and rituals performed through. The most frequent are individual kurgans meaning that there were not subsequent burials of Maikop people in the mounds above primary grave. Kurgans with several Maikop burials are scarcely represented. In the research history of the sites from the framework of Maikop culture and Maikop culture area, two phases, crucial for the actual cultural and historical interpretation of this phenomenon can be outlined. The first phase is related to the discovery of monumental stone monuments along with numerous bronze and gold objects which, according to then known analogies, are interpreted as direct reflection of the progress achieved in Middle East cultures during 3rd millennium BC. In the opinion of the majority of the former researchers, at the beginning the representatives of Maikop culture took over the cultural achievements of the Middle East which were further perfected afterwards. The second opinion about the interpretation of this phenomenon is formed in recent period as a result of multiple radiocarbon dates what caused significant corrections of absolute chronology of Maikopculture dating it to the 4th millennium BC. This imposed new cultural relations to the Middle East, but this time not to the dynastic period but to previous, pre-urban cultures of Ubaid and Uruk. All this indicates a higher level of authenticity of Maikop culture, especially in the domain of metallurgy. Anyway, the Maikop culture, during its existences gained hightechnological development and in metal processing it does not fall behind Middle East cultures. A significant breakthrough in the process of determining absolute chronology of Maikop culture was made through implementation of radiocarbondating. So far, within this framework, more than 70 dates were collected, which are mostly concentrated in three successive periods. The early period covers the time span from 40th to 37th century BC. Those dates are very scarce and they are related to the sites of Maikop (Galjugaevsko-Sereginsk) and Psekupsk variants in the area of Terek and Kuban, as well asin Kuma–Manych periphery. The dates of the middle period cover the time period from 37/35th to 34/33rd century BC and they are related to the finds of all variants of Maikop culture. The most significant Maikop settlements belonging to this period are Ust- Džegutin, Galjugaevsk, Novosvobodna and Dolinsk, necropoles in Klada or the grave 70 from Kurgan 1 in Zamankul which according to the finds is the closest to the Maikop kurgan. The dates of the late period cover the time span from 34th to 30/29th century BC and mostly belong to the group of Novosvobodna and the Dolinsk and Psekupsk variant. The cultural and social development of the Maikop culture reached the so-called chieftain level which can be compared to the late period of Sumerian pre-dynas tic period. Maikop warrior's weapons do not fall behind after Sumerian armies, but further development in this respect was not attained by Maikop culture. It vanishes with oncoming climate warming during second phase of Subboreal and its disappearance is most likely induced by internal social changes as well. There is no clear standpoint in science, regardingthe issue of ethnical character of representatives of the Maikop culture, mostly having in mind the language groups of different nations (Indo-Europeans, Semites, Hattam, Adygei, Kabardini, Turks). The analysis of the archaeological material shows that Maikop culture consisted of four components, out of which every single one had its own path of origin. Among the variants there were close connections, particularly in general religious displays, funeral rituals, syncretism emergence and adaptation. Having this in mind, the Maikop culture cannot be considered as a product of a single ethnic group, nor it can be related to a single nation. However, it was definitely a local culture, coming from north pre-Caucasian area, strongly influencedby northern Mesopotamia, eastern Anatolia and southern Caucasus through Kurin flatlands. The tradition related to spiritual customs of Maikop population shows both, the elements of the local Chalcolithic with familiar funeral ceremonies of buryingin kurgans, but also the contacts with eastern European cultures which could contribute to the creation of Maikop warrior elite. Archaeological sources also indicate that all foreign influences were more or less adapted to the features of Maikop culture, assimilating in quite specific pre-Caucasian features.

The following funding bodies contributed to study concept and design, research, and data collection for the PREDIMED-Plus study. The PREDIMED-Plus trial was supported by the European Research Council (Advanced Research grant 2014-2019; agreement #340918; granted to M.A.M-G.); the official Spanish institutions for funding scientific biomedical research, CIBER Fisiopatologia de la Obesidad y Nutricion (CIBEROBN) and Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII) through the Fondo de Investigacion para la Salud (FIS) which is co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund (coordinated FIS projects led by J.S-S. and J.V., including the following projects: PI13/00673, PI13/00492, PI13/00272, PI13/01123, PI13/00462, PI13/00233, PI13/02184, PI13/00728, PI13/01090, PI13/01056, PI14/01722, PI14/00636, PI14/00618, PI14/00696, PI14/01206, PI14/01919, PI14/00853, PI14/01374, PI14/00972, PI14/00728, PI14/01471, PI16/00473, PI16/00662, PI16/01873, PI16/01094, PI16/00501, PI16/00533, PI16/00381, PI16/00366, PI16/01522, PI16/01120, PI17/00764, PI17/01183, PI17/00855, PI17/01347, PI17/00525, PI17/01827, PI17/00532, PI17/00215, PI17/01441, PI17/00508, PI17/01732, PI17/00926, PI19/00957, PI19/00386, PI19/00309, PI19/01032, PI19/00576, PI19/00017, PI19/01226, PI19/00781, PI19/01560, PI19/01332), and the Especial Action Project "Implementacion y evaluacion de una intervencion intensiva sobre la actividad fisica Cohorte PREDIMED-Plus" (J.S-S.); the Recercaixa (grant number 2013ACUP00194) (J.S-S.). Moreover, J.S-S. gratefully acknowledges the financial support by ICREA under the ICREA Academia program; the SEMERGEN grant; Department of Health of the Government of Navarra (61/2015), the Fundacio La Marato de TV (Ref. 201630.10); the AstraZeneca Young Investigators Award in Category of Obesity and T2D 2017 (D.R.); grants from the Consejeria de Salud de la Junta de Andalucia (PI0458/2013; PS0358/2016; PI0137/2018), the PROMETEO/2017/017 grant from the Generalitat Valenciana, the SEMERGEN grant; grant of support to research groups 35/2011 (Balearic Islands Government; FEDER funds) (J.A.T.). J.K. was financially supported by the Juan de la Cierva-Incorporacion research grant (IJC2019-042420-I) of the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness and the European Social Funds. The following funding bodies contributed to data preparation and analysis, bibliographic research, and manuscript writing. The METHYL-UP project was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (RTI2018-095569-B-I00, Programa de Proyectos Orientados a los Retos de la Sociedad "Projects Toward Society Challenges Program"). R.S.-C. acknowledges financial support from the Juan de la Cierva Program Training Grants of the Spanish State Research Agency of the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion y Ministerio de Universidades (FJC2018-038168-I). C.M.-P. was financially supported by a joint grant from the Community of Madrid and the European Social Fund (PEJD-2019-POST/SAL-15892). C. C.-M. was financially supported by the Formacion de Personal Investigador (FPI) grant from the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovacion y Universidades (PRE2019-087643). ; Background: Recent lifestyle changes include increased consumption of highly processed foods (HPF), which has been associated with an increased risk of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). However, nutritional information relies on the estimation of HPF consumption from food-frequency questionnaires (FFQ) that are not explicitly developed for this purpose. We aimed to develop a short screening questionnaire of HPF consumption (sQ-HPF) that integrates criteria from the existing food classification systems. Methods: Data from 4400 participants (48.1% female and 51.9% male, 64.9 ± 4.9 years) of the Spanish PREDIMED-Plus ("PREvention with MEDiterranean DIet") trial were used for this analysis. Items from the FFQ were classified according to four main food processing-based classification systems (NOVA, IARC, IFIC and UNC). Participants were classified into tertiles of HPF consumption according to each system. Using binomial logistic regression, food groups associated with agreement in the highest tertile for at least two classification systems were chosen as items for the questionnaire. ROC analysis was used to determine cut-off points for the frequency of consumption of each item, from which a score was calculated. Internal consistency of the questionnaire was assessed through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and Cronbach's analysis, and agreement with the four classifications was assessed with weighted kappa coefficients. Results: Regression analysis identified 14 food groups (items) associated with high HPF consumption for at least two classification systems. EFA showed that items were representative contributors of a single underlying factor, the "HPF dietary pattern" (factor loadings around 0.2). We constructed a questionnaire asking about the frequency of consumption of those items. The threshold frequency of consumption was selected using ROC analysis. Comparison of the four classification systems and the sQ-HPF showed a fair to high agreement. Significant changes in lifestyle characteristics were detected across tertiles of the sQ-HPF score. Longitudinal changes in HPF consumption were also detected by the sQ-HPF, concordantly with existing classification systems. Conclusions: We developed a practical tool to measure HPF consumption, the sQ-HPF. This may be a valuable instrument to study its relationship with NCDs. ; European Research Council (ERC) European Commission 340918 ; CIBER Fisiopatologia de la Obesidad y Nutricion (CIBEROBN) ; Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII) through the Fondo de Investigacion para la Salud (FIS) - European Regional Development Fund PI13/00673 PI13/00492 PI13/00272 PI13/01123 PI13/00462 PI13/00233 PI13/02184 PI13/00728 PI13/01090 PI13/01056 PI14/01722 PI14/00636 PI14/00618 PI14/00696 PI14/01206 PI14/01919 PI14/00853 PI14/01374 PI14/00972 PI14/00728 PI14/01471 ; Especial Action Project "Implementacion y evaluacion de una intervencion intensiva sobre la actividad fisica Cohorte PREDIMED-Plus" ; La Caixa Foundation 2013ACUP00194 ; ICREA ; SEMERGEN grant ; Department of Health of the Government of Navarra 61/2015 ; Fundacio La Marato de TV 201630.10 ; AstraZeneca T2D 2017 ; Junta de Andalucia PI0458/2013 PS0358/2016 PI0137/2018 ; Generalitat Valenciana European Commission General Electric PROMETEO/2017/017 ; Balearic Islands Government 35/2011 ; European Commission 35/2011 ; Juan de la Cierva-Incorporacion research grant of the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness and the European Social Funds IJC2019-042420-I ; Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (Programa de Proyectos Orientados a los Retos de la Sociedad "Projects Toward Society Challenges Program") RTI2018-095569-B-I00 ; Juan de la Cierva Program Training Grants of the Spanish State Research Agency of the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion y Ministerio de Universidades FJC2018-038168-I ; Comunidad de Madrid ; European Social Fund (ESF) PEJD-2019-POST/SAL-15892 ; Formacion de Personal Investigador (FPI) grant from the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovacion y Universidades PRE2019-087643 ; The Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII) through the Fondo de Investigacion para la Salud (FIS) - European Regional Development Fund PI16/00473 PI16/00662 PI16/01873 PI16/01094 PI16/00501 PI16/00533 PI16/00381 PI16/00366 PI16/01522 PI16/01120 PI17/00764 PI17/01183 PI17/00855 PI17/01347 PI17/00525 PI17/01827 PI17/00532 PI17/00215 PI17/01441 PI17/00508 PI19/00309 PI19/01560 PI19/01332 ; A Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII) through the Fondo de Investigacion para la Salud (FIS) - European Regional Development Fund PI17/01732 PI17/00926 PI19/00957 PI19/00386 PI19/01032 PI19/00576 PI19/00017 PI19/01226 PI19/00781

This thesis consists of five chapters: the first three deal with the evolution of Chinese foreign aid from its inception to the publishing of China's first foreign aid White Paper in 2011; the two remaining chapters are reform case studies taking us up to the present. Chapter 1, "Relational Foreign Aid: Tracing the Origins of the Chinese Aid Thinking", traces the origins of the concepts that are considered basic principles of China's foreign aid today and explains when and in which context they were formulated first. Furthermore, the chapter suggests that China's early foreign aid was likely influenced by interactions between the Chinese Communists and the representatives of the United States in China. It shows, in particular, how the Communists' attempts to obtain economic assistance from the U.S. and the U.S.'s denial of ideological grounds on ideological grounds appear to have shaped the principle of political non-interference. Finally, chapter 1 argues that Chinese foreign aid was relational, in the sense of trying to find "common interests" (gongtong liyi 共同利益) in order to create relational power and overcome the international isolation China was faced with after 1949, and claim the China seat from the Republic of China (on Taiwan) in the United Nations General Assembly. Drawing on the Relational Theory of world politics, proposed by Qin Yaqing's 秦亚青 (2018), it analyses how foreign aid was linked to constructed common interest of building economic independence, which China saw as a precondition for political independence. In the process, this chapter challenges several dominant assumptions: first, that foreign aid was dominated by Mao Zedong and driven by ideology, and second, that Chinese aid was "merely an extension of Soviet aid". Chapter 2, "The Long March to "Win-Win": Assembling Chinese Foreign Aid Thinking", continues my historical enquiry and fills a gap that has been largely neglected in the research on Chinese foreign aid: the years between 1978 and 1995. It zooms in on government-linked foreign aid discourses and argues that the major foreign aid reform of 1995, namely the introduction of foreign aid concessional loans (对外援助优惠贷款) managed by the newly set-up China Exim Bank, were the outcome of a reform process, that started in 1979. Thereby, the chapter first debunks the assumptions that foreign aid lost its importance with the new leadership, often found in the literature on Chinese aid. It shows that, quite to the contrary, it was in 1979 (at least according to known documents) that foreign aid was explicitly called a strategic foreign policy tool, which was indispensable to secure a stable international environment for China's modernisation policy. It argues that the new "Four Principles of Economic and Technical Co-operation" (Jingji jishu hezuo de si xiang yuanze经济技术合作的四项原则), whose emphasis on "co-operation" was perceived by many as a departure from aid, in fact, represented an attempt to strike a delicate balance between finding ways to maintain good relations with recipients and to promote China's own economic development. Second, this chapter uses primary and secondary source material to show that the shift away from aid toward economic co-operation-which China's government had indeed sought and which works on Chinese aid or Sino-African relations repeatedly described as having occurred in the early 1980s-essentially did not take place. This happened only after China faced a new crisis: the Tian'anmen square protests, which ended with a violent crackdown and led to sanctions imposed by Western countries. It was then perceived as necessary to significantly increase aid to developing countries in order to ensure their political support – and this, in turn, led to the creation of foreign aid concessional loans as a new mode of aid delivery. Finally, the chapter argues that in order to understand the thinking and action logic behind Chinese foreign aid today, one has to understand the assemblage of Chinese concessional loans. Chapter 3, "Chinese Aid Meets the West – Tracing (Hidden) Reform Debates", discusses how contrary to widespread assumptions in the West that behind Chinese aid there was a clearly defined strategy, the Chinese aid system was (and in fact, still is) characterised by policy experimentation. As argued by Sebastian Heilmann (2018, 111), policy experimentation has been an asset and the key to the adaptability of China's political economy, allowing this authoritarian regime to find innovative solutions to long-standing or newly emerging challenges. Yet, in foreign aid policy experimentation has created a system that is described as highly complex, fragmented and ineffective by its stakeholders. The chapter follows a foreign aid reform debate that started in 2010 – and initiated a reform process that is still ongoing. Although this debate addressed many of the concerns DAC donors voiced towards Chinese aid after 2005, it remained "hidden" because it was conducted almost exclusively in Chinese. The chapter concludes by analysing the first visible outcome of this (hidden) reform debate: the White Paper on China's Foreign Aid which was published in 2011 and spelt out the official master narrative for Chinese foreign aid for the first time in the history of Chinese aid. Chapter 4, "Reform of the Foreign Aid Administration" and Chapter 5, "Credit Risk Management Regulations for Chinese Policy Banks", introduce two reform case studies: The first case study deals with the introduction of the first comprehensive legal document on foreign aid, the "Measures for the Administration of Foreign Aid" in 2014 (MOFCOM 2014b), and the establishment of the new foreign aid agency China Internationa Development Co-operation Agency (CIDCA) in 2018, which replaced the Ministry of Commerce as the lead administration actor for foreign aid. The second case study deals with the introduction of new credit risk management regulations for China's two policy banks, China Development Bank (CDB) 国家开发银行 and China Export-Import (Exim) Bank 中国进出口银行, which issue Chinese government loans to developing countries: the "Measures for the Supervision and Administration" (Jiandu guanli banfa 监督管理办法), issued in November 2017. The function of the case studies is not only to analyse the legal documents and legal processes at the centre of both reforms. Rather, they serve as exemplary cases of how major reforms, which addressed aspects of Chinese aid that have been hotly debated in the West, went completely unnoticed because the related information was available only in Chinese. Furthermore, the case studies are also methodological suggestions on how to trace reforms as they unfold. The thesis concludes with five arguments: China's foreign aid is relational; it is based on policy experimentation; it is guided by historical memory, which is in part responsible for the fact that China's foreign aid is an externalisation of China's domestic modernisation policy; China's foreign aid is not a China story but a global story, it is embedded in a global context and has been directly or indirectly shaped by global shifts.