One of my favorite things about growing up in Seattle was Seafair, an annual three-week festival, featuring hydroplane races, ethnic celebrations, beauty pageants, a Navy flotilla on Elliott Bay, and a wild nighttime torchlight parade.*
But for me, the best part of Seafair is the Blue Angels.
The Blue Angels is a demonstration squadron of fighter jets that performs aerobatic shows. They fly over Seattle for several days during Seafair, culminating in a magnificent performance over Lake Washington on the festival’s last day. The pilots execute graceful, death-defying stunts that amaze and astonish. Like thousands of other Seattle kids, I grew up fantasizing about flying a Navy jet on an aircraft carrier. For too many people in this world, the thunder of military jets connotes terror; I’m fortunate to associate that sound with exhilaration.
Thing is, the Blue Angels serve no tactical military purpose; the squadron’s $40 million annual budget and 7-pilot, 17-officer, 100-sailor team is an investment in brand-building. Brands are important sources of profit, and so naturally businesses invest heavily in their brands. But the US Navy isn’t supposed to generate profits, so what’s the point of the Blue Angels?
Why public agency brands matter
Public agencies have brand equity just like businesses do. Agency names, logos, songs, slogans, and other images carry positive or negative associations that make people more or less favorable toward the agency. For public managers, positive brand equity facilitates implementation in lots of ways.
Brand equity can strengthen or weaken morale. Agencies with strong brand equity have an easier time attracting talented employees—which is important because governments often cannot compete for the best employees on salary and benefits alone.
How many kids grew up wanting to be FBI agents after watching X-Files? Or wanting to be motorcycle cops because they liked Ponch and Jon on CHiPs?
Shrewd public managers know that brand equity is a political asset. A strong brand can buffer their organizations from politicians in times of crisis, and help build a coalition in support of expanded or enhanced authority. Leaders of agencies with strong brands can protect their “turf.” Citizens are more supportive of government programs when those programs are explicitly associated with favored agencies, too. My last post reported on a recent experiment that found that support for government management increased when associated with a specific agency’s name. Rhea Graham’s terrific response affirmed my sense that public managers think carefully about their agencies’ brands.
Implications for policy design
We typically think that assignment of implementation responsibility should follow capacity and competencies—that agencies with the necessary human capital and facilities should handle implementation. Brand equity introduces another dimension to the delegation decision. In some highly partisan contexts, it may make sense to assign implementation to multiple agencies in ways that align with their respective brand equity.
The findings in my recent study suggest that the US Army Corps of Engineers might make implementation of water policies easier in “Red” states than in “Blue” states. For the latter, the EPA probably might enjoy greater brand equity even if it lacks some of the USACE’s technical capacity. It’s an idea worth exploring.
*In the 1990s, organizers moved up the “torchlight” parade to daytime in response to worries about crime. Seafair Pirates and Clowns became much less… exuberant. The parade is now a pleasant but decidedly less bacchanalian affair.
Ever notice that people hate government but love certain government agencies?
A couple years ago I was shopping at Target and noticed racks full of NASA-branded merchandise for sale. The idea that bureaucraphobic Americans would pay to wear a garment with a government agency’s logo printed on it startled me. Evidently people feel pretty good about NASA. Corporations work very hard (and mostly fail) to create that kind of brand loyalty, and with good reason: brand equity is a great source of profitability for businesses.
Around the same time I joined a group of researchers at the Texas A&M Institute for Science, Technology, and Public Policy (ISTPP) on a big project about the Water-Food-Energy Nexus. ISTPP conducted a national public opinion survey on water, energy, and agricultural policy as part of that effort. Inspired in part by my Target shopping experience, I wondered: would public support for government regulation of water, energy, and agriculture change if it were associated with a particular agency?
In other words, do federal agencies have brand equity with the American public?
To tease out agency brand effects, we embedded an experiment in our survey. We asked a randomly selected 50% of our respondents about the proper role of the Federal Government in managing energy and agriculture; the other 50% of participants were asked about the U.S. Department of Energy or the U.S. Department of Agriculture. For water, we split the sample in thirds: one third were asked about the Federal Government, one third about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and one third about the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Of course, all of these agencies are bureaucracies within the federal government. So qualitatively “Department of Energy” and “Federal Government” are the same thing.
The experimental results were striking. Average public support for government management of energy increased significantly when associated with the Dept. of Energy, agriculture when associated with the USDA, and water when associated with the EPA. The only agency that didn’t generate a positive average brand effect was the Army Corps of Engineers. But it turns out that’s because Americans seem to see…
Brands through partisan lenses.
It turns out that, as with so many things, Democrats and Republicans see things in different ways. Average positive brand effects were stronger for Republicans than Democrats, maybe because the former have negative attitudes toward the “generic” Federal Government. But the most fascinating thing is that the Corps of Engineers had opposite effects on partisans: positive for Republicans, negative for Democrats.
Oh, and I did end up buying a NASA t-shirt for my niece. She’s adorable.
This is the fourth in my series of posts on the recently released White House infrastructure plan.
Release of the White House infrastructure plan triggered a flurry of news about the nation’s ports, dams, water works, sewer systems, rails, and rosenbridges. Little noted in all that coverage was the fourth part of the president’s four-part plan: workforce development.
Human capital shortfall
The human capital—the educated, qualified, and experienced workers who build and maintain the nation’s infrastructure—is suffering from the same kind of shortages that plague physical infrastructure. Infrastructure work is skilled work, and skilled workers are aging out of the labor market faster than they’re being replaced. The return on infrastructure investment will be poor if workers aren’t available to operate and maintain what’s built. The availability of qualified workers has real consequences for utilities. A study I published with David Switzer linked labor market human capital to drinking water safety, for example. The challenge is particularly acute for small utility systems, which often struggle to attract and retain talent. Organizations like AWWA and Baywork have invested heavily in workforce development initiatives in an attempt to address the shortfall.
Astonishing Part 4
Just as Parts 1-3 of the White House plan are meant to incentivize communities and corporations to invest in physical capital, Part 4 would change federal rules to incentivize individual workers’ investments in human capital.
The White House plan would revise Pell Grant eligibility to cover operator training, reform the Perkins CTE program to facilitate infrastructure-focused training, and expand federal Work Study to include trade apprenticeships. Perhaps just as importantly, the White House plan would push states to harmonize their operator licensing requirements. This last move would liberalize the labor market, which would open up opportunities for infrastructure workers and employers.
Taken together, these changes help make infrastructure careers more attractive. As Joe Kane at Brookings has observed, infrastructure jobs are good for the economy, too—they offer good pay, foster transferable skills, and aren’t easily outsourced to foreign workers. Unlike the plan’s provisions for physical capital, Part 4 is aimed squarely at the American working class.
The prominence of workforce development in the White House plan is extraordinary.
Federal investment in infrastructure is nothing new, and federal investments in human capital have been around for decades. But the White House plan’s Part 4 makes workforce an integral part of its vision for infrastructure. That’s important, and hopefully it marks a deep change in the way we think about infrastructure policy in America.