Love your blog.

Mike

Your points on conflicting logos are well-taken. Let me offer a few counterbalancing remarks:

1) If the government issues a contract then I agree it should be the government logo on the product. However, if the government issues a grant that is a different ball game. Those funds are given to the organization and the organization’s board has fiduciary responsibility for the proper disposition of those funds. In short, the NGO has primary responsibility – it is taking financial risk, it is providing IP and very often its own funding. Why should USAID or PEPFAR have exclusive labeling rights if the program is being co-funded by a foundation or other donor?

3) Your comment that somehow conservatives can promote reform is ironic. USAID’s cumbersome branding guidelines were developed under the Bush Administration…. This is also the same group fo conservatives who created PEPFAR, MCC and the dreaded F-Bureau. Maybe this is a generational thing – I am only in my mid-30s – but I have seen no evidence in my lifetime that conservatives cut or simplify bureaucracy!

4) If you want the credit, you have to accept responsibility too. In my experience, when a project goes bad – inevitable in development – funders (USG or otherwise) suddenly lose their interest in branding. Did you see Frontlines the other night? USAID put quite a bit of $$$ into Playpumps – are you disappointed that there is no logo on the side of those non-working well tanks? As an Ambassador how would you feel visiting that village? The point here is that development is a risky undertaking and there is a very high failure rate – if you want to put your stamp on success, you have to ready to accept responsibility for failure too.

The overly specific ‘branding/logo’ mandates of USAID for example are clear and we can, I suppose, hope they will be addressed by the on-going State and Congress-led initiative to rationalize foreign assistance which unfortunately appears to be continually delayed.

In most cases in my experience, the logo issue is to the point of comical throughout the world involving all donors, NGOs, contractors and government agencies…. e.g., look at any brochure from just about any development project in Brazil…. although the logos are becoming much more creative and appealing. As an aside – which truly is relevant for cost purposes – there is now a sub-sector of ‘development’ consulting which is focussed on art, campaign and branding. Without commenting on the cost aspects – everyone would admit that the logos are getting much more artistic and yet more costly.

I thought (I guess suspected) that development ‘entities’ were more interested in – and mandated to – reduce poverty and increase livelihoods. If that is the case and they could effectively publish their achievements, then the ‘indicators’ should be enough promotion for their effort – yet the logo-splashed T-shirt mentality persists.

In many cases it is promotion/marketing over development…. and therein lies the fundamental problem. How much of development is considered results vs. message? Every tee-shirt and baseball hat that is distributed is message and marketing for the donor and also the company hired to execute the donor’s scope of work. Obviously message is important to get buy-in – but results are paramount. How much did the T-Shirt or Baseball Cap in Nicaragua help to reduce poverty or even help to change a perspective of the USA? In economic terms – it is probably just a ‘cool hat’ that a farmer in Leon covers his head with against the hot sun. If he links what is says on his hat with an opportunity to increase in his livelihood or his intention or plan to do something different this year to increase his livelihood and then the hat was a good investment in development funds. Plus, the factor increase when another farmer asks him about his hat, he explains his benefits and the knowledge is transferred and results are replicated – increased – that is important.

Let’s move from micro to macro focus…. in the case of the USA, in a situation where fiscal austerity and budget cutting is now obviously needed, foreign assistance is an easy target for perhaps legitimate reductions. Under this scenario, the importance of foreign assistance needs to articulated in terms people in northern wisconsin (only as an example) can appreciate…. and needless wastes of scarce budget on unnecessary branding logos etc need to be eliminated.

Providing a compassionate yet conditional development ‘leg-up’ to individuals and companies in those countries whose governments support the free market, the rule of law, secure property rights, invest in the education, health and empowerment of their citizens and reject corruption – all principles that serve as the foundation of the USA – should be fostered through foreign assistance.

Given today’s overspending at the federal and local level and the massive national debt and entitlement obligations – the challenge is to make sure the expense of every dollar of US Tax Payer’s investment is efficient, effective and accountable. Seeing all foreign assistance through this ‘lens’ is not only important to be fiscally responsible but effective in development.

Kevin