Search

The reception of Syrian refugees has dominated negotiations between neighbouring host states, such as Jordan and Turkey, and donors in the Global North. Despite the growing literature on external funding, how international stakeholders navigate the domestic context is understudied. This article employs the lens of depoliticisation and analyses tools employed by international stakeholders manoeuvring domestic contexts in centralised states. We argue that international stakeholders adopt a depoliticised approach that portrays them and the actors they work with as service providers while working with national governments that engage in rent-seeking. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with donors and international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) as international stakeholders in Jordan and Turkey, the contribution of the article is two-fold. First, although the 'local' is ever present in policy and research discussions, research and policy often conflate regional organisations, national governments and municipalities. We therefore further disentangle the power relations between the various actors categorised as 'local'. Second, we offer a conceptual understanding of how international stakeholders navigate the dynamics of local power relations and the domestic politics in centralised states with rent-seeking behaviours. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Hygiene behaviour change programmes are complex to design. These challenges are heightened during crises when humanitarian responders are under pressure to implement programmes rapidly despite having limited information about the local situation, behaviours and opinions—all of which may also be rapidly evolving. Methods We conducted in-depth interviews with 36 humanitarian staff involved in hygiene programme design in two crisis-affected settings—one a conflict affected setting (Iraq) and the other amid a cholera outbreak (Democratic Republic of the Congo). Interviews explored decision-making in each phase of the humanitarian project cycle and were thematically analysed. Results Participants considered the design and implementation of hygiene programmes in crises to be sub-optimal. Humanitarians faced sector-specific challenges as well as more general constraints associated with operating within the humanitarian system. Programme-design decisions were made naturalistically and relied heavily on the intuitions and assumptions of senior staff. National organisations were often side-lined from programme design processes despite being in a better position to gather situational data. Consequently, programme design and decision-making processes adopted by humanitarians were similar across the two settings studied and led to similar types of hygiene promotion activities being delivered. Conclusion Hygiene programming in crises-affected settings could be strengthened by initiatives targeted at supporting humanitarian staff during the pre-implementation programme design phase. This may include rapid assessment tools to better understand behavioural determinants in crisis-affected contexts; the use of a theory of change to inform the selection of programme activities; and funding mechanisms which encourage equitable partnerships, phased programming, regular adaptation and have programmatic components targeted at sustainability and sector capacity building. Initiatives aimed at sector reform should be cognisant of inter and intra-organisational dynamics, the ways that expertise is created and valued by the sector, and humanitarian habits and norms that arise in response to system constraints and pressures. These micro-organisational processes affect macro-level outcomes related to programme quality and acceptability and determine or limit the roles of national actors in programme design processes.

Background: Hygiene behaviour change programmes are complex to design. These challenges are heightened during crises when humanitarian responders are under pressure to implement programmes rapidly despite having limited information about the local situation, behaviours and opinions—all of which may also be rapidly evolving. Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with 36 humanitarian staff involved in hygiene programme design in two crisis-affected settings—one a conflict affected setting (Iraq) and the other amid a cholera outbreak (Democratic Republic of the Congo). Interviews explored decision-making in each phase of the humanitarian project cycle and were thematically analysed. Results: Participants considered the design and implementation of hygiene programmes in crises to be sub-optimal. Humanitarians faced sector-specific challenges as well as more general constraints associated with operating within the humanitarian system. Programme-design decisions were made naturalistically and relied heavily on the intuitions and assumptions of senior staff. National organisations were often side-lined from programme design processes despite being in a better position to gather situational data. Consequently, programme design and decision-making processes adopted by humanitarians were similar across the two settings studied and led to similar types of hygiene promotion activities being delivered. Conclusion: Hygiene programming in crises-affected settings could be strengthened by initiatives targeted at supporting humanitarian staff during the pre-implementation programme design phase. This may include rapid assessment tools to better understand behavioural determinants in crisis-affected contexts; the use of a theory of change to inform the selection of programme activities; and funding mechanisms which encourage equitable partnerships, phased programming, regular adaptation and have programmatic components targeted at sustainability and sector capacity building. Initiatives aimed at sector reform should be cognisant of inter and intra-organisational dynamics, the ways that expertise is created and valued by the sector, and humanitarian habits and norms that arise in response to system constraints and pressures. These micro-organisational processes affect macro-level outcomes related to programme quality and acceptability and determine or limit the roles of national actors in programme design processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees’ (UNRWA) responses to the US Government’s decision to dramatically cut its financial contributions to the Agency in 2018. Acknowledging the complexities of the fast-moving changes and dilemmas faced by UNRWA and Palestinian refugees, this article focuses specifically on the events that unfolded in the first six months of 2018. Through a multiscalar analysis, I start by situating UNRWA’s key responses as they have played out on the international stage through a high-profile fundraising campaign (#DignityIsPriceless). I then develop a close reading of three regional-level UNRWA circulars disseminated to UNRWA staff pertaining to the provision of maternal and neonatal health services, and to Palestinian UNRWA staff members’ employment and pension rights. Against the backdrop of the impact of UNRWA’s responses across the region, I subsequently examine how these operational changes have been experienced and conceptualised by Palestinians living in refugee camps in Lebanon, noting that those experiences must be analysed within the broader context of protracted displacement, enforced immobility and overlapping displacement.

This paper reflects on contemporary studies of and responses to disasters, highlighting the importance of historical, spatial, and intersectional modes of analysis, and draws on the author's ongoing research on Southern‐led and local community responses to displacement in the Middle East. Acknowledging the plurality of 'international communities of response', it begins by critiquing the depiction of selected responses to disasters as 'positive' 'paradigm shifts', including in reference to the 'localisation of aid, and the United Nations' Regional Refugee and Resilience Plan for Syria. Next it turns to three key themes that are central to disasters studies: migration; forced displacement; and Southern‐led responses to disasters. Among other things, the paper argues that exploring the principles and modalities of South–South cooperation, rather than promoting the incorporation of Southern actors into the 'international humanitarian system' via the localisation agenda, presents a critical opportunity for studies of and responses to disasters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]