The potentially positive effects of Cash-Transfer Programming have been demonstrated many times over. But how does the humanitarian ‘cash revolution’ present itself to those who are intended to benefit from it?
At the World Humanitarian Summit in May 2016, OECD donors and humanitarian actors made a series of commitments to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of humanitarian aid – summarised in the Grand Bargain.
At the World Humanitarian Summit last May, ‘A’ list Hollywood stars—Daniel Craig and Sean Penn—outnumbered ‘A’ list western politicians—Angela Merkel—by two to one.
Few people inspire such affection and respect in the humanitarian and development world as Hans Rosling. The sadness that met his death earlier this month is testament to the way he challenged and shaped the way we think about global public health and much else. With his bubble charts and narrative flourish
The lights are dimming across the humanitarian space as more and more governments choose to ignore or disavow the humanitarian rules promulgated in more enlightened times.
There’s a lot of interest in scaling up quality and accountability across the humanitarian space. The double promise of better programming and greater accountability are powerful drivers.
A dialing down of the ‘participation revolution’ may be in the offing amid persistent concerns about the perceived dangers of being accountable to people hit by humanitarian crises in places that are politically and socially fragile.
The International Rescue Committee is making a thorough job of looking at feedback and accountability mechanisms through its CVC program.
After Haiti’s earthquake in 2010, a story about IOM’s then novel idea of putting suggestion boxes in camps for displaced people made the front page of the New York Times,
A week after the World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul, the dust is settling. Some did better out of the two-day meeting than others.