Although a growing number of NGOs are combining humanitarian and development activities, it was long the case that humanitarian action was isolated from discussions and practices in the world of development. The work of saving lives was deemed to be guided solely by the humanitarian principles, and discussions on accountability were rare. In the 1990s, humanitarian standards initiatives arose in recognition that humanitarian organisations were not accountable to affected populations. This article aims to take stock of accountability initiatives and practices in the sector. It builds on accountability theory in distinguishing upward, sideways, and downward accountability, and incorporates formal and informal forms of accountability. It is based on empirical research in Myanmar, Afghanistan, and Sierra Leone. The first part of the article outlines the history of accountability in the humanitarian sector, including an accountability timeline, and discusses current trends in performances around accountability towards displaced people, minorities, and other recipients of aid. It then presents the findings from the three countries. The article concludes by calling attention to the everyday politics of accountability, the widening accountability arena, the differential accountability demands on international and national aid providers, and the crucial importance of sideways accountability to bring accountability to a next level.

No abstract

‘Localisation’ became the new buzzword after the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016. However, the nature of the commitment to localisation since has been questioned. What is ‘the local’? How does localisation work in practice? With little empirical research, generalities in theory and practice have prevailed, preventing a nuanced approach to conceptualising the local. This study aims to build a foundation for the understanding of connotative, nuanced ‘locals’ and to explore the multiple dimensions of the local in both theory and practice. The methodology of a case study research, with a semi-structured and flexible approach, facilitated the identification of different elements of a locally led response that resounded in each of the cases. Combined with a literature review, this article aims to answer the questions: What underlying assumptions regarding the local are found in localisation rhetoric, and how do multi-local dynamics challenge locally led disaster response in practice? Answering this question necessitates deconstructing the multi-local in theory and critically examining expressions concerning the local in practice. In this study, one dimension of the local that was observed was ‘the local as locale,’ with the local describing primarily national actors as opposed to the international, without taking local power dynamics into account. The local was also seen in terms of governance, where local–national relations and intranational strife characterised locally led responses, and the national focus excluded local actors who were not usually involved in governance. The local also became a source of legitimation, with local, national and international actors all using the discourse of ‘the state in charge’ and ‘the community knows best’ to legitimise their own role as response actors while disputing others’ capacities. The multi-local lens provides a perspective with potential to change current practices and contribute to a more transformative agenda.

PurposeWhen a major landslide and floods devastated Freetown, Sierra Leone had just overcome the Ebola crisis, which had left its mark on socio-political relations between different disaster response actors. With international disaster response frameworks increasingly shifting to local ownership, the national government was expected to assume a coordinating role. However, in “post-conflict” settings such as Sierra Leone, intra-state and state–society relations are continuously being renegotiated. This study aimed to uncover the complexities of state-led disaster response in hybrid governance setting at national and community levels in the response to the 2017 landslide and floods.Design/methodology/approachDuring the four months of fieldwork in Freetown in 2017, semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions with various state, aid and societal actors were conducted.FindingsThe findings show that a response to policy building on the idea of a uniform state response did not take into account intra-state power politics or the complexity of Sierra Leone's hybrid governance.Practical implicationsThis paper argues for a more nuanced debate in humanitarian governance and practice on the localisation of aid in post-conflict and fragile settings.Originality/valueThe study's findings contribute to the literature on the disaster–conflict nexus, identifying paradoxes of localised disaster response in an environment with strong national–local tensions. The study highlights intra-local state dynamics that are usually overlooked but have a great impact on the legitimacy of different state authorities in disaster response.

After the 2015 earthquakes in Nepal, the response was as overwhelming as the magnitude of the disaster itself. Tensions between the humanitarian imperative and the postconflict statebuilding agenda soon became evident. Many actors opened different windows for responding by creatively complying to support the state's approach, whereas others bypassed the official channels completely. In post-conflict settings such as Nepal, the situation is especially complicated because of the contradiction between policies underscoring the importance of the state in the response and the reality of the fragile state, which often creates a large role for aid actors. In Nepal, the post-conflict political landscape shaped the contours of the response, as well as how actors decided to operate within them. Based on empirical findings from four months of research, this article contributes to a better understanding of the intricacies of the post-disaster and post-conflict nexus in the context of a state-led response.