A world in turmoil: governing risk, establishing order in humanitarian crises

Abstract

This special issue of Disasters on humanitarian governance focuses on risk and order. Its contributions show the tensions between humanitarian normative ideals and practical consequences, as many of the ordering effects are associated with either intended or unintended consequences. This introduction offers a conceptual framing of humanitarian governance. Defining humanitarian governance as a subset of global governance, the paper shows how humanitarians have attempted to improve the consequences of their work by fighting instrumentalisation and instituting rationalisation processes. It adapts four questions, originally formulated by Michael Barnett (), to examine the ways in which humanitarian governance functions in more detail: what kind of world is being imagined and produced through the specific concern with order and risk? Who governs? How is this a form of humanitarian governance and how is it organised? And finally, what are the principal techniques of such governance? The conclusion summarises the main findings and sets an agenda for further research.

Protracted crisis, food security and the fantasy of resilience in Sudan

“…In the past decade, resilience has been a central part of humanitarian operations (see, for example, Dijkzeul and Bergtora Sandvik, 2019), including in Darfur, yet this approach has been accompanied by an overall decline in material assistance (see below). Interventions have largely focussed on behaviour change, capacity building and treatment.…”

“…It has been seen as a form of humanitarian governance (e.g. Dijkzeul and Bergtora Sandvik, 2019), of neoliberal governmentality (Duffield, 2012), as people's actual strategies in response to climate variability and crisis (Young and Ismail, 2019) or programmatically as a link between relief and development in protracted crises (Levine and Mosel, 2014). Dijkzeul and Bergtora Sandvik (2019) argue that resilience has become an essential component of disaster risk management in the past decade, with a shift in responsibility to local rather than international actors.…”

“…Dijkzeul and Bergtora Sandvik, 2019), of neoliberal governmentality (Duffield, 2012), as people’s actual strategies in response to climate variability and crisis (Young and Ismail, 2019) or programmatically as a link between relief and development in protracted crises (Levine and Mosel, 2014). Dijkzeul and Bergtora Sandvik (2019) argue that resilience has become an essential component of disaster risk management in the past decade, with a shift in responsibility to local rather than international actors. Duffield (2012) has similarly highlighted how since the 1990s, humanitarian response has become more concerned with people’s coping strategies (or behaviour) and that, with the expansion of the aid industry, aid workers themselves are expected to become resilient to constant external threats.…”

Making Wearables in Aid

“…7 Field notes on file with author, Oslo, 23 January 2018. 8 For a general discussion of digitisation and datafication in humanitarian governance, see Dijkzeul and Sandvik (2019).…”

Universality

“…Jacinta O'Hagan and Miwa Hirono (2014), for instance, describe how the emergence of new humanitarian actors and arenas in Asia has resulted in new "cultures of humanitarianism," without necessarily undermining international humanitarian cooperation (O'Hagan and Hirono 2014). Others have demonstrated how any humanitarian practice involves a degree of political instrumentalization when being realized, entailing a great diversity in political features and consequences of humanitarian governance (Dijkzeul and Sandvik 2019). Indeed, the supposed universality of humanitarianism lends itself well to the facilitation and justification of political agendas.…”