| Summary: | <p>In a world where humanitarian crises are increasing in severity and frequency, the humanitarian system is often described as a ‘competitive marketplace,’ an international regime densely populated by diverse actors – UN organizations, the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement, international and local non-governmental organizations (NGOs), private entities, governments, and civil society – all vying for scarce resources from a limited pool of fatigued donors (Weiss 2013). Existing theoretical approaches on inter-organizational competition suggest that, under conditions of density and resource scarcity, competing actors are encouraged to pursue niche specialization as an avenue to secure organizational survival. This logic underpins the UN’s Humanitarian Cluster Approach, where each UN organization, agency, or programme with a humanitarian role is assigned to a specific sector of the response, taking on coordination, advocacy, and provider-of-last-resort responsibilities. While the Cluster Approach was intended to reduce duplication and establish a clear division of labour among UN entities, in practice, humanitarian workers and external observers lament the persistence of siloed thinking and competition among UN organizations.</p>
<p>This thesis investigates why competition persists among UN organizations in humanitarian response despite institutional differentiation. Under conditions of population density and resource scarcity, inter-organizational competition endures even with niche specialization if donor states view these niches as substitutes and prioritize resource allocation accordingly. When international organizations (IOs) perceive the threat of resource reallocation and niche substitution, they react to ensure their survival. The competitive strategy each IO adopts depends on its organizational type – either specialist or generalist. Specialist IOs pursue competitive issue framing, aligning the framing of a salient policy problem with their existing capabilities and expertise. Generalist IOs, on the other hand, engage in competitive horizontal expansion, using their adaptability to fill gaps and provide services according to donor needs, even when these services fall outside their primary mandate.</p>
<p>In the humanitarian sector, the threat of resource reallocation occurs when donors prioritize one sector’s humanitarian needs over another. The World Food Programme (WFP) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) have consistently secured relatively high levels of humanitarian funding by employing competitive issue framing and competitive horizontal expansion, respectively. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), with its privileged position in controlling the appointment of in-country Humanitarian Coordinators, was less responsive to competitive pressures and failed to implement either strategy. Since losing control of the Humanitarian Coordinator appointment process in 2018/19, UNDP has been progressively 'competed out' of the humanitarian sector.</p>
|
|---|