HPG Working Paper

Network humanitarianism

Paul Currion

May 2018

HPG Humanitarian Policy Group About the author

Paul Currion is a humanitarian consultant focused on system change in the humanitarian sector, with particular interest in technology. Over the past 20 years he has worked for UN agencies, NGOs, donors and private companies in a range of countries including Afghanistan, Iraq and Liberia, and in the Indian Ocean tsunami response.

This Working Paper is part of the HPG series ‘Constructive Deconstruction: Imagining Alternative Humanitarian Action’.

Humanitarian Policy Group Overseas Development Institute 203 Blackfriars Road London SE1 8NJ United Kingdom

Tel. +44 (0) 20 7922 0300 Fax. +44 (0) 20 7922 0399 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.odi.org/hpg

© Overseas Development Institute, 2018

Readers are encouraged to quote or reproduce materials from this publication but, as copyright holders, ODI requests due acknowledgement and a copy of the publication. This and other HPG Reports are available from www.odi.org.uk/hpg. Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 The nature of the humanitarian system 3 2.1 Hierarchy 4 2.2 Market 5 2.3 Network 6

3 Describing Network Humanitarianism 7 3.1 Modular not mammoth 7 3.2 Distributed not decentralised 8 3.3 Collaboration not communication 10 3.4 Platform not pedestal 11 3.5 Relational not transactional 13

4 The trouble with networks 15 4.1 Finance 15 4.2 Access 15 4.3 Accountability 16

5 Conclusion: a way forward 17

Bibliography 19

Humanitarian Policy Group i ii Network humanitarianism 1 Introduction

We are all aware of how much the world has changed by 2020, with nearly 75% of those connections having since the advent of the Internet, and most of us have mobile broadband access.1 This is communication experienced that singular moment of recognition when at a scale, density and speed that we have never seen we suddenly realise that the assumptions that we before, and it is changing everything. previously relied on in our personal and professional lives no longer hold. For me that moment was 26 July Building on earlier work on the impact of new 2007, when I read an article in The Economist entitled information and communication technologies on ‘Flood, famine and mobile phones’. The article opened society, the sociologist Manuel Castells has written with a startling message from a refugee: extensively about the rise of the Network Society, in which ‘the Internet is the technological basis for My name is Mohammed Sokor, writing to you the organizational form of the Information Age: the from Dagahaley refugee camp in Dadaab. Dear network’ (Castells, 2001). In this thesis, networked Sir, there is an alarming issue here. People are technologies drive a structural transformation given too few kilograms of food. You must help of global society, away from the assumptions of (The Economist, 2007). the industrial era and towards the patterns of the information age, a transformation in which networks What made this message startling was not its emerge as a significant (if not the predominant) form content, but the fact that it had been sent via SMS of collective action. directly to the mobile phones of two UN officials, whose numbers Sokor had found by searching The Economist never reported if Sokor received the web at an Internet cafe in Dagahaley. At that a reply, and at the time it was clear that the time I’d been working on technology projects in individual capacity to send text messages would the humanitarian sector for about ten years, and I not by itself shift power in the system. However, thought I understood the possibilities of these new for some of us his text was a sign that a new tools. Yet when I read that article, I realised that mode of networked humanitarian action would something was happening that was going to change, inevitably emerge. This paper refers to that mode not just humanitarian action, but the fundamental as Network Humanitarianism, and attempts to idea of humanitarianism. describe its key characteristics, illustrated by real-life examples. Network Humanitarianism is the future of In 2013, six years after Sokor sent his text message, humanitarianism, but not necessarily the future of the an estimated 6.5 trillion text messages were sent. This humanitarian community; this paper is a contribution was also the year that messaging apps overtook text to the emerging discussion about what that means. messages in volume, and by 2017 a popular app such as WeChat could expect to process 38 billion messages a day. These apps were being used by over 5bn unique 1 Sources: http://www.analysysmason.com/About-Us/News/ Insight/OTT-messaging-volumes-Jan2014-RDMV0/; mobile phone subscribers – around two-thirds of the http://www.businessinsider.com/tencent-wechat-q3- world’s population – a figure forecast to rise to 5.7bn earnings-2017-11; GSMA (2017a).

Humanitarian Policy Group 1 2 Network humanitarianism 2 The nature of the humanitarian system

It is easy to become entangled in complicated these principles;2 and a range of alternative channels for discussions about what exactly constitutes the life-saving assistance, such as remittances from diaspora humanitarian community, but for the purposes of this communities, which the humanitarian community fails paper the ‘humanitarian community’ is simply the core to consider (Donini, 2010). As a result of these blind group of institutions that refer to themselves using spots, the community is ill-equipped to identify, let alone that term. This includes key institutional donors, UN respond to, potential disruption emerging from outside agencies, the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement its (admittedly contested) boundaries. and national and international NGOs. This does not mean that the humanitarian community Not included in this definition are the private sector, is complacent; on the contrary, there is a long-running military actors or civil society groups, even though these sense that humanitarianism is in crisis. In a footnote latter organisations may partner with humanitarian Barnett (2011) lists 18 publications discussing this crisis, organisations, and sometimes support or initiate relief and that list of publications has only grown longer work themselves. Yet civil society groups are frequently since. Such discussions increasingly focus not on the the first to respond to an emergency, long before the challenges of the present, but of the future; a number humanitarian community arrives; military actors are of reports explore a range of ‘megatrends’ facing the technically humanitarian actors, since they are the main world, usually including topics such as climate change, subject of international humanitarian law; and the demographic transition, increasing inequality and the private sector has always been critical to the logistics of weakening of the nation-state. Technological progress humanitarian action. is always discussed, but usually in terms of how technology might affect the operational environment of The explanation for this given by the humanitarian humanitarian action, rather than how it might render community rests on the belief that the difference the humanitarian community itself obsolete. between the two groups is not the type of work that they do, but the principles that underpin that work: ‘to The humanitarian community does not stand apart from be classified as humanitarian, aid should be consistent the world, but is a system interacting with many other with the humanitarian principles of humanity, systems at global and local levels. Despite this, we often impartiality, neutrality and independence’ (OECD, refer to the humanitarian system without really thinking 2007). Any actor whose work is not consistent with through what the word system implies: ‘a set of things those principles – however well-intentioned – is not – people, cells, molecules, or whatever – interconnected a humanitarian actor, while any actor whose work in such a way that they produce their own pattern of is consistent with them – however incompetent – is behavior over time’ (Meadows, 2008). The critical insight considered a humanitarian actor. is that it is impossible to understand how a system works without recognising the relationships between the This is of course not an accurate account of structure of the system and its behaviour. humanitarianism. The humanitarian identity is a tribal one – self-identification as an individual and acceptance We therefore need to define the current structure of the by the collective make you a member of that community, humanitarian system before we can understand why and adherence to these principles is not its defining characteristic. There are divisions within the community, such as the distinction between Dunanist and Wilsonian 2 HPG’s project on the ‘Global History of Humanitarian Action’ has published a series of reports describing a range of these traditions; multiple humanitarianisms, some coming non-Western traditions. See https://www.odi.org/projects/2547- from other traditions, not all of which claim to adhere to global-history-modern-humanitarian-action-moving-forward-hpg.

Humanitarian Policy Group 3 Network Humanitarianism is different. Coase (1937) was (Walkup, 1997). From an internal perspective, the the first to describe the nature of organisations in terms humanitarian community may appear very diverse of governance, rather than in terms of production; his (Collinson, 2016); Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) does distinction between the two forms of hierarchy or market not look much like the World Health Organisation. In was expanded by Powell (1990) to include a third, the terms of their fundamental structures, however, they are network. The trichotomy of hierarchies, markets and the same type of organisation. networks is of limited use in describing organisational structures, but it is extremely useful in understanding how Since the humanitarian system itself lacks a central modes of governance differ (Podolny and Page, 1998). authority, how can it be considered a hierarchy? Once again, we must differentiate between the structure of the system and its governance. Anyone who has worked in 2.1 Hierarchy the sector recognises that there is a hierarchy governed, not by direct authority but by political influence and While the structure of an organisation may change, resource mobilisation through a chain of funding its underlying governance may remain the same. This intermediaries (High-Level Panel on Humanitarian enables us to see that, while the humanitarian system Financing, 2016), with a clear hierarchy between: might be described at least partly as a network (or, more accurately, a network of networks) in structural • Key institutional donors and smaller institutional terms, the governance mechanisms of humanitarian donors, with 61% of humanitarian assistance organisations are clearly (if not explicitly) rooted in provided by governments coming from five sources assumptions of hierarchy common to the historical period in 2014 (GHA, 2015). in which modern humanitarianism emerged – a world • Multilateral organisations and other channels, of ‘international governance mechanisms, specialised with 92% of formal humanitarian funding going agencies … [and] legal framework[s]’ (Davey, 2013). through UN agencies, international NGOs and the Red Cross/Red Crescent in 2015 (Development Hierarchy is usually accompanied by bureaucracy, most Initiatives, 2017). obviously in UN agencies, but also by ‘the assumption • UN agencies and smaller international of a closed and bounded system with adequate control organisations, with 48% of this government over the resources it needs to do its work’ (Kantor, funding channelled through six UN agencies in 1991). International NGOs share this latter assumption, 2013 (GHA, 2015). possessing less bureaucratic but similarly hierarchical • International and national/local NGOs, with the latter structures, although processes of ‘organisational receiving 1.6% of the total funding given directly to delusion’ may prevent them from recognising this NGOs between 2009 and 2013 (GHA, 2014).

Figure 1: Hierarchy, Market, Network

Hierarchy Market Network

Source: https://databigandsmall.com/2016/04/07/hierarchy-market-or-network-the-disruptive-world-of-the-digital-platform/

4 Network humanitarianism • International and national staff, in what Fassin of neoliberalism: how better to succeed in this (2012) calls ‘hierarchies of humanity’. marketplace than to partner with organisations that • And, most clearly, between organisations and have already succeeded in another marketplace? beneficiaries. Regardless of whether that underlying assumption is The number of international NGOs which raise sufficient correct – and the private sector clearly has an important funds from the public so that they can avoid institutional role to play in response and reconstruction – the logic of funding is negligible, and those that do survive on institutional isomorphism through which organisations fundraising from the public, such as MSF, are outliers ‘behave similarly to other organizations, internalizing rather than a meaningful alternative to this hierarchy. the values, goals, and methods of their institutional The priorities of donor governments are therefore the environment’ (Cooley and Ron, 2002) has meant that the priorities of the humanitarian system overall, setting humanitarian community – and particularly the largest incentives that substantially (although not exclusively) implementing organisations – has become increasingly shape the behaviour of humanitarian organisations, corporate, particularly through mechanisms of external regardless of whether they are in direct receipt of funding branding (Quelch and Laidler-Kylander, 2005) and from a specific government. Furthermore, since ‘the internal professionalisation (Walker and Russ, 2011). personal experience of individuals is closely bound up This is not in itself a bad thing, but it does raise the risk with larger-scale social structure’ (Granovetter, 1973), that, ‘by creating large-scale administration or by copying individuals instinctively understand themselves to be in a the multinationals, [the humanitarian sector] will come hierarchy – and act accordingly. to identify itself through its structure rather than its humanitarian mission’ (Bernard, 2011).

2.2 Market This isomorphism can also be seen in the way in which ‘the pursuit of the good project develops a logic of its One of the reasons why some do not view the own that shapes the allocation of resources and the kind humanitarian system as a hierarchy is because the of activities we see independently of external interests incentive structures put in place by donors have but also relatively independently of beneficiaries’ embedded a quasi-market structure within that needs and preferences’ (Krause, 2014). Control over hierarchy (Krause, 2014), in which implementing the flow of resources is once again key: Carbonnier organisations compete for market share (Smillie and (2015) points out that the growth in the humanitarian Minear, 2003). The extension of market mechanisms marketplace is mainly the result of the humanitarian into an endeavour that historically was not seen as community being used as a foreign policy instrument. a marketplace is of course the key characteristic of As a result, humanitarian organisations are often the neoliberal economics that has shaped the global accused of being unfit for purpose, where misaligned economy – and consequently the humanitarian industry incentives mean that ‘saving lives now becomes – since the end of the Cold War. Rather than leading an operational choice and not a moral imperative’ to greater efficiency and effectiveness, however, this (Stoianova, 2017). Moreover, the assumptions of ‘marketisation’ frequently creates incentives that the market have been so widely accepted that the produce ‘dysfunctional organizational behaviour [as] prevailing wisdom is that, if only the humanitarian a rational response to systematic and predictable community was adequately funded, it would be able institutional pressures’ (Cooley and Ron, 2002). to deliver the necessary services, i.e. supply would rise to meet demand. Yet this is a market where demand is This is the source of many of the tensions within the not correlated with need; even in situations in which sector: donors focus on value for money rather than on there is adequate funding, coverage and quality are still humanitarian principles; humanitarian organisations inadequate (Healy and Tiller, 2014). pursue size of operations rather than depth of relations; aid workers attempt to realise their philanthropic This is the hybrid structure in which the humanitarian motivations in corporate structures; and aid recipients community presently operates, combining the worst are treated as consumers rather than rights-bearers of both hierarchy and market (Seybolt, 2009). (Fiori et al., 2016). The assumption that the private For convenience, we shall refer to this as Market sector should be more involved in humanitarian Humanitarianism, in contrast to the subject of this response can also be seen as a result of the assumptions paper: Network Humanitarianism.

Humanitarian Policy Group 5 2.3 Network 2013). But subsequent policy discussion has still tended to focus more on adopting instrumental The network is ‘any collection of actors that pursue technologies than changing foundational structures. repeated, enduring exchange relations with one another and, at the same time, lack a legitimate organizational The 2015 Disaster 2.0 report took the 2010 Haiti authority to arbitrate and resolve disputes that may earthquake as a historical inflection point ‘when the level arise during the exchange’ (Podolny and Page, 1998). of access to mobile and online communication enabled … The word ‘network’ is sometimes used in a more thousands of citizens around the world [to collaborate] colloquial way to describe the humanitarian system in volunteer and technical communities (V&TCs) to itself (ALNAP, 2015), but just because the humanitarian help make sense of a large-scale calamity and give voice system contains networks does not mean that the to an affected population’ (UN Foundation, 2015). humanitarian system itself is a network; even if it has Yet the report’s conclusion revealed its fundamental developed network characteristics, it is not and is conservatism: the result of this revolution would be that unlikely to become a network in the technical sense the humanitarian community would improve its access (Seybolt, 2009). to information, and subsequently make faster, better decisions. Once more the focus was on bureaucratic While the humanitarian system does contain many efficiencies in the system (particularly how it could work networks (Collinson, 2011), this colloquial use of with V&TCs more effectively), rather than the potential the term leads to clearly hierarchical organisations for transformation of that system. being sometimes described as networks (Ramalingam, 2009), and to service delivery organisations adopting The 2017 publication United Networks got closer to a ‘network-esque’ way of working (Hearn and the mark by asking how the UN can adapt its methods Mendizabal, 2011) as a means to distinguish themselves to the Network Age without compromising its values, in the quasi-market. This is a failure to distinguish but still focused on how technology could ‘increase UN between networks – which emerge as a result of effectiveness and efficiency, build public trust, mobilise increasingly formalised links between organisations – opinion and action, and weaponise compassion’ and network structures, which ‘may require separate (Fletcher, 2017). These are all valid questions, but actions on the part of the individual members, but while the document pointed out that the UN can build the participants are transformed into a new whole’ networks that might compensate for institutional (Keast et al., 2004). When this paper refers to Network failure, it failed to ask whether those institutions were Humanitarianism, it is referring to humanitarianism failing at least partly because of the impact of the carried out through network structures. Network Society – and whether the UN itself might be made irrelevant by that impact. Despite this confusion, the value of networks has clearly been recognised: they ‘bring multiple points Humanitarian reform rests on the assumption that the of view of the situation, enabling it to be better survival of the humanitarian community is what we understood … include elements that are closer to the are aiming for, but our discussion should not be about situation, and so able to respond to changes more how to ensure the survival of specific institutions. If rapidly. And they will often create multiple responses institutions are ‘radical ideas cast in concrete’ (Polak, to a situation, some of which will fail, and some 2010), and those institutions are no longer fit for of which will be successful’ (Knox-Clarke, 2017). purpose, then our challenge is to release the radical While this captures the added value that network idea of humanitarianism from its institutions and approaches can bring, especially in fast-changing to ensure its survival in the new institutions of the and unpredictable situations, treating networks Network Society. Since the Network Society has been purely in terms of their added value to existing enabled by networked technologies, there is a tendency approaches overlooks the transformative nature of to focus too much on those technologies; but Network the Network Society. The 2013 OCHA publication Humanitarianism is not about technologies, but Humanitarianism in the Network Age identified three about the new types of institutions, relationships and forms of adaptation that would enable humanitarian behaviours made possible by that technology. organisations take advantage of the opportunities of The next section explores what that looks like in the network age: adapting to work with new data practice, drawing on real-life examples and describing sources, new partners and new techniques (OCHA, potential implications for the humanitarian system.

6 Network humanitarianism 3 Describing Network Humanitarianism

Any description of Network Humanitarianism must examples of how parts of that community are moving start by addressing a topic that the humanitarian towards more active engagement with network community generally avoids: power. In the context approaches. But even those working on these projects of this paper, power can be defined as the capacity are likely to agree that progress so far has been to exercise individual or organisational will despite piecemeal, and that policy lags far behind practice. resistance (Weber, 1921), and this power enables Taking each of these points in turn, however, we resources distributed in a set of actors to be will see that this form of humanitarianism is mainly transformed into a network of influence (Burt, 1977). developing at the periphery of or completely outside The exercise of power in a network need not be the humanitarian community. coercive or authoritative (as power was traditionally understood to operate in a hierarchy), but can instead be achieved ‘not from an act of collective 3.1 Modular not mammoth decision-making, but through the accumulation of decentralized, individual decisions’ (Grewal, 2008). The structure should become more differentiated. Specifically, similar organizations, such as In Market Humanitarianism, power operates NGOs, should develop specialized expertise in primarily (but not exclusively) in a hierarchy in one or two functional areas, such as nutrition which resources, in the form of finance, flow from or housing. Such specialization would reduce the donor downwards. In Network Humanitarianism domain overlap and encourage interdependence. power circulates between nodes, in the form of information. This is of course a simplification – power During the 2015 onset of the Mediterranean refugee in the humanitarian community is considerably more crisis, the absence of effective interventions by complicated – but it serves to highlight the difference either national governments or the humanitarian between the two models. Networked technologies are community left space for new actors to move changing the types of resources that are important and into. As usual, local communities were the first to changing the way in which those resources flow, which respond, but they were quickly joined by at least will in turn affect power relationships within the sector. 200 volunteer groups across Europe, most of which were formed during 2015 or early 2016 (Borton, This does not mean that Network Humanitarianism 2016). The humanitarian community began to arrive will solve all the problems associated with inequalities in the autumn of 2015, and ‘[f]or the established of power within the community; power can still be groups already working in Greece, the sudden distributed unequally within networks (Galloway and influx [of international NGOs] was both welcome Thacker, 2007), but incumbent humanitarian actors and destabilizing’ as INGOs poached local staff are likely to lose power to other actors that work with higher salaries (Howden and Fotiadis, 2017). more effectively in that networked environment. In According to one volunteer, ‘Seeing the agencies stand this section we will examine what this might mean in around, still waiting for the solution to yesterday’s practice. Each of its five sub-sections begins with a problem to be approved, while a bunch of young quote (given in italics) describing one of the specific people were working together, moving mountains changes which Seybolt (2009) proposes we should with less funding … it’s what made me realise direct expect if the humanitarian system were to develop democracy can work’ (Pope-Wiedemann, 2016). into a true network. It was not direct democracy but Network Some of these changes have begun within the Humanitarianism that appeared during the European humanitarian community, and the paper will give refugee crisis: more agile than traditional humanitarian

Humanitarian Policy Group 7 actors, and relying on networked technologies such Under Market Humanitarianism, furthermore, this as social media and messaging apps. Multinational small number of mammoths control the flow of groups (such as the WorldWide Tribe) and national resources, and that financial control ensures political groups (such as Refugee Aid Serbia and Train of Hope dominance (ODI, 2016). However, maintaining that Vienna) are potentially great assets to humanitarian dominance requires these organisations to continually response, but only if incumbent humanitarian maximise those resources, which translates into organisations develop the capacity to engage with increasing the size of the organisation. As a result, them. While the non-hierarchical nature of these while the major humanitarian actors started out small, new groups can make coordination problematic, and their goals never explicitly included growth, particularly across borders, specific sites such as the they have nevertheless grown into mammoths. Such reception centres established in Vienna (Train of Hope economies of scale make sense in the logic of Market Vienna) or Belgrade (Refugee Aid Serbia) show that Humanitarianism: mammoths can mobilise large a network of multiple organisations can successfully amounts of resources in order to achieve scale, making provide a range of services in a single location without it possible to respond to the mega-crises that are the traditional funding or coordination – what we might most visible face of humanitarian response, which in term a modular approach. turn reinforces their legitimacy, which in turn brings them more resources. Modules are small, specialised units that can be combined in different ways to meet the specific Mammoth organisations therefore tend to fight requirements of a situation in a temporary network against full participation in a networked way of – of ‘small pieces, loosely joined’.3 Some parts of the working, since it does not bring in the revenue humanitarian community, such as the UN Disaster required to sustain or expand the organisation Assessment and Coordination (UNDAC) teams, (Edwards, 2016). This creates problems for individual do operate in this way, but they are seldom looked staff, since working inside a mammoth does not at as models; a 2011 review identified UNDAC’s require developing the skills needed for working in approach as having unique utility, but also noted a network, such as collaborating, improvising and that its role was poorly understood even within its leading a social network, and most staff consequently host organisation (Groupe URD, 2011). The H2H find it difficult to work in a network (Denning, (‘Humanitarian to Humanitarian’) group of smaller, 2006). Given the rapidly changing environments in more agile organisations providing services such as which humanitarian organisations work, combined joint assessments, geographic information systems and with the advent of the Network Society, modular translation offers a glimpse of how the humanitarian approaches are more likely to appear – and perhaps community could embrace networked ways of working more likely to succeed – but this will pose a huge by differentiating themselves on the basis of their challenge for the humanitarian community. specific expertise.

The incentives in Market Humanitarianism work 3.2 Distributed not decentralised against modular approaches; donors prefer to fund a small number of large organisations (‘mammoths’) The structure should become more connected rather than a large number of small ones (‘modules’), and less centralized. The number of since transaction costs are lower. The current funding communication links between organisations environment is likely to create more mammoths; should increase, as should the amount of one political economy analysis of humanitarian information communicated. reform concluded that current reform measures would ‘require working with fewer organisations During the Arab Spring, international attention (i.e., larger organisations or consortia)’ (Steets focused on the role of social media in organising et al., 2016). protests such as those in Tahrir Square in Cairo. But social media was also being used for a form of coordination more familiar to humanitarian 3 Weinberger (2002) describes how the Web reconfigures organisations. Four Egyptians began using a Twitter traditional models of economic organisation, pointing out that account called @TahrirSupplies, stating simply ‘We ‘We are the true “small pieces” of the Web, and we are loosely joining ourselves in ways that we’re still inventing’. have created this account to deliver the needs of the

8 Network humanitarianism Figure 2: Network models

Centralised (A) Decentralised (B) Distributed (C)

Source: Baran, 1964

#Tahrir field hospital to the world’. The academic distributed (Baran, 1964). Although Baran was writing Zeynep Tufekci described what happened next: about communications networks, and these models are ideal forms rather than existing examples, they are a Within a few days, an orderly and transparent useful way to think about networks. system had solved a messy logistical problem through the efforts of four people. This ad hoc To the extent that the humanitarian system is a network centralization of coordination also facilitated a in structural (rather than governance) terms, it began as significant increase in the scale of resources that a centralised network, relying on central planning and the protesters could obtain. The donated supplies coordination built on a hierarchy of access. The central they collected were not limited to small items node holds power – for example, in places such as like bandages but included other large medical Geneva, New York and London – and peripheral nodes equipment, even general anesthesia devices. must route resources (including information) through Increases in eye injuries – often caused by police the centre, which reinforces that power. With earlier shooting tear-gas canisters at protesters’ faces communication technologies, links between central and and eyes – prompted a need for special surgical peripheral nodes were ‘thin’ because communication equipment that cost tens of thousands of dollars. was costly: calls between field offices and headquarters @TahrirSupplies made an appeal and collected were regular but relatively light, fax machines kept over $40,000 to pay for two machines in under written communication short and so on. five hours (Tufkeci, 2017). With the advent of the Internet the humanitarian @TahrirSupplies clearly represents an alternative way sector was able to move towards a more decentralised of coordinating humanitarian assistance that would not network, in which regional and national offices have been possible without the Internet and associated took on more responsibilities. Yet the language of technologies: a distributed network that was more decentralisation obscures the fact that this version of flexible, more resilient and more responsive than the decentralisation does little to affect power relations humanitarian community. It is useful to think of how within the community. The same communication this approach fits into the typology of network models technologies that enabled decentralisation also enabled developed by Paul Baran: centralised, decentralised and more central nodes (global and regional headquarters)

Humanitarian Policy Group 9 to increase the ‘thickness’ of their links with peripheral radiation levels. The network founders crowdfunded offices. This is reflected in an increase in the frequency the development of a kit to measure radiation levels, and density of information flow in both directions and the network has since built the largest open by propagating more policies and requiring more dataset of background radiation measurements, reporting – thus enabling more control over those with 65 million readings. Safecast eventually became offices. a formal international organisation with a wider interest in monitoring a range of environmental The post-WHS localisation agenda is largely based on indicators – it recently launched a new programme the assumption that the main offices of international to measure air quality – but its core activity is still organisations will remain the dominant nodes in a volunteer-driven (Beser, 2016). As mobile technology decentralised network, but this is an incomplete picture becomes more available and accessible, we could of Network Humanitarianism. While finance remains easily imagine this type of monitoring being extended an important resource, in a network information is at to water quality in wells, for example. least as important as a source of power, and initiatives such as @TahrirSupplies illustrate what aid looks Different organisational forms enable different types like when it is based on the organising principles of a of production, and the Network Society specifically network rather than a hierarchy. enables this type of commons-based peer production, characterised by ‘decentralized individual action In the Network Society it becomes easier to create – specifically, new and important cooperative and new channels through which information can flow, coordinated action carried out through radically followed by new institutions that can capture those distributed, nonmarket mechanisms that do not flows. Network technologies reduce the transaction depend on proprietary strategies’ (Benkler, 2006). costs of managing many connections, making it This type of production is associated primarily with feasible to stage more targeted interventions at smaller producing information, with Wikipedia being the scale and greater speed. New technologies such as canonical example (Benkler, 2002), which might seem blockchain – the technology which underlies Bitcoin to limit its application to humanitarian action – yet as and other cryptocurrencies – create the potential far back as 2005, information was being recognised as for distributed networks with no central authority, a form of disaster response (Niskala, 2005). in which power rests with nodes which have more connections or are capable of channelling more As more aspects of the economy become digital, information than others. Scale is achieved not by information becomes more than just a question of increasing the size of any given node, but by adding communication, but instead an issue of collaboration nodes to the network; each node added increases around peer production. This process has only just the number of ties, and increases the resilience of begun in the humanitarian sector, but it is growing the entire network. Network Humanitarianism will rapidly; the increasing use of cash transfers should disrupt the humanitarian community unless the latter not be seen as merely a more effective way of can respond to these new actors by entering into delivering assistance, but as the first wave of the network relationships on their terms – which of course digitisation of aid. Cash transfers were not previously means giving up some of their own power. part of the humanitarian toolkit not simply because of ideological opposition or lack of innovation (although both played roles), but because the 3.3 Collaboration not networked technology was not available to manage communication cash transfers efficiently and securely. The next wave of digitisation is likely to combine The processes of interaction at the mobile communications technology with new means administrative level should increasingly involve of production, such as 3D printing. In the field of joint planning and adaptive responses to health, for example, telemedicine has incorporated the perceived outputs. smartphone as a medical diagnostic instrument via application software and additional sensors (Murgia, After the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in 2011, 2017). Automation has expanded access, while a network of volunteers began to measure and map increased local capability to carry out digital design

10 Network humanitarianism and manufacture of basic medical equipment will 3.4 Platform not pedestal create more opportunities for communities to work as genuine partners, taking ownership of the services that Decision-making authority should devolve to they require (James and James, 2016). the operational level (that is, less hierarchical governance). The defining capability for self-organised communities will be the ability to take advantage of networked Localisation is recognised in the principal documents models of collaboration (Smith and Reilly, 2013) of the humanitarian community (Wall and Hedlund, – although access to networked technology will 2016), but the localisation agenda has been boosted by remain vital. During the Rohingya refugee crisis, one the World Humanitarian Summit. The Grand Bargain assessment found that 81% never used the Internet, struck at the WHS discussed national and local and only 58% had access to mobile phones, with only responders, and included commitments to: 19% of those with a phone able to access the Internet through it. One result was that 77% reported that they • ‘Understand better and work to remove or reduce did not have enough information to make decisions. barriers that prevent organisations and donors Technology was not the only barrier, since 73% of from partnering with local and national responders the affected population were illiterate and 62% were in order to lessen their administrative burden’; and unable to speak to aid providers (Internews, 2017) – • ‘Achieve by 2020 a global, aggregated target of but Network Humanitarianism offers solutions to this at least 25% of humanitarian funding to local problem that were not available before. and national responders as directly as possible to improve outcomes for affected people and reduce In the case of the language barrier, Translators transactional costs.’ without Borders (one of the H2H group of organisations mentioned earlier) has pioneered Localisation will continue to enjoy limited success the use of distributed networks of community precisely because of that second point: it disrupts translators to translate crisis messaging into local the flow of resources on which our mammoth languages, combined with an automated translation organisations depend, and so the incentive structures engine to improve the speed and efficiency of of Market Humanitarianism actively work against this translation (Tanner and Obrecht, 2015). The World approach.4 Localisation is broadly defined as ‘when a Food Programme (WFP) and other agencies are local humanitarian responder is involved in the entire experimenting with chatbots (computer programmes programme cycle: needs assessments, programme that interact through phones using voice or text); design and delivery and final review and evaluation’ these cut the costs of communication at scale, create (Fabre, 2017): i.e., local responders will be allowed more communication options in low-literacy settings to participate in the processes of the humanitarian and provide more frequent and direct contact with community, and their role defined in terms of their aid organisations (Bauer, Casarin and Clough, 2017). position in the hierarchy of Market Humanitarianism.

Humanitarian agencies have been slow to prioritise If the humanitarian community is serious about the reliable delivery of useful information to disaster- localisation, however, then it must recognise the affected communities, but those communities ways in which networked communities themselves themselves have increasing access to information. respond. Network Humanitarianism is much more They are able to get more information about suited to the more radical approach of subsidiarity, humanitarian organisations and their activities, and ‘which aims to empower the individual by ensuring are also able to present their own narratives. As those that decisions are made, and problems are resolved, narratives become more visible, primarily via social closest to where they arise. In turn, decision-making media, the discrepancy with the official narratives and action taken by those directly affected allows provided by the humanitarian community becomes for problems to be resolved more quickly, and more more obvious. This has contributed to the sense of accurately than if a higher-level decision maker crisis in the humanitarian community, but Network who is distanced from the problem, were to become Humanitarianism offers the opportunity to use technology to fundamentally reshape relationships 4 There are a range of other obstacles which hinder localisation, with aid recipients. described in Patel and Van Brabant (2017).

Humanitarian Policy Group 11 involved’ (Evans and Zimmerman, 2014). It is widely Box 1: United Beyond Nations: a proposal accepted that the first responders in any emergency are the communities affected, but networked One of this paper’s key proposals is a technologies now enable those communities to self- humanitarian network and platform for people organise in ways that were not possible previously, affected by crisis to connect with responders such as in Somaliland in 2017: and service providers with a matching supply for their demand. The network – ‘United Beyond As livestock began to die six months ago, Nations’ – would be a direct form of coordination and the parched earth ran dry, a handful of that puts those who need and those who can give people in this self-declared republic had a in direct contact without intermediary, giving local novel idea: create a WhatsApp group called organisations and community groups access to Daryeel, ‘Caring,’ to spread the news of their a local, regional and global network of people need … The Somali clan structure has existed with skills and resources that are pre-vetted by for centuries to keep everyone alive in times a platform secretariat, and can be mobilised in a of crisis, but the WhatsApp group is a modern decentralised way to solve specific and defined version of that time-honored community humanitarian problems. Using a digital platform, support … Mr. Kabadhe ticks off the statistics: people affected by crisis and first responders 600 water trucks have been sent out, and needing support make requests. Powered by monthly food packages – rice, sugar, dates, AI, the platform then produces a list of certified milk, and oil – given to 864 families in 39 providers with the resources and expertise to different villages … ‘Almost 100 families did deliver customised, needs-based solutions. not move, because of the help for 10 families,’ Money can be contributed into the network says Ms. Ibrahim, noting the ripple effect that through private individuals, crowd-sourcing the guaranteed support for some had on the platforms or as institutional funding to certified wider community (Peterson, 2017). NGO initiatives/requests.

Daryeel is not unique; there are similar examples For more complicated problems, requests are from all around the world, in poor countries and escalated to the platform secretariat, comprising rich, and likely hundreds more that are simply not representatives from national government and visible to the humanitarian community precisely NGOs and international experts, to determine because they are happening on the network. That operational and technical needs. these initiatives exist at all is because of a particular aspect of Network Society: ‘digital infrastructures that The concept aims to automate the transactional enable two or more groups to interact [and which] activities that humanitarian actors currently spend position themselves as intermediaries that bring a large amount of time on. It will mainly be applied together different users: customers, advertisers, service in smaller crises and will address low-cost, lower providers, producers, suppliers, and even physical complexity problems. It is not a substitute for state objects’, or what are now referred to as platforms action, nor will it cover the full range of needs (Srnicek, 2017). in a crisis, which will continue to be fulfilled with the support of the international humanitarian Platform capitalism has emerged as the dominant trend system. As state capacity improves, the need of the network economy; most of us use social media for the platform should decrease. This concept platforms such as Facebook and gig economy platforms accommodates and can work concurrently and such as Uber every day, as well as less visible platforms weave in with the coordination mechanisms of the such as Amazon Web Services (AWS), which supports international humanitarian system. many well-known websites. Platform companies such as these are increasingly involved in humanitarian response, either through partnerships with humanitarian on social media in 2015, Syrian refugees were helped on organisations or by launching their own initiatives, their journeys by Arabic-language Facebook groups like but what is more interesting is how aid recipients are ‘Smuggling Into the EU’ (around 24,000 members) and spontaneously using these platforms as the basis of their ‘How to Emigrate to Europe’ (around 40,000 members) own responses. While European volunteers coordinated (Brunwasser, 2015).

12 Network humanitarianism Many more self-organised groups will emerge in future, contractors undermine[s] vertical accountability, but at the moment the humanitarian community does upward to the donors and downwards to beneficiaries’ not have a coherent approach to engaging with them. (Daly and Brassard, 2016). Existing models of partnership are not merely useless but counter-productive in engaging with this type of Mammoth organisations struggle to accommodate self-organised network; the humanitarian community collective action – yet collective action is critical to is moving in the opposite direction, increasingly humanitarian action. This is most obviously seen in seeking to distinguish itself from other responders the importance attached to coordination, but Market through processes of professionalisation (James, 2016). Humanitarianism does not offer an inclusive form of Successful engagement with Network Humanitarianism coordination. The cluster approach exemplifies Market will require a new model of partnership that is not Humanitarian’s hybrid structure, with a hierarchy based on assumptions of authority, which in turn will created through the designation of cluster leads and a require the community to restructure itself to engage quasi-market in which humanitarian actors compete with and promote distributed networks that allow for share within a sector. While this approach has small actors to operate on a much larger scale (Zyck increased effectiveness, it ‘has largely failed to create and Krebs, 2015). In order to achieve this, rather than a sense of NGO ownership and involvement’ and placing itself on a pedestal, perhaps it would be better is insufficient ‘to enhance accountability to affected off on a platform. One proposal put forward during the populations’ (Humphries, 2013). design process for this project – United Beyond Nations – embodies this idea. Network Humanitarianism is not in itself guaranteed to lift humanitarianism above pure transaction. The platforms referred to in Section 3 themselves, 3.5 Relational not transactional for example, also tend to reduce relationships to monetised transactions as part of a business model Processes of planning and action at the that has been labelled surveillance capitalism (Zuboff, operational level should change from reciprocal 2015). Partnerships with platforms provide new data to collective, at least some of the time. streams for them, and any such projects are based on the commercial interests of the company, not on Market Humanitarianism tends to reduce the humanitarian needs of affected people (Hopgood, humanitarian action to a series of reciprocal 2008). This has raised ethical concerns about the use, transactions, reflecting ‘the common sense of the misuse and abuse of that data in developing countries neoliberal era: that choice through the market is the (Hosein and Nyst, 2013), and raises the question ultimate mark of freedom, and so the market is … the whether the humanitarian community should develop most liberating and efficient means through which to its own platforms (Gil Baizan, 2017; Denskus, 2017). provide services’ (Fiori et al., 2016). The introduction of cash transfers reflects this logic, drawing legitimacy The challenge of coordination also points to the not just from its proven effectiveness, but from the potential limits of collective action in Network wider financial inclusion agenda, which assumes that Humanitarianism. The modular approach described in the best route out of poverty is integration into the Section 1 requires more investment in coordination than market. Yet market relations do not encompass all the current system, yet even with that investment the human relations, and ‘market reasoning also empties sort of coordination around @TahrirSupplies described public life of moral argument’ (Sandel, 2012). in Section 2 is also unlikely to be fully inclusive. (It is hard to imagine the Egyptian military agreeing to Simultaneously, the growth of ‘mammoth’ coordinate via Twitter.) Although in some countries, organisations has seen an inevitable increase in such as the Philippines, social media has become a the institutional distance between donors and critical tool for disaster management (OCHA, 2014b), beneficiaries. As organisations grow, layers of such adoption without consideration of barriers to management are added, accompanied by another access risks amplifying social inequalities and creating set of transactions, increasing transaction costs ‘second-order disasters’ (Madianou, 2015). and decreasing accountability; as one study of reconstruction in Aceh found, ‘the wide-scale use More critically, the growth of Network of intermediate implementers, contractors, and sub- Humanitarianism, particularly in wealthier countries,

Humanitarian Policy Group 13 stems partly from opposition to the humanitarian be Network Humanitarianism in structural terms more community and its ways of working. Groups such as closely resemble Market Humanitarianism from a the Common Ground Collective in the United States – governance perspective. Airbnb’s Open Home initiative which has been active in various forms since Hurricane is a constructive use of their platform, but it uses the Katrina, running health clinics, rehabilitation projects, language of Market Humanitarianism to ‘give the community gardens and legal advice offices – are same solution we provide to travelers to those who formed in the belief that they ‘could do better than the are displaced’ (Airbnb, 2017). This positions refugees bloated bureaucracies of the government and the Red as consumers of services rather than bearers of rights. Cross’ (Crow, 2017). By contrast, Refugees at Home (UK), Singa (France) and Nestwerk (Germany), as well as the pan-European The different modes of governance of Market and Refugees Welcome network, provide a similar service, Network Humanitarianism – rather than their different but with radically different approaches that focus structures – are the source of this tension. Similar on building connections that go beyond supply and tensions arise because some initiatives that appear to demand (Toor, 2017).

14 Network humanitarianism 4 The trouble with networks

Seybolt’s five points do not cover all the differences that dominate the headlines, both because mobilising that we would expect to see in a humanitarianism resources at that scale remains a challenge, but also rooted in the Network Society. Most importantly, we because this type of funding is a valuable form of have described above how much of the distinction soft power for institutional donors. However, many between hierarchies, markets and networks is about communities affected by disaster are in a long tail how their different forms of governance affect how of small- and medium-size emergencies in middle- resources are mobilised; we would expect Network income countries, which the current system struggles Humanitarianism to find alternative models to those to address. Network Humanitarianism offers a variety which Market Humanitarianism relies on. of relatively low-cost and agile strategies that can potentially fill the finance gap that currently afflicts the humanitarian community. 4.1 Finance

Aid finance is widely recognised to suffer from 4.2 Access misaligned incentives in a market where demand is not correlated with need (Carbonnier, 2015). As noted The greatest challenge for Network Humanitarianism already, the prevailing wisdom is that, if only the concerns access. Lack of access to the network has humanitarian community were adequately funded, it become less of a problem as the Internet has become would be able to deliver on its promises and restore wireless; by the end of 2016, 4.8bn people had a mobile trust, despite findings that show that, in situations where phone subscription (GSMA, 2017a), and by 2020 five- there is adequate funding, coverage and quality are sixths of the projected 5.7bn mobile subscribers will still inadequate (Healy and Tiller, 2014). Meanwhile, be using their phones to access the Internet (GSMA, there was a slowdown in humanitarian funding in 2016 2017b). Despite the staggering growth in mobile (GHA, 2017), and the models of media attention and connectivity, not everybody will have access to a mobile political support which Market Humanitarianism relies phone, not all of those phones will have access to the on are themselves being disrupted by the Network Internet, and not all Internet access will be equal. In Society (Arrillaga-Andreessen, 2015). particular, research by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) indicates that refugees are around The business model of Market Humanitarianism is 50% less likely to own a smartphone than the global that organisations generate revenue by subtracting population as a whole, and 29% of refugee households overheads from grants, which might be as high have no phone at all (UNHCR, 2016). as 25% (Bailey and Pongracz, 2015). However, disintermediation – a key characteristic of the Access to the network is increasingly a priority for Network Society – means that the long chain of those affected by disaster because it means access to intermediaries between donor and recipient is likely vital information: during the European migrant crisis, to be cut down, and that business model will collapse ‘so important were mobile phones that, on arrival, as a result. Already, organisations such as Kiva and many refugees asked for Wi-Fi or charging services GiveDirectly leverage networked technology to enable ahead of food, water, or shelter’ (GSMA, 2017c). This donations to flow more directly to recipients – the has led to suggestions that aid organisations should crowdfunding sector raised $34bn in 2015 – and, for provide relief not just in the form of information, better or worse, this type of approach is likely to grow but also in terms of communications – handing out as the general public seeks more direct connection SIM cards or setting up wireless networks, either by with the recipients of their donations (Paynter, 2017). themselves or in partnership with the private sector – and ensuring ‘that communities can access information Large-scale institutional grants are likely to remain irrespective of their level of technological development’ necessary to address the conflict-related mega-disasters (OCHA, 2013).

Humanitarian Policy Group 15 However network access is not just physical, but strength of the relationships that form between also social and economic; in a Syrian refugee camp aid agents and beneficiaries’ (Daly and Brassard, in Jordan, for example, access was ‘particularly 2016). In short, accountability lies in the network, tied to gender … often – though not always – the rather than in the contract. This does not mean that men were the ones with the phone tucked into their Network Humanitarianism will solve the problem of pockets and not their wives, mothers, or daughters’ accountability entirely, although disintermediation (Wall, Otis Campbell and Janbek, 2015). While means less distance between donor and recipient, networked technology does offer new opportunities and networks are generally better at providing for previously disadvantaged groups, Network feedback than hierarchies. At the same time, however, Humanitarianism will potentially ‘exacerbate networks lack the potential for the more rigorous inequalities associated with gender, age, literacy accountability found in hierarchies; a certain amount and experience with technology, as well as access of quality is likely to be lost as part of a trade-off to energy, mobile phones and network connectivity’ between inclusion and professionalisation, and fraud (ICRC et al., 2017), and cannot substitute for and corruption are likely to find new forms. institutional capacity and political will (Toyama, 2011). If the humanitarian community wants to The Network Society also poses new challenges to invest in the future of humanitarianism, greater focus accountability, the greatest of which concerns privacy. on addressing these inequalities – in policy as well While data will become increasingly important in as practice – will be essential. humanitarian response (Whipkey and Verity, 2015), the humanitarian community has not taken on its responsibility to ensure that the future enabled by 4.3 Accountability networked technologies accords with humanitarian principles, in what Privacy International has identified There is an argument that people will fall through as ‘a systematic failure … to consider the legal and the gaps more easily in a system based on Network technical safeguards required in order to uphold the Humanitarianism. It is difficult to argue, however, that rights of individuals living in the developing world’ the current system really delivers in terms of quality (Hosein and Nyst, 2013). Concerns are growing that and accountability: surveys consistently show that the platforms that Network Humanitarianism will aid recipients feel that the aid they receive does not be built on may in fact contribute to crises as much cover their basic needs – a 2017 survey found that in as they help to address them; Myanmarese farmers’ Afghanistan only 29% of respondents felt the aid they embrace of Facebook in 2016 (Mod, 2016) turned out received covered their basic needs, while in Lebanon to be a key driver in the persecution of the Rohingya the figure was 14% and in Haiti 7% (Ground Truth in 2017 (Specia and Mozur, 2017). Solutions, 2017) – and that they feel that their voices are not listened to (Anderson, Brown and Jean, 2012). Network Humanitarianism is unlikely to be able Genuine accountability has proven almost impossible to address what is probably going to be the biggest to achieve, partly because of the political economy of protection challenge of the future: the world created by Market Humanitarianism. At the very least, Network surveillance capitalism, in which data can be mobilised Humanitarianism shows the way towards an approach both for good and for ill. The systematic failure of that engages communities more openly. the humanitarian community so far to address these issues ‘jeopardize[s] the appropriate application of The evaluation of reconstruction in Aceh mentioned core humanitarian principles in the networked age’ earlier found that accountability ‘can usefully be (Greenwood et al., 2017). Regardless of whether seen as a function of direct beneficiary involvement, the humanitarian community embraces Network unfettered access to information, and the type and Humanitarianism, these challenges will remain.

16 Network humanitarianism 5 Conclusion: a way forward

This paper does not endorse all of Castells’ entire with much of the Network Humanitarianism which thesis regarding the Network Society – mainly because is happening at the periphery or entirely outside the that thesis is so wide-ranging6 – but it does agree with humanitarian community, where this transactional his basic proposition: ‘Until we rebuild, both from the approach is unfamiliar and potentially counter- bottom up and from the top down, our institutions productive. of governance and democracy, we will not be able to stand up to the fundamental challenges that we are A more constructive approach would see the facing’ (Castells, 2001). What form that rebuilding humanitarian community recognise that all three takes is the real question: networks already play an approaches – hierarchies, markets and networks important role within the humanitarian community – have a role to play depending on the situation in activities such as supporting policy-making and (Kotter, 2011). If the humanitarian community is implementation, setting norms and standards and able to adopt a more networked way of working (as developing knowledge resources (Collinson, 2011), opposed to just creating more networks within the but can the humanitarian community move beyond community), this will have significant implications network-as-structure to network-as-response? for organisational governance as well as structure. The current humanitarian system will not disappear The latter is already being explored at the national overnight, since Network Humanitarianism will level, including during the 2014 Ebola response. The probably never be able to mount large-scale responses Missing Maps project addressed the lack of detailed to the mega-crises that preoccupy the humanitarian maps with a network of volunteers visiting every community, but this does not mean that the current community in the border regions of affected countries, system itself is not struggling: while ‘parts of the releasing the results as open data on OpenStreetMap [humanitarian] system are working better and better and the Humanitarian Data Exchange, and creating … it is still akin to a pocket calculator attempting the paper maps that could then be distributed back to job of a computer’; as such, ‘calls for radical reform, communities (American Red Cross, 2017). Translators now heard from the highest levels of the humanitarian without Borders established ‘Spider Networks’ system, would seem justified’ (ALNAP, 2015). of crisis translators across affected countries, and Such calls for radical reform are now mainstream, worked through partner networks to disseminate particularly after the World Humanitarian Summit, translated awareness-raising materials (Translators but the actual changes proposed are far from radical; without Borders, 2017). Networked approaches have previous reforms have ‘tweak[ed] the current system also been proposed as a way of scaling up community rather than challenging the underlying structures and resilience work (Mellor, 2014). assumptions on which it operates’ (ODI, 2016).

At the international level, however, the humanitarian The sketch of Network Humanitarianism presented community overall has been reluctant to move in here is speculative, not predictive, but it does offer this direction. Although members of this community an alternative vision of humanitarian action, one are now coming to terms with the fact that they are structured more around collaboration than control just one set of actors in a broader network (ODI, (as in a hierarchy) or competition (as in a market). 2016), the assumptions of Market Humanitarianism However, this paper does not lay out specific mean that they do not embrace their roles as network recommendations for specific institutions about how actors, instead falling back on familiar transactional to move towards Network Humanitarianism, since the relationships, whether with the military, the private very idea of a blueprint for success would be against sector or non-traditional donors. This will not work the spirit of Network Humanitarianism. While the costs of transition to a networked way of working need to be carefully weighed (Hearn and Mendizabal, 6 An overview and critique of the main points of Castells’ thesis can be found in Webster (1995). 2011), it is no longer possible to avoid those costs.

Humanitarian Policy Group 17 Network Humanitarianism is neither better nor worse means by which those values are instantiated in than Market Humanitarianism, simply different, and specific places and at specific times. The question of it is not the answer to all the challenges facing the whether the humanitarian system is fit for purpose humanitarian community. It is simply that, in the is fundamentally a question of whether it is the best Network Society, Network Humanitarianism is a vehicle for propagating humanitarian values, and better fit with cultural expectations and technological whether humanitarian aid as it currently stands is the capabilities, and it is likely that we will see an best means to instantiate them. increasing number of more networked responses. The challenge is how the humanitarian community Network Humanitarianism is not necessarily more will engage with those responses – and the danger principled than the humanitarianism we practice is that the humanitarian community will become now, but if we are living in the Network Society, marginalised by other actors for whom networked humanitarian principles must find a way to survive ways of working are native. in the network. In the process they might become more widely distributed, but also more diluted as This is a danger because humanitarian action is they spread, and the challenge for the humanitarian not just about the delivery of relief, but also the community is not just how to preserve but to amplify propagation of principles. The humanitarian system is them. Hugo Slim recently wrote ‘I wish humanitarian not just a delivery mechanism for humanitarian aid – action was more a people’s movement than it is’ any more than the Eucharist is a delivery mechanism (Green, 2017); Network Humanitarianism has the for wafers – but a medium for the propagation of potential to be that people’s movement, but only if the humanitarian values, and humanitarian aid is the humanitarian community recognises that potential.

18 Network humanitarianism Bibliography

Airbnb (2017) ‘Opening More Homes to People in Beser, A. (2016) ‘How Citizen Science Changed Need’, Airbnb, 7 June (https://blog.atairbnb.com/ the Way Fukushima Radiation Is Reported’, opening-more-homes-to-people-in-need/). National Geographic, 13 February (https://blog. ALNAP (2015) The State of the Humanitarian System. nationalgeographic.org/2016/02/13/how-citizen-science- London: ALNAP (http://sohs.alnap.org/). changed-the-way-fukushima-radiation-is-reported/). American Red Cross (2017) West Africa Mapping Borton, J. (2016) ‘The Humanitarian Impulse: Alive Project, Final Report. Washington DC: American Red and Well Among the Citizens of Europe’, Humanitarian Cross (http://www.missingmaps.org/blog/2017/01/24/ Exchange 67 (https://odihpn.org/magazine/humanitarian- west-africa-mapping-hub-end/). impulse-alive-well-among-citizens-europe/). Anderson, M. B., D. Brown and I. Jean, (2012) Time Brunwasser, M. (2015) ‘A 21st-Century Migrant’s to Listen: Hearing People on the Receiving End of Essentials: Food, Shelter, Smartphone’, New International Aid. London: ALNAP (https://www. York Times, 25 August (https://www.nytimes. alnap.org/help-library/time-to-listen-hearing-people-on- com/2015/08/26/world/europe/a-21st-century- the-receiving-end-of-international-aid). migrants-checklist-water-shelter-smartphone.html). Aral, S. (2014) ‘The Problem with Online Ratings’, Burt, R. S. (1977) ‘Power in a Social Topology’, Social MIT Sloan Management Review, 19 December. Science Research 6. Arrillaga-Andreessen, L. (2015) ‘Disruption for Good’, Carbonnier, G. (2015) Humanitarian Economics: War, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Spring (https://ssir. Disaster and the Global Aid Market. London: Hurst. org/articles/entry/disruption_for_good). Castells, M. (2001) The Internet Galaxy: Reflections Bailey, S. and S. Pongracz (2015) ‘Humanitarian on the Internet, Business, and Society. Oxford: Oxford Cash Transfers: Cost, Value for Money and Economic University Press. Impact’. Background note for the High Level Panel on Humanitarian Cash Transfers (https://www.odi.org/ Coase, R. (1937) ‘The Nature of the Firm’, Economica sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion- 4(16). files/9731.pdf). Collinson, S. (2011) The Role of Networks in the Baran, P. (1964) ‘On Distributed Communications’, International Humanitarian System. London: ODI Memorandum RM-3420-PR. Santa Monica, CA: The (https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/ Rand Corporation. publications-opinion-files/7877.pdf). Bauer, J.-M., L. Casarin and A. Clough (2017) ‘Our Collinson, S. (2016) Constructive Deconstruction: Experiment Using Facebook Chatbots to Improve Making Sense of the International Humanitarian Humanitarian Assistance’, ICTWorks (https://www. System, HPG Working Paper. London: ODI ictworks.org/our-experiment-using-facebook-chatbots- (https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/resource- to-improve-humanitarian-assistance/#.WqZ_EOjFK70). documents/10734.pdf). Benkler, Y. (2002) ‘Coase’s Penguin, or, Linux and the Cooley, A. and J. Ron (2002) ‘The NGO Scramble: Nature of the Firm’, Yale Law Journal 112(369). Organizational Insecurity and the Political Economy Benkler, Y. (2006) The Wealth of Networks: How of Transnational Action’, International Security Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. 27(1) (https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/ New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press. ngo-scramble-organizational-insecurity-and-political- economy-transnational-action). Bennett, C. et al. (2016) Time to Let Go: Remaking Humanitarian Action for the Modern Era. London: ODI. Crow, S. (2017) Black Flags and Windmills: Hope, Anarchy, and the Common Ground Collective. Bernard, V. (2011) ‘Editorial: The Future of Oakland, CA: PM Press. Humanitarian Action’, International Review of the Red Cross 93(884), December (https://www.icrc.org/ Currion, P. (2016) ‘How Do We Get There from Here? fre/resources/international-review/review-884/review- The Futures of Humanitarianism’, Medium, 16 June 884-all.pdf). (https://medium.com/@paulcurrion).

Humanitarian Policy Group 19 Daly, P. and C. Brassard (2011) ‘Aid Accountability Galloway, A. and E. Thacker (2007) The Exploit: A and Participatory Approaches in Post-Disaster Theory of Networks. Minneapolis, MN: University of Housing Reconstruction’, Asian Journal of Social Minneapolis Press. Science 39. GHA (2014) Global Humanitarian Assistance Report Davey E. (2013) A History of the Humanitarian 2014. Bristol: Development Initiatives. System: Western Origins and Foundations. London: GHA (2015) Global Humanitarian Assistance Report ODI (https://www.odi.org/publications/7535- 2015. Bristol: Development Initiatives. history-humanitarian-system-western-origins-and- GHA (2017) Global Humanitarian Assistance Report foundations). 2017. Bristol: Development Initiatives. Denning, P. (2006) ‘Hastily Formed Networks’, Gil Baizan, P. (2017) ‘Platforming – What Can NGOs Communications of the ACM 49(4). Learn from AirBnB and Amazon?’, World Vision Denskus, T. (2017) ‘Is Platform Capitalism Really the International, 30 May (https://www.wvi.org/disaster- Future of the Humanitarian Sector?’, Aidnography, management/blogpost/platforming-what-can-ngos- 13 June (http://aidnography.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/ learn-airbnb-and-amazon). is-platform-capitalism-really-future-of-humanitarian- Granovetter, M. S. (1973) ‘The Strength of Weak Ties’, sector.html). American Journal of Sociology, 78(6) (https://www. Development Initiatives (2017) Global Humanitarian journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/225469) Assistance Report 2017. Bristol: Development Green, D. (2017) ‘Hugo Slim Sets Me Straight on the Initiatives (http://devinit.org/post/global-humanitarian- State of Humanitarianism’, From Poverty to Power, assistance-2017/). 11 October (https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/hugo-slim- Donini, A. (2010) ‘The Far Side: The Meta Functions sets-me-straight-on-the-state-of-humanitarianism/). of Humanitarianism in a Globalised World’, Disasters Greenwood, F. et al. (2017) The Signal Code: A 34(S2). Human Rights Approach to Information During The Economist (2007) ‘Flood, Famine and Mobile Crisis. Boston, MA: Harvard Humanitarian Initiative. Phones’, 26 July (https://www.economist.com/ Grewal, D. S. (2008) Network Power: The Social node/9546242). Dynamics of Globalization. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press. Edwards, M. (2016) ‘What’s to be Done with Oxfam?’, Opendemocracy.net, 1 August (https://www. Ground Truth Solutions (2017) Perspectives from the opendemocracy.net/transformation/michael-edwards/ Field: Aggregated Report Surveys of Affected People, what-s-to-be-done-with-oxfam). Field Staff and Partner Organisations (Afghanistan, Haiti and Lebanon), Ground Truth Solutions (http:// Evans, M. and A. Zimmerman (eds) (2014) Global groundtruthsolutions.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/ Perspectives on Subsidiarity. Netherlands: Springer OECD_Aggregated-Report-Aug-17.pdf). Netherlands. Groupe URD (2011) UNDAC Review 2011 (https:// Fabre, C. (2017) Localising the Response. Paris: OECD. www.urd.org/IMG/pdf/UNDAC_REVIEW_REPORT. Fassin, D. (2012) Humanitarian Reason: A Moral pdf). History of the Present. Berkeley, CA: University of GSM Association (2017a) The Mobile Economy California Press. 2017. London: GSMA (https://www.gsmaintelligence. Fiori, J. et al. (2016) The Echo Chamber: Results, com/research/?file=9e927fd6896724e7b Management, and the Humanitarian Effectiveness 26f33f61db5b9d5&download). Agenda. London: Save the Children (http://www. GSM Association (2017b) Global Mobile Trends academia.edu/25491591/The_Echo_Chamber_Results_ 2017. London: GSMA (https://www.gsma.com/ Management_and_the_Humanitarian_Effectiveness_ globalmobiletrends/). Agenda). GSM Association (2017c) The Importance of Mobile Fletcher, T. (2017) United Networks: Can Technology for Refugees: A Landscape of New Services and Help the UN Meet the Challenges of the 21st Approaches. London: GSMA (https://www.gsma.com/ Century? Dubai: Emirates Diplomatic Academy mobilefordevelopment/programme/disaster-response/ (http://unitednetworks.ae/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/ the-importance-of-mobile-for-refugees-a-landscape-of- United-Networks-Tom-Fletcher.pdf). new-services-and-approaches).

20 Network humanitarianism Healy, S. and S. Tiller (2014) Where Is Everyone? Kanter, R. M. (1991) ‘The Future of Bureaucracy Responding to Emergencies in the Most Difficult and Hierarchy in Organizational Theory: A Report Places. London: MSF (http://www.msf.org/sites/msf. from the Field’ in P. Bourdieu and J. Coleman (eds) org/files/msf-whereiseveryone_-def-lr_-_july.pdf). Social Theory for a Changing Society. Boulder, CO: Hearn, S. and E. Mendizabal (2011) Not Everything Westview Press. that Connects Is a Network. London: ODI. Keast, R. L. et al. (2004) ‘Network Structures: Working High-Level Panel on Humanitarian Financing Differently and Changing Expectations’, Public Report to the Secretary-General (2016) Administration Review 64(3) (https://epubs.scu.edu. Too Important to Fail – Addressing the au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google. Humanitarian Financing Gap (https://reliefweb. co.uk/&httpsredir=1&article=1765&context=bus_pubs). int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/%5BHLP%20 Knox-Clarke, P. (2017) Changing Humanitarian Report%5D%20Too%20important%20to%20 Action? London: ALNAP (https://www.alnap.org/our- fail%E2%80%94addressing%20the%20 topics/system-change). humanitarian%20financing%20gap.pdf) Kotter, J. (2011) ‘Hierarchy and Network: Two Hopgood, S. (2008) ‘Saying “No” to Wal-Mart? Structures, One Organization’, Harvard Business Money and Morality in Professional Humanitarianism’ Review, 23 May (https://hbr.org/2011/05/two- in Barnett, M. and T. G. Weiss (eds), Humanitarianism structures-one-organizatio). in Question: Politics, Power, Ethics. Ithaca, NY: Krause, M. (2014) The Good Project: Humanitarian Cornell University Press. Relief NGOs and the Fragmentation of Reason. Hosein, G. and C. Nyst (2013) Aiding Surveillance: An Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Exploration of How Development and Humanitarian Madianou, M. (2015) ‘Digital Inequality and Aid Initiatives Are Enabling Surveillance in Developing Second-Order Disasters: Social Media in the Countries. London: Privacy International (https:// Typhoon Haiyan Recovery’, Social Media + Society, www.idrc.ca/sites/default/files/sp/Documents%20EN/ July–December (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ WP2014-1-AidingSurveillance-web-Nov21.pdf). full/10.1177/2056305115603386). Howden, D. and A. Fotiadis (2017) ‘The Refugee Archipelago: The Inside Story of What Went Wrong’, Meadows, D. (2008) Thinking in Systems. London: Refugees Deeply (https://www.newsdeeply.com/ Earthscan. refugees/articles/2017/03/06/the-refugee-archipelago- Mellor, N. (2014) ‘A Networked Approach to the-inside-story-of-what-went-wrong-in-greece). Improving the Resilience of Communities Confronted Humphries, V. (2013) ‘Improving Humanitarian by the Threat of Ebola’, The Lancet, 21 October Coordination: Common Challenges and Lessons (http://globalhealth.thelancet.com/2014/10/21/ Learned from the Cluster Approach’, Journal of networked-approach-improving-resilience- Humanitarian Assistance, 30 April (http://sites.tufts. communities-confronted-threat-ebola). edu/jha/archives/1976). Mod, C. (2016) ‘The Facebook-Loving Farmers of ICRC, The Engine Room and Block Party (2017) Myanmar’, The Atlantic, 21 January (https://www. Humanitarian Futures for Messaging Apps. theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/the- Geneva: ICRC (https://www.icrc.org/en/publication/ facebook-loving-farmers-of-myanmar/424812/). humanitarian-futures-messaging-apps). Murgia, M. (2017) ‘How Smartphones Are Internews (2017) ‘Information Needs Assessment: Transforming Healthcare’, Financial Times, 12 Cox’s Bazar Bangladesh’, 30 November (https://www. January (https://www.ft.com/content/1efb95ba-d852- internews.org/resource/information-needs-assessment- 11e6-944b-e7eb37a6aa8e). coxs-bazar-bangladesh). Niskala, M. (2005) ‘Information: A Life-saving James, E. (2016) ‘The Professional Humanitarian and Resource’, World Disasters Report. Geneva: IFRC the Downsides of Professionalisation’, Disasters 40(2). (http://www.ifrc.org/Global/Publications/disasters/ WDR/69001-WDR2005-english-LR.pdf). James, E. and L. James (2016) ‘3D Printing Humanitarian Supplies in the Field’, Humanitarian OECD (2007) DAC Statistical Reporting Directives. Exchange 66 (https://odihpn.org/magazine/3d-printing- OECD Directives. Paris: OECD (http://www.oecd.org/ humanitarian-supplies-in-the-field/). dac/stats/38429349.pdf).

Humanitarian Policy Group 21 OCHA (2013) Humanitarianism in the Network Age. Smillie, I. and L. Minear (2003) The Quality of New York: OCHA (https://www.unocha.org/legacy/hina). Money: Donor Behaviour in Humanitarian Financing. OCHA (2014a) Humanitarianism in the Age of Medford, MA: Feinstein International Famine Center. Cyberwarfare. New York: OCHA (https://www. Smith, M. L. and K. M. A. Reilly (eds) (2013) Open unocha.org/sites/unocha/files/Humanitarianism%20 Development: Networked Innovations in International in%20the%20Cyberwarfare%20Age%20-%20 Development. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press. OCHA%20Policy%20Paper%2011.pdf). Specia, M. and P. Mozur (2017) ‘A War of Words OCHA (2014b) Hashtag Standards for Emergencies. Puts Facebook at the Center of Myanmar’s Rohingya New York: OCHA (https://www.unocha.org/ Crisis’, New York Times, 27 October (https://www. publication/policy-briefs-studies/hashtag-standards- nytimes.com/2017/10/27/world/asia/myanmar- emergencies). government-facebook-rohingya.html). Patel, S. and K. Van Brabant (2017) The Start Fund, Start Network and Localisation: Current Situation Srnicek, N. (2017) Platform Capitalism. London: and Future Directions, Start Network (http://coastbd. Verso Books. net/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/The-Start-Fund-Start- Steets, J. et al. (2016) Drivers and Inhibitors Network-and-Localisation-full-report-WEB.pdf). of Change in the Humanitarian System. Berlin: Paynter, B. (2017) ‘How Will the Rise of Global Public Policy Institute (http://www.gppi.net/ Crowdfunding Reshape How We Give To Charity?’, publications/humanitarian-action/article/drivers-and- Fast Company Magazine, 13 March (https://www. inhibitors-of-change-in-the-humanitarian-system/). fastcompany.com/3068534/how-will-the-rise-of- Stoianova, V. (2017) Humanitarian Financing: Is It crowdfunding-reshape-how-we-give-to-charity-2). All About Money? Barcelona: MSF (https://arhp.msf. Peterson, S. (2017) ‘In Drought-stricken Somaliland, es/emergency-gap/humanitarian_financing_is_it_all_ Age-old Challenges Meet WhatsApp’, Christian about_money). Science Monitor, 27 July (https://www.csmonitor. Tanner, L. and A. Obrecht (2015) Words of Relief: com/World/Africa/2017/0727/In-drought-stricken- Somaliland-age-old-challenges-meet-WhatsApp). Translators without Borders’ Local Language Translation for Emergencies, HIF/ALNAP case Podolny, J. and K. Page (1998) ‘Network Forms of study. London: ALNAP (https://www.alnap.org/ Organization’, Annual Review of Sociology 24. help-library/words-of-relief-translators-without- Polak, P. (2010) ‘The Birth and Death of Big borders%E2%80%99-local-language-translation-for- Institutions’, 22 October (http://www.paulpolak.com/ emergencies). the-birth-and-death-of-big-institutions/). Toor, A. (2017) ‘Creating an Airbnb for Refugees Is Pope-Wiedemann, M. (2016) ‘Refugee Crisis: The EU More Complicated Than It Sounds,’ The Verge, Cracks Down on Volunteers’, Red Pepper, (https:// 17 February (https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/17/ www.redpepper.org.uk/refugee-crisis-the-eu-cracks- 14649512/airbnb-refugee-trump-europe-activists). down-on-volunteers/). Toyama, K. (2011) ‘Technology as Amplifier in Powell, W. (1990) ‘Neither Market nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization’, Research in International Development’, Proceedings of the 2011 Organizational Behaviour 12. iConference. Quelch, J. A. and N. Laidler-Kylander (2005) The Translators Without Borders (2017) Words of New Global Brands: Managing Non-government Relief – Ebola Crisis Learning Review (https:// Organisations in the 21st Century. Cincinnati, OH: translatorswithoutborders.org/words-relief-ebola-crisis- South-Western. learning-review/). Ramalingam, B. (2011) Aid on the Edge of Chaos. Tufkeci, Z. (2017) Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power Oxford: Oxford University Press. and Fragility of Networked Protest. Newhaven, CT: Sandel, M. (2012) What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Yale University Press. Limits of Markets. New York: Allen Lane. UN Foundation (2015) Disaster 2.0: The Future of Seybolt, T. B. (2009) ‘Harmonizing the Humanitarian Information Sharing in Emergencies (http://www. Aid Network: Adaptive Change in a Complex System’, unfoundation.org/news-and-media/publications-and- International Studies Quarterly 53. speeches/disaster-relief-2-report.html).

22 Network humanitarianism UNHCR (2016) Connecting Refugees: How Internet Weber, M. (1921) The Distribution of Power within and Mobile Connectivity Can Improve Refugee the Community: Classes, Stände, Parties. Published in Well-Being and Transform Humanitarian Action. 2010 in Journal of Classical Sociology 10(2). Geneva: UNHCR (http://www.unhcr.org/5770d43c4. Webster, F. (1995) Theories of the Information Society. pdf). London: Routledge. Walker, P. and C. Russ (2011) ‘Fit for Purpose: The Weinberger, D. (2002) Small Pieces Loosely Joined: Role of Modern Professionalism in Evolving the A Unified Theory of the Web. New York: Perseus Humanitarian Endeavour’, International Review of the Publishing. Red Cross 93(884) (file:///C:/Users/mfoley/Downloads/ Whipkey, K. and A. Verity (2015) Guidance irrc-884-walter-russ.pdf). for Incorporating Big Data into Humanitarian Walkup, M. (1997) ‘Policy Dysfunction in Operations, Digital Humanitarian Humanitarian Organizations: The Role of Coping Network (http://digitalhumanitarians.com/ Strategies, Institutions, and Organizational Culture’, sites/default/files/resource-field_media/ Journal of Refugee Studies 10(1). IncorporatingBigDataintoHumanitarianOps-2015.pdf). Wall, I. and K. Hedlund (2016) Localisation and Zuboff, S. (2015) ‘Big Other: Surveillance Capitalism Locally-led Crisis Response: A Literature Review. and the Prospects of an Information Civilization’, Geneva: L2GP (http://www.local2global.info/ Journal of Information Technology 30. wp-content/uploads/L2GP_SDC_Lit_Review_ Zyck, S. with H. Krebs (2015) Localising LocallyLed_June_2016_final.pdf). Humanitarianism: Improving Effectiveness through Wall, M., M. Otis Campbell and D. Janbek (2015) Inclusive Action. London: ODI (https://www.odi.org/ ‘Syrian Refugees and Information Precarity’, New sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion- Media & Society 19(2). files/9720.pdf).

Humanitarian Policy Group 23 HPG Humanitarian Policy Group

The Humanitarian Policy Group is one of the world’s leading teams of independent researchers and information professionals working on humanitarian issues. It is dedicated to improving humanitarian policy and practice through a combination of high-quality analysis, dialogue and debate.

Readers are encouraged to quote or reproduce materials from this publication but, as copyright holders, ODI requests due acknowledgement and a copy of the publication. This and other HPG reports are available from www.odi.org.uk/hpg.

© Overseas Development Institute, 2018

Humanitarian Policy Group Overseas Development Institute 203 Blackfriars Road London SE1 8NJ United Kingdom

Tel. +44 (0) 20 7922 0300 Fax. +44 (0) 20 7922 0399 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.odi.org//hpg

Cover photo: Protesters at Tahrir Square use a shop’s power supply to charge their mobile phones during the 2011 protests in Cairo. © Alisdare Hickson