Change without transformation: How narratives influenced the humanitarian cash agenda

Despite the humanitarian sector’s efforts to present itself as neutral and evidence-led, humanitarian crises and responses to them are laden with narratives and stories. These narratives dictate why, when and where humanitarian aid is needed, who should deliver it and how, and who should receive it. Despite the sector’s professionalisation and use of sophisticated needs-assessment tools, the humanitarian system’s reliance on voluntary contributions necessitates motivating donors to act. This requirement makes narratives a central part of humanitarian responses, as communicating the urgency of crises is crucial for securing funding.

Cash assistance has had an impressive breakthrough in a sector resistant to reform – in the past 15 years, cash has gone from less than 1% to almost 20% of the total value of humanitarian assistance. This is a qualified success in a sector comprised of a large and complex group of organisations, agencies, governments and donors with very different agendas and interests. Thus, understanding how this achievement was realised, and the role different narratives played in framing arguments and reinforcing evidence, is important for other reform agendas. The narratives used in support of cash, the counter-narratives in response, and even the narratives surrounding humanitarian cash today all merit analysis, as they highlight both the successes and the limitations of reform efforts.

Cash today is still yet to achieve its transformative potential. Though explicit resistance to the idea of cash is less than what it was before its widespread adoption, the impact of narratives that centred the benefits to the aid system rather than aid users can be seen today through how cash works in humanitarian responses: a heavily monitored and siloed channel for the delivery of assistance.

There are lessons here for other agendas. Humanitarian organisations should be more aware and reflective of the central role of narratives in all their work, as well as their own role in reinforcing and challenging dominant stories in the sector and wider media. Such a process could include:

• Support to greater ‘narrative literacy’, and reflecting on the longer-term impact of each public-facing communication and message.
• Engaging directly and with regularity with affected people, who should be encouraged to feed back into, and impact the design of, aid programmes.
• Reflecting carefully on the framing of fundamentally political processes and policies as ‘technical’, which is itself a narrative.
• Building an evidence base to support new narratives.
• Considering who speaks, and who is spoken for, in any attempts at reform or narrative change in the humanitarian sector.