Why do governments fund some humanitarian appeals but not others?

Abstract

AbstractMotivationWhat explains the fact that the humanitarian response in some crises is well funded, while other humanitarian emergencies are largely neglected? The literature identifies three groups of factors that influence aid allocations: needs in recipient countries, donor countries' interests, and agenda setting driven by media coverage; although there is debate over how relatively important these are.PurposeThis study tests existing theory by adding three novel aspects.Approach and MethodsFirst, rather than just measuring the amount of money available, we consider the share of funding that is provided against the stated requirements. Second, we measure humanitarian needs in a more detailed way than has typically been the case. Third, we use datasets that have been underutilized in the academic literature.FindingsBy using these three novel approaches, we confirm that all three factors—humanitarian needs, strategic interests, agenda setting—play a role. However, the most consistent factor is media coverage. We are also able to distinguish between different dimensions of need: the number of hosted refugees makes a difference, but the number of displaced people does not. We find that countries with the worst human rights situations attract lower funding levels and more democratic countries attract more funding.Policy ImplicationsDonors should consider how the factors identified in this study influence their funding decisions in the aggregate. They should be aware of how media coverage may influence their allocations of humanitarian funding. Journalists should be aware of potential biases in their reporting on humanitarian emergencies. Aid agencies should consider counteracting the factors that are associated with underfunded emergencies.