The calls for sectoral reform are bountiful as the humanitarian and broader aid sectors continue their freefall. Yet most critiques fail to capture one fundamental problem: a pervasive capitalist mindset that is contradictory to humanitarianism.
The formalised humanitarian system emerged from existing mutual aid, solidarity, and cooperation. But it has lost its way as a competitive, expansionist logic has come to dominate what is now an industry. An inability to address the gratuitous pursuit of growth and consolidation of capital means any push for reform is doomed to failure. Instead, we must learn from myriad economic crises. We must tackle the capitalist logic. Unfettered capitalist humanitarianism can and must be brought to heel for any meaningful change to emerge.
Reform agendas absent change
At this moment of sectoral rupture, the noise surrounding the need for change is deafening. A “humanitarian reset” is being promoted, alongside “proposals for a simplified and more efficient humanitarian system”. The words “streamline” and “simplify” proliferate. This echoes reform efforts past: It’s now more than 20 years since the Good Humanitarian Donorship Initiative (GHDI), and nearly 10 years since the Grand Bargain – reductionist solutions for complex problems.
It’s also five years since COVID-19 lockdowns began in earnest – a rupture that appeared set to challenge the international dominance of the humanitarian sector. International staff went home as local and national actors stood by communities, saving countless lives. As Global South actors call for justice to an unjust system, the global humanitarian system remains stuck on a treadmill of substantial words without substantive change. Will the current chaos instigate genuine change, or will we repeat the post-COVID snapback to an internationally dominated system ill-suited to contemporary crises?
How capitalism kills humanitarianism
Past and contemporary reform efforts fail to address the multi-billion-dollar elephant in the room – capitalist humanitarianism, namely the endless and prioritised pursuit of growth, foregrounding competition over cooperation. Not to be confused with impact investing and philanthropy, capitalist humanitarianism is a mindset and behaviour that dominates the sector and is the central impediment to any substantive reform.
From the big picture to everyday decisions, the growth mindset is pernicious, impeding transformation of humanitarian action.
Organisations and staff across the spectrum are incentivised to pursue money and expansion, often above anything else. Rapid onset crises are the cash cow for capitalist humanitarianism. Ukraine is one of the most glaring examples: International organisations raked in the money despite a widespread inability to deliver – much to the frustration of Ukraine’s state and vibrant civil society.
The insidious impact of capitalist humanitarianism filters all the way down to the individual. Going for a new job? Be sure to include the funding you raised or oversaw, where bigger supposedly equals better – a simplistic performance metric for the managerial class. The International Rescue Committee is a prime example, where leadership highlighted their years of mass expansion (an organisational priority) even as they rapidly severed programmes and so-called partners. Solidarity with affected populations did not garner any substantive mention.
Growth itself is not inherently bad, but its prioritisation wreaks havoc. The evidence is irrefutable. Localisation? Only if it contributes to institutional expansion, and to be ignored if one can get money directly. Diversity, equity and inclusion? Sure, if it is required, but jettisoned when an impediment to funding. Decolonisation? Let’s not dig too deep. From the big picture to everyday decisions, the growth mindset is pernicious, impeding transformation of humanitarian action. Why rock the boat when conformity equals cash?
Capitalist humanitarianism and the oligarchy
Capitalist humanitarianism mirrors the deeply inequitable global economic order (that coincidentally drives humanitarian need). Power asymmetries are abundant, ensuring that those with better access to information and decision-makers possess distinct advantages. The result is an acute concentration of capital, with a limited number of actors, that would make even the largest transnational corporations envious. A classic case of elite capture.
Power accumulates as capital concentrates, leaving any chance of substantive reform dead on arrival. Capitalist humanitarianism, like its private sector counterparts, then argues it is a self-regulating market – a survival of the fittest. As pluralism diminishes and conformity grows, the sector is faced with an entrenched oligarchy reality. Like the banks, some gargantuan international actors are (incorrectly) considered “too big to fail”.
The apex of this food chain is the United Nations, the oligarchy of capitalist humanitarianism. A small group of people and corporation-like entities with immense power and resources – not by merit, but by positionality. Just like the global economy, the humanitarian oligarchy asserts vast influence and stands in the way of systemic change. The Grand Bargain imitates Fair Trade branding – appear to be changing, but don’t challenge the underlying economic structures.
How to tame the capitalist humanitarianism beast
Even if the humanitarian oligarchy holds sway, not all is lost. We still have the financiers – donors playing the part of Wall Street in the world of capitalist humanitarianism. While they are often besotted with the oligarchs, they are not beholden. As the fissures in the system rapidly expand, the humanitarian donors can reallocate their capital. The potential is profound, but will a seeming desire for change turn into substantive action?
Donors are frustrated with the humanitarian oligarchy and even feel trapped, yet they struggle to wield their Wall Street-like power.
There are early indications of potential shifts, but the glacial pace of change resulting from the GHDI, the Grand Bargain, and the COVID-19 pandemic suggest nothing is assured. In numerous discussions we have, donors are frustrated with the humanitarian oligarchy and even feel trapped, yet they struggle to wield their Wall Street-like power. They can and must rein in the oligarchy: Humanitarianism and multilateralism would be better served without sprawling UN operations.
As we continually witness in the global economy, however, the reallocation of capital alone is insufficient. As Ha-Joon Chang writes, there is no such thing as a free market, and capitalist humanitarianism is no different. It must instead be regulated in ways that genuinely level the playing field, including breaking up monopolies and enforcing antitrust laws. The collusion of international actors at the expense of local and national actors is rife and must be addressed.
That leaves us with the working class or the proletariat – the local and national humanitarian actors (including the state), and affected populations. Despite the oligarchy and inequities of capitalist humanitarianism, they continue to hold extensive power. These actors are incredibly diverse, from dynamic grassroots mutual aid networks to conservative multi-million-dollar organisations and state agencies, all of which must navigate the pervasive capitalist logic and expansionist incentives, which can easily undermine solidarity and cooperation.
Despite being enmeshed in a multitude of both international and domestic power structures, the humanitarian working class has been and remains first in and last to leave any crisis, struggling against a system that repeatedly seeks to disempower. Many of these actors are also at the forefront of linking relief with justice. As Maha Abdelrahman contends, “the relentless waves of mass uprising and discontent are affording new possibilities for effecting change. Those who are demanding such change might want to get ready to play a different role in this new exercise.”
While the oligarchy may seek to divide and conquer, the humanitarian proletariat has the potential to drive transformation. Much like the economy, solidarity and collective bargaining are central to advancing rights and dignity.
The rejection of capitalist humanitarianism must also be a priority that is fortified by donors aligning with local and national actors, while also avoiding replication of the problems with the international humanitarian architecture.
A new system is possible, one in which we will all have dramatically different roles to play.
