Evidence on effects of humanitarian neutrality on outcomes for civilians (GSDRC Helpdesk Research Report 1218)
How strong is the evidence base about the effects of humanitarian neutrality on outcomes for civilians in armed conflicts
How strong is the evidence base about the effects of (the perception of) humanitarian neutrality on outcomes for civilians in armed conflicts? Specifically, identify the quantity and quality of multi-case or general evidence available on whether neutrality in humanitarian action has facilitated access or other positive outcomes for civilians. If relevant, identify the evidence base about key intermediate variables between neutrality and outcomes.
This rapid review searched literature published in 2005-2015, focusing on multi-case and general studies.
- Literature is very limited quantitatively and qualitatively.
- Evidence that meets minimal standard of methodological rigour is scant. A sizeable segment of it comes from a small number of sources. Methods are largely qualitative and based on secondary sources. There are no meta-reviews. Findings are inconsistent and only indicative.
- There are significant thematic gaps in coverage. In particular, local humanitarians and perceptions are under-researched. A few country draw the most discussion, while entire regions are not discussed. There is barely any disaggregation by social structures, such as class, gender or age.
Available evidence brings up the following themes:
- Setting neutrality as an object of study is challenging. Definitions and their interpretations differ. There are debates about which actors qualify as neutral.
- Designing studies is challenging. Neutrality is present in claims of principle, in practices, and in perceptions. Very few references are clear and consistent in taking into account that distinction. Yet there are significant differences between humanitarian actors’ attempts to be neutral and local populations’ perceptions of these.
- Operationalising studies involves complex work on humanitarian actors’ motivation, intentional and unintentional impact, and public as well as confidential action. The level of analysis and the generalizability of findings are important challenges.
- Causalities are difficult to establish and attribute. Overall, the few rigorous findings are contradictory, ranging from positive effects, mixed or variable effects, and negative effects, to a lack of major effects (where alternative determinants seemingly play a greater role in outcomes).
Combaz, E. Evidence on effects of humanitarian neutrality on outcomes for civilians (GSDRC Helpdesk Research Report 1218). Governance and Social Development Resource Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK (2015) 13 pp.