What makes humanitarian action legitimate – and who gets to decide?
26 March 2026
The values of the humanitarian aid system are under fire at the very same time as its budgets are being slashed. According to an expert panel, there is “a crisis, not primarily of financing but of legitimacy.”
Our research project, described below, is wrapping up.
We are pleased to be able to share the first output, an analysis of the digital consultation.
TL;DR?
We boiled it all down. Answer these ten questions and we’ll tell you which flavour of humanitarian you are. Take the quiz now.
Using the open-source digital platform, pol.is. we asked humanitarians to provide their own answers to the question: What makes humanitarian action legitimate in today’s world – and who gets to decide?
From 14 January up to 23 February 2026, 267 people took part, 316 statements were submitted, and 14,961 votes cast. The results reveal a sector divided over its purpose, and the future of humanitarianism:
Here’s what we found: two blocs dominate the conversation :
Bloc A: The “cautious incrementalists”
Bloc B: The “new radicals”
The biggest divides are over power and principles. Bloc A generally wants to protect and restore the existing system, with reforms. Bloc B believes the system requires fundamental transformation. This points towards a potential split between a procedural humanitarianism, focussed on traditional principles and delivery, and a political humanitarianism, that organises around addressing power imbalances, justice and system change.
Research summary
The advisory panel on the future of humanitarian action was set up by ODI Global and NEAR in 2025 amid steep funding cuts and related turmoil in the international humanitarian system.
The panel has commissioned research to identify and explain the motivations and priorities of the full range of operators within, and at the margins of, modern-day humanitarianism.
The changing landscape of humanitarian action demands an “eco-system” approach rather than a unitary system, according to the panel; There is more than one way of doing life-saving humanitarian work and more than one basis of legitimacy.
There will be various operators working in the same crisis-affected country that are motivated by different values. And they may rely on disparate approaches: for example they may be neutral or partisan, religious or secular, working in health, or in food, with children, or with everyone. They may have links to governments, business, security or politics. They may be animated by a mix of self-interest and pure altruism. They will certainly not see eye-to-eye on everything.
However, with limited resources, and this increasingly diverse community of responders, the various “species” in this eco-system should be able to recognise and understand each other. Without a level of mutual legibility, the chances are that people in need will get less help.
As part of this research, building on our consultation last year, we are conducting interviews, focus groups and online dialogues to explore these characteristics. A report, due in March, should enable different groupings to better assess how their values (and their organisation’s positioning) fit in the emerging humanitarian eco-system.