Dependency and Humanitarian Relief - A Critical Analysis

In many emergency contexts, aid agencies hesitate to provide food and other aid for extended periods because of fears that this may create ‘dependency’. Concerns about dependency are more than semantic: they can influence decisions about levels of assistance, and affect what type of assistance people receive, where and when.
People depend less on relief than is often assumed. There is little evidence that relief undermines initiative, or that its delivery is reliable or transparent enough for people to depend on it. In practice, many concerns about dependency seem to stem from a preoccupation with the disincentive effects of food aid. This report argues that framing these real concerns in terms of dependency is unhelpful because this can provide an excuse for cutting back relief for people who may still be in desperate need. If concerns about the possible negative impacts of food aid are genuine, then the more important question is what form of assistance is most appropriate to prevent hunger, save lives and alleviate suffering in times of crisis. In situations where people’s lives and livelihoods are under acute threat, and local capacities to cope with crisis are overwhelmed, being able to depend on receiving assistance should be seen as a good thing. The focus should be, not how to avoid dependency, but how to provide sufficiently reliable and transparent assistance so that those who most need it understand what they are entitled to, and can rely on it as part of their own efforts to survive and recover from crisis.