This study evaluates what would be the consequences of a wide implementation of large-scale cash transfer programming in humanitarian aid. The aspects that will be assessed here is the rationale for as well as criticism against the proposed implementation. The study also analysed what implications such a reform would have to key stakeholders in the humanitarian system. The theoretical framework employed for this study consists of two separate sections. The first section presents the available evidence on large-scale cash transfer programming (LSCTP) in terms of efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability to affected populations (AAP). For the second section, a review was conducted on previous studies relating to key stakeholders and how they would be affected by the aforementioned reform. The stakeholders analysed include donors, affected governments, operational humanitarian organisations (NGOs and UN agencies), affected populations, and the private sector. For the study, eight interviews were conducted with key informants, which was complemented by secondary data. The study found that the rationale for donors to implement LSCTP on a wide scale is strong, both from an efficiency, effectiveness, and AAP perspective, although the cost- efficiency aspect does require some attention. With regard to the stakeholders analysed, donors, along with affected populations, affected governments and the private sector, are all expected to benefit from a wide implementation of LSCTP, whereas the reform is expected to be disadvantageous to NGOs and UN agencies.

Humanitarian accountability has been a topic of discussion since the 1990s, in response to a number of high-level scandals. Dozens of initiatives highlighting the importance of accountability to affected populations have been established. However, humanitarian organisations still receive criticisms for lacking accountability. This thesis examines the research question: How does the World Food Programme use international standards to guide accountability in its humanitarian interventions in Iraq, and how these standards fulfil its commitments to the affected populations? This is done through an in-depth case study of the WFP, in the context of Iraq. The academic literature highlights the concept of humanitarian accountability as both a practical concern as well as a moral one. This is emphasised within the literature of humanitarian organisations together with how accountability, as a concept, have been poorly defined, and research as to its practice is continuously lacking. This research found that the accountability provided was mainly technical and accountability to affected populations in Iraq remain low. Accountability practices that are currently in place does not live up to the commitment made by the WFP to affected populations in Iraq. Further, the research pinpoints how accountability within the WFP has become more of a technical standard in practice, which has resulted in limited scope of accountability to affected populations in Iraq. This results in phantom accountability, characterised by meaningless mechanisms and indicators that instead portray an image of accountability while not translating into actual practical actions towards affected populations.

Even though supporting affected populations is the raison d’etre for humanitarian action, organisations are frequently not accountable to populations they aim to serve. Despite several reform movements, the consultation and participation elements of accountability to affected populations (AAP), in particular, are still lacking. Specifically, during the design phases of projects, such involvement is critical since major decisions around implementation are taken. Given that donors usually use their power over NGOs to set requirements around financial and results-based management, they could do the same for AAP and make funding conditional on meeting requirements. The puzzle of this research is (Q1) to what extent do donors try to enhance AAP at the project design stage by setting AAP requirements and (Q2) what motivates donors to set these requirements and given many do not set them, what holds them back. In total, nine (n=9) problem-centred expert interviews were led with donor and NGO representatives, which were complemented by an analysis of n=14 donor documents related to the project design phase. During the data collection and analysis process, it became apparent that a sole focus on top-down approaches through requirements would leave out relevant constraints around AAP requirements in project design phases. Thus, driven by the interview data, two additional questions were included: (Q3) What are possible reasons why the requirements set by donors are not successful in improving AAP practices? (Q4) How could these constraints be overcome?  For Q1, it was found that there is no systemic inclusion of AAP requirements in project design phases by donors. Though there are positive examples and donors emphasize their engagement, NGO representatives shared the view that there is no real push through requirements for the two more complex elements of AAP, namely consultation and participation. The main bottleneck for donors to set stricter requirements were competing priorities, while their main motivation to do so apart from intrinsic motivations was found to be past failure in combination with hope for effectiveness and efficiency gains (Q2). The additional constraints identified as hampering successful implementation of such requirements were NGO, discursive and systemic constraints, which dealt with resource scarcity, process constraints, conceptual unclarity and misunderstandings as well as constraints related to the humanitarian context and the delivery of aid through projects (Q3). Solutions presented by interviewees underline the importance of updated funding procedures, establishing clarity around the concept, and advancing cash-based programming and the localization agenda (Q4). Finally, the grounded theory developed from the interview and analysis process explains the limited success of donor AAP requirements in the following way: First, such requirements are not established in the first place if hindered by donor bottlenecks. If motivations are stronger than bottlenecks, such requirements do not automatically lead to the implementation of meaningful AAP practices, since the requirements are not adapted to the wider context. Donors (1) do not take NGO constraints into account, (2) do not fully realize discursive constraints and (3) only take limited action against systemic constraints. When setting requirements, donors need to inform their strategies by considering these constraints in setting meaningful requirements.