The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Accountability in Crises: Connecting Evidence From Humanitarian and Social Protection Approaches to Social Assistance
Open accessAbstract
Social assistance in crises, whether part of a social protection system or driven by humanitarian needs, provides crucial support to people affected by disaster and conflict. Accountability is a central component of delivering effective social assistance. The increasing emphasis on reinforcing social protection in fragile contexts and the Grand Bargain ‘participation revolution’ workstream suggest the need for a fresh look at accountability frameworks and how they play out in practice for the people they aim to serve. Approaches to accountability are usually researched and analysed separately as part of social protection, humanitarian, or governance (citizenship) responses in fragile contexts. This brief therefore seeks to connect evidence from humanitarian and development accountability approaches to better understand the linkages and disconnects, as well as to identify opportunities for future research and learning.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“some of these mechanisms, such as grievance redress mechanisms, may do little to help those seeking to register or redress their complaints and grievances”
From Citizens’ Claims‐Making and Navigating the Politics of Accountability in Social Cash Transfers in Uganda (2025) · cites this paper as Seferis & Harvey, 2022
In the citing paper
“Seferis and Harvey (2022) argue that such mechanisms generally struggle to prove a concrete connection between feedback and improving programming.”
From Citizens’ Claims‐Making and Navigating the Politics of Accountability in Social Cash Transfers in Uganda (2025) · cites this paper as Seferis and Harvey (2022)
In the citing paper
“For instance, SP systems' fragmentation can contribute to the fragmentation of accountability structures.”
From Citizens’ Claims‐Making and Navigating the Politics of Accountability in Social Cash Transfers in Uganda (2025) · cites this paper as Seferis & Harvey, 2022
In the citing paper
“As discussed earlier, the role of international donors in SP programmes can lead to a fragmented accountability landscape (Seferis & Harvey, 2022); as seen in the Ugandan case, different SP programmes operate simultaneously in the same districts with very different accountability structures.”
From Citizens’ Claims‐Making and Navigating the Politics of Accountability in Social Cash Transfers in Uganda (2025) · cites this paper as Seferis & Harvey, 2022
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
El Assal, A. (2025) · Politics and Governance · doi:10.17645/pag.11237
“For example, Seferis and Harvey (2022) argue that such mechanisms generally struggle to prove a concrete connection between feedback and improving programming.”
Influential
Metadata
- Authors
- Seferis, L., & Harvey, P.
- Published
- 2022-02-04
- OpenAlex
- W4213268864
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1
- Type
- report
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- OpenDocs (Institute of Development Studies) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Government of the United Kingdom
- University of Sussex
- Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
- Social Sciences › Development › International Development and Aid
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration in Developing Nations
- Keywords
- accountability, social assistance, humanitarian aid, social protection, fragile contexts, disasters, armed conflict, Grand Bargain, participation, governance, citizenship, accountability framework
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
