Introduction

This chapter examines the rapid rise of ‘digital humanitarianism’ in international development, specifically the expanding role of various digital platforms as a means for everyday citizens to interact with various humanitarian causes. The chapter analyses efforts made by evolving digital models towards creating greater space for horizontality in typically top-down aid structures. The concept of digital humanitarianism refers to the suite of digital technologies that allows swathes of individual people to contribute towards humanitarian action (Burns, 2019). While digital humanitarianism can take many forms – for example remote volunteering, coalition building or more recently as forms of virtual mutual aid – crowdfunding platforms and social media-based humanitarian campaigning have become increasingly prominent since 2010, particularly in the years before and certainly during the COVID-19 pandemic. These latter models feature heavily here in Chapter 7, as they form a core example of how virtual platforms aim to create neutrality and egalitarianism among users, whether they be digital humanitarians or those seeking support.

Crowdfunding platforms are a particularly interesting model of digital humanitarianism, as they often combine several aspects of the phenomenon including digital fundraising and virtual campaigning via social media outlets. Crowdfunding platforms specifically for international development projects – such as GlobalGiving and Kiva – provide an opportunity for individual donors, or ‘microphilanthropists’, to immerse themselves in the humanitarian process, creating ‘feelingful ties’ (Moodie, 2013) and social bonds between donors and recipients through digital connectivity.

Introduction

This chapter examines the evolving dynamics of South– South cooperation (SSC), development and humanitarianism, offering a critical exploration of their promises, complexities and contradictions. Framed within the broader discourse of global development, the chapter examines how South– South initiatives have emerged as a distinctive approach, often positioned as an alternative to the traditional, North– South development paradigm. By focusing on the intersections of cooperation and humanitarianism, it distinguishes between these two domains of analysis while highlighting their interconnections in practice. SSC encompasses state-led and multilateral initiatives among countries in the Global South, rooted in the premise that shared historical experiences – often marked by colonialism and postcolonial struggles – equip these nations with unique perspectives and capacities to support one another. This solidarity-driven framework operates on the assumption that countries of the Global South are better placed than their Global North counterparts to foster equitable partnerships and address development challenges. We critically interrogate whether the ideals of solidarity and mutual benefit are fully realized in practice or if new forms of inequality and dependency are emerging within these partnerships.

To illuminate these dynamics, the chapter draws on case studies situated at the intersection of Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, focusing on the experiences of Brazil, Cuba and Mozambique. These examples include Cuba's renowned medical training programmes, which have established an enduring legacy of healthcare diplomacy, and Brazil's agricultural development projects in Mozambique, which reflect its ambitions as a rising power in the Global South.

This book has sought to document and implement parallel shifts in how we conceptualize and practise aid. Central to this effort has been a re-examination of development and humanitarianism. As discussed in the Introduction, Western-liberal, institutionalized forms of aid – largely shaped and directed by the Global North – have long dominated teaching, literature and policy making in this field. However, drawing on substantial new empirical evidence, including our own research and that of others, we argue for a fundamental shift in focus to recognize the multitude of alternative forms of aid. Specifically, we propose that these can be characterized as horizontal in contrast to the prevailing vertical forms, which are defined by power imbalances and hierarchical structures of knowledge and authority. Far from being novel or emergent, these horizontal forms often predate the institutionalized Western-liberal approaches. Their recent resurgence, including in contexts such as the COVID-19 pandemic, underscores their enduring relevance and adaptability. Indeed, we suggest that institutionalized aid may represent a brief episode within the much longer history of how humans have historically supported one another.

We have thus examined the critical impasse in teaching and practising development, particularly in light of the mounting critique of dominant paradigms. This critique has grown increasingly forceful, spurred by the movement to decolonize development and the enduring analysis of humanitarianism as a mechanism of governmentality and control. Key critiques revolve around race, class and inequalities in multifaceted forms (Mitchell and Pallister-Wilkins, 2023; Roth et al, 2024).

Introduction

As the previous chapter illustrated, one form of transnational resource distribution is through members of diasporic groups. A key characteristic of diaspora support revolves around a particular set of affinities and commonalities, such as belonging to the same ethnicity, nationality or – in the case of more specifically directed support – kinship ties which structure remittances. What, though, can be said about transnational resource flows that are not based on pre-existing social relations, or kinship ties as conventionally understood? Chapter 6 explores transnational citizen aid, also described as grassroots international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) (Schnable, 2021), private aid initiatives (Kinsbergen, 2010) and vernacular humanitarianism (Brković, 2017). These are transnational initiatives often operating across national or regional borders, extending not only between residents in countries from the Global North to the South but also in North– North or South– South forms as well. These initiatives are horizontal – in the sense that they offer peer-to-peer (P2P) support, often at a grassroots level – and personal relationships are a central part of their inception and operation. Citizen aid initiatives most commonly precede, and often avoid, formal registration as NGOs, so in many cases they may even be considered informal forms of horizontal support. Many of them do not necessarily take the form of a registered organization but consist of mid-to long-term resource flows between individuals and communities.

From makeshift refugee camps in Europe to a multitude of micro projects across the world, the landscape of development is increasingly populated by such privately funded, small-scale aid activities.

Introduction

What does it mean to ‘localize aid’? And what, following Khan, is the ‘local aid’ that already exists? The previous chapter highlighted how the voluntarization of aid has opened up space for those who are not ‘professionals’. Beyond this lies the more fundamental question – whether the concept of ‘localizing aid’ overlooks basic patterns of care which are woven into the fabric of societies, independent of a formal aid sector. This chapter takes a closer look at these patterns. While questions of how local knowledge and local actors matter in development have been discussed before, debates specifically on ‘localizing aid’ have become more prominent, prompting talk of a ‘local turn’ in humanitarianism and peacebuilding (McGinty and Richmond, 2013).

The importance of the ‘local’ has been part of development efforts from the start. As Kothari (2006) reminds us, colonial administrative officers and missionaries often possessed more in-depth knowledge and understanding of ‘local’ matters than contemporary international aid staff, who may frequently rotate between posts and move locations. In keeping with this, Pottier et al's book, Negotiating Local Knowledge, first published in 2003, was re-issued in 2019 as part of a ‘revival’ publication series. They remind readers that local knowledge has always been ‘far more sophisticated than development professionals previously assumed and, as such, represents an immensely valuable resource’ (Pottier et al, 2019), which nevertheless remains underacknowledged and underused in formal aid and development.

Introduction

International development volunteering, be it through professional volunteering or the more common form of ‘voluntourism’, primarily involves individuals based in the Global North travelling to areas of the Global South with the aim of supporting marginalized communities to improve their quality of life in some demonstrable way. This chapter explores the rapid rise of international volunteering both as a practice and as a now multi-billion-dollar industry, one that has seen ‘explosive growth’ in recent decades (Wearing and McGehee, 2013) and remains enormously popular despite a period of stagnation during the COVID-19 pandemic (Kabil et al, 2023), when many could not travel. Here the authors also discuss many of the challenges and questionable power dynamics that arise through this form of horizontal and potentially ‘amateur’ aid. While international volunteering primarily originated as a practice in the United Kingdom and Europe, the late 20th and early 21st centuries have seen exponential growth in organized volunteering across the entire Global North, notably including North America, Australia and countries with a stabilizing middle class across Asia and Africa (Alexander, 2012).

For the purposes of this chapter, we use definitions of professional volunteers – also known as skills-based volunteers (Steimel, 2018) – as individuals who seek to use their specific work experience and/or qualifications to provide support to social and humanitarian causes. Since the early 21st century, professional volunteering programmes have mostly targeted medical workers, engineers and teachers.