IMPROVISATION AND CONSTRAINT: HUMANITARIAN COORDINATION IN SOUTH SUDAN’S CHRONIC CRISIS

Research Problem Humanitarian assistance coordination in protracted conflicts remains a persistent and under-theorized challenge. Existing frameworks frequently focus on short-term emergencies or technocratic solutions, offering limited engagement with the political, social, and operational complexities that characterize prolonged crises. Methods/Theory This study investigates South Sudan as a critical case to explore the evolving dynamics of humanitarian coordination in fractured and volatile contexts. It applies secondary analysis of policy documents, inter-agency records, and evaluative reports, grounded in critical humanitarian governance and adaptive practice literatures. Results The findings indicate that coordination in protracted crises is less about aligning mandates or standardizing mechanisms and more about adaptive and negotiated practices. Security risks, shifting conflict dynamics, and restricted access compel humanitarian actors to improvise, recalibrate, and develop hybrid forms of collaboration that frequently extend beyond formal institutional arrangements. Conclusion While adaptive approaches enable the continuation of assistance where conventional models often falter, they also generate ethical and political tensions—normalizing temporary arrangements, privileging donor priorities, and constraining local agency. Key Contribution to Knowledge This study reframes humanitarian coordination as a contingent, negotiated, and power-laden process rather than a purely technical exercise, challenging dominant paradigms that overlook the fluid and complex realities of protracted conflict environments. Recommendation Future coordination frameworks should embed adaptive mechanisms while upholding accountability and inclusivity. Ensuring that local actors hold a central role is essential for shaping sustainable humanitarian responses in protracted conflict settings.