Between Principles and Politics: A Case Study of Humanitarian NGO Advocacy on Funding Priorities in Addressing the Humanitarian Funding Gap

Abstract

The current global landscape for humanitarian aid is increasingly defined by a widening humanitarian funding gap and growing politicisation of external action, raising urgent concerns about how needs will be met in the years to come. This thesis explores how humanitarian non-governmental organisations (NGOs) navigate the political context to gain access to and influence European Union (EU) policymaking in shaping funding priorities to close this widening gap. By adopting an interpretivist, inductive case study approach, this thesis draws on semi-structured interviews with 18 informants from leading humanitarian NGOs and EU institutions. This study reveals that political dynamics increasingly shape and constrain opportunities for NGO funding advocacy. While long-standing institutional ties and mutual dependencies continue to provide access and influence opportunities, sustained access and influence depends on NGOs’ ability to strategically adapt, diversify advocacy strategies,and align humanitarian narratives with EU policy priorities.By treating advocacy as a dynamic, relational, and politically situated practice, this study advances both theoretical and empirical debates. Building on existing literature, this thesis introduces the concept of norm brokers, which describes how humanitarian NGOs embed principled values within strategically framed narratives that resonate with political discourses. This allows humanitarian NGOs to maintain normative integrity while securing access and influence within contested political spaces. This thesis contributes to ongoing discussions on humanitarian funding by highlighting the necessity for NGOs to actively engage with shifting political dynamics and to navigate changing windows of opportunity in order to access and influence decisions on funding priorities.