Post-Disaster Recovery Governance, Aid Architecture, and Civil Society’s Participation: The Case of Lebanon’s Reform, Recovery and Reconstruction Framework (3RF)

Abstract

Country platforms have increasingly gained significance in aid delivery—as reflected in the commitment of many international organizations to this model. In academia, the role of country platforms in aid delivery is, however, understudied. Knowledge about this model is often held by practitioners and remains largely undocumented, generating a research gap. The thesis aims to analyze the institutional arrangement of Lebanon’s Reform, Recovery and Reconstruction Framework (3RF), focusing on the role of civil society organizations (CSOs). Therefore, I analyze how the international community allocates space to CSOs in the 3RF – both discursively and institutionally. Additionally, I examine the ways CSOs claim and appropriate their ascribed space in the 3RF and use the opportunity to (re)organize in order to hold both the Lebanese government and international donors accountable. Hence, this thesis aims to investigate how the 3RF creates windows of opportunity for change and collective action for government reforms. I supplement desk review of academic literature, reports and podcasts related to aid architecture with an ethnographic approach: I conducted 24 semi-structured in-depth key informant interviews with members of civil society organizations and international organizations. Additional primary data is provided through participant observation of the 3RF’s Consultative Group meetings. Given that Lebanon’s 3RF process is ongoing, I follow both a descriptive approach to document the initial process and a normative approach to derive lessons learned and possible policy interventions. I argue that the 3RF includes adaptive and effective institutional arrangements that may disrupt path dependency and enable reforms, mainly its Consultative Group. Yet, the 3RF is consolidating CSOs’ fragmentation in Lebanon, through the composition of its CG; and providing insufficient modalities for CSOs to work collectively in coherent and effective ways towards reforms. Besides interpretation bias, the limitations include the scope and representation of my study: I focus on the role of CSOs in the Consultative Group and in sector coordination, and prioritized interlocutors from international organizations and civil society for my sample.