Aid Targeting, Perception, and Social Cohesion in Arakan: A Call for Strengthened Impartiality Safeguards

Executive Summary

Arakan has long ranked among the poorest regions in Myanmar, with chronic underdevelopment affecting multiple communities across the state. In fragile and historically sensitive environments, humanitarian aid delivery must not only meet urgent needs but also preserve social cohesion. Even well-intentioned, donor-driven targeting decisions can generate perceptions of inequity if not grounded in comprehensive, cross-community vulnerability assessments.

This paper does not allege systemic discrimination. Rather, it highlights the structural risks that arise when concentrated aid delivery intersects with fragile inter-communal dynamics. Strengthened transparency, conflict-sensitive safeguards, and inclusive needs assessments are essential to ensure humanitarian assistance reinforces stability rather than inadvertently contributing to grievance narratives.

1. Structural Poverty Across Communities

For decades, Arakan has consistently ranked near the bottom of Myanmar’s development indicators, often cited as second only to Chin State in poverty rates. Limited infrastructure, weak health systems, underdeveloped markets, and chronic underinvestment have shaped livelihoods across rural and urban areas alike.

Poverty in Arakan has historically affected multiple communities. Underdevelopment was not confined to a single demographic segment but reflected structural neglect at the state level.

This baseline vulnerability makes equitable aid targeting particularly important.

2. Donor Prioritization and Operational Constraints

Humanitarian programming is shaped by complex structural factors, including:

Donor earmarking tied to specific crises

Global media attention and advocacy dynamics

Access constraints imposed by authorities

Security limitations in conflict-affected zones

Limited transparency mechanisms in tightly regulated operational environments

In such contexts, programming decisions may legitimately focus on high-visibility crises or particularly vulnerable populations. However, when vulnerability mapping is not clearly communicated across all affected communities, concentrated targeting can generate perceptions of exclusion. In fragile environments, perception becomes a strategic variable.

3. The Risk of Perceived Inequity

In socially fragmented settings, aid allocation patterns — even when justified by mandate — can have unintended secondary effects:

Amplification of grievance narratives

Erosion of inter-communal trust

Politicization of humanitarian space

Reduced acceptance of aid actors

Long-term damage to social cohesion

·

Local accounts from various periods in Arakan have reflected concerns that some impoverished communities perceived themselves as overlooked during certain aid cycles. Whether such perceptions accurately reflected aggregate distribution patterns is a separate empirical question. However, in fragile contexts, perceptions themselves can carry significant consequences.

Humanitarian principles — particularly impartiality — require assistance to be delivered solely on the basis of need, without discrimination. Upholding this principle requires not only equitable programming but also visible procedural fairness.