The role of government in humanitarian logistics: a systematic review

Natural disasters are occurring with increasing frequency and economic impact (Coronese et al., 2019; Foerster, 2021). The USA experienced twice as many billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in the 2010s, even after adjusting for inflation, as it did during the previous decade (Smith, 2020). The year 2021 was second to only 2020 in terms of the number of billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in the USA and third – behind 2017 and 2005 – in terms of total dollar cost (Smith, 2022). The increased frequency and impact of natural disasters and other humanitarian crises – including disruptive events such as the COVID-19 pandemic – makes studying disaster relief and recovery particularly important. One relevant area of research in this space is humanitarian logistics. Despite the growth of this research stream over the past decade (Kovács et al., 2019; Altay et al., 2021), one overlooked aspect of humanitarian logistics is the government perspective (Quarshie and Leuschner, 2020), particularly given the significant influence governments have in the humanitarian supply chains (HSCs) (Yadav and Barve, 2015; Dube et al., 2016; Singh et al., 2018; Quarshie and Leuschner, 2020).

Although a relatively limited number of papers have comprehensively addressed the role of government in humanitarian logistics as the sole focus of their research, many studies have discussed government involvement in the context of other research questions. In their meta-analysis of trends in humanitarian logistics literature, Kunz and Reiner (2012) found that “government” was the most mentioned word, appearing in 73% of studies in their review, suggesting the high importance of the government’s role in humanitarian logistics. Furthermore, their analysis of situational factors in humanitarian logistics suggests that government factors are discussed in research as the third most common grouping of factors, after only infrastructure and economic. Governments play a role in nearly every humanitarian disaster. These roles can include enabling or restricting external humanitarian assistance (Kunz and Gold, 2015; Dube et al., 2016; Dube and Broekhuis, 2018; Fathalikhani et al., 2020), providing relief supplies, logistics and infrastructure (Kabra and Ramesh, 2015; Singh et al., 2018; Heaslip and Kovács, 2019; Agarwal et al., 2021), administering the logistics and relief efforts among various humanitarian organizations (Yadav and Barve, 2015; Rodríguez-Espíndola et al., 2018; Singh et al., 2018; Chari et al., 2021) and exerting various powers and authority as a regulator to impact logistics (Kunz and Gold, 2015; Dube et al., 2016; Singh et al., 2018; Quarshie and Leuschner, 2020; Chari et al., 2021). Given these varied and influential functions, it is vital to understand the government’s role in humanitarian disasters, including its particular challenges and the unique services it can offer to assist in humanitarian relief efforts.

Among the range of critical success factors in humanitarian logistics, the role of government is commonly cited as the key driving factor (Yadav and Barve, 2015; Singh et al., 2018). A previous review and subsequent interpretive structural model from Yadav and Barve (2015) finds government policies and organizational structure, operationalized collectively as policies that allow or restrict any external assistance, to be the most dominating critical success factor for HSCs. A similar study by Singh et al. (2018) finds government support and policy formulation (i.e. authorization for various stakeholders to conduct relief operations and putting forth policies to increase disaster preparedness) to be the main driving factor in achieving resilience in an HSC. The role and support of the government are foundational to humanitarian logistics activities.

Other literature reviews have been published in the humanitarian logistics research stream, but none have explicitly focused on the role of government. Two of those reviews are included in this study. Mora-Ochomogo et al. (2016) explore the differences between commercial and humanitarian logistics, explicitly focusing on the applicability of classical commercial inventory models. Negi (2022) reviews existing literature to explore the role of humanitarian logistics in managing relief operations and undercover challenges humanitarian organizations encounter in performing humanitarian logistics. While governments factor into several of the challenges they discuss, their review does not broadly explore the role of government in humanitarian logistics. Other relevant humanitarian logistics literature reviews, while not included in this study because of the defined search criteria, include examinations of extant literature concerning HSC performance management and measurement (Abidi et al., 2014), the use of the military and the challenges of civil–military partnerships (Heaslip and Barber, 2014), partnerships between humanitarian organizations and business corporations (Nurmala et al., 2017), community participation (Bealt and Mansouri, 2018), risk-mitigation strategies (Jahre, 2017) and the evolution of coordination in humanitarian logistics (Grange et al., 2020). Again, although these reviews mention government involvement, none specifically explore the government’s varied roles and responsibilities despite its focal involvement in humanitarian logistics activities.

This study uses a literature review to answer the following research question:

This research defines government as a local, regional, national or international level (i.e. United Nations and European Union) governing body. The study addresses the above research question using a systematic literature review (Tranfield et al., 2003) based on reflexive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Braun and Clarke, 2021).

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 discusses the methodology of this study. Section 3 presents a descriptive analysis of the literature. Section 4 discusses the findings for the review. Section 5 discusses key findings, gaps in the literature and avenues for future research. Section 6 discusses this review’s contributions to research and practice, along with the study’s limitations. Finally, this paper ends with summary conclusions.

This section discusses the choice of methodology and study design, as well as the search criteria and approach to literature selection.

This paper adopts a systematic review methodology (Tranfield et al., 2003) based on reflexive thematic analysis (Snyder, 2019; Braun and Clarke, 2021). A systematic review provides a method to identify relevant literature, select and evaluate contributions, synthesize findings and report clear conclusions about the extant research in a particular area (Denyer and Tranfield, 2009). By adopting transparent procedures, systematic reviews aim to produce replicable findings that reduce bias in selecting and synthesizing studies (Tranfield et al., 2003). As outlined by Durach et al. (2017) in their case for increased use of systematic reviews in supply chain management (SCM) research, the method typically follows six steps:

1. defining the research question;

2. determining the required characteristics of primary studies;

3. retrieving a sample of potentially relevant literature;

4. selecting the pertinent literature;

5. synthesizing the literature; and

6. reporting the results (p. 70).

These steps are discussed below in greater detail as they apply to the context of the current review.

Systematic reviews are beneficial compared to other review methods (e.g. a narrative review) when the extant research spans divergent research questions and designs (Thomé et al., 2016). The systematic review approach is particularly well suited to this study because the research topic spans a variety of literature streams, including SCM, operations research and emergency management, using various methods, such as case studies, mathematical modeling, interviews and statistical analysis. Although the literature on the role of governments in humanitarian logistics may be relatively underexplored compared to more mature research streams, there is still over a decade of available research. Accordingly, a systematic review is appropriate to reconcile these multiple research disciplines and methodologies in this extant research.

To ensure a wide range of research disciplines from various journals and publishers, the author used two widely used online databases: ProQuest (including ABI/INFORM) and ScienceDirect (Nurmala et al., 2017). The search was limited to peer-reviewed articles published in English-speaking journals. The peer-review requirement aims to ensure the high quality of research articles included in the review. The search was performed in November 2024.

To include the full range of humanitarian logistics activities, the terms humanitarian logistics, HSC, humanitarian operations and logistics, disaster relief supply chain and disaster relief logistics were all included in the database search. These terms are all used in the literature, with “humanitarian logistics” used most regularly (Çelik et al., 2012; Kunz and Reiner, 2012). The search also included the term government to broadly include potential papers focusing on the role of government at any level. The terms were combined using Boolean operators (AND, OR). The resulting search was: (“humanitarian logistics” OR “humanitarian supply chain” OR “humanitarian operations and logistics” OR “disaster relief supply chain” OR “disaster relief logistics”) AND “government” in a paper’s abstract, title or subject keywords. The search did not include “humanitarian operations” alone, as the focus of the study is humanitarian logistics, not the entire relief operation. Non-logistics relief operation activities include search and rescue, hospital triage and risk assessment (Goldschmidt and Kumar, 2016; Farahani et al., 2020). The term “military” was also not included as a specific search term. While the military is a government function that often plays a critical role in humanitarian logistics, the present study focuses on the government at-large. Furthermore, Heaslip and Barber (2014) have already provided a systematic literature review on military involvement in humanitarian logistics. Where research on military involvement in humanitarian logistics was included in the current study, it is only through a specific mention of interaction with the government’s overall role. Given the military’s role in providing security for humanitarian relief activities (Heaslip and Barber, 2014), this inherently focuses the present review away from the government’s role in providing security for the HSC.

Using the previously discussed keywords, the search returned 58 papers from Proquest and 37 from Science Direct. After screening all abstracts for alignment with the research question and eliminating 17 duplicate articles between the two databases, 44 relevant studies were identified from the database search. The most common reason for the exclusion criteria used in abstract screening was that the paper focused on non-government organizations (NGOs) rather than governments. With the chosen search criteria, NGOs appeared frequently under the “government” search term, but such studies fall outside the scope of this review. Other papers were excluded because they were a call for papers rather than a peer-reviewed journal article. The remaining exclusion criteria after the abstract review were either a mention of only practical implications for governments or the use of government data in a study but no direct examination of any government action. Following the paper selection, each article was read and analyzed fully, as described below. For each selected paper, a backward snowball search technique was also applied. This snowball search involves a reference analysis of selected articles to increase the coverage of potentially relevant research (Wohlin et al., 2022; Cunha et al., 2024). This approach yielded an additional 19 articles, which brought the final total to 63 papers. Figure 1 shows the process of locating and selecting studies.

The final sample of 63 papers was analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Braun and Clarke, 2021) of extant research across various quantitative and qualitative methods and research disciplines. Using the methodology outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006), the author first read and re-read each paper, then generated initial codes. This coding was done manually in a spreadsheet. The specific attributes coded for each paper were author(s), title, journal, publication year, research question/objective, methods used, a textual summary of findings, type(s) of disaster and any findings related to the role of government. This final coding specific to the role of government occurred at the paragraph level within each paper. These preliminary codes were then collated, in an inductive manner, into broader themes encompassing the government functions described (Durach et al., 2017). The three broader themes that developed from the preliminary coding were specifically defined using terminology that was common across multiple studies. For example, several studies referenced the government using regulation to limit or enable assistance (often external) and specifically used the host government terminology (Kunz and Gold, 2015; Dube et al., 2016; Dube and Broekhuis, 2018; Fathalikhani et al., 2020). While other studies did not explicitly use this same terminology (Kunz and Reiner, 2016), the government action they described fit within the same broader theme. These actions, common across multiple studies, were each coded as “the government as a host or regulator,” a term that was developed after ongoing analysis of the codes within this theme (Braun and Clarke, 2006). A more comprehensive illustration of the specific codes associated with each theme is provided in Table 2 of Section 4: Thematic Analysis.

This section describes the number of papers published per year and the methodologies used. The complete list of papers for the review is provided in Table 1 in the thematic analysis section. The studies cover a wide variety of disaster types, including floods (de Leeuw et al., 2012; Rodríguez-Espíndola et al., 2018; Damoah, 2022; Negi, 2022; Xu et al., 2023; Santana-Robles et al., 2024), droughts (Mushanyuri and Ngcamu, 2020), hurricanes (Quarshie and Leuschner, 2020), cyclones (Chari et al., 2021) and COVID-19 (Pacheco and Laguna, 2020; Hernández Gress et al., 2021; Minguito and Banluta, 2023). While all of the studies reference natural disasters, several also make some mention of man-made disasters (Kovács and Spens, 2007; Tomasini and Van Wassenhove, 2009; Balcik et al., 2010; Apte and Heath, 2011; Kunz and Reiner, 2012; Menkhaus, 2012; Yadav and Barve, 2015; Dube et al., 2016; Mora-Ochomogo et al., 2016; Lu et al., 2018, Baffoe and Luo, 2020 , Fathalikhani et al., 2020). However, none of the included papers focus primarily on man-made disasters (i.e. wars, civil conflict and terrorism).

The papers selected for the review were published no earlier than 2003. This start date demonstrates the recent growth of humanitarian logistics and the government’s role as a research stream. Since 2003, there has been a general upward trend of published papers each year, with most of that uptick starting in 2009 (Figure 2).

The papers were grouped according to their research methodologies, which were consistent with the grouping used by Duong and Chong (2020). The most frequently used method among the 63 papers reviewed was case studies with 15 papers. The second most common method, with 13 papers, was mathematical modeling. The variety of methodologies (Figure 3) supports the choice of a systematic review method for this review.

Finally, the papers were grouped according to their literature streams, consistent with the general discipline grouping used by Tabaklar et al. (2015) to discuss the research disciplines from which humanitarian supply chain management (HSCM) borrows theories (Figure 4). The largest research stream is SCM, logistics and operations management (OM), with 38 papers. This group includes 11 papers in the Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management, with the most publications in this review (the next highest single journal has four). The “Other/Specialty” research stream includes the following disciplines and number of publications: economics (four), management (four), public health (one) and specialty/field journals (three). The variety of research disciplines and literature streams illustrates the interdisciplinary nature of humanitarian logistics research and again supports the choice of a systematic review method for this review.

This section explores the three primary themes of the extant literature and proposes a theoretical framework. The themes are:

1. the government’s role as the host (and regulator) in enabling or restricting aid and external assistance;

2. the funder for direct supply provisioning relief, indirect relief (i.e. infrastructure investments) or initial response; and

3. the coordinator of logistics efforts among various humanitarian organizations.

Table 1 provides an overview of the themes in each reviewed paper. Of the 63 papers reviewed, 28 discussed the government’s role as a host (and regulator), 40 as a funder (and responder) and 34 as a coordinator.

One of the most frequent roles governments undertake in humanitarian logistics is that of the host. This role of host refers to the government making decisions to accept or reject offers for external humanitarian aid, frequently by exercising regulatory authority. This role is especially prevalent in developing nations where external assistance from other nations or international nonprofit organizations is typical after a natural or man-made disaster. Day et al. (2012) summarize that “no international action can take place if the local government does not request it” (p. 24). While a government is obligated to ensure an appropriate response to disasters occurring within its borders, it may lack the capacity, budget, expertise or skills to accomplish this alone, particularly in the case of destructive and complex emergencies (Fathalikhani et al., 2020). In these cases, a host government might depend on governmental emergency management agencies in foreign nations or nonprofits to provide humanitarian services when a disaster does occur, using various policies and strategies to maximize the welfare of those affected. The NGOs, in these instances, can be local or international organizations that work under the host government’s coordination and legal framework (Fathalikhani et al., 2020).

Government policies can be used to allow or restrict external assistance (Yadav and Barve, 2015; Negi, 2022). Host government obligations (i.e. to allow free passage of international humanitarian organization supplies) differ based on the event: unarmed conflict, armed conflict or international armed conflict (Dube et al., 2016). Using a multiple case study of a focal humanitarian organization in six countries, Dube et al. (2016) find that host governments take one of four predominant stances to external assistance: non-restrictive, opportunistic, selectively accommodating and uncompromising – the chosen stance results from host government interests and dependency and the interaction between those two factors. Uncompromising governments present the most challenging environment for humanitarian logistics and severely impact delivery performance, while non-restrictive governments exert minimal control and ease decision-making and logistics performance (Dube et al., 2016). At these extremes, the impact of host government power and regulatory influence are most evident.

Host government financial resources are not a prerequisite to a host government’s chosen degree of control; instead, host governments develop ways to regulate humanitarian logistics without significant financial resources (Dube et al., 2016). Additionally, findings from Dube et al. (2016) suggest that political motivations are not always the driver for imposing tighter regulations on humanitarian logistics efforts. This is noteworthy given that several other studies suggest political motivations are often a major factor in government decision-making (Kunz and Gold, 2015; Mora-Ochomogo et al., 2016; Mushanyuri and Ngcamu, 2020; Chari et al., 2021). Specifically, one of the key findings in a case study from Chari et al. (2021) indicates that:

In their case study, Chari et al. (2021) find that response efforts in Zimbabwe were hampered by significant politicization of the relief efforts. The distribution of aid provided opportunities for discrimination against political opposition and settling grudges against political rivals. In this way, the government’s role was to hamper equitable humanitarian logistics efforts because of corrupt political influences. While Chari et al. (2021) and other studies (Garrett and Sobel, 2003; Kunz and Gold, 2015; Mora-Ochomogo et al., 2016; Mushanyuri and Ngcamu, 2020) provide ample evidence that political influences often do impact host government decisions, the findings from Dube et al. (2016) suggest that this influence is not a necessary conclusion.

Host governments can use their significant regulatory power to either improve or hinder the efforts of logisticians. In this sense, government regulatory power also applies to internal humanitarian logistics in addition to the external aid discussed above. For example, host governments can declare a state of emergency and actively relax existing regulations to facilitate timely response and movement of materials (Dube et al., 2016). Such actions are often within their right as sovereign states (Tomasini and Van Wassenhove, 2009). Alternatively, host governments can use similar strict regulations, such as banning satellite communication equipment and increasing the complexity of customs clearance procedures (Kunz and Reiner, 2016), to purposefully hinder logistics efforts or provide a deliberately unequal response to vulnerable or marginalized segments of the population (Dube et al., 2016; Dube and Broekhuis, 2018). These are all examples of the government’s role as a regulator (Quarshie and Leuschner, 2020) spilling over into humanitarian logistics. Government regulation can ease challenges, thereby improving logistics efficiency. Alternatively, regulation can increase the challenges, making operating in a country more challenging for other stakeholders. The level of cooperation from the government can differ between countries. Even the same mechanism can be used with opposite goals to create different environments for external aid. For example, factors like strict import and travel restrictions are often used to hamper the efforts of relief organizations (Kunz and Gold, 2015). According to the case study of several humanitarian organizations by Kunz and Gold (2015), these challenges were severe enough to make a particular NGO operating in Ethiopia fully withdraw from the country in 2011 because of a lack of cooperation from the host government. Alternatively, the same instruments can be used to ease transportation costs through exemptions from paying duty fees, value-added taxes, toll fees and other regulatory fees (Roh et al., 2015; Mushanyuri and Ngcamu, 2020), make warehouse space readily available (McLachlin and Larson, 2011) or shorten waiting times for customs clearance on imported supplies (Kunz and Gold, 2015). Additionally, governments with high regulation and enforcement capabilities are better positioned to make decisions more difficult for humanitarian organizations than those with less sophisticated capabilities (Dube et al., 2016). In a study of the 2011 famine in Somalia, Menkhaus (2012) succinctly summarized the issue of limited access by external humanitarian actors by stating: “Ultimately the problem was one of access, not resource mobilization, and the impediments to access were numerous and daunting” (p. 35).

Outside of governments acting as a host, regulatory authority is also pertinent in mechanisms like third-party certification and field-oriented training activities that build swift trust between various humanitarian actors (Lu et al., 2018). Additionally, governments can enforce strict standards and regulations during the pre-disaster mitigation phase to increase the professionalization of humanitarian logistics functions (Dube and Broekhuis, 2018). The government is responsible for the policy-making process to enhance disaster preparedness (Singh et al., 2018), including developing robust disaster preparedness plans.

In most relief scenarios, the government fills the role of the donor through financial and material contributions to humanitarian operations (Negi, 2022), in addition to subsidies on relief materials and direct support for relief activities (Damoah, 2022). The government also makes direct payments to disaster victims, as in the case of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) cash payments to disaster victims in the USA (Garrett and Sobel, 2003). According to a case study on humanitarian logistics service triads, the government as a donor:

Heaslip and Kovács (2019) make it clear that the government is not the only potential donor; other donor sources in disaster relief can include institutional and private giving. The government’s specific responsibilities for direct financing of disaster relief logistics depend on the specific country. In Indonesia, for example, the government’s responsibilities entail timely disaster management, including making funds available quickly after a disaster (Rayawan et al., 2021). In India:

Similarly, in the USA, formal disaster declarations by government officials are a crucial mechanism for making money available for their particular jurisdictions; each level of government can request assistance from the level above, culminating in a Presidential declaration of a disaster or emergency (Apte and Heath, 2011). Whereas private organizations involved in relief might aim to provide aid while minimizing their costs, government objectives are more often to minimize the social costs associated with a particular disaster or public health emergency (Choudhury et al., 2023; Fan et al., 2024), providing greater flexibility to make funds rapidly and widely available.

When the government is providing funding, just as when coordinating physical response efforts among other actors (Negi, 2022), transparency is essential and challenging (Mushanyuri and Ngcamu, 2020; Rahman et al., 2022). Stakeholders expect to clearly understand how and where funds are being distributed, particularly in the case of public money from the government. Given the issues of politically motivated decision-making discussed above, transparency in the use of direct funds is especially important to help ensure equity in aid across various populations. Clear communication between the government and communities on funding and repairs for the maintenance of critical infrastructure enhances community trust and can even spill over into other aspects of the response, such as greater adherence to official evacuation plans (Rayawan et al., 2021).

Lack of adequate infrastructure, particularly transportation infrastructure, is a critical challenge in humanitarian logistics (Negi, 2022; Tasnim et al., 2022). One of the government’s key responsibilities is maintaining critical infrastructure during the disaster mitigation phase. In Ghana, the government bears responsibility for infrastructure investment, including road networks, hospitals and clinics, transport systems and communication networks (Damoah, 2022). Following the devastating earthquake in Haiti in 2010, the lack of infrastructure was one of the critical issues that emerged and the only issue with the government as the sole stakeholder (Salam and Khan, 2020). Similarly, examining the response efforts to Cyclone Idai in Zimbabwe in 2019 shows that government investments in strengthening the road, telecommunication, warehouse and electrical infrastructure quality are essential factors in relief logistics (Chari et al., 2021). Lessons learned from the 2004 tsunami response in Indonesia demonstrated the importance of the government’s investment in building and maintaining adequate health care and transportation infrastructure to facilitate relief operations (Rayawan et al., 2021). Finally, even simple investments like having contractors available to fill and distribute sandbags and close dike cuts for flooding in The Netherlands can substantially impact disaster mitigation (de Leeuw et al., 2012). These specific case studies collectively illustrate the responsibility and importance of government funding for infrastructure investments to help mitigate disaster impacts and facilitate post-disaster recovery.

Another area where the government’s role in providing funding is critical is the provision of disaster relief materials. Government agencies use a variety of procurement strategies to ensure that victims receive the supplies necessary to enable recovery. These strategies include active relationships with suppliers, resource-sharing agreements with various levels of government, fast-track procurement following a disaster and the stockpiling or prepositioning of critical commodities in various locations before disasters (Wilson et al., 2018). Prepositioned supplies expedite inventory availability immediately following a disaster (Acimovic and Goentzel, 2016; Velasquez et al., 2019). Government organizations make prepositioning decisions regarding the number of storage sites, warehousing locations, distribution strategy, types and volumes of items to stock, frequency of item turnover and whether or how to optimally share with other agencies (Wilson et al., 2018; Velasquez et al., 2019). In most cases, when the government uses funds to procure supplies for disaster response, either before or after a disaster, government organizations act as buyers, while firms and other government organizations act as suppliers (Quarshie and Leuschner, 2020). Prepositioned supplies are especially important for rapid response or sudden-onset disasters (Acimovic and Goentzel, 2016). Relief organizations often rely on the government for timely supply provisioning. In their study of vulnerabilities from the COVID-19 pandemic on the local level of government’s focal role in administering emergency relief items, Minguito and Banluta (2023) found that a smaller government workforce resulted in delayed purchase and delivery of materials. Several of the results discussed suggest that a relationship exists between the level of crisis preparedness in a country and the government’s ability to fund preparedness efforts, either directly through supply provisioning or indirectly through infrastructure investment (Salam and Khan, 2020; Chari et al., 2021; Negi, 2022). In many cases, other nations or international humanitarian groups fill the void in funding relief efforts, but the lack of pre-disaster mitigation and preparedness can lead to increased damage and loss of life that might not have occurred in other countries.

Other differences exist between countries based on the level of involvement permitted by military forces in disaster response. In the USA, for example, active duty forces under the Department of Defense (i.e. US Army, US Navy and US Air Force) currently have legal restrictions that make it difficult to respond to domestic disaster events; these restrictions do not apply to National Guard forces or the USA Coast Guard, which simplifies their involvement in local, state or even federal response efforts (Apte and Heath, 2011). An alternative example is Zimbabwe, where such legal restrictions on military involvement do not exist, and emergency response forces might include the Zimbabwe Armed Forces and the Zimbabwean Air Force (Chari et al., 2021).

The above examples suggest that the government’s role as the responder is another function, often inextricably linked to funding. This role is described less than the others in the literature and lacks evidence for a separate theme, but it is still apparent, particularly in developed nations. In the USA, for example, this role is frequently carried out by the FEMA and often the Department of Defense through National Guard forces (Apte and Heath, 2011). The military often fills this role in countries around the world (Kovács and Spens, 2007; Swanson and Smith, 2013). In response to Cyclone Larry, for example, the Australian Defense Force played a crucial role at the tactical operational level (Oloruntoba, 2010). Governments can only respond within the capacity enabled by their disaster funding. When the government responds, local government actors typically start the relief, while central government and international actors join later (Kabra and Ramesh, 2015); this often occurs after local actors deplete their resources and request additional resources, as described above. An analysis of HSCM in India describes this relationship between government action as a responder and its role as a funder:

As the quote above suggests, once the government’s direct response responsibilities conclude, a significant portion of its involvement in the HSC shifts to its role as a coordinator.

Disaster relief efforts typically require coordinating private, public, local, national and international resources toward an effective response. In addition to government agencies, other stakeholders in humanitarian logistics include donors, logistics companies, NGOs and victims (Wisetjindawat et al., 2014). These stakeholders, on their own, are not explicitly incentivized to coordinate logistics activities – a problem that is made worse by frequent lack of visibility into stakeholder needs and roles (Acimovic and Goentzel, 2016). Whether acting as a host government for external assistance or facilitating response logistics among domestic organizations, the government is responsible for coordinating, facilitating, overseeing and directing efforts among the various actors (Dube et al., 2016; Rodríguez-Espíndola et al., 2018; Chari et al., 2021). The respective local or national government is the principal administrator for humanitarian operations (Mora-Ochomogo et al., 2016) and leads the unity of effort for the response itself (Oloruntoba, 2010). Governments also play a key role in disaster risk management. For example, in the Bangladesh flood of 1998, the government shifted efforts away from the provision of relief (i.e. flood control) toward disaster risk management (i.e. flood-proofing), emphasizing disaster preparedness over response (Moore et al., 2009). Rodríguez-Espíndola et al. (2018) further assert that the government is often tasked with control over the preparedness plan and jurisdiction to coordinate with other organizations involved, serving as a coordinator for the response with situational awareness. Using an approach that combines geographic information system data and optimization modeling, their findings demonstrate that a lack of coordination among government organizations can significantly negatively impact the outcome of disaster response. From an international perspective, multinational groups like the United Nations use logistics cluster approaches that can activate multiple department responses across various member nations for major emergencies (Swanson and Smith, 2013). For example, the World Food Program is a lead agency of a logistics cluster that has developed common services for agencies and organizations, such as eased customs clearance, transportation and warehousing services (Heaslip and Kovács, 2019). This approach combines both coordination and eased regulation on an international scale to facilitate humanitarian logistics.

The cooperation of NGOs and the government during an emergency enables more effective provision of relief to impacted populations (Fathalikhani et al., 2020). Without effective government coordination, the entire relief operation and humanitarian logistics effort can suffer. Failure of the government to coordinate and collaborate with humanitarian organizations through policy and leadership support can significantly undermine the implementation of successful HSCM practices (Agarwal et al., 2021). The government is the party that initiates humanitarian relief by authorizing the operation and resource use, controlling physical assets such as warehouses or fuel depots and helping to regulate foreign relief shipments at entry ports (Singh et al., 2018). Without the government enabling effective logistics, it might not be possible for relief items to reach victims. Finally, the government holds responsibility for a clear division of labor across relief agencies (Xu et al., 2023). In some cases, failure by the government to effectively coordinate with other actors leads to waste or duplicated effort, such as poorly coordinated relief item distribution between the government and NGOs (Abazari et al., 2022; Negi, 2022).

In their case study of the roles assumed by the government during the 2012 Hurricane Sandy response in the USA, Quarshie and Leuschner (2020) identify several practices that demonstrate the government’s significant capacity as a coordinator, including commanding government actors, orchestrating nonprofit and voluntary actors, communication, cooperation, collaboration and managing interfaces. Regarding coordination as a practice, this specifically refers to “the [state, NGOs, nonprofit coalition, and utility firms] dividing or sharing responsibilities between them, based on their expertise areas, experience, resources, and/or pre-agreements and plans” (Quarshie and Leuschner, 2020, p. 15). This division of responsibilities often puts other organizations, not just the government agencies alone, in charge of specific logistics functions. However, these shared responsibilities do not alleviate the government’s overall accountability for the success of the humanitarian relief and logistics effort. Indeed, the lack of an integrated approach and coordination, often the government’s role and responsibility, is a key barrier to success in HSCs (Rahman et al., 2022).

One public policy priority in the disaster response space is the creation of public–private partnerships that facilitate interagency coordination (Swanson and Smith, 2013). Although many of these partnerships exist (Vega and Roussat, 2015), there is an opportunity for the government to further invest in these standing relationships to better leverage the capabilities of NGO humanitarian agencies (Wisetjindawat et al., 2014; Wilson et al., 2018). An example of such a partnership includes the Australian Government working with commercial sellers during Cyclone Larry to have them hold stocks of relief goods on behalf of emergency agencies in case they were needed (Oloruntoba, 2010). Coordination with communities by developing strong ties with partners can help reduce the cultural, geographical and institutional distance between governments and communities in disaster response (Chen et al., 2013).

The general public often trusts community-based organizations more than state or federal government agencies. Swanson and Smith (2013) find that the private sector’s logistics activities in disasters are more effective and efficient than government agencies. Often, commercial firms are unable to support disaster relief efforts, despite a desire to do so, because of the inability of governments to integrate that response (Swanson and Smith, 2013). The government can improve community communication and disaster information dissemination, in addition to testing practical mitigation elements like local evacuation plans, by building and strengthening partnerships with community-based organizations (Rayawan et al., 2021). Governments have an opportunity to reduce disaster impact through early detection and first response by building local capacity; these efforts can leverage community-based organizations connected with hard-to-reach populations that centralized or national relief organizations and government cannot reach (Moore et al., 2009).

This section proposes a theoretical framework for the role of government in humanitarian logistics based on the extant literature. Specifically, the government fills three major roles: host (and regulator), funder (and responder) and coordinator. Table 2 summarizes the potential government activities within these roles, as discussed above. These roles can occur simultaneously, but not all are necessarily present in every disaster situation. For example, a local government organization might handle a minor disaster alone and not necessitate higher levels of government to serve as a host to external aid. As the host, the government accepts or rejects attempts at external assistance. When accepting assistance, the government may ease regulations to enable reduced costs or less burdensome administrative procedures. Alternatively, the government may elect to tighten regulations or leave the status quo, thereby rejecting, successfully or not, attempts at external assistance.

While choosing a specific response to being a host for external assistance, the government also serves in some capacity as the funder and coordinator for humanitarian logistics. As the funder, the government may provide funding to various other stakeholders, including local NGOs, agencies at other levels of government, international humanitarian organizations, logistics service providers and victims themselves. This funding can be direct, such as cash payments or stimulus, or indirect, such as infrastructure investments during the disaster mitigation phase. Particular disasters may require the government to fund all or just some of these actors. Alternatively, the government funding might be internally directed toward a government agency responding to the disaster, particularly at the outset of the event. Finally, as the coordinator, the government conducts activities, including providing administrative oversight for disaster response efforts, reducing duplicated efforts among multiple actors, coordinating the stockpiling and distribution of resources and working with community-based organizations to increase trust and transparency.

Figure 5 illustrates a theoretical framework for the roles discussed above. The role of the government as a host (and regulator) is indicated by the facilitation of aid as a host for external stakeholders. As discussed above, the government can either facilitate this assistance by easing regulations or reject assistance by tightening regulations. This particular relationship reflects how the government’s role as a host is so closely connected with its role as a regulator. The role of the government as a funder (and responder) is indicated by the government providing direct funding, subsidies, infrastructure investments, supply provisioning or initial response efforts directly. Finally, the role of the government as a coordinator is indicated by the government facilitating coordination with stakeholders, including planning, resource use and minimizing duplicated efforts.

Hernández Gress et al. (2021) demonstrate the interplay of the above roles through their sentiment analysis to analyze Mexico’s COVID-19 vaccine distribution strategy. They found that for vaccine distribution and similar public health campaigns, the government is:

Additionally, their analysis suggests that the government must orchestrate the timely distribution of information regarding vaccine security and efficacy while providing the resources necessary to manage the vaccine program (funder role). Information dissemination and physical vaccine distribution (responder role) should all happen in concert with other public health stakeholders (coordinator role) (Hernández Gress et al., 2021). The government’s role in vaccine distribution highlights the connection between each of the themes discussed in this section. The government bears explicit financial responsibility as the funder and coordinates the regional distribution strategy with various stakeholders. Although the distribution strategy does not explicitly refer to the government as a host for external assistance, the responsibility to enforce public policy demonstrates the same regulatory-type role undertaken by a government to either enable or limit humanitarian logistics. In this case, the government’s policies and actions created additional challenges for public health stakeholders, such as mixed communication on mask policies and sanctions for failure to comply with other preventative measures. The government also intended to see educators receive their immunizations first but failed to execute this plan successfully, resulting in schools remaining remote or closed. These policy decisions compare to a host government failing to use regulation to effectively facilitate external aid and assistance. These examples show how a particular government may simultaneously assume multiple roles in responding to the same humanitarian logistics need.

This section discusses key insights from the result of the literature review, gaps in the existing literature with avenues for future research and limitations.

Successful government involvement in HSCs depends on governments using their regulatory abilities (as a host and otherwise) to facilitate humanitarian operations within their borders. Governments typically have the authority to impose regulations and policies that enable humanitarian organizations to operate and carry out logistical activities with greater ease; whether they choose to do so depends on the government’s motivations. In their role as a funder, successful government action involves prioritizing infrastructure investment for disaster mitigation (particularly in elements of the supply chain like transportation networks) and making funds rapidly available to stakeholders following a disaster. The government can further mitigate disaster impacts with robust pre-positioning strategies, including stockpiling, active supplier relationships and resource-sharing agreements. Finally, successful involvement from the government as a coordinator means effectively minimizing duplicated efforts among various stakeholders while leveraging local stakeholders who can have a more immediate impact than national or centrally focused government agencies.

Slow government action can have consequences for HSCM. When governments are too slow to act or not involved enough, funds may be unavailable to other actors, particularly in the early phases of the response. Additionally, NGOs, international aid organizations and victims may simply never receive the money needed for the logistical activities necessary for disaster recovery or may be forced to rely entirely on the uncertainty of donor involvement. Even when donors are involved, clear government communication can be essential to drive donations of cash or goods toward beneficial activities rather than neutral or disruptive effects. Without messages from the government, donors may simply give whatever they feel is helpful rather than what aid organizations and victims actually need. Similarly, government inaction on supply provisioning may leave stakeholders without critical supplies when the disaster strikes, increasing the potential for loss of life. Governments failing to develop short and long-term preparedness plans can have similar results.

Outside of the area of HSCM, prior literature on the relationship between governments and supply chains has focused on sustainable supply chains. Studies in that stream of literature have explored government-encouraged collaboration among solar cell supply chain members (Manouchehrabadi and Yaghoubi, 2019), the government’s role in promoting firm cross-functional coordination and collaboration in circular supply chains (Sudusinghe and Seuring, 2021) and impact of government subsidies aimed to increase green investment and decrease emissions (Li et al., 2021). This review presents parallel evidence of similar relationships between supply chains and the government in a context outside of sustainable supply chains. For example, governments can directly provide funding for critical infrastructure investment or use regulatory authority to incentivize or disincentivize certain activities, such as external disaster assistance, just as government subsidies can incentivize green investment. In the case of circular supply chains, the most frequent external horizontal collaboration practice for supply chain partners is collaboration with the government (Sudusinghe and Seuring, 2021). While the studies in this review did not yield evidence that government interaction is the most frequent form of collaboration, some findings suggest that the role of government is the key driving factor for the success of HSCs (Yadav and Barve, 2015; Singh et al., 2018). Additionally, much of the interaction with governments in circular supply chains is driven by government-led regulatory pressure to promote greater sustainability (Sudusinghe and Seuring, 2021); this is similar to the behavior seen by governments in their role as a host using regulatory authority as the tool to ease or restrict the logistics activities within humanitarian assistance. Therefore, this study adds to the broader supply chain literature by further formalizing the government using its regulatory role as a lever for supply chain influence – in this case through its authority as a host government for external assistance – now in the context of humanitarian logistics.

Furthermore, this review helps explain why the role of government is so much more prevalent in HSCM literature than in the broader SCM literature. Supply chain disruption risks are restrictions in the typical supply chain caused by unplanned events, such as man-made or natural disasters (Shekarian and Mellat Parast, 2021). While other risk types, such as operational risks (Kleindorfer and Saad, 2005), can be predicted with some accuracy based on historical demand, anticipating disaster risk timing and location is nearly impossible (Duong and Chong, 2020). For this reason, collaborative activities, such as information-sharing and collaborative communication, become essential elements of risk mitigation and supply chain resilience (Scholten and Schilder, 2015). This is where government involvement becomes critical. As the central actor and authority in the aftermath of a disaster, governments are best positioned to coordinate with other actors to facilitate effective humanitarian logistics. In their framework for collective response and mutual goal fulfillment in single and discrete repeat events, Gabler et al. (2017) propose a strategy to build supply chain disaster resilience through short-term public–private collaboration. This strategy mirrors the same public–private partnership and collaboration between government, NGOs and international organizations evidenced in this review; humanitarian logistics necessitates government involvement to overcome disruptions to the supply chain caused by disasters in ways that regular SCM does not.

This review found that coordination is a crucial role of governments in humanitarian logistics. Although some practitioners and researchers use the terms collaboration and coordination interchangeably in the context of supply chains (Balcik et al., 2010; Dubey et al., 2019), the two terms have important differences in supply chain literature. Supply chain coordination, the term chosen to describe the theme found in this review, focuses on short-term execution and implementation (Castañer and Oliveira, 2020). Coordination features the following activities between supply chain actors: effective communication, continuous information exchange, partnering and performance monitoring (Arshinder and Deshmukh, 2008; Singh and Power, 2009). Conversely, collaboration describes a higher level of trust, cooperation, mutual benefit, interdependence (Soosay and Hyland, 2015) and long-term relationship building (Castañer and Oliveira, 2020).

Coordination was chosen as the term to describe the role discussed in the literature because much of the literature reflects the government’s role in the response phase of disaster relief. Accordingly, most of the government actions described in the current literature fit the description of coordination, with a focus on activities related to short-term execution and implementation. However, given the continued need for long-term funding for development and infrastructure investment discussed as a challenge facing governments, future research could – and likely should – begin to describe activities associated with collaboration. This shift will be particularly true if the government can identify ways to build trust through greater transparency. Additional opportunities may develop to connect humanitarian logistics literature with supply chain collaboration research if this occurs.

Future research can explore applications of government operational transparency (Buell et al., 2021) in humanitarian logistics and the resulting increase in public trust. Such studies could have a broad-ranging impact on the ability of humanitarian logisticians and governments to carry out supply chain activities effectively. Additionally, multiple-case studies, such as the design used by Dube et al. (2016), could better compare HSCs within countries with varying levels of government transparency or histories of government corruption. Only three of the eight case studies in this review (Kunz and Gold, 2015; Dube et al., 2016; Kunz and Reiner, 2016) used a multiple case study methodology. There are also opportunities to examine the comparison of multiple countries through other empirical methods, including econometric analysis and surveys.

Future research can also explore the application of operational transparency to increase public trust in governments. Additionally, empirical studies can further compare humanitarian logistics performance for governments with varying histories of corruption, including through multiple-case study designs or econometric analysis of secondary data. Finally, the present research emphasizes developing over developed nations – perhaps one of the reasons the role of the government as a host is prominent. Future research can further explore the role of government in developed countries to understand better how those contexts compare and contrast to developing countries, which are most likely to receive external assistance.

More broadly, future research can explore how corruption impacts a government’s ability to fulfill its expected roles and responsibilities. Additionally, research can explore a government’s desire to hide inefficiencies, particularly as it relates to the willingness of other countries to provide external aid or to the effectiveness of funding distribution. Inefficiencies in coordinating stakeholder logistics activities might also lead to a lack of government transparency and further inhibit the success of logistics activities. The risks of government corruption associated with a connection between government inefficiency and transparency in humanitarian logistics should be investigated in future studies.

Although several papers discuss man-made disasters, none of the included studies focus solely on or emphasize man-made disasters over natural disasters; this affirms similar findings from other reviews that suggest the humanitarian logistics discipline has largely ignored the area of man-made disasters, such as conflicts, wars and complex emergencies (Altay et al., 2021). Complex emergencies often result from man-made and natural causes and, until recently, accounted for the majority of humanitarian deliveries (Kunz and Gold, 2015; Altay et al., 2021). Complex disasters are generally responded to by humanitarian organizations with ongoing, long-term development projects and an existing local presence (Starr and Van Wassenhove, 2014). Future research should directly explore man-made disasters, including the role of government in a war situation (e.g. the war in Gaza/Israel and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine). This research could compare the observed government roles between man-made and natural disasters. Furthermore, future research could benefit practitioners by exploring the differences in the government’s role in humanitarian logistics based on factors not explicitly explored in this review (and, therefore, not in the current literature) such as geographic differences in disaster areas.

Like the comparison of observed government roles between different disaster types, future research should also explore the comparison of observed roles between specific nations. As discussed in the context of the government as a funder, the literature suggests a relationship between funding and disaster preparedness. A multiple case study or statistical analysis could explore this relationship further. Additionally, differences in the other roles could be explored, such as the different behavior of host governments between nations of varying development levels or the actions taken to coordinate responses at different levels of government within the same country (i.e. local or state level versus national level).

The results of the present study are shaped by the limited number of papers discussing disasters in developed countries. For example, the current emphasis on the role of government as a host may stem from the number of studies, particularly case studies, which use developing countries as their context. Fewer papers (Apte and Heath, 2011; Quarshie and Leuschner, 2020) focus on a developed country where the relationship between a government and external humanitarian assistance is likely to differ significantly. This focus on developing countries potentially limits the framework’s generalizability concerning developed country contexts. However, the government’s roles as funder and coordinator are still very much, if not more, applicable in those contexts. Additionally, a review involving a greater focus on developed countries would potentially see the government’s role as a responder emerge as its own separate theme, given the additional financial resources available to those countries and the more significant role internal government agencies may play in the actual response efforts. Future research should explore this gap to investigate the differences in government roles between developed and developing countries.

Finally, future research should explore the interaction and connections between the government roles identified in this study. While some studies discuss multiple roles (Table 1), the roles are often discussed in isolation. The primary exception is the interaction between external assistance and a lack of internal funding for relief logistics, which has received attention (Dube et al., 2016; Fathalikhani et al., 2020). It is unclear how the other roles interact and even how ample internal funding affects a government’s decision-making toward its regulatory authorities in humanitarian logistics and its willingness to accept external assistance. Similarly, it is not entirely clear whether the level of government funding to stakeholders impacts the degree of government coordination. Future research should explore these questions of significant practical importance.

This section discusses the contributions and implications for research and practice and the study’s limitations.

This study makes several contributions to research. First, it synthesizes the findings from diverse research disciplines and methodologies, exploring relationships between studies to identify common themes throughout the literature. The review identifies three distinct, but not mutually exclusive, government roles in HSCM and several associated government activities within each. The findings advance the HSCM research domain by presenting a comprehensive framework for the role of government, which has been identified as the foundational critical success factor for HSCs and their resilience.

Second, based on the thorough review of the extant literature, this review provides gaps in knowledge that present opportunities for future research. Given the significance and frequency of the government’s role in humanitarian logistics and the multitude of humanitarian stakeholders that interface with government actors, this study presents research opportunities to better understand the role of government, particularly in situations and contexts that are presently underexplored.

Finally, this study contributes to broader SCM literature by illustrating why the government is more involved in HSCM than in typical SCM. As discussed in Section 5.1, supply chain disruptions from disaster events force governments to become involved in coordinating stakeholders in the supply chain network. These same disruptions also encourage involvement from external aid organizations, which places the government as host to logistical activities inside its borders. Finally, governments are obligated to fund disaster response and mitigation efforts based on a desire to reduce the social costs of disaster events; this contrasts with general expectations for government funding in typical supply chains outside of public goods. These factors contribute to scenarios where governments are often far more involved in HSCs than regular supply chains.

This study provides a framework for HSCM stakeholders to more effectively interface with the government in disaster events. For NGOs and international humanitarian organizations working around the world, the government’s role as a host is crucial to understand. Governments, through their extensive regulatory authority, can severely limit or substantially ease the ability of these organizations to carry out their intended missions. By understanding the various mechanisms for potential limitations to access described in this review before working in specific regions, aid organizations can preemptively determine strategies for those hurdles before they arise.

This study also provides practical implications for disasters of different types. For example, as noted in the discussion of the role of the government as a funder, supply prepositioning is especially important in sudden-onset disasters. Activities like stockpiling and prepositioning are less critical in long-term development or disaster rehabilitation. In studies focusing on logistics for long-term development rather than rapid-onset emergencies, the results often emphasized the importance of transportation infrastructure investment. In both slow and rapid-onset responses, however, the government remains the party most often responsible for authorizing resource use from warehouses or depots and exercising control over foreign relief shipments at logistical entry points. Accordingly, the government must prioritize both rapid authorization of resource use and easing regulation for fast-track relief assistance wherever possible.

Additionally, this study suggests several challenges and opportunities for governments engaged in humanitarian logistics. One of the primary challenges for governments in humanitarian logistics is to build trust in the government’s ability to coordinate the response. The government as a coordinator has several avenues to build trust, including increased operational transparency (Rayawan et al., 2021), increased professionalization of logistics professionals through methods like additional third-party certification and improved regulation (Dube and Broekhuis, 2018; Lu et al., 2018). Increased trust can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the entire disaster relief program through better adherence to government policies and mandates. Furthermore, increased trust in the government can empower the government to coordinate among disaster relief partners across the supply chain more successfully.

One of the critical responsibilities of a government is infrastructure investment as a disaster mitigation strategy. An ongoing challenge, particularly in developing countries, is investing effectively during the pre-disaster phase in transportation, public health and communications infrastructure. Although such investments are costly, they are critical to enabling HSCs. Whenever possible, governments should aim to make these investments a budgetary and public policy priority. A closely associated challenge is sustaining support for humanitarian logistics across the full cycle from relief operations to long-term development (Kunz and Reiner, 2016). Either because of a general lack of interest in long-term sustainability (Negi, 2022) or earmarking funding specifically to earlier phases of a disaster (Kunz and Reiner, 2016), support for long-term funding is often below levels necessary for sustained infrastructure repair and maintenance. Such funding is essential to build resilience in communities for subsequent disaster events. Governments have a challenge and opportunity to prioritize long-term development projects to see the full benefits of their infrastructure investments.

A final challenge and opportunity for governments is reducing corruption in humanitarian logistics. Whether tied to political influences or not, corruption can significantly hamper equality in the execution of the HSC, including the distribution of materials, infrastructure investment and funding. Similarly, governments should endeavor to limit restrictions on external assistance. Supplies and relief workers move more effectively with eased customs clearance, fees and regulation. Wherever possible, governments should aim to make the movement of items and people into the country for humanitarian assistance as simple as possible.

This review has several limitations. As noted above, none of the papers in this review focus solely on or emphasize man-made disasters. For this reason, the findings of this review and the resulting theoretical framework are more appropriate for generalization to natural disasters. With no studies in this review exploring man-made disasters alone, whether the results and framework directly apply to that context cannot be determined. An additional limitation is the exclusion of non-peer-reviewed research. By design, this search criteria excludes any grey literature (e.g. conference papers, government reports, white papers, etc.) and media reports. Some of this literature could provide additional insight into the research question, given the broad interest in humanitarian and disaster response logistics outside of the typical academic research domain.

Finally, the product of a systematic review is not a meta-answer to the proposed research question but instead offers some theoretical insight or a new model to inform understanding of the phenomenon in question and the synthesized results discussed (Popay et al., 2006). This is certainly the case with the current review; the findings and framework proposed inform understanding of how the government interfaces with HSCs and provide greater context to the studies included in the extant literature rather than providing a conclusive answer to the definitive answer to what roles the government assumes in humanitarian logistics. Most importantly, given the governments’ consistent and significant impact on humanitarian logistics activities across a broad range of disaster types, this review aims to propose and encourage avenues for future research on this crucial topic.

With the expected increase in the frequency and economic impact of major natural disasters (Coronese et al., 2019; Foerster, 2021), as well as the effect of widely disruptive pandemic events such as COVID-19, the study of humanitarian relief has become progressively more important. One of the core activities within humanitarian relief is humanitarian logistics. The role of government is the key critical success factor in HSCs (Yadav and Barve, 2015; Singh et al., 2018). Despite the foundational function of governments in humanitarian logistics, there is a relative lack of focus in the extant literature across various research domains and research methodologies on this important topic (Quarshie and Leuschner, 2020). Accordingly, this study explores the role of government in humanitarian logistics through a systematic literature review using thematic analysis. This study illustrates the steady increase in research on the topic over the past 20 years with peer-reviewed papers stemming from various research disciplines and methodologies.

The study finds that the government undertakes three fundamental roles in humanitarian logistics: the host (and regulator), the funder (and responder) and the coordinator. Although these roles can be assumed simultaneously, not all are necessarily present in each disaster. As the host, the government uses its influence and regulatory authority to enable or restrict aid and external assistance. As the funder, the government provides direct or indirect funding for relief supplies, logistics and infrastructure and may serve as the initial responder in the disaster itself. Finally, as the coordinator, the government takes the lead in administering and coordinating logistics efforts among various humanitarian organizations, including NGOs, various levels of government, international humanitarian organizations, logistics service providers and victims. By summarizing the available literature and presenting several opportunities for future research, this study addresses a critical gap in the comprehensive understanding of the specific roles associated with a primary stakeholder in nearly every disaster of every size and type around the world.

This article is based on research that was previously published as a chapter of a Doctoral dissertation, titled “Disaster Relief and Humanitarian Logistics: Three Essays,” submitted to Bentley University in 2023. The dissertation is available through ProQuest. Substantial revisions and updates have been made for this publication. The author would like to thank Dr Euthemia Stavrulaki for her substantial support in this research. The author also thanks the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments and constructive feedback, which have significantly contributed to improving the quality of this manuscript.

Disclaimer: The views in this paper are the author’s own and do not represent those of the US Coast Guard, the Department of Homeland Security or any other agency or office of the US Government.