Cash‐Based Assistance Versus In‐Kind Aid in Conflict Zone: A System Dynamics Evaluation of Humanitarian Effectiveness in Sudan

Abeer Tajalsir

System Dynamics Review2026https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.70017article
AJG 2
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

This paper applies system dynamics modeling to compare the effectiveness of cash‐based assistance (CBA) and in‐kind aid in conflict‐affected Sudan. Using primary data collected from local stakeholders, the model simulates aid distribution dynamics under three conflict intensity scenarios: Constant violence, intensified violence, and declining violence. The study evaluates both reachability and cost efficiency of each aid modality across these scenarios. Findings suggest that Policy A—expanding the number of capable local actors—improves aid delivery in all contexts but is, particularly, effective under intensified violence, where in‐kind aid supported by widespread local engagement is more resilient. In contrast, Policy B, which shifts aid allocation toward CBA, proves more efficient in the constant and declining violence scenarios, where reduced transaction costs and greater flexibility enhance delivery. The research highlights the need for adaptive aid strategies tailored to evolving security conditions and emphasizes the critical role of local actors in optimizing humanitarian response.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.70017

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{abeer2026,
  title        = {{Cash‐Based Assistance Versus In‐Kind Aid in Conflict Zone: A System Dynamics Evaluation of Humanitarian Effectiveness in Sudan}},
  author       = {Abeer Tajalsir},
  journal      = {System Dynamics Review},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.70017},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Cash‐Based Assistance Versus In‐Kind Aid in Conflict Zone: A System Dynamics Evaluation of Humanitarian Effectiveness in Sudan

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.