Sharing with my ex unicef colleagues as it further contributes to the discussion of UN reform.
UN Pay Should Be Based on Merit, Not Passport
Shivonne Logan
The New Humanitarian
19 March 2026
Summary
The author, a Yale public policy graduate student, argues that the UN and INGOs must use the current wave of institutional reform — including the UN80 initiative — to dismantle colonial-era salary structures that systematically undervalue national staff.
Drawing on her own experience in Amman, Logan describes a Jordanian colleague with superior qualifications who earned roughly half her remuneration package solely because she held the stronger passport. She traces the disparity to two foundational principles: the 1920 Noblemaire Principle, which sets international staff salaries against the highest civil service scale among member states, and the 1948 Flemming Principle, which benchmarks national staff pay against local market rates.
The result is a two-tier system in which national staff bear the greatest physical risk — at least 330 humanitarian workers were killed in 2025, the vast majority of them national staff — while earning a fraction of their international counterparts' pay.
Logan calls for unified salary scales by duty station rather than by passport, and points to Project Fair at the University of Edinburgh as an existing framework that organisations such as the Danish Refugee Council have already adopted.
Quotes
"It's no secret that national humanitarian staff face greater risk for lower pay: these inequities have been coded into the aid system."
"The very systems adopted to ensure that the sector attracts talent disincentivises the best and brightest from pursuing humanitarian careers."
I am all for this - but this article implies that somehow this has soley benefitted only international staff with "better passports" - we know a large portion of UNICEF IPs are from programme countries- are they equally ready to give up thier benefits for the sake of equity? Also this calls in to question "mobility" and the purpose being to cross fertilise ideas and examples from one country to the next via staff who move. What about cost of living differences? Sometimes we work in countries where expatriates rent is 2 or 3 or 10 times what a local would pay. There would be a number of factors to consider - extending education benefits to national staff. This would all have huge budgetary implications for UNCEF at a time when we just sacked 3000 staff for budget cuts last year. The UN is already seen as bloated and not a perferred partner of donors - how would this work? I think there are incremental ways this inequity could be managed better. There are also several efficiencies UNICEF could pursue (and it would have to be UN wide - as entitlements are UN Wide and not up to UNICEF) - the Danish refugee concilk has done this - but they don't have to have the same entitlement scheme as every INGO in the world like the UN does with all UN agencies having to agree. This issue needs to be addressed - but blaming it on us with better passports - as it sounds like - is not really helpful when we know many nationalities benefit. But I do agree, this is something to be addressed - how we do it is another issue to tackle in an environment where the UN must roll of thier sleeves and do better and with less.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting contribution to the discussion. But I wonder if the article may be addressing a different issue than the one you describe.
ReplyDeleteLogan’s argument is not about the nationality of staff currently on the international professional scale. As you note, many internationally recruited staff come from programme countries. The distinction she questions is the structural one between internationally recruited and nationally recruited staff.
That distinction reflects two different salary systems. International staff are paid on the global scale set for the UN system, while national staff salaries are benchmarked to local labour markets.
If the proposal for unified salary scales were implemented in the way suggested, the practical implication would be that national staff salaries move toward the current international professional level. In many UN agencies, personnel costs already account for perhaps half of total expenditure. Aligning those scales would therefore increase the wage bill very substantially, potentially by an amount comparable to the entire budget of the organisation.
That may not be a desirable reform, but it is a very different proposition from addressing inequities within the existing system. The humanitarian sector clearly depends heavily on national staff, often working in difficult and hazardous conditions, and their contribution deserves recognition.
The difficulty is that a full salary harmonisation would not simply correct an inequity. It would fundamentally change the cost structure of the UN agencies at a time when many are already reducing staff because of severe funding constraints. That financial reality is absent from the article.
Interesting, i am sure many national staff question why they are paid less than international! but i really dont agree it is a passport thing.
ReplyDeleteInternationals are sent to programmes because of the expertise / ideas that they bring to the programme. they also have far greater costs to bear than national staff, and they and their families give up living and growing up in their own cultures and with their relatives. Thats their choice, i agree but there is a price to pay in living the international life.
I think that the UN striving to be the best employer in programme countries is both fair and generous.
I would suggest, that if now there is enough expertise already available in programme countries, then perhaps it is now time to look at only employing national staff in those countries? with perhaps only very senior staff being International.
Such a programme might then lose the cross fertilisation experience and ideas that international staff can contribute however....
What exactly is a better/stronger passport? I believe many factors were at play when determining these salary scales. There are many international staff from programme countries, some of those countries classified as the so called 'least developed countries'.
DeleteSo, I do agree with you Colin that I dont think it's a passport thing
ReplyDeleteI made the first comments anonymous by mistake. The article clearly has a slant that indicated those with "better passports" have had our day and that it is time to spread this around and fix the inequities I agree with Thomas that it would not be affordable to migrate towards one salary scale all at once. We could theoretically spend our entire budget on salaries - and there are any Country offices where salaries reach or exceed half the budget already. I think a more comprehensive look at cost saving measures and configurations of staff and implementation modalities that could be more efficient. While I have questioned it - the new push for more multi country offices - could be a good start. Combining 4 countries under one Rep would mean 3 less Reps, 6 less Deputies (one DepRep Op and one DR programme per country) and however many staff are attached to those posts - that would be a huge decrease in salary burden with streamlined teams in 4 countries under 1 leader. Likewise the move to shrink or remove regional offices and bloated HQ could cut back some of our layers. They are many ways to "skin a cat".
ReplyDeleteAlso, a multi country model under one Rep - could mean national staff could play enhanced key leadership roles in those countries where the Rep in not resident - this could bring about a new cadre of staff and bring some equity of done correctly. But the wheels of UN staff entitlement changes turn slowly and are very risk averse.
ReplyDelete