This article develops aid-mediated dependency as an analytical lens for understanding aid architecture, political settlements, and parallel governance in protracted crisis. Rather than treating the humanitarian-development-peace nexus in south sudan: aid architecture, political settlements, and the reproduction of dependency as a descriptive case, the manuscript argues that the humanitarian-development-peace nexus in South Sudan has become a mode of governance in its own right: it saves lives and stabilises access to basic services, but it also relaxes fiscal pressure on elites, expands parallel administration, and deepens a form of dependency that is politically produced rather than merely economically inherited. Anchored in Aid effectiveness literature (Easterly versus Sachs debate; Moyo); critical humanitarian studies (Duffield; Barnett political settlements and external assistance (Parks Unsworth). Challenges the nexus framework by demonstrating how aid architecture constitutively shapes rather than merely responds to South Sudan's political economy. the paper translates the topic brief into three linked questions: How has the volume, modality, and political conditionality (or lack thereof) of humanitarian and development assistance shaped the incentive structures of South Sudanese political elites particularly their disincentive to provide public goods or build tax capacity? In what ways does humanitarian aid through market creation, salary supplementation, and parallel governance substitute for state functions in ways that perpetuate aid dependency rather than building state legitimacy? What is the political economy of the South Sudan aid industry itself examining how donor interests, INGO organisational survival imperatives, and UN bureaucratic
Abraham Kuol Nyuon (Mon,) studied this question.