Remittances Vs Philanthropy The Perspective of Development Workers — Global Issues
HARARE, Jan 14 (IPS) – Across Africa, economic transformation and development are fueled by two key sources of funding: remittances and philanthropy. Both play an important role, but as conditions change in many African countries, one fact is becoming increasingly clear – remittances are emerging as a sustainable, honorable force, compared to traditional philanthropy.
While philanthropy, often driven by well-intentioned donors, often creates short-term interventions, disbursements empower households with the freedom to define their future.
Remittances are integrated into the identity of Africans as they support their families and communities, often on the basis of the assumption that if one of us succeeds, it brings everyone else down.
With this information, it begs the question, isn’t it time to rethink our approach to developing Africa and embrace greater remittances? The main difference between remittances and philanthropy is that the latter is often the result and comes from excess while the former is based on tradition and the expectation of sacrifice.
Impact Scale
According to the World Bank, remittances to sub-Saharan Africa will exceed $50 billion in 2023, a year that is expected to decrease, reducing the amount allocated to charities and official development aid.
Countries like Egypt, Nigeria, Morocco, Ghana, and Kenya top the charts, with families using these funds to pay for education, health care, and small businesses.
Unlike most philanthropic programs, remittances go directly to the intended recipients – often without the burden of administrative costs or outside agendas.
It must be noted that although remittances can be powerful, they often come from obligation rather than abundance, which can lead to exploitation where the giver is expected to give at all times, despite strong obligations.
This volatility can create a cycle in which recipients may feel pressured to rely on these funds, potentially hampering local entrepreneurship and self-sufficiency.
Furthermore, while remittances provide immediate financial relief, they do not always address the underlying socio-economic problems that cause migration in the first place. Finally, balancing the benefits of remittances with the need for sustainable development strategies cannot be overemphasized.
Aid interventions, no matter how generous, are often dependent on specific projects decided by donors, who decide which issues are priorities, whether in education or health.
This top-down approach, while beneficial in the short term, often ignores the unique needs of individual communities, leading to reliance on aid cycles rather than focus.
When local people are not involved in the decision-making process, interventions may miss the mark, failing to adapt to cultural contexts or real needs.
As a result, communities can rely on external services, which stifle local initiative and innovation, ultimately perpetuating cycles of poverty. In addition, the focus on immediate results often overshadows systemic problems that hinder long-term development, creating a dynamic where local leaders feel compelled to conform to donors’ priorities rather than representing the real needs of their community.
Therefore, while philanthropic efforts can provide valuable support, a more collaborative approach that prioritizes community engagement and empowerment is essential to building resilience and allowing communities to forge their own paths to sustainable development.
Empowerment by Choice
Remittances offer something help can’t: independence. Families receiving remittances decide how best to allocate those funds, based on their most pressing needs.
This flexibility builds and strengthens the agency while maintaining and improving reputation, allowing recipients to meet challenges in real time, without waiting for outside intervention.
A woman in rural Zimbabwe, for example, can receive monthly remittances from a relative working in the UK. With these funds, he may choose to send his daughter to school while investing in the poultry business to generate additional income. He is no longer just a beneficiary who receives help; he is now an active ambassador in the economy of his community.
This is in stark contrast to philanthropic programs, which may prioritize education or health but ignore opportunities for long-term economic empowerment.
However, we should not forget that many expats sacrifice their financial growth to help their families back home. The impact is real, but the invisible costs to the diaspora are often overlooked.
A Continuous Alternative
Philanthropy’s Achilles’ heel is often its temporary nature. Donor fatigue, shifting political agendas, and economic downturns can suddenly end well-intentioned programs, leaving communities without the support they depend on.
The study highlights how public funding and unrealistic expectations can lead to the failure of non-profit organizations to sustain their efforts in the long term, arguably, because of these short-term commitments.
Compared to this, remittances are a strong source of income. Diaspora communities tend to continue supporting their families even in difficult times, ensuring a stable financial flow.
In addition, remittances are often reinvested locally, creating a ripple effect that encourages small businesses and local markets. This bottom-up economic project develops home-grown solutions to poverty.
Over time, it is expected to contribute to reducing reliance on foreign aid so that remittances can ensure a stable financial flow that is often unaffected by political or economic changes in the receiving countries.
The World Bank’s 2023 report highlights that remittances grew by 5% in sub-Saharan Africa, even during the global economic downturn, underscoring the strength of these flows.
A New Development Model
To be clear, philanthropy still has an important role to play, especially in areas where emergency aid is needed, such as during disasters or times of health crisis.
However, as Africa’s economic ambitions grow, there is an urgent need to rethink how development is financed and implemented.
Rather than relying solely on donor-driven models, governments, NGOs, and international institutions should focus on creating environments that allow them to use remittances.
This also means reducing operating costs, actively supporting immigration, and building a financial infrastructure that allows families to expand these funds.
If philanthropy is to shed its many negative connotations to remain relevant, it must evolve beyond charity. Strategic partnerships with diaspora communities can increase the impact of both sources of funding, aligning donor goals with grassroots solutions that are already being tried and tested with remittances.
To sum it up, “philanthropy is emerging in excess, enabling strategic, long-term changes – building schools, hospitals, and infrastructure that end poverty.”
Parting shot
Africa’s future lies in power, not dependence. Remittances, with their specific, flexible, and continuous nature, represent a dignified form of support available.
As Africans continue to take control of their own destiny, it is important to align philanthropic efforts with policies that maximize the impact of remittances. The lesson is clear: development is most successful when it comes from the hands of those it is intended to help.
© Inter Press Service (2025) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service
Source link
