For decades, discussions about Africa’s development have focused on foreign direct investment and official aid. But another source of resources is large, steady, and often overlooked: the African diaspora. In 2024, remittances to Africa reached US$104 billion, more than twice the official development assistance, highlighting their growing importance to national economies. 

What stands out is not only the scale but also the reliability. Compared to more discretionary funding, including philanthropy, remittances often hold up better during crises and reach households and communities quickly. For example, The World Bank notes that remittances helped sub-Saharan African countries pay for essential imports and debt service obligations in 2023, while countries across the continent faced a perfect storm of food insecurity, severe weather (both droughts and floods), supply chain disruptions, and debt pressures. The African Development Bank also emphasises remittances as a critical financial inflow with significant development potential when paired with the right enabling conditions. 

Yet official remittance data captures only part of the picture. Estimates suggest unrecorded flows through informal channels could be roughly 50 percent larger than recorded flows. Beyond money, diaspora engagement also includes skills, networks, entrepreneurial talent, and knowledge transfer.  

Therefore, there is an opportunity to build on what already flows – not only by asking diasporans to give more but also by making it easier for those who want to do more to give confidently and consistently. Both remittances and philanthropy face a similar challenge when donors seek to support outcomes beyond immediate needs: people need trusted pathways to give, opportunities that resonate, and credible information about where money goes and what it achieves. With a stronger ecosystem for cross-border giving, actors can improve how existing giving is channelled and unlock participation from diasporans who are often overlooked. This matters even more at this moment, as aid budgets tighten and funding uncertainty grows across Africa, prompting renewed attention to other sources of capital that can help close emerging gaps. 

This article, in collaboration with the African Diaspora Network (ADN), is based on the Bridgespan Group’s research which was funded by the Gates Foundation. ADN harnesses and engages the intellectual, philanthropic, and entrepreneurial capacity of Africans and friends of Africa in support of economic and social development. This research offers a roadmap for how diaspora giving could become easier to track, easier to trust, and more connected to long-term development goals, as informed by interviews with 18 organisations that engage with the African diaspora giving ecosystem in various ways. We have also conducted an analysis of giving pathways to better understand how diasporans give and share best practices to catalyse more support for the continent. 

Misunderstandings About Diaspora Giving 

Often, conversations around diaspora giving begin and end with remittances. That perspective hides more than it reveals. Remittances are often treated as private household transfers rather than a meaningful form of social giving, while other diaspora resources are barely counted. 

Most remittances play an essential role in communities, supporting daily household needs such as food, housing, school fees, and health care. The opportunity is to strengthen the ecosystem around diaspora giving, making it easier for diasporans who want to do more alongside that household support. 

In our research, diaspora giving showed up in several overlapping forms: 

• Household support (remittances)
• Community giving through hometown associations, faith networks, and alumni groups
• Formal philanthropy to civil society organisations and NGOs
• Diaspora investment
• Nonfinancial contributions like skills transfer, mentoring, and network access

Remittances may be the most visible piece, but there are also forms of diaspora giving that support collective outcomes – projects or services that go beyond a single household. These include funding a clinic or classroom, upgrading water or sanitation systems, or supporting community-based organisations. It takes trusted intermediaries, reliable vetting processes, and clear feedback about results for funders to contribute to collective outcomes. 

This is where participation can grow. Many diasporans have disposable income and a strong desire to contribute, but they do not see a clear role for themselves in “philanthropy.” Simple, credible ways for giving can make participation feel both feasible and worthwhile, expanding the base of contributors while improving the predictability and impact of what already flows. In some contexts, younger generations also show interest in addressing long-term systemic issues and responding in moments of crisis, often alongside a desire to preserve cultural identity and community. 

Many members of the diaspora contribute time, expertise, and networks, in addition to financial support. Stigmata Tenga, executive director at Africa Philanthropy Network and president of the Tanzania-based Foundation for Civil Society, shares, “The diasporans are experts, investors, and subject-matter specialists; they can offer more than just money, for example, facilitating a master class. This would facilitate a more valuable knowledge exchange.” Recognising the potential, ADN runs programmes under its “Beyond Remittances” banner that include the Accelerating Business Leadership and Entrepreneurship and Builders of Africa’s Future to promote mentoring and skills transfer. Additionally, its African Diaspora Investment Symposium expands networks through annual convenings. 

For funders, the question is not “How do we move more money?” That is an individual challenge. Instead, it is: “What would make it easier for diaspora resources to support collective outcomes, while still supporting households?” That is an ecosystem challenge. Progress toward addressing that challenge will depend on shared learning and more accurate narratives about how diaspora giving and investing already work; policy and regulatory environments that reduce costs and make credible cross-border participation easier; and investment in pathways that work, while experimenting with new models supported by clear standards and simple feedback loops. 

Why the Current System Limits Impact 

In our research, the constraints for translating diaspora giving into sustained, collective outcomes were less about a lack of interest and more about ecosystem weaknesses. 

Trust. Many diaspora donors want credible ways to give beyond their immediate networks but struggle to assess who is credible, where funds go, and what is reported back. When vetting standards vary and reporting is inconsistent, trust becomes costly to build and easy to lose. Concerns about government-linked risks, governance, policy unpredictability, and weak recourse can also heighten perceived risk for diaspora investment and erode confidence in investable opportunities. Research by Cenfri and FSD Africa echoes these dynamics, noting that informal flows are widespread and constraints include a “lack of trust in formal financial services.” Trust, in other words, is not only a message issue, but a design one. 

Friction. Informal pathways still dominate because they feel simpler or safer than formal options. High costs, complexity, and inconvenience push people toward what is easiest, even when it is less visible and harder to coordinate. Sub-Saharan Africa remains one of the most expensive regions in the world to receive remittances, with the cost of sending US$200 averaging 8.78 percent of the transaction value compared to the global average of 6.49 percent. Similar barriers show up in diaspora giving more broadly: few user-friendly ways to pool funds, verify opportunities, or give across borders. There is also a mismatch in offerings. Many diasporans – especially mid-tier givers and professionals with disposable income – are overlooked by options designed either for small, informal transfers or high-net-worth philanthropy. Additionally, for nonfinancial contributions, clear, credible pathways to contribute skills and knowledge are often missing, even when interest is high. 

Coordination. Even where promising models exist, progress is slowed by fragmentation: patchy data, inconsistent standards, and duplicated efforts. Research flags the risk of fragmented approaches and argues for more systematic, multi-stakeholder coordination across the diaspora giving and investing value chain. Shared infrastructure and more shared learning can reduce duplication and make trust portable across contexts. 

The Roadmap: Now, Next, Longer Term 

We view the roadmap as having three phases. Across all phases, success is measured by more than participation. It includes the emergence of structured, diaspora-led vehicles, such as pooled funds, blended finance mechanisms, and co-investment platforms, through which diaspora capital can attract domestic and institutional capital. It also includes pairing financial flows with “brain circulation”: talent, institutional partnerships, and knowledge transfer that reinforce trust, support effective delivery of funded initiatives, and strengthen both the pipeline of vetted opportunities and the talent and institutions capable of delivering them over time. 

Phase 1 (Next 12 – 24 Months): Build Trust and Share Learnings 

The near term involves strengthening the ecosystem so that diaspora giving and investment are better understood and prioritised – both by funders who incorporate it into their strategies, and by governments, in some cases, that have not yet passed enabling policies or lowered regulatory friction that impedes diaspora capital.  

The next step would be to make it easier for diaspora donors – and potential donors – to confidently answer fundamental questions: Where will the funds go? Will it truly reach the intended destination and have the impact I hope for? What will be reported back, and when? A “good enough” trust infrastructure would have ready answers to those questions, with shared approaches to verification and transparency mechanisms that are both feasible for organisations and meaningful for donors. Verification could include reviewing whether recipients and projects are legitimate and capable and have basic financial controls, as well as ensuring funds can be transferred safely and compliantly. Transparency could include clear fee disclosure, confirmation that funds have reached the intended recipient, and simple, regular reporting on what was achieved. 

What progress can look like: 

• A map of what giving and investing looks like – from discovery to transfer to reporting – alongside credible intermediaries and a shared evidence base on what diaspora giving and investing already support, and where they can be catalytic.
• Alignment on “good enough” reporting that builds confidence without overburdening organisations.
• Governance and transparency standards that can be used across platforms.
• Agreement among funders, diaspora networks, and public-sector actors on the biggest sources of friction (e.g. compliance clarity, cross-border donation rules, incentives, and transaction costs).

How it can look in practice  

TrustAfrica’s African Giving Narratives Project, developed in partnership with GivingTuesday, documents the diversity and impact of African giving, including community- and faith-based practices, and the ways diaspora remittances support families and communities. By building a shared evidence base (including the African Giving Traditions collection), it aims to counter the harmful “Africans don’t give” narrative and recognise everyday generosity – including remittances – as a meaningful and undervalued form of African philanthropy. In doing so, it strengthens the foundations for trust and coordination by making giving more visible, better understood, and easier for funders and other actors to engage with responsibly. 

Phase 2 (2 – 5 Years): Reduce Friction and Expand Repeatable Pathways 

With an emerging baseline trust infrastructure in place, the next step is to make it easier for more funders to get involved, especially diasporans who want to contribute beyond household transfers. The idea is to reduce friction, without compromising on transparency and governance, using approaches such as pooled funds, matched giving, and simple on-ramps that meet diaspora donors where they already transact – for example, a remittance “add-on” that lets people direct a small share to vetted community initiatives. 

What progress can look like: 

• Pooled funds and diaspora-led vehicles – funds, platforms, or networks where the diaspora has meaningful governance over how resources are pooled, allocated, and monitored – with clear governance, audited controls, and simple reporting processes.
• Mechanisms that help diaspora capital attract other sources, such as matched-giving mechanisms, blended-finance arrangements, or co-investment platforms, so each dollar goes further, and participation is easier to sustain.
• Smoother giving and investment experiences through payments infrastructure (including remittance rails), fintech solutions, and digital wallets, paired with baseline compliance on both sides (donor compliance where required, and recipient legitimacy), and simple transparency that includes fee disclosure, confirmation of receipt, and reporting.

How it can look in practice 

The Remit Hope platform employs an emerging approach to bridge the gap between everyday remittances and more sustained, collective diaspora giving. It allows people to direct a portion of what they send home towards vetted, community-led initiatives, and its structure makes giving more visible, traceable, and easier to repeat. The platform also pairs grassroots campaigns with a matching model where partner foundations can double donations, demonstrating how early-stage vehicles can amplify small individual contributions and begin to attract complementary institutional capital as they scale. 

Phase 3 (5 – 10 Years): Build Shared Infrastructure and Connect to Capital Markets 

Over the longer term, the aim is not only to encourage more funders to consider diaspora giving and investing, but also to make diaspora capital a more structured and integrated component of African capital markets, supported by standards that work across platforms and borders, shared data, and policies that reduce costs and uncertainty. 

What progress can look like: 

• More coherent policy and regulatory environments for cross-border giving and investment, informed by lived practice and evidence.
• Shared due diligence and reporting norms – minimum checks on recipient or investee legitimacy and financial controls, plus standard reporting templates – that reduce duplication and enable multiple actors to co-invest with confidence.
• Data and learning systems (e.g. common templates and repositories for organisation/deal profiles, transaction costs and volumes, and comparable results reporting) that help effective models scale and reduce duplicated due diligence and one-off pilots.
• Institutional partnerships that link capital with talent, research, and operational capability.

How it can look in practice 

The African Exchanges Linkage Project, led by the Nairobi-based African Securities Exchange Association and the African Development Bank, aims to make cross-border trading easier across participating African exchanges through a shared platform. Over time, such initiatives can help diaspora capital transition one-off transactions to a more structured, integrated part of African capital markets, while creating pathways that institutional investors can also use. 

***

Diaspora resources are already an important and resilient part of Africa’s financial landscape. There is an opportunity to further strengthen the ecosystem so that people can give and invest with more confidence and consistency. To realise that opportunity, more funders could invest in the infrastructure that amplifies diaspora capital. This includes convening key actors, supporting diaspora-led narratives, investing in high-potential giving vehicles, and strengthening shared standards and feedback loops. In a period of funding uncertainty, the fastest way to advance towards longer-term development goals may be to make an already steady resource easier to direct, without asking households to carry more of the burden. 

Acknowledgements

The Bridgespan Group is grateful to those who agreed to be interviewed for this research. The team that developed this article would also like to thank Jan Schwier, Khethiwe Mnganga, Fhatuwani Mabila, Louis Moussi, Larry Yu, and Oyetola Oduyemi from the END Fund who provided guidance throughout the research process. 

This article was developed with support from the Gates Foundation. The findings and conclusions contained within are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of the Gates Foundation.