Every month, millions of texts ping in across West Africa: “Cash alert — family support sent.” For many households in countries like Nigeria, Ghana or Kenya, money sent home by relatives abroad isn’t just a welcome boost — it’s a lifeline. Remittances make up billions in annual inflows, cushioning families against hardship, paying school fees and helping save lives. In Nigeria alone, diaspora workers sent home more than $20.9 billion in 2024, amounting to about 6 per cent of the country’s GDP.
And there are countless stories behind those figures. In rural communities, the funds can mean food on the table and a roof over heads. Diaspora cash often sparks small-business ventures, pays for healthcare and opens up school gates that might otherwise stay shut. Globally, remittance flows top hundreds of billions of dollars, reaching vulnerable families even in times of crisis.
Yet for every success story, there’s another question lurking: Are we simply propping up day-to-day survival — or are remittances building nations?
For many critics, that’s where the picture gets complicated. Across Africa — and beyond — a common concern is that the very money meant to lift families can sometimes trap them in a cycle of dependency. In Kenya, for example, commentators have pointed out that while remittances keep households going, very little of that huge flow goes into industry, hospitals, power grids or sustainable growth.
There’s also a social cost. The emotional and financial pressure on diaspora workers is real. Many feel a deep obligation to send money home — sometimes at significant personal sacrifice, a burden often called the “black tax”. For some, that pride in supporting kin comes with stress and uncertainty, especially when living costs rise abroad and fees on transfers eat into hard-earned wages.
Experts say remittances can do more than just keep lights on. They can support education and health, widen financial inclusion, and fuel rural development. In places like Senegal and The Gambia, expatriate associations have pooled funds to build boreholes, clinics and community projects — showing that collective action can stretch far beyond individual families.
But harnessing that potential at national scale is another challenge. Economists note that when most remittances are spent on consumption rather than investment, their impact on long-term economic growth is limited. For countries seeking to transform their economies, reliance on diaspora funds alone isn’t enough. What’s needed is strategy: robust financial instruments such as diaspora bonds, clear legal incentives for investment, and stronger political inclusion for citizens abroad.
That doesn’t mean remittances don’t matter. Far from it. They keep families afloat, stabilise foreign exchange reserves and strengthen community ties. But if nations want more than short-term relief — if they genuinely want prosperity that lasts beyond the next money transfer — they must think bigger.
The real test now is whether governments will turn heartfelt gifts from abroad into productive income that builds roads, schools, power and industry — or continue to treat remittances as a stop-gap, not a stepping stone.
