A strong enabling environment for philanthropy means that a country’s laws and regulations are conducive and encouraging to charitable giving. This could be through incentives for giving, or due to the ease of operation of charitable organizations within the country. However, several conditions can hinder an enabling environment. In addition to the obstacles posed by a lack of coordination and incomplete information, diaspora philanthropists may be deterred or stymied by a lack of trust in the government—a challenge often shared by both diasporans and domestic philanthropists. Building trust between the government and other stakeholders in Nigeria’s future prosperity is critical, said Paul Nwulu, a strategic communicator and storyteller, based in Maryland. “The reality,” Nwulu said in an interview with FP Analytics, “is that the government is the biggest and most powerful way to get anything to scale in Nigeria, because they have the resources, they have the policy power, they have everything it takes for you to get things to scale.” 

According to a 2018 survey by The Commonwealth, Nigerian diasporans in the United Kingdom identified corruption as the most significant barrier to giving, with 70 percent of diaspora members citing it as an obstacle to saving and investing, alongside political instability (45 percent), weak legal frameworks (41 percent), investment distance (41 percent), and trust deficits in organizations or partners (38 percent). Capacity gaps and bureaucratic inefficiencies—for example, delays in processing paperwork or poor accounting practices—can also be conflated with and perceived as corruption, particularly given the history of limited public trust in effectiveness of government functions. While both challenges are critical to address in order to support Nigeria’s long-term social and economic development, it is important to differentiate corruption from inefficiency or insufficient capacity, as each requires distinct interventions. Capacity challenges can be addressed via training, technical assistance, and the introduction of efficient processes, while corruption may require third-party oversight and the involvement of law enforcement. Abia State, for example, announced the commitment of N 5 billion (USD 3.7 million) to public sector training and development in 2026, as part of wider plans to improve state governance and infrastructure.

Other governance factors also stymie diaspora philanthropy. The Global Philanthropy Tracker noted in 2023 that Nigeria had “a restrictive environment for cross-border philanthropy in 2018–2022,” which can hinder sustained, targeted, and impactful giving. Additional challenges include limited access to loans and infrastructure barriers like unreliable electricity, which inflate operational costs and limit the quantity, sustainability, and impact of diaspora giving. Similarly, a review by UBS and TrustAfrica found several other obstacles philanthropists must overcome before giving to their home country, including high transaction costs, political and reputational risks, currency volatility, regulatory barriers, fragmented legal and tax incentives, data scarcity, and weak reporting and measurement frameworks.

Those interviewed by FP Analytics expressed mixed opinions about the effectiveness of the Nigerian government and the prospects of working with leadership to advance their philanthropic projects, with few having worked with the government in the past and few planning to do so in the future. Ibonye, the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs policy researcher, described a “psychological barrier that stems from perceived inefficiencies in local systems, funds being misappropriated or not reaching the intended beneficiaries,” which “deters potential philanthropists from increasing their contributions. Even when you have transparent systems, people still find it difficult to trust.”

Concern that philanthropic funds may not be used for their intended purpose was a common theme among interviewees, as were calls for more enabling policy environments and greater incentives for giving, such as tax write-offs, certificates of acknowledgment, and matched funding. Enitan Obasanjo-Adeleye, a UK-based diaspora Nigerian who is a manager at a development finance institution, told FP Analytics: “If the government says we’re putting in this much to set it up, or we will match contributions up to this amount, then it’s clear they have skin in the game.” This sentiment was echoed by other interviewees, who explained that the government offering to match diaspora contributions up to a certain amount would signal credibility and persuade diaspora partners to deem them credible and investment-worthy. This model is exemplified by Mexico’s 3×1 program, where every dollar contributed by a diaspora hometown association is matched by three dollars from the federal, state, and local governments for community projects—thus institutionalizing collective investment in development infrastructure. This government support helps collectivize hyper-local giving into large-scale, sustainable public works, but requires trust between all stakeholders to work effectively. A critical element in building trust will be for donors, including diaspora philanthropists, to engage with government programs in good faith and not assume delays or challenges are necessarily due to corruption.

Another reason the effective implementation of philanthropic activities may be stymied is the lack of capacity by implementing organizations and the public sector within Nigeria. This was a common theme among interviewees and during the FP Analytics–Ford roundtable, where one participant noted: “Lots of money can come into Nigeria, but it’s like pouring water into a basket because you don’t have the right foundations or structure. [It is critical to have] a public sector that works and is the foundation for all goods and services. If you really want sustainable change, you have to make sure the public sector is working.”

Measuring and building capacity in Nigeria is a complex endeavor. A 2022 Afrobarometer survey of 300 people found that 74 percent of Nigerians surveyed could easily access state services such as schools, utilities, health facilities, and law enforcement. However, when responses were disaggregated by province, a large divergence was uncovered, ranging from just 38 percent of respondents in one state to 76 percent in another, demonstrating the differing levels of state capacity within Nigeria. As such, international development and humanitarian partner organizations often work sub-nationally with relevant state or local governments, which enables variation in their approach depending on state or local capacity, rather than seeking to apply a one-size-fits-all model in a large and diverse country. Diaspora philanthropists could emulate this approach, particularly if they currently limit their activities to specific geographical regions—as is the case for many of FP Analytics’ interviewees—or, with sustained resourcing, plan to do so in perpetuity.

Many interviewees agreed that increasing institutional capacity and competence will be key to addressing Nigeria’s broader challenges, and they shared a desire to use their philanthropic activities to help. In particular, capacity-building can enable greater coordination among stakeholders in Nigeria’s development, thus supporting impactful partnerships and complementary interventions by philanthropists and government. Members of the Nigerian diaspora involved in technology, good governance, and democracy-building may all have a constructive role to play in supporting increased government capacity, including through public-private partnerships, whether at the state or federal level. The Aig-Imokhuede Foundation, for example, works with civil servants within the federal government, but other diaspora philanthropists may seek to engage with state governments where their activities are geographically concentrated.

These challenges are not limited to the Nigerian policy environment but are shared by its neighbors, including Ghana, which has a diaspora population of 1.5 million to three million people who contribute around USD 2 billion in remittances per year. As Figure 4 demonstrates, Nigeria’s sub-Saharan neighbors have worked deliberately to improve their performance on metrics including tax incentives and ease of operating a philanthropic organization. Ghana, for example, launched a diaspora engagement strategy in 2023 that includes approaches to leveraging diaspora philanthropy and investment and maintaining close links with second- and third-generation and youth diaspora members.

Oge Onubogu, director of the Africa Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told FP Analytics that she has seen an increase in diaspora funding in Nigeria when there is stability in the political environment “or where there’s a sense that the government could create an enabling environment.” A clear diaspora engagement strategy not only provides a roadmap for the creation of an enabling environment but also signals to diaspora communities that there is an appreciation for their cultural and financial contributions and a desire to strengthen and protect their relationship with their country of origin. Conversely, conflict and instability can act as barriers to diaspora engagement and to broader development financing goals, at both the national and sub-national level. Ongoing political unrest and conflicts in Borno, Adamawa, and Yobe states, among others, create a cycle in which insecurity disrupts economic activity, and access to basic necessities such as education, and hygiene, which in turn contributes to further violence and fragility. In addition, international perceptions of the security landscape across Nigeria could deter deeper philanthropic engagement by the diaspora or other development actors.

In addition to the creation of supportive regulatory environments as well as tax-related and other incentives, interviewees for this report emphasized the need to ensure that regulations are clear and easy to navigate, and encourage financial transparency from all actors. Ibonye of the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs and Amoo of Baylis Emerging Markets both suggested that technology and tech companies could be involved in this process, for example through the use of blockchain to track financial transactions and ensure that donations are reaching their intended targets. Smart contracts built on blockchain could automate disbursement of funds only upon verification that specific project milestones have been achieved. Similarly, an FP Analytics–Ford roundtable participant proposed creating a digital platform using artificial intelligence and blockchain authentication to provide transparency and crowdsource public feedback on projects. However, it is important to note that technology is not a panacea and technology infrastructure is limited. Technological interventions alone will not, therefore, eradicate perceived or real corruption. As of 2023, just 39 percent of the population used the internet, according to the World Bank, while in 2025 UNESCO noted significant challenges to the digitization of the Nigerian civil service, including digital skills gaps and lack of IT investment and infrastructure.

Beyond the use of technology, high ethical and regulatory standards are key to instilling trust among stakeholders. Ladé Araba of the Visiola Foundation emphasized the importance of all organizations involved in philanthropy—whether diaspora foundations, implementing partners, or local and national governments—adhering to strict fiduciary standards. In an interview with FP Analytics, she shared:

In addition to offering transparency, the establishment of diaspora funds and collective giving platforms can reduce transaction costs for donors, removing a key point of friction. In India, for example, platforms such as ChaloGive reduce transaction costs by consolidating donations from multiple sources and sharing fees equitably.

Stakeholders in Nigerian development financing can also benefit from supporting greater diaspora unity and working to reshape perceptions of African risk by mobilizing investment toward high-reward opportunities, possibly through the creation of investment insurance policies targeted at cross-border investment and philanthropy. Additionally, in light of legal and infrastructure challenges, building trust through transparency, accountability, and robust institutions like the Nigerians in Diaspora Commission are critical for creating effective, long-term diaspora investment partnerships that sustainably impact Nigeria’s development. Participants at the FP Analytics–Ford roundtable suggested that donor-advised funds could be a pathway to similar levels of trust among diaspora philanthropists, government, and partners and communities within Nigeria.

Other countries with substantial diaspora populations can provide examples and models to the Nigerian government and stakeholders such as local NGOs and the private sector. For example, a number of Filipino diaspora initiatives—such as the Philippine Philanthropic Fund, which advises U.S.-based Filipinos on how to make tax-deductible donations—act to incentivize further giving. And the establishment of diaspora-focused, transparent NGOs among the Indian diaspora has helped to establish trustworthy and trusted channels for giving and coordination with the Indian government.

The diaspora community itself can also advocate for the policies and practices necessary to create trust and sustain long-term, widespread giving. They can do this through connections and communication with their communities of origin in Nigeria as well as their professional networks in cities such as London, Washington, D.C., and New York, where decisions on ODA, foreign direct investment, and financing are often made. Interviewees and roundtable participants described their existing advocacy efforts, much of which has focused on or included support for Nigeria’s development needs. Amoo, the finance and investment expert at Baylis Emerging Markets, is active on multiple policy and advisory bodies for African markets, including the U.S.-Nigeria Council and the U.S. President’s Advisory Council on Doing Business in Africa. Others—including Saheed Ademefun, treasurer of Common Interest Association, Dr. Lilian Ajayi Ore of the Global Connections for Women Foundation, and Enitan Obasanjo-Adeleye, who works in sustainable development—have actively engaged with government stakeholders to address targeted policy issues, including economic policy reform, while building strategic partnerships that support sustainable development.

Interviewees for this report consistently noted that members of the diaspora with close relationships to communities in Nigeria are well-positioned to highlight and influence emerging policies. Amoo, for example, told FP Analytics that some diaspora professionals enjoy a unique privilege because of their external status and profile, which gives them easier access to high-level government officials. Indeed, Patrick Okigbo, founder of Nextier, an Africa-focused public policy advisory firm, shared with FP Analytics that the government is aware of the influential role the diaspora can play; he said representatives of the Nigerian government often seek to meet diaspora members living in such cities as Washington, D.C., in order to hear their ideas and concerns. Within those spaces, diaspora members can shape policies that will support effective diaspora philanthropy and contribute to the long-term sustainability of Nigeria’s development finance flows.