Who Benefits from Empowerment?
For more than three centuries, Africa has been the subject of programmes designed to educate, uplift, civilise, develop, modernise, empower, train, and transform its people. The language has changed with each era. Missionary societies spoke of salvation. Colonial administrations spoke of civilisation. Development agencies speak of capacity building. NGOs speak of empowerment.
Yet beneath the changing language lies a persistent question.
If empowerment is successful, why do so many beneficiaries remain beneficiaries? Why do so few become owners? Why do so few control the institutions, brands, markets, technologies, and capital created in their name?
Empowerment is often measured through participation. Ownership is measured through control. The two are not the same.
This chapter examines that distinction through the history of African textile production, tracing the institutional thread that connects plantation economies, missionary education, colonial labour systems, and contemporary development programmes.
The Plantation, the Mission, and the Formation of Labour
The thread begins on the plantation. The missionary societies that ran schools across Africa and the Caribbean were funded by the wealth extracted from enslaved labour. The objective of this analysis is not to argue that plantations, missionary schools, and NGOs are identical institutions. They are not. They emerged in different historical periods and operated under different legal and moral frameworks. The question is whether they occupied similar positions within a broader political economy in which African labour was mobilised while ownership, governance, and capital accumulation remained concentrated elsewhere.
The SPG owned the Codrington Plantation in Barbados, receiving a bequest in 1710 that required “three hundred negros at Least always Kept” on the estate (Fulham Palace, 2023). The Society branded enslaved people with the word “Society” on their chests with a hot iron (Fulham Palace, 2023). The London Missionary Society (LMS), founded in 1795, was supported by the Clapham Sect, whose members included slave traders and plantation owners (University College London, n.d.). The Church Missionary Society (CMS) received donations from the West India Interest, the powerful lobby representing Caribbean sugar planters who owned enslaved labour forces (Kinghorn, 2019). The plantation funded the mission. The mission educated the colonised. The education taught obedience. The cycle was complete.
From the plantation, the thread moved to the missionary school. The curriculum taught needlework, sewing, and embroidery. The goal was not creativity. The goal was discipline. The goal was a labour force that would serve the colonial economy without resistance. The missionary school was the bridge between the whip and the wage. The enslaved became the educated. The educated became the employed. The employed remained under control.
From the missionary school, the thread moved to the NGO. The missionaries did not disappear. They rebranded.
Diagram 1: Labour Extraction Timeline (Decision Path Diagram)

From Missionary Society to Development Agency
The Paris Evangelical Missionary Society (PMES, founded 1822) is now Défap, a French Protestant mission agency that funds development projects in Africa (Défap, n.d.). The Rhenish Mission Society (1828) is now the United Evangelical Mission, a global fellowship of churches that describes itself as a “development cooperation” organisation (UEM, n.d.). The Danish Mission Society (1821) is now Danmission, which runs development programmes in Tanzania, Nepal, and the Middle East (Danmission, n.d.). The Leipzig Mission (1836) is now part of EMS (Evangelisches Missionswerk), a German development agency (EMS, n.d.). The Methodists, the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Lutherans—all built schools. All taught sewing. All now run NGOs.
The significance of these institutional transformations is not theological but organisational. In several cases, contemporary development agencies are not merely inspired by historical missionary organisations; they are their direct descendants. The question therefore becomes whether institutional missions changed only in language, or whether they also changed in their underlying relationship to power, governance, and economic control.
Diagram 2: Missionary to NGO Transition (Decision Path Diagram)

The framework was always economic. The plantation needed enslaved labour. The missionary school needed trained labour for the colonial administration. The NGO needs donor funding to survive. The artisan is the raw material in each phase. The institution captures the value. The worker remains at the bottom.
The language changed. The Paris Evangelical Missionary Society spoke of “spreading the Gospel.” Défap speaks of “development cooperation.” The Rhenish Mission spoke of “saving souls.” UEM speaks of “capacity building.” The Danish Mission spoke of “civilising the heathen.” Danmission speaks of “empowerment.” The words are new. The structure is the same.
The NGO Economy
The modern NGO is often presented as a temporary institution designed to address a specific social or economic challenge. Yet throughout Africa, NGOs have become permanent actors within local economies. They employ staff, manage grants, commission research, influence policy, broker market access, organise production, and shape development priorities.
This has produced what may be described as an NGO economy: an ecosystem sustained through the continuous circulation of donor funding, development projects, beneficiaries, consultants, auditors, programme officers, monitoring specialists, and international partners.
The issue is not whether NGOs perform useful work. Many undoubtedly do. The question is whether institutional incentives favour the production of independent owners or the continuous reproduction of beneficiaries.
A successful textile entrepreneur eventually ceases to require an empowerment programme. A cooperative that controls its own production, branding, intellectual property, and export relationships eventually ceases to require an intermediary. Yet development success is often measured by the number of beneficiaries reached rather than the number of beneficiaries who cease to be beneficiaries altogether.
The distinction matters. Beneficiary-centred systems reproduce participation. Ownership-centred systems reproduce power.
The framework was always economic. The plantation needed enslaved labour. The missionary school needed trained labour for the colonial administration. The NGO needs donor funding to survive. The artisan is the raw material in each phase. The institution captures the value. The worker remains at the bottom.
The Persistence of External Control
Across multiple historical periods, decision-making authority frequently remained external to the communities whose labour sustained the system. Under plantation slavery, ownership and capital accumulation were concentrated in Europe. Under colonial administration, policy and economic planning remained external. Under many contemporary development programmes, strategic authority often remains concentrated among donors, boards, international agencies, certification bodies, and programme managers located outside the communities being served.
Table
| System | Labour | Decision Making | Ownership | Value Capture |
| Plantation | Africans | Europe | Europe | Europe |
| Mission School | Africans | Mission Board | Mission Board | Mission Institution |
| Colonial Economy | Africans | Colonial State | Colonial State | Metropole |
| NGO Programme | Africans | NGO/Donor Network | NGO/Board | Mixed |
| Cooperative | Members | Members | Members |
Secular NGOs: New Institutions, Familiar Questions
Not all organisations working in African textiles follow the extractive model. Some are cooperatives. Some are artisan-owned. The distinction matters.
Espace Tissage Djougou (ETD) in Benin is a women-led weaving cooperative. It preserves the lokpa openwork fabric tradition. It is a partner in the EU-OACPS Business-Friendly Programme. The cooperative has 508 beneficiaries working through 18 cooperatives and 14 fashion brands. The stated mission is to preserve ancestral know-how and empower rural girls. The structure is a cooperative. The artisans are members, not employees. This is a different model. The value is shared.
Most NGOs, however, do not operate this way.
The ITC Ethical Fashion Initiative is a programme of the United Nations and the World Trade Organization. It operates in Burkina Faso, Mali, Benin, Kenya, and Zambia. It connects artisans to international fashion brands including Stella Jean and Vivienne Westwood. The language is “ethical fashion,” “sustainability,” “market access.” The artisans are members of cooperatives. The governance is not in their hands. The UN agency controls the buyer relationships, the quality standards, and the brand.
Maisha by Nisria in Nakuru, Kenya, trains vulnerable women, single mothers, refugees, and persons with disabilities in sewing and fashion design. The language is “empowerment,” “conscious engagement,” “sustainability.” The organisation is a registered non-profit. The women are trainees. The decisions about funding, programming, and branding are made by the non-profit’s leadership, not by the women.
Unkara Fashion is a US-registered 501(c)(3) non-profit operating in Kenya. It trains women fashion designers in underprivileged communities and promotes indigenous textile culture including batik dyeing techniques. The language is “financial inclusion,” “sustainable income,” “indigenous textile culture.” The organisation has a US board of directors. The women are trainees. The intellectual property of the training materials and the brand belong to the US non-profit.
WEL NGO (Women Entrepreneurs & Leaders) in Côte d’Ivoire trains low-income and vulnerable women in sewing and handmade goods. The language is “economic empowerment,” “African culture,” “income generating activities.” The organisation is an NGO partnered with Koné Consulting. The women are beneficiaries. They do not control the organisation.
These NGOs are not descended from missionaries. They are new. These organisations differ in history, mission, and intent. The relevant question is not whether they are exploitative, but whether beneficiaries exercise meaningful ownership over governance, intellectual property, buyer relationships, and long-term capital accumulation. The answer varies by institution and deserves closer examination.
The beneficiaries are not owners. The decision-makers are not local. The NGO captures the brand, the donor relationships, and the market access. The artisan receives training and wages. The value leaves. The pyramid remains.
The Cooperative Alternative
The cooperative model in Benin shows a different path. Artisan ownership. Shared governance. Value retained locally. The difference is not the product. The difference is who controls the organisation.
The significance of the Benin case is not that it is perfect. Its significance is that it shifts the position of the artisan from beneficiary to member. The distinction is fundamental. Beneficiaries receive programmes. Members exercise governance. Beneficiaries participate in projects. Members participate in ownership.
The religious language is gone. “Saving souls” became “empowerment.” “Civilising mission” became “capacity building.” “Conversion” became “financial inclusion.” The words are new. The extractive structure remains.
Beneficiaries Without Ownership
How many beneficiaries became exporters?
How many became factory owners?
How many became brand owners?
How many became machinery manufacturers?
How many became employers?
Across the development sector, success is often measured through outputs: workshops conducted, trainees reached, women empowered, livelihoods supported. Far less attention is paid to ownership outcomes. Who controls the assets created? Who accumulates capital? Who acquires market power? Who determines future strategy?

How NGOs Use Labour
The NGO registers in a Western country. In the United States, it files for 501(c)(3) status, becoming exempt from federal corporate income tax (IRS, n.d.). In the United Kingdom, it registers as a charity, exempt from corporation tax (UK Government, n.d.). In the Netherlands, it registers as an ANBI, exempt from corporate tax and in some cases VAT (Dutch Tax Administration, n.d.). In Switzerland, it registers at the cantonal level, exempt from federal, cantonal, and municipal taxes (Swiss Federal Tax Administration, n.d.).
The NGO then opens a branch in an African country. It receives tax exemptions from the host government. It pays little to no corporate tax on its local activities. It employs local staff, often at lower wages than Western staff. It trains artisans. It organises production. It exports finished goods.
Diagram 3: NGO Value Pyramid (Decision Path Diagram)
[Place diagram here showing NGO at top, intermediaries in middle, artisans at bottom.]
The artisans are paid wages or piece-rates. They work in the informal economy. They pay little to no income tax. Their labour is the raw material of the NGO’s programmes. Their faces appear in annual reports. Their names are rarely listed. Their designs are not protected. Their knowledge is not owned by them.
The NGO sells the handicrafts through fair trade catalogues, online shops, and ethical fashion platforms. In the United States, if the sales are considered a regular commercial activity, Unrelated Business Income Tax (UBIT) applies at 21 percent (IRS, n.d.). But many NGOs avoid UBIT by arguing that the sales are “substantially related” to their charitable mission.
The NGO director receives a salary from the tax-free revenue. The salary is paid from the profits of the artisans’ labour. The director pays personal income tax. The NGO pays nothing. The artisan receives wages. The African government collects nothing. The Western government collects little to nothing. The value leaves.
The local market model works differently. Artisans sell directly to tourists and local consumers (University of Nairobi, 2010). There is no NGO intermediary. There is no fair trade certification. There is no tax exemption. The artisan keeps the majority of the sale price. She pays market fees. The local government collects revenue. The value stays.
The NGO model is not designed for the artisan. It is designed for the NGO. The pyramid is upside down. The largest piece goes to the top. The smallest piece goes to the bottom.
The framework did not end. It rebranded. The names changed. The pyramid did not.
But the cooperative in Benin shows that it could be different.
The thread has not been broken.
References
Basel Mission Archives / mission 21. “Nähschule in Kyebi (Sewing class in Kyebi).” Reference: D-30.13.039. Available at: https://bmarchives.org/items/show/56603
Basel Mission Archives / mission 21. “Nähschule in Akropong 1904 (Sewing school in Akropong 1904).” Reference: QD-30.106.0153. Available at: https://bmarchives.org/items/show/71875
Caley, Maria A. N. “The Modernized Traditional Dress of the Aawambo.” University of Turku.
Coutau-Bégarie Auction House. “Three entre-deux and one carré in Chebka lace, North Africa, late 19th/early 20th century.” Lot 129. Available at: https://coutaubegarie.com/en/lot/157092/26525906
Danmission. “About Danmission.” Available at: https://danmission.dk
Défap. “Service Protestant de Mission.” Available at: https://defap.fr
Dutch Tax Administration. “ANBI - Public Benefit Organisations.” Available at: https://www.belastingdienst.nl/anbi
EMS (Evangelisches Missionswerk). “About EMS.” Available at: https://www.ems-online.org
Espace Tissage Djougou (ETD). “Preserving lokpa openwork fabric tradition.” EU-OACPS Business-Friendly Programme. Available at: https://www.businessfriendly.org/etd-benin
Fulham Palace. “Church of England’s plantations in Barbados.” 13 March 2023. Available at: https://www.fulhampalace.org/resistance/church-of-england-plantations/
IRS. “Exemption Requirements - Section 501(c)(3) Organizations.” Available at: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-section-501c3-organizations
IRS. “Unrelated Business Income Tax.” Available at: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/unrelated-business-income-tax
ITC Ethical Fashion Initiative. “CABES Burkina Faso.” Available at: https://ethicalfashioninitiative.org
Kinghorn, Alice. “The Church of England and the West India Interest.” PhD thesis, University of Bristol, 2019.
Maisha by Nisria. Available at: https://maishabynisria.org
McLean-Farrell, Janice, and Michael Anderson Clarke. “Missions in Contested Places/Spaces: The SPG, Slavery, and Codrington College, Barbados.” Mission Studies, 2021.
Mission 21. Available at: https://mission-21.org
Monk, Matthew, and Linda Eaton. “A Sampler’s Story from Sierra Leone.” Winterthur Museum, 5 September 2025. Available at: https://www.winterthur.org/blog/a-samplers-story-from-sierra-leone
Porte Brown. “Watch for UBIT When Your Nonprofit Pursues New Activities.” 2025.
Strickrodt, Silke. “African Girls’ Samplers from Mission Schools in Sierra Leone (1820s to 1840s).” History in Africa, 2010;37:189-245.
Swiss Federal Tax Administration. “Taxation of Non-Profit Organisations.” Available at: https://www.estv.admin.ch
TRC Leiden. “Embroidery and the White Sisters.” 29 June 2015. Available at: https://trc-leiden.nl/trc-needles/regional-traditions/middle-east-and-north-africa/pre-modern-middle-east-and-north-africa/embroidery-and-the-white-sisters
UK Government. “Charities and tax.” Available at: https://www.gov.uk/charities-and-tax
United Evangelical Mission (UEM). “About UEM.” Available at: https://uem-partnership.org
University College London. “Legacies of British Slavery: Clapham Sect.” Available at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/
University of Nairobi. “Access to E-Commerce in the Ethical trade Arena: A Case study of Artisans in Kenya.” 2010. Available at: https://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke
Unkara Fashion. Available at: https://unkarafashion.org
USPG (United Society Partners in the Gospel). “About USPG.” Available at: https://uspg.org.uk
WEL NGO African Arts Creation. Available at: https://wel-ngo.org
Winterthur Museum, Garden & Library. “Sampler by Lucy Davis.” Object number 2018.0007. Available at: http://museumcollection.winterthur.org/single-record.php?recid=2018.0007
Image Sources
Basel Mission Archives. “Nähschule in Kyebi (Ghana).” https://bmarchives.org/items/show/56603
Basel Mission Archives. “Nähschule in Akropong (Ghana).” https://bmarchives.org/items/show/71875
TRC Leiden. “White Sisters teaching lace making.” https://trc-leiden.nl/trc-needles
Coutau-Bégarie Auction House. Chebka lace collection. https://coutaubegarie.com
Winterthur Museum. Sampler by Lucy Davis. http://museumcollection.winterthur.org/single-record.php?recid=2018.0007
International Mission Photography Archive (USC). Mission sewing archives. https://digitallibrary.usc.edu
Yale Divinity Library. Raphia weaving missions archive. https://collections.library.yale.edu
Mennonite Archives. Sewing class Zaire. https://archives.mennonite.net
United Church of Canada Archives. Sewing school Japan. https://archives.unitedchurch.ca
Additional Academic References
Political Economy, Dependency and Colonial Continuity
Rodney, Walter. How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Dar es Salaam: Tanzania Publishing House, 1972.
Nkrumah, Kwame. Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism. London: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1965.
Amin, Samir. Unequal Development: An Essay on the Social Formations of Peripheral Capitalism. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1976.
Amin, Samir. Accumulation on a World Scale: A Critique of the Theory of Underdevelopment. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1974.
Beckford, George L. Persistent Poverty: Underdevelopment in Plantation Economies of the Third World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1972.
Best, Lloyd. Essays on the Theory of Plantation Economy. Mona: Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of the West Indies.
Girvan, Norman. The Caribbean Dependency Tradition: From New World Group to the Present. Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers.
Beckles, Hilary. Britain’s Black Debt: Reparations for Caribbean Slavery and Native Genocide. Kingston: University of the West Indies Press, 2013.
NGO Critique and Development Studies
Manji, Firoze and Carl O’Coill. “The Missionary Position: NGOs and Development in Africa.” International Affairs 78, no. 3 (2002): 567–583.
Escobar, Arturo. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995.
Ferguson, James. The Anti-Politics Machine: Development, Depoliticization and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1990.
Fowler, Alan. Striking a Balance: A Guide to Enhancing the Effectiveness of Non-Governmental Organisations in International Development. London: Earthscan, 1997.
Edwards, Michael. Civil Society. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2014.
Moyo, Dambisa. Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is Another Way for Africa. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009.
African Development Thought
Ake, Claude. Democracy and Development in Africa. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1996.
Mkandawire, Thandika. African Intellectuals: Rethinking Politics, Language, Gender and Development. London: Zed Books, 2005.
Mazrui, Ali A. The Africans: A Triple Heritage. London: BBC Publications, 1986.
Mafeje, Archie. Africanity: A Combative Ontology. Dakar: CODESRIA, 2008.
Ayittey, George B.N. Indigenous African Institutions. Ardsley, NY: Transnational Publishers, 1991.
Olukoshi, Adebayo. The Politics of Opposition in Contemporary Africa. Uppsala: Nordic Africa Institute, 1998.
African Textiles, Craft Economies and Cultural Production
Rovine, Victoria L. African Fashion, Global Style: Histories, Innovations and Ideas You Can Wear. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2015.
Rovine, Victoria L. Bogolan: Shaping Culture Through Cloth in Contemporary Mali. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2001.
Picton, John and John Mack. African Textiles. London: British Museum Press, 1989.
Boone, Sylvia Ardyn. Radiance from the Waters: Ideals of Feminine Beauty in Mende Art. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986.
Asante, Molefi Kete. Afrocentricity: The Theory of Social Change. Chicago: African American Images, 2003.
Cooperative Governance and Ownership
Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Ostrom, Elinor. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005.
.



