What do African entrepreneurs themselves think of our ‘fair’ aid and trade?

The Dutch perception of development cooperation is fundamentally distorted and in need of revision, whether driven by a pursuit of equality and justice or by pure self-interest.

This blog is an English translation of my opinion piece which was published in De Volkskrant (in Dutch) on March 22nd 2026 and in Het Nederlands Dagblad (in Dutch) on March 26th. 

 

 

PVV minister Reinette Klever presented a major cut to development cooperation in her policy letter last year. Dutch interests were to take priority again. At the same time, support for female entrepreneurs, specifically in Kenyan horticulture, and “fair trade” remained priorities according to Klever. Cabinet-Jetten is now continuing this line and is not investing in development cooperation, despite the promise in the coalition agreement.

For twelve years, I myself have worked at the intersection of aid, trade, and entrepreneurship in Africa. Increasingly, I began to wonder: what do African entrepreneurs actually think of our “development cooperation”? For my PhD research, I followed the experiences of Kenyan agri-business women over several years. What I discovered made my view of our “fair” aid and trade begin to falter.
Kenyan agri-business women lead large companies in profitable segments of the food chain. They produce and trade for national and international markets, employ an average of 72 people, and create income opportunities for thousands of smallholder farmers and street vendors. These are businesses with a clear social impact.

 

Distrust

External support is scarce, so many women participate in development projects for small grants, loans, certification, or the organization of small farmers into cooperatives. This support is often widely highlighted by development organizations on their websites, but according to the women it does not tell the full story.

Participation in training programs takes a great deal of time. The grants are generally small and are often awarded only to the winners of “pitch competitions.” Meanwhile, they see development workers driving off in expensive cars toward homes in Nairobi’s affluent neighborhoods, all funded from the same budget that also pays their limited “prize money.” Development organizations then claim the impact of these businesses as the result of their often one-off interventions, while the structural investments and daily efforts of the agri-business women receive little recognition.

Distrust toward these programs runs deeper. According to the entrepreneurs, development organizations align their programs with the trade interests of northern donors. The Dutch “aid for trade” agenda is presented as a win-win model, but often makes Kenyan businesses dependent on imported knowledge, raw materials, and machinery. What is presented as “fair trade” is, according to the women, a system that keeps African economies locked into the role of raw material suppliers and markets for Europe.

The wealthiest economies dominate the World Trade Organization and have a stronger negotiating position when trade agreements are concluded. As a result, European products, sometimes subsidized, flow freely into African markets, while cheap, unprocessed raw materials are secured. To finance structural trade deficits, African governments turn to loans from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, often tied to neoliberal conditions such as market liberalization and cuts to education, healthcare, and agriculture, precisely the sectors that are crucial for an independent future.

According to economist Jason Hickel, around 85 trillion dollars flowed from South to North between 1990 and 2015 through unequal trade, nearly a quarter of the national income of the Global South and thirty times as much as was returned in the form of “aid.”

 

 

Self-interest

While African leaders call for recognition and decolonization of the unequal trade system, the Dutch government is choosing to cut development projects and intensify existing trade.

Without a reorientation of policy, the Netherlands risks remaining, in the eyes of agri-business women, a partner that primarily pursues its own interests rather than one committed to equal and just cooperation. Fair trade does not mean exporting Dutch technology, knowledge, and products, but rather concessional financing, in other words “soft” loans with more favorable terms than market rates, aimed at African industrialization, active support for the African Continental Free Trade Area, recognition of the harmful effects of neoliberal loans, and serious attention to ecological compensation.

The irony is that even if the Netherlands no longer values the fundamental principles of equality and justice, and from now on openly prioritizes its own interests, it seems to be missing that the global order is shifting. We are moving toward a multipolar world in which the old North–South system is gradually losing its relevance. African countries are increasingly turning to China. If the Netherlands wants access to 30 percent of the world’s minerals, Africa’s fertile agricultural land, and the youngest population in the world, a fundamental change in attitude is unavoidable.

Whether we act out of justice or self-interest, it is time to acknowledge unequal trade and create space for entrepreneurs to further develop their countries themselves.

Read my full dissertation here.