THE CHURCH AS A DEVELOPMENT ACTOR: ECONOMIC INTERVENTIONS AND YOUTH HUMAN CAPITAL FORMATION IN 21ST-CENTURY NIGERIA

Nigeria’s churches occupy a social position that reaches beyond worship. Many own schools, clinics, media platforms, meeting halls and professional networks, while congregations regularly assemble young people who are searching for education, work, enterprise opportunities and social belonging. This article examines the church as a development actor and asks how its economic interventions can contribute to youth human capital formation in twenty-first-century Nigeria. A narrative conceptual review informed by integrative principles drew on peer-reviewed studies and institutional evidence, mainly from 2020 to 2024. The analysis combines a human-capital perspective with social-capital and capability lenses. It identifies six intervention domains: foundational and continuing education; vocational and digital skills; entrepreneurship finance and business support; mentoring and career intermediation; health and social protection; and civic or ethical formation. Nigerian labour data show why a narrow focus on headline unemployment is inadequate: in the second quarter of 2024, self-employment and informal employment dominated the labour market, while a substantial share of young people remained outside employment, education or training. The study finds that churches possess important advantages in trust, local presence, volunteer expertise and repeated contact with youth, but these strengths do not automatically produce durable economic outcomes. Weak labour-market alignment, member-only targeting, short courses without certification, poor monitoring, and the tendency to individualise structural unemployment can limit impact. As a conceptual synthesis rather than an empirical impact evaluation, the study proposes an integrated church development model in which training is linked to recognized credentials, apprenticeships, finance, job matching, enterprise aftercare and transparent outcome measurement. It concludes that churches can complement public development systems, but they should not substitute for the state or use assistance as a condition for religious conformity.