IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/evk/wpaper/wbf.html

Why Blended Finance Underperforms: A Structural Diagnosis of the Catalytic Claim

Author

Listed:
  • Roshan Ghadamian

    (Institute for Regenerative Systems Architecture)

Abstract

Blended finance is endorsed across development and impact capital as the mechanism that mobilises private investment toward public goods, using concessional capital to de-risk commercial returns. Yet after a decade of institutional uptake, mobilisation has stagnated and the central catalytic claim remains largely unverified. This paper argues the underperformance is structural rather than operational: blended finance assembles its instruments from single-cycle, liability-bearing components — tranches, guarantees, first-loss layers — and applies them to objectives that are inherently multi-cycle, realised across a sequence of transactions rather than at the resolution of any one. Three failure modes follow from that single mismatch. Horizon collapse consumes concessional capital within the cycle rather than recycling it across cycles. The de-risking paradox biases deployment toward the transactions that least need concession, because subsidy and catalysis are distinct acts and only the first is observable within a cycle. Measurement at the deployment boundary renders the catalytic claim unfalsifiable in the field's own terms. Each is endemic to the instrument design and each would persist under flawless execution. âš ï¸ Two of the three name phenomena the field has already reported, and the contribution is the derivation rather than the observation. What this paper supplies is why both follow from one property: only subsidy is recorded within a single transaction cycle, so an instrument resolving within that cycle leaves catalysis with no trace to be estimated from. âš ï¸ The claim is about the record, not about identification. Catalysis is a counterfactual, and no quantity of elapsed cycles identifies one by itself. What a single-cycle instrument forecloses is the data — it produces no sequence of outcomes against which any design could estimate. So no improvement in evaluation discipline can move a boundary set by what the instrument records. The paper closes by specifying the conditions any non-extractive, multi-cycle alternative would have to satisfy, each derived by inverting a failure mode.

Suggested Citation

  • Roshan Ghadamian, 2026. "Why Blended Finance Underperforms: A Structural Diagnosis of the Catalytic Claim," IRSA Working Papers wbf, Institute for Regenerative Systems Architecture.
  • Handle: RePEc:evk:wpaper:wbf
    DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.7006302
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.irsa.institute/papers/wbf_v1.2.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2139/ssrn.7006302?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • O16 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Financial Markets; Saving and Capital Investment; Corporate Finance and Governance
    • F35 - International Economics - - International Finance - - - Foreign Aid
    • G24 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Investment Banking; Venture Capital; Brokerage
    • O19 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - International Linkages to Development; Role of International Organizations
    • G23 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Non-bank Financial Institutions; Financial Instruments; Institutional Investors
    • L31 - Industrial Organization - - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise - - - Nonprofit Institutions; NGOs; Social Entrepreneurship
    • H44 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Publicly Provided Goods: Mixed Markets
    • H54 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Infrastructures

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:evk:wpaper:wbf. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Roshan Ghadamian (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.