Development Finance Needs an Entrepreneurial Mindset

Leslie Maasdorp, Hans Peter Lankes

LONDON – The fourth United Nations International Conference on Financing for Development, to be held in Seville, Spain, from June 30 to July 3, will consider a hotly debated topic: how development-finance institutions (DFIs) can mobilize more socially beneficial private investment in the countries where they operate.

Many have pointed to the shortage of “bankable projects” as the main barrier to mobilizing private-sector capital. They are not wrong: under the traditional demand-led business model, DFIs can invest only in companies that want to raise capital and meet certain financial and impact criteria.

But a new report by ODI Global shows that some DFIs are taking a more proactive approach when a development need is not being met by a suitable business that seeks capital. They are starting commercial ventures of their own. Earlier this year, for example, British International Investment (of which one of us is CEO) sold Ayana Renewable Power, an Indian energy company that BII founded in 2018, for $2.3 billion. In less than a decade, Ayana added, or was in the process of adding, a renewable-energy capacity of 4.1 gigawatts to a country that desperately needs it. Creating a new business from scratch, such as Ayana, is at one end of the spectrum of more entrepreneurial approaches identified by the report, which also includes setting up new intermediaries and forming joint ventures with existing firms to push them in a more development-oriented direction.

While some observers lament that blended finance has not scaled as rapidly as hoped, others are concerned that it has sacrificed development impact to mobilize private capital. But impact and scale are not in opposition. The huge investments needed to decarbonize middle-income economies are certainly effective. And the 12 ventures featured in ODI Global’s report have already achieved significant scale, deploying more than $4 billion of capital from DFIs and raising $3 billion from private investors.

That said, sponsoring new commercial enterprises is more about impact than mobilizing as much private capital as possible with the fewest public dollars, partly because it is riskier than the standard DFI model. The absence of businesses in a market segment implies that the returns on offer are relatively unappealing. But these investments may only require a longer timeframe. In such cases, DFIs and other development institutions often have the patience to wait for a business to prove itself. The ventures that ODI Global studied are on the path to profitability, but it is admittedly a long, narrow road for some (Ayana attracted private co-investors unusually quickly). DFIs should therefore take this route only when they identify an urgent unmet development need and have exhausted other possibilities.

The potential for achieving development goals through DFI-sponsored ventures does not receive enough attention – especially from government shareholders, whose support is integral to developing the new mandates and tools that such efforts would require. Tellingly, the organizations responsible for the ventures in ODI Global’s report – BII and Norfund (the Norwegian DFI) – are exceptionally flexible and can support long time horizons for risk-taking. BII also has the ability to take a controlling stake in companies, whereas most DFIs can take only a minority stake.

To be sure, the leaders of DFIs are often uncomfortable with this idea, arguing that they know how to choose management teams to support, not how to run companies. But they must not undersell themselves. DFIs employ investment professionals who can identify a market opportunity and evaluate a business plan. After deciding to create a new venture, they can hire talent with complementary skills – as BII and Norfund have done.

Despite internal concerns about staffing, it is the organizational constraints preventing DFIs from becoming entrepreneurial that are the more pressing problem. Shareholders must change the rules under which DFIs and development banks operate to allow them to establish companies. They should also develop solutions, similar to the World Bank’s Private Sector Window, that increase their risk-bearing capacity. But even if they don’t, DFIs can overcome these obstacles by finding creative ways to share the risks and responsibilities of generating, rather than merely responding to, investment opportunities. They would surely have the support of foundations and other impact investors who want to use catalytic, risk-tolerant financing to promote social good.

One of the best ways for DFIs to advance countries’ development aspirations is to create investment opportunities in critical sectors that have been, and will likely continue to be, unattractive to private investors. Moving beyond the traditional demand-led model would significantly increase their potential for impact, especially following many governments’ massive cuts to foreign aid. Those governments, in particular, should do all they can to support this change.

Leslie Maasdorp is CEO of British International Investment. Hans Peter Lankes is Managing Director of ODI Global.