The development finance community has good reason to celebrate.
The latest joint report from multilateral development banks and development finance institutions records a landmark achievement: in 2024 these institutions mobilized $278.5 billion in private finance globally, including $108.7 billion in low- and middle-income countries, both record levels[1]. Distribution of private capital mobilization remains uneven, and many low-income countries continue to attract only a small share of investment. Mobilization increased significantly from the previous year, demonstrating that public institutions are becoming increasingly effective at attracting private capital into markets and sectors where investment has historically been limited.
This matters because one of the central challenges of our time is not simply finding capital but directing capital toward development priorities. Public budgets alone cannot meet global infrastructure needs. Mobilizing private investment is therefore not optional; it is essential. The latest results show important progress and validate years of effort to improve project preparation, strengthen risk-sharing mechanisms, expand guarantees, and create investment structures capable of attracting commercial investors. These are genuine successes that deserve recognition.
Yet success in infrastructure finance has always been about more than finance.
The development community often speaks about mobilizing billions of dollars, but citizens experience infrastructure very differently. They experience it through the reliability of electricity service, the affordability of water tariffs, the safety of transportation systems, the quality of healthcare facilities, and the ability of communities to access economic opportunities. Mobilization is the means, not the end.
This distinction has become increasingly important because, despite notable growth in private capital mobilization over the past decade, progress on infrastructure outcomes has often lagged expectations. Across many developing countries, infrastructure deficits remain large, service quality remains uneven, and affordability challenges persist. Energy systems continue to struggle with reliability. Water utilities often face financial and operational constraints. Transport systems remain inadequate in rapidly growing urban areas. Climate resilience gaps continue to widen. If measured solely through financial mobilization, the story appears overwhelmingly positive. If measured through service outcomes, institutional capacity, and long-term sustainability, the picture becomes more complex.
This is not an argument against mobilization. On the contrary, mobilization is one of the most important achievements in development finance. The problem is that we sometimes treat mobilization as a proxy for development impact when the relationship between the two is neither automatic nor guaranteed.
A project can mobilize significant private capital and still fall short of its broader development objectives. Infrastructure can be financed yet remain unaffordable for low-income users. Projects can reach financial close while creating fiscal obligations that governments later struggle to sustain. Private investment can be successfully attracted without necessarily strengthening local institutions or domestic capital markets. In other words, capital mobilization tells us that financing has occurred. It does not automatically tell us whether development has occurred.
The same issue applies to market development.
Consider two blended finance programs that mobilize similar amounts of private capital. Both might be judged equally successful under conventional metrics. Yet one may continue relying on the same subsidies, guarantees, and concessional support years later. Investors remain dependent on public risk-sharing, project preparation remains donor-funded, and transactions continue to be structured on a case-by-case basis.
The second program mobilizes the same amount of capital but gradually changes market behavior. Domestic banks begin extending longer-term financing. Pension funds develop confidence in infrastructure as an asset class. Governments adopt standardized procurement frameworks. Project preparation is becoming more systematic. Risks become better understood and more efficiently allocated.
The difference is subtle but profound. One program is financing projects. The other is building a market.
This distinction becomes even more important as concessional resources face increasing pressure. Governments and development institutions are simultaneously being asked to support climate mitigation, climate adaptation, energy transition, social infrastructure, health systems, food security, and economic resilience. Demand for concessional capital is growing far faster than available resources. In such an environment, the objective cannot simply be to maximize the deployment of subsidies. It must be to maximize their catalytic effect.
The most successful interventions are rarely those that deploy the largest amount of concessional capital. They are the ones that identify a specific barrier to investment and remove it with precision. Sometimes the obstacle is poor project preparation. Sometimes it is currency risk, regulatory uncertainty, weak credit quality, or perceived market risk. When the constraint is correctly diagnosed, modest public support can unlock substantial private investment. When it is not, even generous subsidies may fail to deliver meaningful mobilization or lasting development benefits.
This leads to an uncomfortable but necessary question for the development finance community: are we measuring what truly matters?
Mobilization metrics remain indispensable. They tell us whether private investors are participating. They help determine whether public resources are catalyzing commercial finance. They provide accountability and allow institutions to assess progress against ambitious mobilization targets.
But they should sit alongside a broader set of measures. Are infrastructure services becoming more affordable? Are service quality and reliability improving? Are projects reaching underserved communities? Are domestic capital markets becoming deeper and more resilient? Are governments requiring less concessional support over time? Are institutions becoming stronger?
These questions are harder to answer than measuring dollars mobilized. They require longer time horizons and more nuanced assessment. But they are ultimately closer to the reason development finance exists. Development finance institutions already track many development and impact indicators. The challenge is often not the absence of measurement frameworks but the relative prominence and simplicity of mobilization figures in public reporting.
The record mobilization achieved in 2024 should be celebrated. It demonstrates that the development finance community has become more effective at engaging in private capital and expanding investment opportunities in developing economies. That is a remarkable achievement.
But billions mobilized are not the destination. They are a milestone on the journey.
The ultimate test is whether those investments leave behind better infrastructure, stronger institutions, deeper domestic capital markets, and a reduced need for public support in the future. Mobilization metrics tell us whether capital is moving. Development outcomes tell us whether lives are improving. Fiscal sustainability tells us whether benefits can be maintained without creating future burdens. Sustainable market creation tells us whether progress can endure. Achieving this requires action from MDBs, governments, PPP units, and investors alike. Organizations such as WAPPP can help promote PPP practices that better connect mobilization, fiscal sustainability, and development outcomes.
We need all three. Only then can we claim real success.
By Jyoti Bisbey, Executive Committee Member, WAPPP
[1] https://www.ifc.org/en/insights-reports/2026/mobilization-of-private-finance-by-mdbs-dfis-2024-joint-report