When governments mix public money with private investment, but let private investors get most of the attention. Officially designed to attract additional funds into sustainable development projects; unofficially designed to make recipient countries pay for projects and take the blame for generating deb.  

Features include: 

• Grants replaced by financial engineering 
• Development assistance with terms and conditions longer than the project document  
• Public money absorbs the risk; private investors collect the profits 
• Civil society organisations, who once had a seat at the table, are invited to read the press release.  

Example:
“The community asked for a grant to improve local public services. The EU suggested blended finance and a discussion with international investors instead” 

Translation:
“You need money to build a bridge and connect local communities? Well, I can support

The EU’s flagship strategy for turning development cooperation into an investment portfolio. Officially described as a strategy to build “smart, clean and secure connections” around the world; unofficially, a €300 billion matchmaking service between European public money and private-sector profits. 

Features include: 

• Development priorities replaced by “bankable projects”  
• Civil society turned from an actor to a spectator  
• Official Development Assistance (ODA) rules treated as optional reading material 
• EU values secondary to whatever attracts investors 

Example:
“We were expecting support for local public health systems, but Global Gateway arrived with a risk-guarantee package for multinational infrastructure firms.” 

Translation:
“It’s not aid, it’s leverage. It’s not solidarity, it’s an asset class.”