When it comes to development, the “Capital in, delivery assumed” model no longer works. We hear this repeatedly from partners and funders. And with fewer resources available, delivering value for money is more critical than ever.

New tools reshaping development are more adaptable than traditional donor-led models. But unless they account for how governments actually deliver, even the best-structured deals risk underperforming.

The problem? Far more energy goes into raising and structuring capital than into ensuring it moves effectively through the systems meant to use it.

Funds are committed and targets set, but delivery mechanisms—budgets, procurement, staffing, and coordination—are rarely built in from the start.  The systems that manage funds are rarely the ones that implement, and the connection between the two is assumed rather than built. Too often, delivery is treated as an afterthought—not a core design element.

As financing models increasingly seek to position governments not just as recipients of capital, but as investable and reliable partners, more attention must go to the “uses” side of the ledger: how financing is absorbed, governed, and implemented in real time.  

Today, most energy focuses on the “sources” side—designing ever more creative mechanisms to bring capital in. But money raised does not equal results achieved. Unless the “uses” side is given equal weight, financing will continue to outpace delivery.

‍The financing and delivery gap isn’t new. But it’s growing harder to close.

Financing instruments themselves have become more complicated. Ministries are expected to juggle compacts, debt swaps, outcome-based grants, climate-linked financing, and other blended arrangements—often in parallel and without the capacity for coordination and problem-solving they demand.

Older models like Sector-Wide Approaches (SWAps), though complex, at least recognized the need to build implementation into agreements from the start.

They worked through ministries, aligned with budget cycles, and created space to adjust. Today’s leaner instruments, however, often engage delivery institutions less—creating pressure to deliver without sufficient resources, and leaving little room to adapt when challenges arise.

The misalignment quickly shows up in how responsibilities are assigned: Ministries are handed targets and timelines they had no role in shaping, along with coordination duties that fall outside their mandate or exceed their capacity. These duties often ignore competing priorities, and when progress stalls, the reflex is procedural: more reporting, added conditions, tighter oversight. These measures seldom address the underlying delivery barriers or create the flexibility needed to unblock progress.

Our aim in this article is not to add new reform layers, but to highlight common delivery problems and offer small, deliberate adjustments—drawn from our work with governments—that consistently determine whether money delivers impact.  

Where Delivery Breaks Down

1. Misaligned Finance and Procurement Slow Delivery.

• Disbursements frequently arrive after budgets are set or planning cycles are closed, leaving money idle and stalling programs before they start.
• Procurement adds further delays: lengthy government approvals and donor procedures—like no-objection steps, prequalification rules, tied suppliers—mean even routine purchases can take six to nine months.‍

2. Diffuse Responsibility Undermines Capacity.

• Many programs require coordination across ministries, but roles are rarely formalized. Staff are expected to align actors without mandate, backing, or authority, and newly created working groups often default to information-sharing over performance.Disbursements frequently arrive after budgets are set or planning cycles are closed, leaving money idle and stalling programs before they start.
• At the same time, delivery depends on subnational teams, where responsibility outpaces capability. Local offices tasked with results lack necessary staffing, budgets, or data.
• In partially decentralized systems, districts are accountable for delivery without control of inputs or timelines. When delivery breaks down, there’s little ability to detect and resolve issues before progress stalls.

3. Compliance Crowds Out Course Correction.

• Plans are often locked early and tied to financing conditions, leaving minimal room to adjust without donor re-approval or legal amendment.
• Mid-term reviews come late or focus on compliance rather than performance. When timelines or targets slip, the “fix” is more oversight—draining the same capacity needed to solve problems.

What Needs to Be Built into Financing Design

1. Set focused priorities and clear leadership.

Actions:

• Especially early on, concentrate on a small set of outcomes that can be tracked, coordinated, and delivered to help build momentum. Having too many priorities dilutes focus and slows progress.
• For every program, designate a lead for implementation—not just policy. This role might sit in a central ministry, an implementation unit, or a coordination office—what matters is that accountability is clear, embedded in government, and backed with the authority to follow through.

In Practice:  

One country appointed a working group to support early childhood development. But despite regular meetings between stakeholders—and several pieces of passed legislation—the specific goal behind these efforts remained unclear.

Building new childcare facilities was prioritized, yet no one had assessed demand in existing facilities or the cognitive and developmental impacts of participating children. Established goals were broad and unmeasurable. Without sharper focus or a clear delivery lead, momentum dissipated.  Only when the government identified a single accountable ministry and narrowed the agenda to three outcomes—facility use, learning outcomes, and parental engagement—did progress begin to show.

2. Fund core delivery infrastructure, not just program costs.

Actions:

• Ensure financing covers what needs to be done—and how it will be delivered. Core elements like planning teams, operational support, data tracking, and performance routines are assumed but rarely funded. Without them, programs depend on already overstretched staff to manage complexity.
• Make space for a delivery rhythm—quarterly reviews and structured reflection points—designed not for compliance, but for solving problems before delays set in. Delivery happens week to week, not at the end of a workplan.

In Practice:

One country created a new authority to oversee disaster preparedness, but responsibilities were scattered: shelters fell under social services, transportation under the police and armed forces, and radio communications under local island administrators. With no single point of operational control, alignment was difficult.  

A monthly routine with the Prime Minister was established, which strengthened coordination and enabled all stakeholders to report against the same indicators.

3. Engage country systems early.

Actions:

• Assess delivery capacity early to identify where support is needed to make national leadership realistic. Most governments want to lead through their own systems, but few deals are structured to enable that. Early assessment can help governments get closer to this even when full alignment isn’t feasible.
• Convene finance and implementation actors and agree up front on what will be delivered, who is responsible, and how progress will be tracked and adjusted. Done well, this could serve as a test case and a model for others.
• Take basic steps—shared calendars, simplified reporting, and joint procurement planning—to reduce friction between finance and implementation and keep teams focused on execution instead of procedural hurdles.
• Build in systems to measure results relentlessly. Every financing agreement should not only deliver outcomes for citizens but also increase confidence in government as an investable partner. That requires simple, credible ways to track performance and return on investment from the outset—not as an afterthought.

In Practice:

A youth livelihoods program faced bottlenecks because microfinance institutions and government agencies worked on different schedules: credit was disbursed late, training rolled out on a separate timetable, and reporting cycles didn’t align. Young people waited months between receiving loans and accessing the support needed to use them effectively.

An early delivery review highlighted the gap. By bringing together microfinance lenders and government counterparts around a shared calendar and monthly routine, timelines were synchronized and responsibilities clarified. Credit and support reached youth when needed, repayment rates improved, and the government was able to lead coordination with external partners.

Designing for Delivery from Day One

The next wave of financing agreements is a chance to put these recommendations into practice—linking capital and delivery from the start so ambition translates into results.  

None of this requires inventing a new delivery model. It requires asking early, “What will it take to deliver this, within the systems that exist?” and designing the financing to match the answer. When that question is built into the deal, governments are far better positioned to carry the work forward—and deliver.