Assessment of uses and implications for evaluation
This paper presents findings from research on how blended finance actors use and define
different key concepts, and what implications these understandings have for evaluators.
By increasing awareness of key terms and their use, the paper can contribute to facilitating
the evaluation process, simplifying the communication of findings and results, and
ease collaboration between different actors. It provides a useful framework for thinking
about core concepts related to blended finance, differences in how these are used
today, and the implications this has for evaluation methods and approaches. The work
will be of interest to monitoring and evaluation departments, development finance
institutions, international financial institutions, impact investors, private foundations
and others interested in blended finance and its role in contributing to sustainable
This paper is the first in a series of three working papers from the OECD/DAC EvalNet
Working Group on Evaluating Blended Finance.
While there are a large number of definitions for blended finance, these can be grouped into four different models. All of them are based on a similar logic, where a set of inputs leads to a set of outputs, but there are important differences on what these inputs and outputs include.
A second area where definitions vary, and where these differences have important implications for evaluation, is related to the terms “concessionality” and “mobilisation”. Most definitions of blended finance require concessionality as an input, but not all.
Blended finance interventions often involve private investors who are unfamiliar with the technical use of the term impact and often use it when they are really referring to outputs or outcomes as would be understood in an evaluation context.