Widening the Lens: Mapping the Evolving Landscape of Financial Inclusion Funders
Read Time:
Highlights
- The financial inclusion funding landscape is wider than previous research has captured. CGAP identified 2,015 "new" capital providers beyond the traditional pool of funders—most of them commercial actors without explicit impact mandates.
- Funding is more local than previously recognized. Over half of the newly identified funders are headquartered in emerging markets, signaling a potential shift in the architecture of development capital.
- New opportunities, new risks. The growing role of commercial funders creates opportunities to scale financial inclusion solutions, but risks leaving behind the populations and outcome areas that do not generate commercial returns.
- Understanding the new funding landscape requires action. Tracking new funder activities, closing data gaps, and engaging commercial actors to uphold impact and inclusion objectives must be priorities for legacy supporters of financial inclusion—particularly as ODA declines.
Executive Summary
Financial inclusion objectives have historically been supported by a pool of "legacy" international funders, comprised largely of public funders (donors and investors), philanthropy, and impact investors. This research maps a broader, more commercial, less impact-oriented, and more decentralized universe of capital providers in a position to drive financial inclusion outcomes in an age of declining official development assistance.
CGAP identified 2,015 "new" funders of financial inclusion beyond the legacy pool. Ninety percent of them are private, led by venture capital firms, commercial banks, and asset managers, most of whom operate without explicit impact mandates. At the same time, funding is localizing—over half of the new funders are headquartered in emerging markets—representing a substantial potential shift in the development capital architecture. These shifts create opportunities to scale solutions and drive development outcomes in new ways, but also pose heightened risks of fragmentation and leaving behind the people and outcome areas that do not generate commercial returns.
Continuing to monitor and expand the new funder data and knowledge base is critical for legacy impact-oriented actors to coordinate resources, identify gaps, and engage effectively in a changing landscape to achieve the greatest development impact.
Funding Flows Data: A Crucial Resource for the Financial Inclusion Community
Introduction
Since 2008, CGAP's Cross-Border Funder Survey has provided important data and analysis on funding flows for financial inclusion (see Box 1). Having reliable, regular funding insights supports coordination among funders and market actors on financial inclusion and related development objectives, and it helps keep funders accountable on their commitments. This has been especially important for public funders, many of whom operate with limited resources and seek to avoid duplicating other initiatives and crowding out private capital.
CGAP's research has historically focused on tracking international funding provided by public funders, private philanthropy, and impact investors, as this both constituted the bulk of flows for early microfinance and later financial inclusion efforts in emerging markets, and such funders had demonstrated a commitment (and sometimes a mandate) to transparency and providing data on their portfolios. CGAP's latest Global Estimate of international funding for financial inclusion placed global commitments at US$74 billion in 2022 (see Figure 1).
This paper explores the evolving financial inclusion funding landscape, looking beyond the impact-oriented international funders at the core of CGAP's former Global Estimate methodology to illuminate the wider range of actors engaged in the sector today.
A Changing Landscape
The financial sector and development funding landscape are both experiencing a period of profound change, with major implications for what it means to effectively measure funding for financial inclusion.
On the ground, the financial services landscape in emerging markets is increasingly shaped by technology-driven business models. Fintechs and digital-first financial service providers (FSPs)—ranging from mobile money operators and neobanks to embedded finance platforms—are gradually outpacing traditional microfinance institutions in both market share and innovation in some countries. These actors often operate in less regulated environments, serve low-income or unbanked segments, and design products well-aligned with financial inclusion outcomes, yet they do not necessarily identify as part of the financial inclusion sector and are not well-covered by traditional funding flows research; they often attract venture capital (VC) and angel funders beyond the impact community. Both technology-driven and traditional providers in emerging markets are also increasingly drawing on local and regional funding sources rather than international donors and development finance institutions (DFIs), representing a more diversified capital stack that largely sits outside CGAP's Global Estimate and other existing funding flows initiatives.
Box 1: Defining the Financial Inclusion Funding Universe
What counts as funding for "financial inclusion" within a broader sphere of "financial sector development"? Different sector stakeholders draw this boundary in different places. Some take an expansive view whereby the two terms are considered effectively synonymous within emerging markets. Others focus much more narrowly on only the most excluded customer segments, the least developed markets, strictly household- or micro-enterprise-level financial solutions, and/or other criteria. A challenge to any funding flows initiative is to harmonize these distinctions and arrive at a reasonably common denominator of what should be included and what should not. This is further complicated by an uneven data landscape in which the robustness of thematic tagging and granularity of documentation vary dramatically across funders and over time.
Historically, CGAP's financial inclusion funding flows research has limited its scope to projects/investments in emerging markets (non-high-income economies) whose documentation makes explicit reference to microfinance or financial inclusion objectives, including activities self-reported by funders as targeting such objectives. In CGAP's research, advancing financial inclusion has been defined as increasing access, usage, and quality of financial services. Therefore, the intentionality of the funding has been an essential criterion. CGAP has generally excluded funding meant to support financing of medium- or larger-sized enterprises (where it is possible to identify such distinctions), considering this to be a qualitatively distinct funding objective. Given the generally larger ticket sizes for such initiatives, including them would have a distortionary effect on the financial inclusion trends analysis.
As the landscapes of providers and recipients of funding are changing—notably becoming more commercial and decoupling from an intentional impact focus—distinguishing what should qualify as "financial inclusion" becomes increasingly complicated. Future efforts to define and measure this universe will depend on good granular data and should be rooted in common consensus about the types of activities worth counting in the same basket. See Box 2 for further related discussion.
At the same time, official development assistance (ODA) funding reached an all-time high in 2023 but then plunged by 6 percent in 2024 and a further 9–17 percent in 2025, with additional reductions expected in 2026. By 2027, ODA is expected to recede to 2020 levels (OECD 2025a; OECD 2025b; Kumar 2026). In this broader context of decline, funding from traditional international development stakeholders for financial sector development may be disproportionately affected as funders may pivot to fill critical gaps left behind in humanitarian assistance, health, and other immediate needs.
For the past decade, the international development community has already been striving to mobilize private capital in support of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (SDGs), and private capital will become an even more crucial driver of development outcomes if ODA funding continues to contract. Especially given the flourishing digital innovations, as noted above, and the maturation of local capital markets around the world, the financial inclusion sector has indeed seen increased participation from local banks alongside VC, private equity, and strategic corporate investors—both local and international. Many of these funders prioritize financial returns over explicit social impact metrics and have not participated in voluntary reporting initiatives or necessarily aligned their work with established international data and impact frameworks, leaving an important blind spot in funding flows research. To date, the scope and nature of what these actors are doing have been poorly understood—in part because their data is inconsistently available, and in part because existing funding data initiatives have not been designed to look for them, having focused instead on international funding flows and/or funding that is explicitly impact-oriented.
Delineating this wider landscape of financial inclusion funders—and especially understanding the role of local capital in a context of shifting international capital priorities—is an essential precursor to ultimately measuring funding and supporting coordination and influence efforts. To this end, CGAP partnered with Tameo Impact Fund Solutions to conduct a new funder mapping exercise as outlined below, revealing a funding ecosystem that is more diverse and decentralized than previously understood.
Approach and Findings: An Initial Mapping of New Financial Inclusion Funders
Methodology
The research employed several approaches to identify funders that were not previously well-covered by CGAP's Global Estimate methodology. First, we examined CGAP's existing historical database of international financial inclusion funding recipients in twelve priority financial inclusion markets [1] and investigated their additional funding streams (see Box 2). We supplemented this with desk research into the funding streams of inclusive fintechs and agtechs [2] operating in emerging markets that were not previously logged in the recipient database. We also conducted outreach to (a) gather data directly from asset managers on their investees and (b) learn from microfinance networks and associations about trends they have observed in their local funding contexts. While this outreach resulted in limited concrete additions to the list of relevant funders, it provided helpful qualitative context on the funder landscape and challenges in data sourcing. Overall, the primary focus of the research was to identify new funders and priority areas for further analysis. It is not yet possible to conclusively assess the total volume of additional funding they are providing, which remains a subject for future investigation.
Typology of New Funders
Together, these approaches revealed 2,015 "new" funders of financial inclusion that were not previously captured by CGAP's public funder and philanthropy-focused survey research, nor by Tameo's Private Asset Impact Fund (PAIF) survey. These funders were classified into a typology of five public and twelve private funder types for further analysis; see details of the typology in Annex 1.
Box 2: What Counts as Financial Inclusion Funding? Addressing Measurement Ambiguities
The approach to surfacing new funders operated under a key assumption: that new funding to the same recipients previously targeted by development funders with known financial inclusion and impact objectives could still be considered inclusive. In reality, just because a recipient has received impact-oriented funding does not necessarily mean that all funding to that recipient is impact-oriented. Particularly in markets that are relatively more mature or among recipient FSPs that are relatively more commercial, inclusive or impact-oriented funding initiatives may sit alongside funding for products and operations that are not explicitly targeting excluded and underserved clients.
For example, a DFI may provide funding to a large bank ("Bank Z") in a middle-income economy and specifically dedicate this funding toward Bank Z's efforts to advance women's financial inclusion. In parallel, Bank Z is likely receiving financing from commercial sources for the rest of its operations, which may target upmarket, better-served client segments. Therefore, counting all investments into recipients like Bank Z may overstate the volume of inclusive funding.
At the same time, recipients that might have once received funding for inclusion may no longer be serving the same types of underserved clients. As markets mature and providers scale, they may cease to target or even reach underserved clients. This raises an existential question and relates back to Box 1: should any funding into the financial sector in emerging markets be considered support for financial inclusion after all—assuming such funding bolsters overall sector stability, and also assuming that greater exclusion would be the result of any sector crisis?
While there are limitations to surfacing new financial inclusion funders based on known past recipients of funding, this is a good starting point to identify actors potentially relevant to advancing the development objectives supported by the "legacy" financial inclusion community. More granular assessment of new funder activities—pending good data availability and analytical capacity—will be an important step for future research to determine what is appropriate to include.
This research found that the financial inclusion funding base is becoming more commercial and less intentionally inclusive. Ninety percent of the new actors are private funders, and 10 percent are public sector institutions. VC firms (21 percent), commercial banks (16 percent), and asset managers (16 percent)[3]—all private actors—together account for over half of the new funders identified (see Figure 2). Given their numbers and the potential capital they bring to the table, we looked more closely at the VC firms and asset managers and determined that 89 percent of them—therefore 33 percent of all new funders identified—are operating without an explicit impact mandate. It is likely that there are additional non-impact-oriented funders among the remaining smaller groups in the typology and that, therefore, the portion of non-impact actors is actually higher. On the public side, state-owned banks (5 percent) represent the largest category of funders. The research uncovered relatively few new funders classified as international development finance organizations, as this category of actors has been historically well-covered in CGAP's data collection.
Geography of New Funders
The democratization of global development, including through the localization of funding sources and local ownership of activities, has been an important conversation in recent years. One objective of this research was to understand the prevalence of domestic funding sources and expand the focus of CGAP's future funding flows research beyond cross-border funding alone.
Over one-third of the newly identified funders remain international funders based in North America (22 percent) and Western Europe (13 percent; see Figure 3), indicating the still-significant presence of actors from the Global North. An additional 12 percent of the new funders are based in a high-income economy in another region, reflecting a geographic spread of capital, though one that still operates internationally. However, this leaves more than half of the new funders identified as headquartered in emerging markets, suggesting a notable localization of funding. Thirty-six percent of funders are headquartered in the research's twelve focus markets, and it is likely that further analysis beyond the twelve focus markets could reveal more emerging-market-based actors.
Geography of New Funding Recipients
The research revealed several patterns in terms of where the newly identified funders are directing their capital, supporting the theory that funding systems are localizing, albeit unevenly. Cross-border funders from North America and Western Europe reach all regions and are particularly present in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC; see Figure 4). They also account for over half of newly identified funders active in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), suggesting that, for the moment, international sources of funding still remain more significant in this region than in others. Most regionally-based funders focus on their own region. For example, 98 percent of funders based in LAC are active locally. Similarly high proportions are seen for funders based in and operating in South Asia (96 percent), SSA (90 percent), and Eastern Europe & Central Asia (ECA; 90 percent). Sixty-nine percent of the new funders are active in one or more of the twelve priority research countries, again suggesting that the number of new funders would likely increase if future research casts a wider geographic net.
The breakdown of funders by type and geography reveals distinct patterns for the largest categories (see Figure 5). VC firms and asset managers are predominantly based in North America and East Asia and the Pacific (EAP), yet they are most active in LAC. North America also hosts the largest share of newly identified foundations, philanthropic organizations, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Philanthropic funders mainly target SSA and LAC, which together account for approximately 60 percent of these new funders' activities. The largest share of non-bank financial institutions (NBFIs) identified is based in South Asia and is active in the same region. More than a third of state-owned banks are based and active in LAC.
Implications of a Changing Funding Landscape
Today's financial inclusion funding landscape is clearly broad and complex, with legacy international funders engaged alongside a diverse range of capital sources that may not identify as impact-oriented. While the volume of new funding in play remains to be more precisely investigated, the sheer number and variety of actors present both opportunities to leverage and challenges to navigate.
On the opportunity side, the existence of a broad potential funding base that includes mainstream investors could support blended finance initiatives and help to compensate for declining ODA and other fiscal constraints on traditional development financing. In addition, seeing commercial actors engaged with recipients (or former recipients) of more traditional development financing for financial inclusion is a positive signal that the sector is seen, at least in some locations, as an attractive asset class beyond a strictly impact-driven imperative.
At the same time, a large funder pool presents risks of fragmentation and lapses in coordination among different capital providers, especially if funders only dedicate a small portion of their portfolios to financial inclusion activities or if the pursuit of returns runs counter to others' pursuit of impact objectives. Important impact themes within financial inclusion programming—such as women's empowerment—or even baseline imperatives of responsible finance like consumer protection may lose momentum if newcomers do not continue to embed them in their own activities. In addition, segments and markets that fall outside commercial risk-return profiles—including last-mile populations, more challenging operating environments, and protection gaps due to growing climate risks—may find it harder to attract sustained investment if newcomers do not view these initiatives as viable opportunities.
Next Steps for Alternative Funding Flows Research and Influence Efforts
Future research into the size and nature of new funder activities, as well as efforts to engage these funders and harness their capital for development impact, will need to keep several key questions in mind:
- How much data will be available on the activities and portfolios of the newly identified funders? Efforts to measure funding flows fundamentally depend upon access to data. Having more granular data, and having it across a critical mass of funders, leads to better and more actionable analysis. While estimated data can offer broad directional signals, optimal coordination and identification of gaps is reliant on detail. Legacy funders and other impact-oriented actors may be able to encourage newcomers to improve their data availability. Sharing existing templates and frameworks can reduce reporting frictions, and peer learning from those who have already taken steps toward greater transparency could help motivate increased disclosure. Even if new funders are unwilling to disclose detailed portfolio information directly, advancements in machine learning and the usage of alternative public and market data sources could provide greater insights into their activities than have existed to date.
- How will outcomes for underserved populations shift as the funder makeup evolves? Non-impact-oriented funding may result in populations being served for the first time or in new ways, but access to and use of financial products and accounts is not in itself a guarantee of positive impact. The sector has previously seen, for example, in Cambodia, that the commercialization of microfinance can "have negative effects on socially responsible practices" of once-mission-driven institutions (Aiba 2024; see also Rozas 2024) and may generate negative outcomes for clients and communities. This is not to say that those operating in emerging markets and among last-mile populations without an impact-oriented outcomes lens will inherently do harm, but it is important to have visibility into their activities to spot potential issues.
- What do legacy financial inclusion funders and other impact-oriented stakeholders need to consider in an increasingly complex capital landscape? As the funding universe evolves, other players will need to assess their own relative roles and the extent to which they aim to influence the activities of newcomers or simply monitor activities to complement them and bridge gaps. They may need to engage with funding recipients to ensure inclusive and impact objectives remain on the agenda as impact-oriented funding streams (and their associated expectations) make up a smaller portion of some recipients' funding. This could include the provision of smart subsidies in the form of impact-linked incentives, or turning toward instruments like equity that may offer different opportunities to influence governance and social goals. They can deploy blended finance instruments, technical assistance, and investment readiness or pipeline development support to de-risk and crowd in others in areas where impact potential is high but risk remains elevated or margins are small. They can support regulators in monitoring and controlling for risks that may result from purely commercial entities serving vulnerable populations. They can also play a narrative role to clarify the financial inclusion relevance proposition for more commercial funders, link financial inclusion metrics to business outcomes, and provide evidence linking financial inclusion outcomes to other impact benefits that may draw additional interest beyond financial sector development itself.
This research has confirmed that the financial inclusion funding universe is wider, more commercial, less explicitly impact‑oriented, and more locally rooted than has been previously understood. This shift brings tangible opportunities while also introducing material risks.
Advancing the new funder research and action agenda outlined above should be a priority for legacy supporters of financial inclusion in the current global context, to drive impact-oriented action and to harness the full potential of new sources of capital.
Footnotes
- The twelve markets are: Brazil, China, Colombia, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, the Philippines, South Africa, and Türkiye. These markets were chosen for their size, scope of known financial inclusion activities, and presumption of stronger local capital sources. The research findings may partially reflect this focus country approach, and further research could canvas additional countries to provide additional insights and validation. In any case, it is likely that a fuller scan will identify a larger number of relevant new funders than those captured in this paper.
- For the purpose of this research, inclusive agriculture technology—"agtech"—companies are defined as technology-driven enterprises that design and deliver financial and agricultural services or products tailored to the needs of underserved, low-income rural households, smallholder farmers, and micro and small enterprises (MSEs) in agricultural value chains. Their core aim is to foster financial inclusion in the agricultural sector and to enable greater food security outcomes at the local level.
- Unless otherwise stated, all figures within this paper are based on the number and proportion of funder actors identified and not their share of funding volume.
- The World Bank updated its regional classifications in 2025, moving Afghanistan and Pakistan to an updated Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan (MENAAP) region. For consistency with historical classifications, this research still classifies Afghanistan and Pakistan as part of the South Asia region.
Annex 1. New Funder Typology
Typology of Public Funders
Government agency: Public sector bodies at the national, regional, or municipal level that allocate public funds to advance economic development, innovation, or social policy objectives. This category includes ministries of finance and economic development.
International development finance organization: Development finance institutions (DFIs) and multilateral and bilateral agencies that are based in developed markets and that provide capital and technical assistance to projects in developing countries with the aim of promoting sustainable development and reducing poverty.
Local development finance institution: National or regional institutions designed to finance local or domestic development projects. This category includes national development banks, public development funds, and apex institutions.
State-owned organization (non-bank): Government-controlled entities that hold and manage public financial or strategic assets. Their mandates often include promoting national economic development, securing financial returns, and supporting strategic sectors. This category includes sovereign wealth funds, public pension funds, trade promotion agencies and state-owned asset management companies.
State-owned bank: Commercial banks wholly or majority-owned by the state, which operate with public policy mandates.
Typology of Private Funders
Accelerator & incubator: Accelerators are time-bound programs that support early-stage start-ups with mentorship, resources, and seed funding, often in exchange for equity. Incubators provide longer-term support for start-ups, offering workspace, mentorship, and networking opportunities, often with a less structured timeline.
Asset manager (non-venture capital [VC]): Private firm or institution managing investment portfolios on behalf of clients such as individuals, corporations, or institutional investors. Some focus on impact investments, while others seek purely financial returns. Note: Impact-driven asset managers have typically been historically well-covered in CGAP's Global Estimate through Tameo's PAIF Database.
Business angel & corporate VC: Affluent individuals or networks who provide capital to start-ups in exchange for equity or convertible debt. They often offer mentorship and strategic support, typically on more favorable terms than institutional investors. Corporate venture capital funds (CVCs) are investment arms of corporations that invest in start-ups or emerging companies. CVCs seek both financial returns and strategic benefits (e.g., access to new technology or markets).
Commercial bank: Regulated financial institutions offering a range of services such as deposits, loans, and trade finance. They may be based in developed, emerging, or frontier markets and sometimes invest directly or through subsidiaries.
Corporate & conglomerate: Large firms or diversified business groups that may invest directly in other companies to enhance core operations or enter new markets.
Family office: Private wealth management firms that serve ultra-high-net-worth individuals or families. They often have long-term investment horizons and may invest across a wide range of sectors, including impact-oriented initiatives.
Foundation: Nonprofit entities endowed by individuals, families, or corporations. They provide grants or investments in support of social, environmental, or public-interest goals.
Insurance company: Large institutional investors managing capital derived from premiums or retirement contributions. They invest across various asset classes, including private equity and debt.
Non-bank financial institution (NBFI): Entities that provide financial services similar to banks but without a full banking license, and generally are non-deposit taking. Typical examples within the context of this project include non-bank microfinance institutions (MFIs), leasing companies, and credit cooperatives.
Philanthropic organization & NGO: Entities engaged in charitable or mission-driven activities. NGOs are often grant recipients but may also act as funders in community projects or social enterprise financing.
Tech-driven model: Funding entities whose business models rely heavily on technology. These include crowdfunding platforms, peer-to-peer lending platforms, and other alternative finance providers enabled by financial technology (fintech) innovation.
VC firm: Private firm or institution managing investment portfolios on behalf of limited partners to typically back start-ups and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) with high growth potential. VCs may focus on impact or purely financial returns, depending on their mandate.
References
Aiba, Daiju. 2024. "Acquisition of Microfinance Institutions by Commercial Investors: Evidence on Its Impacts on Outreach of the Cambodian Microfinance Institutions." Tokyo: JICA Ogata Sadako Research Institute for Peace and Development. https://www.jica.go.jp/english/jica_ri/publication/discussion/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2024/03/29/Discussion_Paper_No.22.pdf
Estoppey, Anne, and Ramkumar Narayanan. 2024. "Private Asset Impact Fund Report 2023: Showcasing Resilience During Market Downturns." Geneva: Tameo Impact Fund Solutions. https://www.tameo-solutions.com/publications/2023-private-asset-impact-fund-report
Kumar, Raj. 2026. "The Old Aid Model Is Dead. Now Comes the Fight Over What Replaces It." Devex. https://www.devex.com/news/the-old-aidmodel-is-dead-now-comes-the-fight-over-whatreplaces-it-111648
OECD. 2025a. "Cuts in Official Development Assistance: OECD Projections for 2025 and the Near Term." Paris: OECD.
https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2025/06/cuts-in-officialdevelopment-assistance_e161f0c5/8c530629-en.pdf
OECD. 2025b. "Final OECD Statistics on ODA and Other Development Finance Flows in 2024: Key Figures and Trends." Paris: OECD. https://www.oecd.org/en/data/insights/data-explainers/2025/12/final-oecd-statistics-on-odaand-other-development-finance-flows-in-2024-keyfigures-and-trends.html
Rozas, Daniel. 2024. "Responsible Equity Exits: Lessons From Cambodia." FinDev Gateway. https://www.findevgateway.org/blog/2024/03/responsible-equity-exits-lessons-from-cambodia
Tolzmann, Molly. 2024. "2022 Trends in International Funding for Financial Inclusion." Washington, D.C.: CGAP. https://www.cgap.org/research/publication/2022-trends-in-international-funding-forfinancial-inclusion