Philanthropic Impact in Asia: When Capital Works Across Systems

The panel considered how different forms of capital can work across systems to address Asia’s complex and interconnected challenges. Moderator James Dray highlighted the need to move beyond siloed approaches towards more coordinated structures. Although public, philanthropic and private actors operate with different incentives, expectations and timelines, the discussion suggested that the central challenge is not a shortage of capital but how resources are structured, connected and deployed.

Tracy Palandjian outlined the distinct strengths of different funding sources: government provides scale, philanthropy can catalyse solutions and private capital can unlock substantial resources where opportunities generate returns; and she noted the opportunity to use impact capital to harmonise these three pools of capital. Rather than beginning with particular financial instruments, she argued that funders should first identify the problem they want to address and the outcomes they hope to achieve. Blending and recycling capital could then extend the impact of available funding.

Drawing on Indonesia’s health system, Budi Gunadi Sadikin observed that it is impossible for countries to carry the national budget by themselves and that private-sector participation is essential. He described government as both catalyst and regulator, responsible for creating conditions in which private companies can support healthcare while earning a decent return. He also called for broader, more generalist perspectives in funding decisions, together with greater transparency and closer attention to productivity, to determine how resources can be used most effectively.

The panellists agreed that capital must be supported by an enabling ecosystem. Drawing on Japan’s experience, Ken Shibusawa argued that effective collaboration requires diverse actors to operate within a shared system. He said blended finance demands a similar approach, including greater consideration of financial returns and potential exits rather than a focus solely on capital inputs.

The need for stronger coordination is particularly evident in global health. Victor Dzau described its financing landscape as fragmented, with different sources of capital operating according to varying priorities and timelines. While philanthropy can catalyse initiatives, he argued, it must connect with other forms of funding to sustain and expand their impact. Tom Hall similarly characterised the challenge as one of connection rather than capital scarcity. Mobilising larger pools of funding for health, education and climate-related opportunities would require deliberate collaboration and mechanisms capable of supporting scale.

The panel underscored that realising the potential of impact capital will require stronger organisational capacity, better alignment among funding sources and sustained cross-sector cooperation. As social needs continue to grow, Asia has significant potential to develop approaches that mobilise available resources more effectively and generate impact at scale.