Either we invest together, or there’s no future to finance.

“We can pay our debts to the past by putting the future in debt to ourselves,” wrote Scottish novelist John Buchan. Today, this phrase resonates with a certain urgency considering the “harsh truths,” as UN Secretary-General António Guterres called them, regarding financing for development (F4D): the Sustainable Development Goals, that promise made to future generations, are dramatically far from being fulfilled. The public coffers of many countries, which should be the main engine of human development, are besieged by a perfect storm of overlapping crises —the aftershocks of the pandemic, inflation, climate change, wars and armed conflicts, etc.— and international cooperation resources, while still an important source of funding, are rapidly diminishing as geopolitical priorities shift. The ideal of global development that leaves no one behind remains relevant, as does the imminent threat of the climate crisis; what seems to be lacking now are sufficient resources to address them.

But despair is a luxury we cannot afford. We must be the architects of a new hope built on more solid, diversified, and innovative financial foundations that can overcome the estimated $4.3 trillion annual global financing gap for development, equivalent to the GDP of Colombia, Argentina, Peru, and Ecuador multiplied by five. The solution to this crisis cannot come solely from traditional sources: it is vital to construct a new model, one that combines public enabling and the dynamism of the private sector.

For too long, the conversation around F4D has kept the private sector on the periphery, viewed with skepticism or simply as a source of tax revenue. This narrative must change to promote and encourage its active involvement and that of global capital markets in development. It is not an naïve call for corporate philanthropy or for the private sector to replace the state in its responsibilities. It is about these actors, without renouncing their legitimate profit motive, actively participating in discussions and developing solutions that impact the country’s development.

Investing in development is not charity: instability, inequality, and authoritarianism are among the greatest systemic risks to the market itself. In this sense, it is a long-term risk management strategy and an investment in future consumers, stable markets, and resilient supply chains. It is also not about placing this burden solely on the private sector: governments must concurrently strengthen the rule of law, combat corruption, simplify regulations, create incentives in the role of the state, and ensure macroeconomic stability. The goal is to create ecosystems where investment in human development and sustainable use of nature is not only possible but also preferable and profitable.

The Colombian state has shown a firm commitment to overcoming its structural challenges, but fiscal realities limit it: with a tax collection of 14% of GDP —well below the OECD average— and a public debt nearing 60%, public resources simply do not suffice. International cooperation, while useful, represents only 0.4% of financial flows. In total, the state contributes 41% of development financing; the remaining 59% comes from the private sector. However, these efforts are still not progressing at the same pace or in the same direction. What is missing is a common strategy that articulates, guides, and enhances them in service of collective well-being. Colombia’s development cannot continue to be the sole responsibility of the state: it is a shared task.

The good news is that, currently, many private entities are betting on development or at least wish to do so, although they do not always find the ideal conditions. An increasing number envision investment frameworks that encourage renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, or inclusive businesses with vulnerable populations; more are seeing the viability of promoting innovative financial mechanisms that generate social impact, the creation of risk capacity funds focused on development solutions, or enabling fintechs that impact remote populations. One example is the credit lines for victims of armed conflict offered by the Victims Unit in collaboration with the Colombian Business Development Bank, Bancoldex, which reduce financing barriers for this population while managing to mobilize up to three times the invested amount. Another is the greening path of credits from the Agricultural Sector Financing Fund, Finagro, where for every peso invested in improving the allocation of credit to environmentally protective projects, up to four times the investment is mobilized.

It is not about privatizing development or nationalizing the economy; it is a catalytic model in which public funds are used more strategically to reduce risk and attract private investment, and in which private financing creates and leverages market enabling conditions to reach new sectors, offer better products that include underserved populations, and thus foster development.

The financing gap is immense but not insurmountable. Closing it requires the same boldness and creativity that led us to imagine that human development without leaving anyone behind was possible. Scientist and futurist Buckminster Fuller expressed it brilliantly: “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” We must build a new financing model for development that, rather than simply responding to the present crisis, shapes a better future based on the certain promise of well-being and environmental sustainability.

This requires all actors —public, private, and multilateral— to see themselves not as separate entities, but as co-investors in human development without destroying the planet. That is the debt we must repay to the future. And it is a debt that, by working together, we can turn into our most valuable legacy.