Overview
This series explains why governments are shifting from company-level venture investing toward fund-of-funds structures: innovative SMEs face gaps in capital, information, time horizon, geography, and investor capability, while VC markets are volatile and concentrated. It shows how public anchor capital can mobilise private managers and institutions, when direct or mixed investment is better suited, and why leverage, mobilisation, and successful exits do not by themselves prove additionality or wider public value.
Learning outcomes
- A fund-of-funds can add scale, diversification, private expertise, and investor confidence, but these are mechanisms to test, not guaranteed outcomes.
- Public VC is most defensible when it addresses a diagnosed gap in capital, information, time horizon, geography, or capability.
- Direct or mixed investment remains important when markets are thin, mandates are specific, or public proximity and patience are essential.
- Mobilised private capital is not proof of additionality; outcomes must be compared with a plausible counterfactual and the public mandate.
Keywords
Preview every chapter · Unlock full text, audio, and video from chapter 4
PlansFAQ
When is a fund-of-funds the right government VC instrument?
A fund-of-funds is the right government VC instrument when scale, diversification, investor learning, or private-manager expertise is the diagnosed gap and a capable manager market exists.
Why do governments use fund-of-funds structures in venture capital?
Governments use fund-of-funds structures to connect public mandates and anchor capital with private selection expertise and institutional investors, potentially broadening and stabilising financing.
Does private capital mobilised by government VC prove additionality?
No. Mobilised private capital does not prove additionality because some investors or companies may have participated without public backing; the counterfactual must be examined.
When is direct government VC better than a fund-of-funds?
Direct government VC is more plausible when the manager market is thin or the mandate requires close technical or local knowledge, patient capital, or control over reach.