Dead Idea #4: “More Money Means More Impact”

Inspired by the wisdom of Nikki Tyler: The Myth of Linear Returns

I’m stealing this one—unapologetically—from my colleague Nikki Tyler, who has spent years showing how small, catalytic investments can spark transformative change.

Yet much of the global health funding machine still operates on a different logic: Big money = big impact. The bigger the envelope, the more important the intervention. The assumption is almost Newtonian—double the input, double the outcome.

But in practice, the returns aren’t just non-linear—they’re often inverse.

Massive funding packages can create institutional bloat, fuel perverse incentives, and outpace local absorptive capacity. Programs pivot to please donors instead of serving communities. National strategies are rewritten to match grant language. Local leaders are sidelined in favor of global consultants. Sometimes, more money just makes the problem more expensive.

Meanwhile, small, smart, community-driven investments quietly punch above their weight. Look at Transform Health Fund: $1 million in USAID funding was leveraged to secure >$100 million in private sector resources. Or look at donor investments in African agriculture, where targeted seed funding for women's cooperatives outperformed massive infrastructure projects in improving food security and household income.

These efforts succeed not because they are lean, but because they leveraged donor resources to crowd in other stakeholders. They engage the private sector. They were accountable.

Next up: Dead Idea #5 – “Measurement = Progress.”