CONCLUSIONS Since the beginning of the pandemic, Development Finance Institutions have played an important role in providing assistance and fast-disbursing financing to the public and private sectors, in response to the main economic and social impacts generated by the COVID-19 crisis and the confinement measures widely implemented around the globe. In turn, DFIs are currently shown as key strategic actors to finance and promote the necessary global post-pandemic economic recovery. In a context marked not only by the health and economic crises associated with the Coronavirus pandemic but also by a fragile socioeconomic situation, added to a significant fiscal deficit, persistent inflation and growing debt, Argentina has resorted to DFI financing as an alternative to finance development projects in the framework of the pandemic. However, the above analysis shows that this financing has not been focused on projects that really provide assistance to the population sectors that are in vulnerable situations. Nor can projects be identified that are specifically oriented towards environmental issues or the fight against climate change, or projects that propose alternative models or some minimal paradigm shift in relation to the current development model promoted in the country and in the region. Rather, the projects approved or in preparation for the period analyzed are mainly aimed at partially covering the expenses associated with the measures and policies implemented by the national government in response to the pandemic and the restrictive measures and lockdown. At the same time, a large part of the projects is mainly oriented towards sanitary measures and the strengthening of the health system at both the national and subnational levels, and economic and financial measures aimed at providing credit and benefits to actors such as MSMEs. At the same time, it seems that, based on the context generated by the pandemic and the need for economic reactivation, the government is revitalizing certain projects that can be considered at least conflictive or problematic, such as those associated with extractive industries like, for example, mining. In addition, a series of problems and concerns have been identified regarding the projects contemplated in the analysis. Among them, the lack of accurate and up-to-date information on a large part of the projects, as well as the imprecision or contradiction in the information provided, represent a great limitation for an in-depth understanding of the type of development projects that are being financed within the pandemic’s framework. This is particularly significant regarding projects specifically aimed at dealing with the consequences of COVID-19. Also, as stated before, it is not clear under what criteria an undertaking financed by these institutions is considered to be a project “in response to COVID-19.” In the context of a pandemic, such as we are currently experiencing, having accurate, reliable, up-to-date and detailed information on the projects that are being financed by the DFIs is crucial and a priority. Therefore, all DFIs that are financing projects in response to the pandemic should publish and clearly detail what these projects are, not only in specific sections but also on the individual pages of each project, setting out in a simple and understandable way how these projects are contributing to face the impacts of the pandemic. In addition, numerous projects have been approved in very short periods of time, through quick disbursement windows, which generates doubts and questions in relation to transparency, public participation and accountability regarding those projects. Thus, for example, after the public 30 DFIs FINANCING IN ARGENTINA DURING THE PANDEMIC: COVID-19 PROJECTS AND TRANSPARENCY SHORTCOMINGS