Sovereign Wealth Fund Typologies and Healthcare Investment: An Exploratory Study of Six Cases Through an Agency Theory Lens

Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs), managing over USD 13 trillion globally, are increasingly active in healthcare. Yet research often treats them as uniform, overlooking how mandates may shape strategies. This study explores whether typologies, savings, stabilisation, and development suggest distinct approaches to healthcare investment. Using Agency Theory and a multiple‐case design, six funds were analysed across diverse contexts: Mubadala (UAE), Temasek (Singapore in India), GIC (Singapore in Malaysia), ADQ (UAE in Egypt), the New Zealand Superannuation Fund (NZSF), and the Nigeria Sovereign Investment Authority (NSIA). Findings indicate preliminary patterns. Stabilisation funds pursue conservative, infrastructure‐heavy strategies to preserve liquidity. Savings funds deploy patient capital adaptively, emphasising innovation in strong systems and scalable delivery in moderate ones. Development funds align with state priorities, focussing on politically salient infrastructure even in moderate governance settings. Together, these patterns offer exploratory propositions that provide a foundation for further testing. The study contributes by extending Agency Theory to show how agency challenges differ by fund type, and by offering policymakers and healthcare leaders a framework to anticipate SWF behaviour and structure partnerships. While limited to six cases, with single‐case representation for stabilisation and development funds, the framework provides a basis for future testing and for examining health outcomes such as access, innovation, and resilience. Recognising SWF heterogeneity is essential to aligning sovereign capital with sustainable healthcare.