Why Cities Can’t Fund Themselves: The Municipal Finance Gap
The Global South’s infrastructure demand concentrates in its cities — and the cities are the entities least able to pay for it. Their own revenue is a fraction of the rich-world level, and almost none of them can borrow. The fiscal base is the root of the urban infrastructure failure.
They built the city faster than the purse, / and bid the walls rise up on empty ground; / but stone is bought, not wished, and gates are dear, / and a town that cannot gather is not crowned.
The City Is Responsible and Broke
The infrastructure the developing world most urgently needs — water, sanitation, drainage, roads, transit — is overwhelmingly urban, and the legal responsibility for building and running it usually sits with the municipality. That is where the trail ends, because the municipality is, almost everywhere in the Global South, fiscally incapable of the job. It cannot raise enough of its own revenue, and it cannot borrow. The infrastructure gap in the world’s fastest-growing cities is, at bottom, a public-finance gap.
The scale of what is required is clear enough: the World Bank puts urban infrastructure investment needs in low- and middle-income countries at two to four per cent of their combined GDP every year, against flows that cover only a fraction — a persistent financing gap of one to three per cent of GDP. That gap cannot be closed by aid or central budgets alone; it needs repayable finance and own-source revenue. Both are precisely what the developing-country city does not have.
This is the municipal version of the offtaker problem. The entity legally on the hook for the infrastructure is not creditworthy — so its own balance sheet cannot fund the build, and private capital will not either. Fix the fiscal base and the finance follows; leave it broken and no amount of urban-investment enthusiasm reaches the ground.
The Revenue Side: A Tax Base in Plain Sight
Property is the ideal municipal tax: it cannot move, it rises in value as the city invests in it, and the revenue is naturally local. Yet across the developing world it is barely tapped. The reasons are administrative, not conceptual — there is no current valuation roll, the cadastre is incomplete or informal, collection is weak, and raising the rate is politically fraught. So the city sits on top of an appreciating asset base it cannot convert into revenue, and instead depends on unpredictable transfers from a central government with its own priorities.
The consequence is a loss of fiscal autonomy that compounds everything else. A municipality that raises little of its own money cannot plan multi-year capital programmes, cannot credibly commit to repay a loan, and cannot capture the value its own infrastructure creates. The IMF estimates that developing countries could raise domestic tax revenue by up to five percentage points of GDP over two decades — a large share of it property tax — which would transform what cities can build. The base is there. The machinery to collect it is not.
The Borrowing Side: Not Bankable
Infrastructure is a long-lived asset that should be paid for over its life, which means borrowing — and this is the second wall. Repayable finance through loans, bonds and PPPs is barely used across the developing world, because most municipalities are simply not bankable. Issuing a municipal bond is the clearest signal that a city has the fiscal, institutional and credit conditions to be lent to, and as of 2023 only 35 of the 100 largest developing-country cities had ever managed it. The rest lack the own-revenue, the accounts, the project-preparation capacity, or the legal authority to borrow at all.
China is the instructive exception, because it solved the problem the wrong way and shows what the pressure produces. Barred from direct borrowing by a 1994 law, its cities built Local Government Financing Vehicles that leveraged public land to raise capital — funding a generation of urban infrastructure and, in the process, a subnational debt stock near 70% of GDP. It is a warning as much as a model: where cities cannot fund themselves through revenue, the demand does not disappear. It reappears as hidden, land-backed, off-balance-sheet debt — which is its own future crisis.
Why This Is the Root, Not a Symptom
It is tempting to read urban infrastructure failure as a technical or planning problem. It is more fundamental than that. A city that cannot raise its own revenue and cannot borrow has no way to finance a long-lived asset, no matter how good the plan or how real the need. Every other urban infrastructure story in this thread — the cold wire, the informal utility, the missing water connection — runs into this same wall in the end: the responsible public entity has no money and no credit.
The discom cannot supply because it cannot collect. The city cannot build because it cannot tax or borrow. In both cases the binding constraint is the balance sheet of the responsible public entity, and in both cases the fix is the same unglamorous work: make the entity solvent and creditworthy first, and the physical infrastructure becomes financeable second.
The Positioning Read: Creditworthiness Is the Asset
If the binding constraint is municipal fiscal capacity, then the highest-return work is the plumbing that builds it — and the assets that become financeable once it exists.
Revenue & creditworthiness systems
Digital cadastres, property valuation and billing, collection systems and the advisory that turns a city into a bankable borrower. This is the direct lever on own-source revenue — the property-tax base that sits uncollected today.
Pooled & guaranteed municipal finance
Pooled financing vehicles, credit enhancement and guarantees let a group of sub-scale cities borrow together where none could alone. The structure that manufactures municipal creditworthiness is itself the investable asset.
Land value capture
Betterment levies, land-based financing and TIF-style tools monetise the value city infrastructure creates — powerful, and dangerous where it slides into the opaque, land-backed debt that China’s vehicles show at scale.
Bankable-project optimism
Pipelines of “bankable” urban projects that assume a creditworthy counterparty are pricing a city that does not exist yet. Without the fiscal base, the projects do not close — the constraint is upstream of the deal.
The reframing is that a developing-country city’s most valuable asset is not any particular project — it is its own creditworthiness, which almost none of them have and which can be built. Solve the fiscal base and a wall of urban infrastructure becomes financeable at once. Leave it unsolved and the investment need, however large and well-documented, has nowhere to land, because the entity at the bottom of it cannot tax its own streets or borrow against its own future.
This is the same balance-sheet failure as The Offtaker Problem (G11), moved from the utility to the city, and priced through The Cost-of-Capital Gap (G10). It is the fiscal reason the wire runs cold in Connection Is Not Supply (G12). The land-based financing that broke cities reach for is the flip side of the constraint examined next, in Land as the Binding Constraint (G15).
The Global South’s infrastructure need concentrates in its cities, and the cities are the entities least able to pay. Their property-tax base — under 1% of GDP against 2%-plus in rich countries — sits uncollected, and only 35 of the 100 largest can borrow at all. The urban infrastructure gap is a public-finance gap, and it is the same failure as the insolvent utility: the responsible entity has no money and no credit. The most valuable thing to build in a developing city is not a project. It is the city’s own creditworthiness.
A city that cannot tax its own bright streets / must beg its bread from a distant, careless throne; / first let it gather what its own ground yields — / no wall stands long that stands on borrowed stone.
Leave a Reply