Four key realizations prompted me to write this book. First, my lived experiences in two countries—India and the United States—that are very different from an urban development perspective prompted me to think deeper about the reasons for the differences in these countries’ quality of urban development. Having worked as a planner in India before I came to the United States, I knew that planning schools in both countries provide similar technical planning training. Therefore, the differences should lie elsewhere. Upon further reflection in the ensuing years, and as I conducted further comparative scholarly research in the field of public finance, I realized that a major difference lies in the amount of own-source urban development revenues at the disposal of local governments in the two countries. While the local governments in the United States have access to an extensive suite of local revenue sources such as property and sales taxes, development charges, and a well-functioning municipal bond market, local governments in India (and, for that matter, across the Global South) rely heavily on state and federal grants. Essentially, while I was planning neighborhoods and cities in India, many of my plans were not implemented due to a lack of funds.

Second, while researching local finance tools, I realized that these tools often have secondary unintended negative consequences. For example, while development charges can be set at a high enough rate to fund a large proportion of infrastructure/service needs, these high rates can negatively impact housing affordability. Therefore, equity should be considered while designing and implementing these financing tools, especially in developing countries, where the poor have disproportionately borne the brunt of centuries of political, religious, social, and economic suppression.

Third, just because a tool exists in a local government’s toolkit does not mean it is being used properly. Development charges are a prime example. While most Indian cities use the charges, the revenue is extremely inadequate to meet the cities’ infrastructure/service needs. Furthermore, there is little consideration for equity, accountability, and transparency in the design and implementation of these charges.

Finally, whereas significant research based in the US, and to some extent Australia and the UK, has been published in the last two to three decades, little is known about the use of these charges elsewhere, especially in developing countries.