Several countries worldwide use development charges to fund infrastructure and services. Governments in many of these countries have a long history of negotiating contributions from developers. These contributions could be monetary and non-monetary, and they are referred to by various names. For instance, they are called development exactions in the US, planning obligations in the United Kingdom (UK), and developer contributions in Australia and New Zealand.

As noted in Chapter 1, development charges are an example of monetary contributions, and they are generally levied based on a fixed fee schedule. They are also known by various names. For example, they may be called impact fees, development impact fees, and system development charges in the US; community infrastructure levy (CIL) in the UK; infrastructure charges in Australia; external development charges in India; and capital contributions, engineering service contributions, and bulk infrastructure contribution levies in South Africa.

As non-monetary contributions, governments can require developers to provide infrastructure and services, such as affordable housing, land for parks, and off-site improvements like sidewalks and signalized traffic intersections. The development charge can supplement or complement non-monetary contributions. However, local governments are often prohibited from using non-monetary contributions and development charges for the same project to avoid double-dipping. For example, local governments in the UK generally use CIL to fund neighborhood- or jurisdiction-wide infrastructure and services. They use planning obligation for site-specific requirements for which they cannot use CIL, as per the national law enabling CIL (GoUK 2011). Some of these requirements include landscaping, improving local roads, or funding affordable housing. Similarly, local governments in the US typically do not collect a park impact fee to acquire land for a park if they require a dedication of land for it. However, they can charge a park impact fee to construct the same park because the fee would complement the development exaction. Here, the latter would be used to acquire the land and the former to construct the park.

The remainder of the chapter takes a closer look at how development charges are used in Australia, South Africa, and the US. I chose these three countries based on their geographical spread (spread across three continents) and levels of economic development (two developed and one developing country). I also considered the maturity of their development charge programs (more mature programs in the US than in Australia and South Africa), enabling environments, and the availability of information.