This paper aims to inform future policy by providing a critical analysis of grassroots finance models. It argues for more locally centred and driven sustainable development but also considers the limitations: What are the critical challenges of participation, scale and the translation of savings into development resources? By concentrating on activities with a high degree of community leadership, this paper looks at the challenges of shaping localised arrangements to fit with structured development programming.

2015 the global community committed itself to an ambitious programme of reform. Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and implementing the resolutions of the Paris climate conference require that great efforts are made – including those of a financial nature. Many states will have to ensure that untapped or barely used sources of income are developed. Sub-national units such as provinces, departments, districts, and cities will play an increasing role in the mobilisation of public revenues. They are also in the forefront with regard to realisation of the global reform agenda, as many of the objectives concern classic areas of activity of local government: schools, basic medical care, local road construction, public transport, construction of social housing, the supply of drinking water and disposal of waste water, refuse collection etc. These services are already the responsibility or co-responsibility of subnational units. The mobilisation of revenues at sub-national level is therefore not only a financial necessity, it is also prudent from a development policy perspective: if the users and funders of a good match, there is a greater likelihood that the preferences of citizens will be observed and the use of funds monitored. In addition, local taxes and levies are often paid by a broad circle of citizens and companies. This serves to strengthen the relationship between governments and the governed. One thing should be clear in this: although many countries will exploit the scope for collecting local taxes and levies in the future, this potential is nevertheless limited. Many sub-national units will remain dependent on transfer payments from the central state. Cities, districts and the middle tier cannot solve the funding problem of the states on their own. However, they can help to place the provision of public services on a broader foundation of legitimacy and, in co-operation with the national level – for example via the exchange of information – improve fiscal policy as a whole. Consequently, they also contribute to overcoming problems of fragile statehood.

On World Cities Day, and following Habitat III, ODI’s Global Challenges event brings together representatives from cities around the world to explore how urban areas can deliver the global goals.

The United Nations (UN) has of late been debating the new international development framework that will replace the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) post–2015. This process has been popularly referred to as the post-2015 development agenda. It is a fact that many of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) that have been identifi ed will impact on the role and responsibilities of local government, namely, poverty reduction; access to water and sanitation; health; education; economic growth; development of cities and human settlements; and resilience to climate change. A critical issue that was highlighted when the MDGs were introduced in 2000 was the implementation modalities as it was felt that the process and goals were primarily top down (CLGF 2014:3). Consequently, there has been strong advocacy for local government to be a key implementation partner in the achievement of the new sustainable development goals that would have been finalised in September 2015 (www.worldwewant2015.org/ localising2015; CLGF 2014:3; www.capacity.undp.org; Slack 2014:1). Key aspects of the debate and discussion to date have been how to localise the new development framework, evaluate the local impact of the future SDGs and ensure that the local dimension is prioritised and successfully implemented (UNDP 2014a:3). There is a firm belief that the issue of localisation has to extend beyond national, provincial/state/regional implementation and there should be a focus on how the new development agenda will be implemented locally and the implications for the local level of government in this regard. According to the UN, localisation denotes the “process of defining; implementing; and monitoring strategies at the local level for achievable global, national and subnational sustainable goals and targets” (UNDP 2014a:3). This process would involve the utilisation of distinct tools, mechanisms, strategies, platforms and innovations to ensure that the development agenda is effectively translated into firm action and concrete results at the local level to benefit communities. It is envisaged that it will be an inclusive process and will move beyond the municipal jurisdiction to draw in relevant stakeholders to create a strong and capable local authority. Viewed in this context, localisation is an integral part of the multilevel governmental system and more so in terms of attaining the sustainable development goals that will be shortly adopted by the international community (CLGF 2014:3).

Everyone seems to want data or more data. Data that helps target the 'right' people with the 'right' things. Data on the billions who suffer deprivations as legitimation for the entire aid and development business. Data to measure and monitor the global goals and targets that governments have agreed to (or hopefully will agree to within the proposed Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). There is also an enthusiasm for mining existing datasets. All this was highlighted by A World That Counts, a report prepared at the request of the UN Secretary General. This suggests that the data revolution can be a revolution for equality.