Global conversations around financing urban development typically neglect the importance of coordinating the activities of different stakeholders behind a shared vision for their city. In particular, low-income and other marginalized groups must be seen as entrepreneurs and partners in service delivery to enhance the efficacy of resource use and to reduce poverty. This paper explores the creation of non-traditional business models and alliances to invest in informal settlements. It presents examples from India, Kenya, Pakistan, Thailand and Zimbabwe, where local authorities, commercial banks and other formal actors have co-financed and co-delivered urban plans, housing and infrastructure through collaborations with organized groups of the urban poor. These groups make three critical contributions: financial resources, detailed information on the composition of informal settlements, and capabilities for collective decision-making and action. These contributions are underpinned by the financial and social capital developed through collective saving, and enable the delivery of complex urban improvements at scale.

Cities are assets, solutions and drivers of economic and social development. Cities possess huge untapped economic potential that can and should be leveraged to create wealth and economic opportunities for all. This requires good urban planning that supports urban compactness, integration, and connectivity. However, even the best urban plans risk ending up unused if they are not accompanied by financial and regulatory strategies for implementation. Strategic public investments must go hand in hand with strategic funding mechanisms and supporting governance systems. The report also identifies successful governance mechanisms for efficient and equitable provision of public services in metropolitan areas of developing countries, and shares experiences and methods to making public service provision more viable in peri-urban areas of large cities and in smaller urban centres of these countries.

Using Mumbai as an illustrative example, it examines SDG progress for the city and its slum settlements for three selected targets: access to water, sanitation and decent housing. 

Where there is a central government with an exclusive mandate over municipalities, along with a state executive structure using the Westminster model, then the consolidation of squabbling municipalities within metropolitan boundaries becomes a distinct possibility A general model of municipal restructuring for the Canadian metropolis is more widespread than the superficially unique circumstances of each case might suggest. The thinking here is informed by Clarence Stone’s urban regime model, which helps to clarify what influences constituted the political tipping point for central government action. The paper focuses primarily on the Toronto and Montreal city-regional municipal consolidations at the end of the last century. It is argued that the decisive element in setting the stage for significant change lay in the pervasive influence of corporate Canada in generally shaping provincial political discourse. What has not previously been of much interest for investigators is the matter of direct consequences for the low politics of city-regional governance. As will be seen, they were both tangible and considerable.