Analysis
The Tariff That Won’t Die: How World Economies Are Navigating Trump’s 2026 Global Trade Shock
After the Supreme Court Struck Down His Signature Trade Policy, Trump Reached for a Dusty 1974 Law — and Raised the Stakes. The World Is Now Running Out of Easy Responses.
In the winter of 2026, the global trading system — already battered by more than a year of White House tariff whiplash — absorbed two seismic shocks within 24 hours. On the morning of February 20, the United States Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled that President Donald Trump had exceeded his constitutional authority by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs on nearly every country on Earth. By that evening, Trump had signed a new executive order under a previously dormant 1974 law, hitting the world with a 10% global import surcharge. By Saturday morning, he had raised it to 15% — the legal ceiling — calling the court’s ruling “ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American.”
Welcome to the most turbulent chapter yet of Trump’s trade war: a constitutional battle whose resolution, paradoxically, has left the global economy no safer than before.
The Trump Tariff Shockwave: A Global Overview
To understand how the world arrived here, it helps to trace the arc. From April 2025 onward, Trump’s administration transformed U.S. trade policy more aggressively than at any point since the Smoot-Hawley era. By leveraging the IEEPA — a 1977 emergency statute — the White House imposed sweeping tariffs on dozens of trading partners, pushing the average effective U.S. tariff rate from roughly 2.5% in January 2025 to a staggering 27% by spring, the highest in over a century. Even after negotiations and carve-outs, the rate stood at approximately 16.8% as of November 2025, according to Wikipedia’s tariff tracker. U.S. tariff revenues hit $287 billion in 2025 — a 192% increase from 2024.
Then, as reported by CNBC, the Supreme Court delivered its landmark rebuke: IEEPA, the court’s majority concluded, “does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.” The justices reasoned that taxation is squarely a congressional power, and that no prior president had ever used the 1977 emergency statute to levy tariffs. In a telling dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh — while disagreeing with the outcome — acknowledged that other statutes could give the president comparable authority. The administration had been listening.

Within hours, Trump reached for Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — a provision so obscure it had never once been invoked in its 52-year history. The law allows a president to impose a “temporary import surcharge” of up to 15% for 150 days if he determines that the United States faces “large and serious balance-of-payments deficits.” No lengthy investigations are required. No interagency process. The president simply declares a problem, and the tariffs begin. As the Council on Foreign Relations analyzed, actions under Section 122 must be applied uniformly across all trading partners — a constraint, but hardly a binding one given the administration’s maximalist instincts.
By Saturday, February 21, Trump maxed out that authority, raising the new global tariff to 15%. It takes effect February 24, 2026, and — unless Congress acts — expires approximately July 24, 2026. The world, once again, recalibrated.
Economic Implications of Trump’s Global Tariff: What the Data Shows
The numbers that matter most do not come from the White House. They come from the analysts, economists, and budget offices whose job it is to separate the declaratory from the quantifiable.
The Tax Foundation offers the clearest accounting of what remains after the Supreme Court ruling. With IEEPA tariffs now invalidated, the remaining tariff architecture — dominated by Section 232 levies on steel, aluminum, autos, and other goods, plus the new Section 122 global surcharge — is projected to raise $53.8 billion in federal revenue in 2026, or 0.17% of GDP. To put that in perspective: had IEEPA tariffs remained, that figure would have been $171.1 billion — the single largest tax increase since 1993. The court’s ruling, in fiscal terms, erased roughly two-thirds of the administration’s projected tariff windfall.
Yet the long-run economic damage is not erased quite so neatly. The Tax Foundation estimates the remaining Section 232 tariffs alone will reduce long-run U.S. GDP by 0.2%. If the Section 122 tariffs are extended by Congress, the hit deepens. Critically, as of September 2025, threatened or imposed retaliatory tariffs from trading partners affected $223 billion worth of U.S. exports — a sword still hanging over American farmers, manufacturers, and service exporters.
The Yale Budget Lab, updated specifically to incorporate Trump’s rate increase to 15% on February 21, projects that the current tariff regime will raise unemployment by 0.3 percentage points by the end of 2026. In the long run, U.S. GDP will be persistently 0.1% to 0.2% smaller — roughly $30 billion annually in 2025 dollars. Prices, meanwhile, will rise. If Section 122 expires as scheduled, the average household faces a cost increase of $600 to $800. If the tariffs are made permanent, that figure rises to $1,000–$1,200. The Federal Reserve, Yale economists note, is likely to “look through” the tariff-driven inflation — meaning the price pain will land directly on consumers rather than being absorbed by monetary policy.
The trade deficit tells another sobering story. Despite Trump’s stated goal of eliminating America’s trade imbalance, the total U.S. trade deficit in 2025 reached $901 billion — barely changed from pre-tariff levels, according to CNBC reporting. Tariffs, as economists have long argued, do not reliably close trade deficits. They redistribute economic activity, often at a cost.
Suggested Data Visualization — Comparative Economic Impact Table:
| Economy | Pre-Feb 20 Tariff Rate | Post-Feb 21 Rate | Projected GDP Impact | Key Vulnerability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | ~16.8% avg effective | ~13.0% (Section 122 + 232) | -0.1% to -0.2% long-run | Consumer prices, retaliation risk |
| European Union | 15% (IEEPA deal) | 15% (Section 122) | Marginally positive | Export competitiveness |
| China | ~36% (IEEPA + 301) | 35% (301 + Section 122) | Significant negative | Export-led sectors |
| Canada | 25% (fentanyl tariff) | USMCA-compliant exempt | Moderate negative | Auto supply chain |
| Mexico | 25% (fentanyl tariff) | USMCA-compliant exempt | Moderate negative | Manufacturing exports |
| Emerging Markets | 10–25% (IEEPA range) | 15% flat | Net relief for many | Currency, capital flows |
Sources: Yale Budget Lab, Tax Foundation, CNBC, CFR (February 2026)
Key Economies’ Responses and Strategies
Different capitals are drawing very different conclusions from last week’s constitutional drama — and their responses will define the next phase of global trade policy.
The European Union enters the Section 122 era in a peculiar position: its agreed IEEPA tariff rate was 15%, which happened to match exactly the new Section 122 ceiling. In practical terms, Brussels faces tariffs no higher than before — though the legal ground has shifted dramatically. EU trade negotiators have signaled a preference for cautious continuity, unwilling to jeopardize the existing deal framework even as its legal underpinning evaporates. The longer-term EU strategy — accelerating trade diversification toward Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America, while deepening the EU’s own internal market for strategic goods — gained considerable momentum during 2025 and is unlikely to reverse.
China faces a more complex arithmetic. With IEEPA’s two separate 10% “fentanyl” tariffs now struck down, China’s total tariff burden has fallen slightly — from roughly 36% to approximately 35% (Section 301 at 25% plus the new 15% Section 122 baseline, minus some stacking exemptions). That marginal relief is unlikely to prompt a strategic rethink in Beijing, which has spent the past year aggressively developing alternative export markets across Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. China’s counter-tariff posture — covering billions in U.S. agricultural and industrial exports — remains intact and is widely expected to be maintained as leverage in any future negotiations. As J.P. Morgan Global Research has noted, the IMF estimates that a universal 10% U.S. tariff combined with retaliation from the eurozone and China could reduce U.S. GDP by 1% and global GDP by roughly 0.5% through 2026.
Canada and Mexico, whose USMCA-compliant goods remain exempt from Section 122, have emerged as relative winners from this week’s ruling — at least temporarily. Yet neither government is declaring victory. Both are acutely aware that Section 301 investigations, which the administration has vowed to launch against “most major trading partners,” could reimpose tariff pressure within months. Ottawa has maintained its own retaliatory tariff regime as insurance; Mexico City continues to walk the diplomatic tightrope of economic dependency and political sovereignty.
Emerging markets present the most variegated picture. Countries that faced high IEEPA reciprocal tariffs — Vietnam at 46%, India at 25%, Brazil at 10% — may now find themselves at a uniform 15% under Section 122, representing relief for some and a steeper bill for others. The more profound risk, however, is macroeconomic: dollar-denominated debt burdens swell as tariff uncertainty sustains a strong greenback, and export revenue volatility strains fiscal positions already strained by pandemic-era borrowing. As CFR’s analysis makes clear, the administration’s pivot to Section 301 investigations against “unfair trading practices” of individual countries is already underway — and most emerging-market economies lack the trade lawyers, leverage, or political bandwidth to mount effective defenses.
The Constitutional and Legal Fault Lines
One of the signal facts of this moment is that the Supreme Court’s ruling has not resolved the question — it has only changed the playing field. The 150-day clock on Section 122 tariffs will expire around July 24, 2026. At that point, the administration faces a binary choice: seek congressional approval (politically difficult given divisions within the Republican caucus), or allow the tariffs to lapse and declare a fresh balance-of-payments emergency to restart the clock.
As the Cato Institute’s analysis cautions, nothing in the statute explicitly prohibits successive emergency declarations. If the administration adopts that interpretation, the 150-day limit becomes a 150-day renewable license — which would raise profound separation-of-powers questions that courts would eventually need to resolve. Meanwhile, new Section 301 investigations — targeting individual countries for “unfair trade practices” — could produce a patchwork of country-specific tariffs within months, potentially replicating the IEEPA structure through slower but legally sturdier means.
There is also the unresolved question of refunds. The Supreme Court said nothing about whether importers are entitled to recover the IEEPA tariffs they have already paid. Legal experts estimate that exposure at up to $175 billion, according to CNBC — a sum that, if ordered returned, would represent one of the largest fiscal reversals in U.S. customs history. Importers must now pursue administrative remedies or litigation before the Court of International Trade, adding another layer of uncertainty to an already disorienting landscape.
Long-Term Implications for Trade, Growth, and Global Order
Beyond the immediate economic arithmetic lies a more fundamental question: what kind of international trading system emerges from this period of sustained American unilateralism?
The Section 122 chapter, whatever its legal merits, has demonstrated something important: the United States retains multiple statutory pathways to impose broad tariffs, and a determined administration will find and use them. The IEEPA ruling narrows one channel but leaves several others open — including Section 232 (national security), Section 301 (unfair trade practices), and Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, a little-tested provision that would allow tariffs against countries deemed to discriminate against American commerce.
For businesses, this means the uncertainty that devastated supply chain planning in 2025 is not ending — it is merely entering a new phase. Retailers like Walmart have already announced price increases; small manufacturers have halted import orders; global logistics companies are repricing their services to reflect tariff volatility as a structural cost. The Tax Foundation estimates the 2025 tariffs imposed an average household tax burden of approximately $1,000 — a figure that will evolve in 2026 as the Section 122 tariffs replace part of the IEEPA structure.
For investors, the picture is equally nuanced. The immediate reaction to the Supreme Court ruling was positive for markets that had been dreading a worst-case tariff scenario. But Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was quick to temper expectations, stating that tariff revenue in 2026 would remain “virtually unchanged” — a deliberate signal to markets and trading partners alike that the administration’s trade posture is not softening, merely repositioning.
For policymakers around the world, the deeper lesson is structural. The WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism, already weakened by U.S. resistance to appellate body appointments, has been essentially bypassed by the administration’s bilateral approach. Countries that invested in bilateral negotiations with Washington — accepting specific tariff rates under IEEPA deals — now find those legal underpinnings dissolved, even if their substantive commitments (purchase agreements, investment pledges, regulatory coordination) remain politically expected. As CFR President Michael Froman noted, “between the Section 122 tariff, plus any subsequent tariffs imposed under Sections 232 and 301, most [countries] could end up being pretty close to where they are now.”
Suggested Chart: U.S. Effective Tariff Rate Timeline (2024–2026) A line graph tracing the average effective tariff rate from 2.5% (Jan 2025) → 27% (April 2025) → 16.8% (Nov 2025) → 9.1% (post-SCOTUS ruling, pre-Section 122) → 13.0% (post-Section 122 at 15%), illustrating the volatility of the policy environment and the narrowing of the gap between IEEPA and Section 122 regimes.
What Comes Next: A Road Map for Businesses, Investors, and Policymakers
The next 150 days will be among the most consequential in U.S. trade policy history. Here is what to watch — and what to do about it.
For businesses importing into the United States: The 15% Section 122 tariff is in effect as of February 24, with significant carve-outs — agricultural products, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, critical minerals, and energy products are largely exempt, mirroring the IEEPA structure. Logistics teams should immediately audit their HTS classifications against Annex II of the February 20 Proclamation. More importantly, they should model two scenarios: one in which Section 122 expires in July, and one in which it is extended or replaced by Section 232/301 actions at comparable or higher rates. Do not assume the July expiration represents a return to free trade.
For investors in international equities: The short-term relief rally following the IEEPA ruling should not be mistaken for a structural shift. With Section 301 investigations newly launched against most major trading partners, and Section 232 actions covering steel, aluminum, autos, and potentially pharmaceuticals and semiconductors, the tariff overhang on global supply chains remains substantial. Sectors most exposed include consumer electronics, auto parts, specialty chemicals, and apparel. Conversely, U.S. manufacturing equities — particularly in durable goods — may see continued tailwinds, as Yale’s Budget Lab projects long-run manufacturing output expansion of approximately 2%.
For policymakers and trade negotiators: The bilateral agreements struck under IEEPA — with the UK, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, India, and others — retain their political weight even if their legal foundation has shifted. Countries that have made investment pledges or purchase commitments to the United States have strong incentives to honor them regardless of the legal environment. Equally, the 150-day window of Section 122 creates a genuine deadline for Congress: if lawmakers want to assert their constitutional authority over trade, now is the clearest opportunity in a generation. A bipartisan vote to either extend, modify, or replace the Section 122 tariffs with a more durable legislative framework would both honor the constitutional ruling and provide the policy certainty that markets desperately need.
Conclusion: The Permanent Impermanence of Trump Trade Policy
There is something almost surreal about the situation confronting the global economy in late February 2026. The highest court in the United States delivered a landmark constitutional ruling — and within 24 hours, the practical effect was a global tariff at the legal maximum permitted under an entirely different statute. The world had hoped for clarity. What it received was continuation under new management.
This is not simply a legal or political story. It is a story about the structural transformation of the post-war trading order — one that has been accelerating since Trump’s first term but has now reached a new threshold. The U.S. trade deficit stubbornly persists at $901 billion. Tariff revenue has soared but largely at the expense of American consumers and businesses. Global supply chains are bifurcating in ways that will take decades to reverse.
What the Section 122 tariff regime ultimately reveals is not the strength of the president’s trade policy — it is its fragility. A 150-day authority, invoked for the first time in history, at the maximum permissible rate, in the hours after a constitutional defeat, is not a trade policy. It is a tactical maneuver inside a larger strategic uncertainty. The world’s finance ministers, central bankers, supply chain executives, and small business owners deserve better than that. So, ultimately, do American consumers — who are paying the bill.
Discover more from The Economy
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Analysis
Trump’s 2026 State of the Union: Navigating Low Polls, Shutdowns, and Divisions in a Fractured America
Explore President Trump’s upcoming 2026 SOTU address amid record-low approval and political turmoil—insights on the US economy, immigration, and foreign policy shifts.
A year after reclaiming the White House in a historic political comeback, President Donald Trump will step up to the House rostrum on Tuesday at 9 p.m. ET to deliver his State of the Union address. The political climate he faces, however, is one of unusual fragility. Midway between his inauguration and the critical November midterm elections, this 2026 SOTU preview reveals a commander-in-chief confronting a partial government shutdown, rare judicial rebukes, and deep fractures within his own coalition.
When Trump last addressed Congress in March 2025, his approval rating hovered near a career high, buoyed by the momentum of his return to power. Today, he faces an electorate thoroughly fatigued by persistent inflation and systemic gridlock. Tuesday’s address is intended to showcase a leader who has unapologetically reshaped the federal government. Yet, as the Trump State of the Union amid low polls approaches, the spectacle will inevitably be weighed against the stark economic and political realities defining his second act.
Sagging Polls and Economic Realities
Historically, Trump has leveraged economic metrics as his strongest political shield. But the US economy under Trump 2026 presents a complicated picture for international economist researchers and everyday voters alike. According to recent data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, while the stock market has seen notable rallies, 2025 marked the slowest year for job and economic growth since the pandemic-induced recession of 2020.
A recent Gallup tracking poll places his overall approval rating near record lows. Furthermore, roughly two-thirds of Americans currently describe the nation’s economy as “poor”—a sentiment that mirrors the frustrations felt during the latter half of the Biden administration. Grocery, housing, and utility costs remain stubbornly high. Analysts at The Economist note that the US labor market has settled into a stagnant “low-hire, low-fire” equilibrium, heavily exacerbated by sweeping trade restrictions.
| Economic & Polling Indicator | March 2025 (Inauguration Era) | February 2026 (Current) |
| Overall Approval Rating | 48% | 39% |
| Immigration Handling Approval | 51% | 38% |
| GDP Growth (Quarterly) | 4.4% (Q3 ’25) | 1.4% (Q4 ’25 Advance) |
| Economic Sentiment (“Poor”) | 45% | 66% |
Trump has vehemently defended his record, insisting last week that he has “won” on affordability. In his address, he is widely expected to blame his predecessor, Joe Biden, for lingering systemic economic pain while claiming unilateral credit for recent Wall Street highs.
Immigration Backlash and Shutdown Stalemate
Adding to the drama of the evening, Tuesday will mark the first time in modern US history that a president delivers the annual joint address amid a funding lapse. The partial government shutdown, now in its second week, centers entirely on the Department of Homeland Security.
Funding for DHS remains frozen as Democratic lawmakers demand stringent guardrails on the administration’s sweeping immigration crackdown. The standoff reached a boiling point following the deaths of two American citizens by federal agents during border protests in January. This tragic incident sparked nationwide outrage and eroded what was once a core political advantage for the President. An AP-NORC poll recently revealed that approval of Trump’s handling of immigration has plummeted to just 38%. The political capital he once commanded on border security is now deeply contested territory.
The Supreme Court Rebuke and Congressional Dynamics
Trump will be speaking to a Republican-led Congress that he has frequently bypassed. While he secured the passage of his signature tax legislation last summer—dubbed the “Big, Beautiful Bill,” which combined corporate tax cuts and immigration enforcement funding with deep reductions to Medicaid—he has largely governed via executive order.
This aggressive use of executive authority recently hit a massive judicial roadblock. Last week, the Supreme Court struck down many of Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, a central pillar of his economic agenda. In a pointed majority opinion, Trump-nominated Justice Neil Gorsuch warned against the “permanent accretion of power in the hands of one man.”
This ruling has massive implications for global trade. Financial analysts at The Financial Times suggest that the removal of these tariffs could ease some inflationary pressures, though Trump has already vowed to pursue alternative legal mechanisms to keep import taxes active, promising prolonged uncertainty for international markets.
Simultaneously, Trump’s coalition is showing signs of fraying:
- Demographic Shifts: Americans under 45 have sharply turned against the administration.
- Latino Voters: A demographic that shifted rightward in 2024 has seen steep drops in approval following January’s border violence.
- Intra-Party Apathy: Nearly three in 10 Republicans report that the administration is failing to focus on the country’s most pressing structural problems.
Trump Foreign Policy Shifts and Global Tensions
Foreign policy is expected to feature heavily in the address, highlighting one of the most unpredictable evolutions of his second term. Candidate Trump campaigned heavily on an “America First” platform, promising to extract the US from costly foreign entanglements. However, Trump foreign policy shifts over the last twelve months have alarmed both critics and isolationist allies.
The administration has dramatically expanded US military involvement abroad. Operations have ranged from seizing Venezuela’s president and bolstering forces around Iran to authorizing a lethal campaign of strikes on alleged drug-smuggling vessels—operations that have resulted in scores of casualties. For global observers and defense analysts at The Washington Post, this muscular, interventionist approach contradicts his earlier populist rhetoric, creating unease among voters who favored a pullback from global policing.
What to Expect: A Trump Midterm Rally Speech
Despite the mounting pressures, Trump is unlikely to strike a chastened or conciliatory tone. Observers should expect a classic Trump midterm rally speech.
“It’s going to be a long speech because we have a lot to talk about,” Trump teased on Monday.
Key themes to watch for include:
- Defending the First Year: Aggressive framing of the “Big, Beautiful Bill” and an insistence that manufacturing is successfully reshoring.
- Attacking the Courts and Democrats: Expect pointed rhetoric regarding the Supreme Court’s tariff ruling and the ongoing DHS shutdown.
- Political Theater: Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries has urged his caucus to maintain a “strong, determined and dignified presence,” but several progressive members have already announced plans to boycott the speech in silent protest. For details on streaming the event, see our guide on How to Watch Trump’s State of the Union.
Conclusion: A Test of Presidential Leverage
For a president who has built a global brand on dominance and disruption, Tuesday’s State of the Union represents a profoundly different kind of test. The visual of Trump speaking from the dais while parts of his own government remain shuttered and his signature tariffs sit dismantled by his own judicial appointees is a potent symbol of his current vulnerability.
The core question for international markets and domestic voters alike is no longer whether Trump can shock the system, but whether he can stabilize it. To regain his footing ahead of the November midterms, he must persuade a highly skeptical public that his combative priorities align with their economic needs—and prove that his second act in the White House is anchored by strategy rather than adrift in grievance.
Discover more from The Economy
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Analysis
Transforming Karachi into a Livable and Competitive Megacity
A comprehensive analysis of governance, fiscal policy, and urban transformation in South Asia’s most complex megacity
Based on World Bank Diagnostic Report | Policy Roadmap 2025–2035 | $10 Billion Transformation Framework
PART 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & DIAGNOSTIC FRAMEWORK
Karachi is a city in contradiction. The financial capital of the world’s fifth-most populous nation, it contributes between 12 and 15 percent of Pakistan’s entire GDP while remaining home to some of the most acute urban deprivation in South Asia. A landmark World Bank diagnostic, the foundation of this expanded analysis, structures its findings around three interconnected “Pathways” of reform and four operational “Pillars” for transformation. Together, they constitute a $10 billion roadmap to rescue a city that is quietly—but measurably—losing its economic crown.
The Three Pathways: A Diagnostic Overview
Pathway 1 — City Growth & Prosperity
The central paradox driving the entire World Bank report is one that satellite imagery has made impossible to ignore. While Karachi officially generates between 12 and 15 percent of Pakistan’s national GDP—an extraordinary concentration of economic output in a single metropolitan area—the character and location of that wealth is shifting in troubling ways. Nighttime luminosity data, a reliable proxy for economic intensity, shows a measurable dimming of the city’s historic core. High-value enterprises, anchor firms, and knowledge-economy businesses are quietly relocating to the unmanaged periphery, where land is cheaper, regulatory friction is lower, and the absence of coordinated planning perversely functions as a freedom.
This is not simply a real estate story. It is a harbinger of long-term structural decline. When economic activity migrates from dense, serviced urban centers to sprawling, infrastructure-poor peripheries, the fiscal returns per unit of land diminish, commute times lengthen, productivity suffers, and the social fabric of mixed-use neighborhoods frays. Karachi is not alone in this dynamic—it mirrors patterns seen in Lagos, Dhaka, and pre-reform Johannesburg—but the speed and scale of its centrifugal drift are alarming.
Yet the picture is not uniformly bleak. One of the report’s most striking findings is the city’s quiet success in poverty reduction. Between 2005 and 2015, the share of Karachi’s population living in poverty fell from 23 percent to just 9 percent, making it one of the least poor districts anywhere in Pakistan. This achievement, largely the product of informal economic dynamism, remittance flows, and the resilience of its entrepreneurial working class, stands as proof that Karachi’s underlying human capital remains formidable. The governance challenge is not to create prosperity from nothing—it is to stop squandering the prosperity that already exists.
“Karachi’s economy is like a powerful engine running on a broken chassis. The horsepower is there. The infrastructure to harness it is not.”
Pathway 2 — City Livability
By global benchmarks, Karachi is a city in crisis. It consistently ranks in the bottom decile of international livability indices, a fact that reflects not mere inconvenience but a fundamental failure of urban governance to provide the basic services that allow residents to live healthy, productive, and dignified lives.
Water and sanitation constitute the most acute dimension of this failure. The city’s non-revenue water losses—water that enters the distribution system but never reaches a paying consumer due to leakage, illegal connections, and metering failures—are among the highest recorded for any city of comparable size globally. In a megacity of 16 to 20 million people, depending on the methodology used to define its boundaries, these losses translate into hundreds of millions of liters of treated water wasted daily while residents in katchi abadis pay informal vendors a price per liter that is many multiples of what wealthier households in serviced areas pay through formal utilities. This regressive dynamic—where the urban poor subsidize systemic dysfunction—is one of the defining injustices of Karachi’s service delivery crisis.
Green space presents a related but distinct vulnerability. At just 4 percent of total urban area, Karachi’s parks, tree canopy, and public open spaces are a fraction of the 15 to 20 percent benchmarks recommended by urban health organizations. In a coastal city where summer temperatures routinely exceed 40 degrees Celsius and where the Arabian Sea’s humidity compounds heat stress, this deficit is not merely aesthetic. It is a public health emergency waiting to erupt. The urban heat island effect—whereby dense built environments trap and re-radiate solar energy, raising local temperatures by several degrees above surrounding rural areas—disproportionately affects the informal settlements that house half the city’s population and where air conditioning is a luxury few can afford.
Underlying both crises is the governance fragmentation that the report identifies as the structural root cause of virtually every livability failure. Karachi is currently administered by a patchwork of more than 20 federal, provincial, and local agencies. These bodies collectively control approximately 90 percent of the city’s land. They include the Defence Housing Authority, the Karachi Port Trust, the Karachi Development Authority, the Malir Development Authority, and a constellation of cantonment boards, each operating according to its own mandate, budget cycle, and institutional incentive structure. The result is what urban economists call a “tragedy of the commons” applied to governance: because no single entity bears comprehensive responsibility for the city’s functioning, no single entity has the authority—or the accountability—to coordinate a systemic response to its failures.
“In Karachi, everyone owns the problem and no one owns the solution. That is not governance; it is organized irresponsibility.”
Pathway 3 — City Sustainability & Inclusiveness
The fiscal dimension of Karachi’s crisis is perhaps the most analytically tractable, because it is the most directly measurable. Property taxation—the foundational revenue instrument of urban government worldwide, and the mechanism by which cities convert the value of land and improvements into public services—is dramatically underperforming in Sindh relative to every comparable benchmark.
The International Monetary Fund’s cross-country data confirms that property tax yields in Sindh are significantly below those achieved in Punjab, Pakistan’s other major province, and far below those recorded in comparable Indian metropolitan areas such as Mumbai, Pune, or Hyderabad. The gap is not marginal. Whereas a well-functioning urban property tax system should generate revenues equivalent to 0.5 to 1.0 percent of local GDP, Karachi’s yields fall well short of this range. The consequences are compounding: underfunded maintenance leads to asset deterioration, which reduces the assessed value of the property base, which further constrains tax revenues, which deepens the maintenance deficit. This is a fiscal death spiral, and Karachi is caught within it.
Social exclusion compounds the fiscal crisis in ways that resist easy quantification. Approximately 50 percent of Karachi’s population—somewhere between 8 and 10 million people—lives in katchi abadis, the informal settlements that have grown organically on land not formally designated for residential use, often lacking title, rarely connected to formal utility networks, and perpetually vulnerable to eviction or demolition. The rapid growth of these settlements, driven by both natural population increase and sustained rural-to-urban migration, has increased what sociologists describe as social polarization: the geographic and economic distance between the formal, serviced city and the informal, unserviced one.
This polarization is not merely a social concern. It has direct economic consequences. Informal settlement residents who lack property rights cannot use their homes as collateral for business loans. Children who spend excessive time collecting water or navigating unsafe streets have less time for education. Workers who cannot afford reliable transport face constrained labor market options. The informal city subsidizes the formal one through its labor, while receiving little of the infrastructure investment that makes formal urban life possible.
The Four Transformation Pillars
The World Bank’s $10 billion roadmap does not limit itself to diagnosis. It proposes four operational pillars through which the three pathways of reform can be pursued simultaneously. These pillars are not sequential—they are interdependent, and progress on one without the others is unlikely to prove durable.
Pillar 1 — Accountable Institutions
The first and arguably most foundational pillar concerns governance architecture. The report argues, persuasively, that no amount of infrastructure investment will generate sustainable improvement so long as 20-plus agencies continue to operate in silos across a fragmented land ownership landscape. The solution it proposes is a transition from the current provincial-led, agency-fragmented model to an empowered, elected local government with genuine fiscal authority over the metropolitan area.
This is not a technical recommendation. It is a political one. The devolution of meaningful power to an elected metropolitan authority would require the Sindh provincial government—which has historically resisted any erosion of its control over Karachi’s lucrative land assets—to accept a substantial redistribution of authority. It would require federal agencies to cede operational jurisdiction over land parcels they have controlled for decades. And it would require the creation of new coordination mechanisms: inter-agency land-use committees, joint infrastructure planning bodies, and unified development authorities with the mandate and resources to enforce coherent spatial plans.
International precedents for such transitions are encouraging. Greater Manchester’s devolution deal in the United Kingdom, Metropolitan Seoul’s governance reforms in the 1990s, and the creation of the Greater London Authority all demonstrate that consolidating fragmented metropolitan governance into accountable elected structures can unlock significant improvements in both service delivery and economic performance.
Pillar 2 — Greening for Resilience
The climate dimension of Karachi’s transformation cannot be treated as a luxury add-on to more “practical” infrastructure priorities. A city with 4 percent green space in a warming coastal environment is a city accumulating climate risk at an accelerating rate. The 2015 Karachi heat wave, which killed more than 1,200 people in a single week, was a preview of what routine summers will look like within a decade if the urban heat island effect is not actively countered.
The greening pillar encompasses multiple overlapping interventions: expanding parks and urban forests to absorb heat and manage stormwater; restoring the mangrove ecosystems along Karachi’s coastline that serve as natural buffers against storm surges and coastal erosion; redesigning road networks to incorporate permeable surfaces, street trees, and bioswales; and integrating green infrastructure standards into building codes for new development.
These investments are not merely environmental. They are economic. The World Health Organization estimates that urban green space reduces healthcare costs, increases property values in surrounding areas, and improves labor productivity by reducing heat stress. In a city where informal settlement residents have no access to air conditioning, every degree reduction in ambient temperature achievable through urban greening has a direct, measurable impact on human welfare.
Pillar 3 — Leveraging Assets
Karachi possesses one asset in extraordinary abundance: prime urban land controlled by public agencies. The Defence Housing Authority alone controls thousands of hectares in locations that, by any market measure, represent some of the most valuable real estate on the subcontinent. The Karachi Port Trust, the railways, and various federal ministries hold additional parcels of commercially significant land that are either underdeveloped, misused, or lying fallow.
The asset monetization pillar proposes to unlock this latent value through structured Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) that use land as the primary input for financing major infrastructure projects. The model is well-established: a government agency contributes land at concessional rates to a joint venture, a private developer finances and constructs mixed-use development on a portion of the parcel, and the revenue generated—whether through commercial rents, residential sales, or transit-adjacent development premiums—is used to cross-subsidize the public infrastructure component of the project.
This model has been successfully deployed for mass transit financing in Hong Kong (through the MTR Corporation’s property development strategy), in Singapore (through integrated transit-oriented development), and more recently in Indian cities like Ahmedabad (through the BRTS land value capture mechanism). Karachi’s $10 billion infrastructure gap—encompassing mass transit, water treatment, wastewater management, and flood resilience—is too large for public budgets alone. Asset monetization is not optional; it is the essential bridge between fiscal reality and infrastructure ambition.
Pillar 4 — Smart Karachi
The fourth pillar recognizes that technological capacity is both a multiplier of the other three pillars and a reform agenda in its own right. A city that cannot accurately map its land parcels, track its utility consumption, monitor its traffic flows, or measure its air quality in real time is a city flying blind. Karachi’s current data infrastructure is fragmented, inconsistently maintained, and largely inaccessible to the policymakers who most need it.
The Smart Karachi pillar envisions a comprehensive digital layer over the city’s physical fabric: GIS-based land registries that reduce the scope for fraudulent title claims and agency disputes; smart metering for water and electricity that reduces non-revenue losses; integrated traffic management systems that improve the efficiency of Karachi’s chronically congested road network; and citizen-facing digital platforms that allow residents to pay utility bills, register property transactions, and report service failures without navigating physical bureaucracies that historically reward connection over competence.
Beyond service delivery, digital infrastructure enables a new quality of fiscal accountability. When every property transaction is recorded on a unified digital platform, the scope for tax evasion narrows. When utility consumption is metered and billed accurately, the implicit subsidies that currently flow to well-connected large users are exposed and can be redirected to the residents who actually need them.
PART 2: OPINION ARTICLE
The Megacity Paradox: Can Karachi Reclaim Its Crown?
Originally conceived for The Economist / Financial Times | Policy & Economics Desk
I. The Lights Are Going Out
There is a satellite image that haunts Pakistan’s urban planners. Taken at night, it shows the Indian subcontinent as a constellation of light—Mumbai’s sprawl blazing across the Arabian Sea coast, Delhi’s agglomeration pulsing outward in every direction, Lahore’s core radiating upward into Punjab’s flat horizon. And then there is Karachi.
Karachi is visible, certainly. It is not a dark city. But look closely at the World Bank’s time-series nighttime luminosity analysis, and something disturbing emerges: the city center—the historic financial district that once justified Karachi’s sobriquet as the “City of Lights”—is getting dimmer, not brighter. The economic heartbeat of Pakistan’s largest city is weakening at its core while its periphery sprawls outward in an unlit, unplanned, ungovernable direction.
This is not poetry. It is data. And the data tells a story that no government in Islamabad or Karachi seems to want to confront directly: Pakistan’s financial capital is slowly but measurably losing the competition for economic intensity. While Karachi still accounts for an extraordinary 12 to 15 percent of national GDP—more than any other Pakistani city by an enormous margin—the character of that contribution is shifting from high-value, knowledge-intensive activity to lower-productivity, sprawl-dependent commerce. The lights are going out in the places that matter most.
“A city that cannot govern its center cannot grow its future. Karachi is learning this lesson the hard way.”
II. The Governance Trap: Twenty Agencies and No Captain
To understand why Karachi is losing its economic edge, it is necessary to understand something about how the city is actually governed—which is to say, how it is catastrophically not governed.
More than 20 federal, provincial, and local agencies currently exercise jurisdiction over some portion of Karachi’s land, infrastructure, or services. The Defence Housing Authority controls some of the most commercially prime real estate on the subcontinent. The Karachi Development Authority nominally plans land use for the broader metropolitan area. The Malir Development Authority manages a separate zone. Cantonment boards exercise authority over military-adjacent districts. The Sindh government retains overarching provincial jurisdiction. The federal government maintains control of the port, the railways, and various strategic assets.
Together, these agencies control roughly 90 percent of Karachi’s total land area. Separately, none of them has the mandate, the resources, or the incentive to coordinate with the others in service of any coherent vision for the city as a whole. The result is what economists call a “tragedy of the commons” applied to urban governance: because the costs of mismanagement are diffused across all agencies and the benefits of good management accrue to whoever happens to govern the relevant parcel, rational self-interest produces collectively irrational outcomes. Roads built by one agency end abruptly at the boundary of another’s jurisdiction. Water mains installed by one utility are torn up months later by another laying telecom cables. Parks planned for one precinct are quietly rezoned for residential development when a connected developer makes the right request to the right official.
This is not corruption in the traditional sense—though corruption is certainly present. It is something more structurally damaging: the institutionalization of irresponsibility. When no single entity is accountable for the city’s performance, no single entity can be held to account for its failures. Karachi’s governance crisis is not a problem of bad actors. It is a problem of a system designed, whether intentionally or through historical accumulation, to ensure that no one is ever truly responsible.
The analogy that comes to mind is that of a vast corporation with twenty co-equal CEOs, each controlling a different business unit, each reporting to a different shareholder group, and none with the authority to overrule the others on decisions that affect the whole enterprise. No serious investor would put money into such a structure. Yet international capital is expected to flow into Karachi’s infrastructure on exactly these terms.
III. The Fiscal Frontier: The Absurdity of Karachi’s Property Tax
Here is a number that should concentrate minds in every finance ministry from Islamabad to Washington: the property tax yield of Sindh province—which means, in practical terms, largely Karachi—is dramatically lower than that of Punjab, Pakistan’s other major province, and an order of magnitude below what comparable cities in India manage to extract from their property bases.
Property taxation is, as the IMF has repeatedly documented, the bedrock of sustainable urban finance. Unlike income taxes, which are mobile and can be avoided by relocating economic activity, property taxes fall on an asset that cannot move. Land is fixed. Buildings are fixed. The value embedded in a well-located urban parcel—value created not by the owner but by the surrounding city’s infrastructure, connectivity, and economic density—is a legitimate and efficient target for public revenue extraction.
Karachi’s failure to capture this value is not a technical problem. The Sindh government knows where the land is. It knows who owns it, at least formally. The failure is political. Property in Karachi is owned, directly or indirectly, by constituencies that have historically exercised substantial influence over provincial revenue decisions: military-affiliated institutions, politically connected developers, landed families whose wealth is measured in urban plots rather than agricultural hectares, and the 20-plus agencies whose own landholdings are routinely exempt from assessment.
The practical consequence is a city that starves its own maintenance budget. Without adequate property tax revenues, Karachi cannot fund the routine upkeep of its roads, drains, parks, and utility networks. Deferred maintenance becomes structural deterioration. Structural deterioration reduces assessed property values. Reduced assessed values further constrain tax revenues. The spiral tightens. And as the infrastructure degrades, the high-value businesses and residents who might otherwise anchor the formal tax base migrate—precisely to the peri-urban fringe where assessments are even lower and enforcement is even weaker.
The comparison with Mumbai is instructive and humbling. Mumbai’s Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, despite its own well-documented dysfunctions, generates property tax revenues sufficient to fund a meaningful share of the city’s operating budget. Karachi’s fiscal capacity is a fraction of Mumbai’s, despite a comparable or larger population. This gap is not destiny. It is policy failure, and policy failure can be reversed.
IV. The Human Cost: Green Space, Public Transport, and Social Exclusion
Behind every percentage point of GDP and every unit of property tax yield, there are people. And in Karachi, roughly half of those people—somewhere between 8 and 10 million human beings—live in katchi abadis: informal settlements without formal property rights, reliable utilities, or legal protection against eviction.
The absence of green space, which stands at a mere 4 percent of Karachi’s urban area against a globally recommended minimum of 15 percent, may seem like a quality-of-life concern rather than a governance emergency. But in a coastal megacity where summer temperatures regularly exceed 40 degrees Celsius, green space is not a luxury. It is a survival infrastructure. The 2015 heat wave that killed more than 1,200 Karachi residents in a single week—the vast majority of them poor, elderly, or engaged in outdoor labor—was a preview of what happens when a city builds itself as a concrete heat trap and then removes the last natural mechanisms for thermal relief.
Public transport amplifies the exclusion dynamic. Karachi has one of the lowest rates of formal public transit use of any megacity its size. The city’s primary mass transit project—the Green Line Bus Rapid Transit corridor—has been in various stages of construction and delay for the better part of a decade. In its absence, millions of residents depend on informal minibuses and rickshaws that are slow, unreliable, expensive relative to informal-sector wages, and environmentally catastrophic. Workers in Karachi’s industrial zones who might otherwise access higher-paying employment in the financial district are effectively priced out of mobility. The labor market is segmented not by skill alone but by geography, and geography in Karachi is determined by whether one happens to live near the remnants of a functional transit connection.
Social polarization—the growing distance, geographic and economic, between those who live in the serviced formal city and those consigned to the informal one—is not merely an equity concern. It is a threat to the social contract that makes metropolitan agglomeration economically productive in the first place. Cities generate wealth through density, through the interactions and spillovers that occur when diverse people with diverse skills and ideas occupy shared space. When half a city’s population is effectively excluded from the spaces where those interactions happen—because they cannot afford the transport, because they lack the addresses required for formal employment, because the green spaces that make urban life bearable do not exist in their neighborhoods—the economic dividend of agglomeration is substantially squandered.
“Karachi’s inequality is not an unfortunate side effect of its growth. It is an active drag on the growth that could otherwise occur.”
V. Radical Empowerment: The Only Path Forward
The World Bank report is, appropriately, diplomatic in its language. It speaks of “institutional reform,” of “transitioning toward empowered local government,” of “Track 1 vision” and “shared commitment.” These are the necessary euphemisms of multilateral diplomacy. But translated into plain language, the report’s core argument is blunt: Karachi will not be saved by better planning documents or more coordinated inter-agency meetings. It will be saved only by radical political devolution.
What Karachi needs—what its scale, complexity, and fiscal situation demand—is an elected metropolitan mayor with genuine executive authority over the city’s land, budget, and infrastructure. Not a mayor who advises the provincial government. Not a mayor who chairs a committee. A mayor who can be voted out of office if the roads are not repaired, the water does not flow, and the city continues to dim.
This is not an untested idea. Greater London’s transformation under Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson—whatever one thinks of their respective politics—demonstrated that a directly elected executive with transport and planning powers can fundamentally alter the trajectory of a major global city within a single term. Metro Manila’s governance reforms in the 1990s, imperfect as they were, showed that consolidating fragmented metropolitan authority into a more unified structure produces measurable improvements in infrastructure coordination. Even Pakistan’s own history provides precedent: Karachi’s period of most effective urban management arguably occurred under the elected metropolitan mayor system that prevailed briefly in the early 2000s, before provincial interests reasserted control.
The Sindh government’s resistance to devolution is understandable in terms of short-term political calculus. Karachi’s land is extraordinarily valuable, and control of that land is the foundation of enormous political and economic power. But the calculus changes when one considers the medium-term consequences of continued governance failure. If Karachi’s economic decline continues—if the businesses flee, the tax base erodes, the informal settlements expand, and the infrastructure deteriorates beyond cost-effective rehabilitation—the Sindh government will find itself governing a fiscal and social catastrophe rather than a golden goose.
The international community—the OECD, the IMF, the World Bank, bilateral development partners—has a role to play in shifting this calculus. The $10 billion investment framework proposed in the World Bank report should not be made available on the existing governance terms. It should be conditioned, explicitly and transparently, on measurable progress toward metropolitan devolution: the passage of legislation establishing an elected metropolitan authority, the transfer of specific land-use planning powers from provincial agencies to the new metropolitan government, and the implementation of a reformed property tax system with independently verified yield targets.
This is not interference in Pakistan’s internal affairs. It is the basic principle of development finance: that large public investments require the governance conditions necessary to make those investments productive. Pouring $10 billion into a city governed by 20 uncoordinated agencies is not development. It is waste on a grand scale.
Karachi was once the most dynamic city in South Asia. In 1947, it was Pakistan’s largest, wealthiest, and most cosmopolitan urban center. The decades of governance failure that followed its initial promise are not irreversible. The city’s underlying assets—its port, its financial markets, its entrepreneurial population, its coastal location—remain extraordinary. The human capital that built Karachi’s original prosperity has not gone anywhere. It is waiting, in informal settlements and gridlocked streets and underperforming schools, for a governance system capable of releasing it.
The question is not whether Karachi can reclaim its crown. The question is whether Pakistan’s political establishment has the will to create the conditions under which it can. The satellite data showing the city’s dimming lights is not a verdict. It is a warning. And warnings, unlike verdicts, can still be heeded.
Key Statistics at a Glance
Economic Contribution: 12–15% of Pakistan’s GDP generated by a single city
Poverty Reduction: From 23% (2005) to 9% (2015) — one of Pakistan’s least poor districts
Governance Fragmentation: 20+ agencies controlling 90% of city land
Green Space Deficit: 4% vs. 15–20% globally recommended
Informal Settlements: 50% of population in katchi abadis without property rights
Infrastructure Investment Gap: $10 billion required over the next decade
Heat Wave Mortality: 1,200+ deaths in the 2015 event alone
Property Tax Yield: Significantly below Punjab, Pakistan and Indian metro benchmarksThis analysis draws on the World Bank Karachi Urban Diagnostic Report, IMF cross-country fiscal data, and global urban governance research. It is intended for policymakers, development finance institutions, and international investors engaged with Pakistan’s urban futur
Discover more from The Economy
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Analysis
Johor’s Investment Boom: The Hidden Costs Behind Malaysia’s Most Ambitious Economic Surge
Johor’s record RM91.1B investment boom is reshaping Malaysia’s south—but soaring rents, food prices, and traffic are testing residents’ resilience. Here’s the full picture.
Rising rents, “Singapore pricing,” and a cup of kopi that no longer costs what it used to—Johor’s dazzling economic transformation is extracting a toll from the very people it promised to lift.
Fatimah has been running her kopitiam in Johor Bahru’s old town for nineteen years. She remembers when a cup of kopi-o cost 80 sen and regulars would linger for hours, reading newspapers and trading gossip about life across the Causeway. These days, that same cup costs RM2.50—and some of her competitors near the new commercial strips are charging closer to RM4. Her rent has nearly doubled in three years. Her breakfast crowd has thinned, not because people are less hungry, but because many of her regulars have quietly relocated to suburban neighborhoods farther from the city center, chasing the affordable ordinariness that downtown Johor Bahru can no longer reliably provide.
“People keep telling me this is good for Johor,” she says, refilling a customer’s glass. “Maybe. But good for who, exactly?”
It is a question that hangs over Malaysia’s most dazzling economic story of the decade—and one that policymakers, investors, and economists are only beginning to answer with the rigor it deserves.
The Engines of Growth: FDI, Data Centers, and the JS-SEZ
The numbers are, by any measure, extraordinary. As reported by Bernama, Johor recorded RM91.1 billion in approved investments through the first three quarters of 2025 alone—surpassing the combined investment totals of 2023 (RM43 billion) and 2024 (RM48.5 billion) in a single year. The state is on track to breach RM100 billion for the full year, cementing its position as Malaysia’s top investment destination and leaving Selangor (RM51.9 billion) and Kuala Lumpur (RM45 billion) well behind.
The architecture of this boom rests on three pillars. First, the Johor–Singapore Special Economic Zone (JS-SEZ), formally established on January 8, 2025, spans 3,288 square kilometers across nine flagship areas straddling Iskandar Malaysia and Pengerang—a footprint nearly five times the size of Singapore and almost double that of Shenzhen. As JLL Malaysia’s research highlights, the zone targets eleven priority sectors, from advanced manufacturing and logistics to the digital economy and healthcare. The bilateral framework offers tax incentives, streamlined regulatory clearance, and a special visa pathway for skilled workers and investors.
Second, the data center boom has turned Johor into one of Southeast Asia’s most coveted digital real estate markets. Google, Microsoft, and Nvidia have collectively committed over $20 billion in regional tech infrastructure, with significant portions anchored in Johor. ByteDance’s AI-focused data center at Sedenak Tech Park in Kulai has already gone live. According to FactSet Insights, combined planned data center power capacity across Johor, Kuala Lumpur, and Singapore is projected to reach 21 GW—a figure that underscores the region’s ambitions as Asia’s next hyperscale corridor.
Third, the Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link—a 4-kilometer rail crossing between Johor Bahru and Singapore due to open in late 2026—will carry 10,000 passengers per hour, cutting cross-border travel time to a mere six minutes. That single infrastructure project, perhaps more than any other, is reshaping Johor’s economic identity from a peripheral manufacturing zone into an integrated urban economy tethered to one of the world’s most productive city-states.
The macroeconomic ambition is equally bold. Johor’s state government has publicly targeted a doubling of GDP to RM260 billion by 2030. Nomura’s projection of 5.2% GDP growth for Malaysia in 2026, alongside AMRO Asia’s bullish regional outlook, provides favorable tailwinds. Fortune has noted that Malaysia broadly sees 2026 as a year of “execution”—and nowhere is that pressure more acutely felt than in Johor, where the scaffolding of ambition has been erected with remarkable speed.
“This is not about competing with Penang or Selangor,” Natazha Harris, chief executive of Invest Johor, told The Business Times. “It’s about complementing existing hubs—especially where companies need space to scale.”
The Human Cost: Rising Rents, “Singapore Pricing,” and a Cup That Costs More
But the view from Fatimah’s kopitiam tells a different story—one that investment promotion brochures rarely include.
As Malay Mail reported in February 2026, Johor Bahru residents say they are being “priced out” of their own city, particularly in downtown areas where the spending power of cross-border shoppers from Singapore has driven up the cost of everyday goods. The phenomenon has acquired its own vernacular: “Singapore pricing.” During the Chinese New Year 2026 season, local foot traffic in traditional commercial districts visibly declined, with residents pivoting toward suburban hypermarkets and e-commerce platforms to manage household budgets.
The macroeconomic data validates the anecdote. Johor recorded the highest inflation rate among all Malaysian states in December 2025—2.3 percent, well above the national average. Sunway University economics professor Yeah Kim Leng attributes part of this to anticipatory behavior: businesses are raising wages and prices in expectation of JS-SEZ-related demand, even before much of that demand has fully materialized. This forward-looking inflation is particularly insidious because it front-loads the costs of development onto existing residents while the benefits—higher wages, better jobs, improved public services—remain largely in the pipeline.
The property market tells a similarly uncomfortable story. JLL Malaysia’s mid-2025 research found that average transaction prices for serviced apartments in Johor Bahru surged 20.4 percent in Q2 2025 compared to the 2024 average. Double-storey terrace houses rose 8.6 percent over the same period. Some condominiums in RTS-adjacent corridors have appreciated 40 to 50 percent since 2020. Office rents that once hovered around RM4 per square foot are now touching RM5.80 in prime locations.
The rental market has been even less forgiving. With rental yields averaging 6 to 8 percent in city-center locations—attractive benchmarks for investors—landlords have little incentive to hold prices steady. For young professionals earning local wages, the math has become increasingly punishing. A two-bedroom apartment that rented for RM1,200 per month in 2022 may now command RM1,900 or more.
The Price of Progress: Then vs. Now
| Item | Pre-Boom (2022) | Early 2026 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kopi-O (kopitiam) | RM0.80–RM1.20 | RM2.00–RM4.00 | +150–230% |
| Hawker meal (basic) | RM5–RM7 | RM7–RM12 | +40–70% |
| 2BR apartment rent (central JB) | RM1,100–RM1,300/mo | RM1,700–RM2,100/mo | +55–65% |
| Office space (Grade A) | RM4 psf/mo | RM5.50–RM5.80 psf/mo | +38–45% |
| Serviced apartment price (avg) | Baseline 2024 avg | +20.4% (Q2 2025) | Surging |
Sources: JLL Malaysia, Malay Mail, The Straits Times, field reports
Invest Johor’s Natazha Harris has acknowledged the friction with disarming candor: “It’s the price we pay for progress. The first thing you notice is heavier traffic. More people are coming in. And rentals are going up.” He noted that the state government has introduced targeted assistance programs to cushion the impact—though critics argue those cushions are thin relative to the velocity of price increases.
Infrastructure Under Strain: The Invisible Tax on Daily Life
Beyond rent and food prices, Johor residents are paying an invisible tax measured in hours lost to traffic congestion—and the psychological toll of living in a city whose infrastructure was not designed for the pace of growth now being demanded of it.
The main Causeway and the Second Link connecting Johor Bahru to Singapore were already under severe pressure before the JS-SEZ era began. Cross-border vehicle queues that once cleared in forty-five minutes now routinely extend to two hours or more during peak periods. As Reed Smith’s mid-2025 analysis notes, the RTS Link’s anticipated capacity of 10,000 passengers per hour should relieve some of this burden when it opens in late 2026—but the construction period itself has added disruption, and the link’s catchment area is geographically limited.
The state government has proposed an Autonomous Rapid Transit (ART) system with 32 stations across three key corridors—Skudai, Tebrau, and Iskandar Puteri—to be implemented via public-private partnership. An electrified double-track rail extension will eventually cut Kuala Lumpur–Johor Bahru travel time to four hours. These are credible, well-conceived infrastructure responses. But infrastructure, by its nature, lags the demand that necessitates it. For residents navigating morning commutes today, the ART is a 2027 or 2028 reality.
Energy is another pressure point. According to Reed Smith’s analysis, insufficient electricity supply had already forced the deferment of nearly 30 percent of 2024 data center proposals in Johor. Grid upgrades and potential ASEAN-level power exchange agreements are under consideration, but the gap between digital infrastructure demand and utility supply capacity represents a structural bottleneck that could slow the very boom investors are banking on—while raising electricity costs for ordinary consumers in the interim.
Key Challenges Facing Johor Residents in 2026
- Housing affordability crisis: Serviced apartment prices up 20.4% year-on-year; rental yields prioritizing investors over tenants
- “Singapore pricing” inflation: Johor’s 2.3% inflation rate highest in Malaysia; food prices up RM2–5 per item at downtown establishments
- Traffic congestion: Cross-border queue times regularly exceeding 2 hours; city road networks at capacity
- Energy infrastructure lag: 30% of 2024 data center proposals deferred due to power supply constraints
- Workforce displacement risk: Wages rising in anticipation of JS-SEZ, but unevenly—benefiting skilled workers while low-income residents face cost increases without wage gains
- Affordable housing undersupply: New property launches skewed toward premium segments targeting Singapore commuters and investors
The Tourism Dimension: When Affordable Becomes a Memory
Johor Bahru has long been a destination for Singaporean day-trippers drawn by the currency differential and the city’s reputation for affordable food, shopping, and entertainment. That value proposition is eroding. As The Straits Times has reported, Singaporean shoppers are increasingly noting that the gap between JB and Singapore prices—for meals, coffee, even groceries—has narrowed substantially. Some visitors report that the “cheap JB trip” of popular memory is becoming more myth than reality.
For the tourism economy, this is a double-edged development. Higher prices may deter the high-volume, low-margin visitor segment while attracting more premium tourism spending. But the transition is disorderly, and traditional hawker operators, coffeeshop owners, and independent retailers—the cultural fabric of Johor Bahru’s streetscape—are caught in a painful middle ground.
There is a deeper irony here that economists sometimes understate: the qualities that made Johor attractive—its affordability, its accessibility, its lack of Singapore’s expensive formality—are precisely what is being consumed by the boom itself.
Balancing Act: Opportunities Amid the Disruption
It would be analytically incomplete to frame Johor’s transformation purely as a story of burden. The investment surge is creating real opportunities that deserve equal weight.
As MIDA’s data confirms, Malaysia’s approved investments in the first half of 2025 were expected to generate over 89,000 new jobs nationally, with Johor as the leading contributor. The JS-SEZ’s special visa and work permit schemes are designed to funnel high-skilled employment into the corridor. Johor has set a minimum salary of RM4,000 for skilled talent—a benchmark that, if widely implemented, would represent a meaningful wage floor uplift.
The private capital data is encouraging too. FactSet’s analysis shows total deal value in the JS-SEZ corridor rising from $56.3 billion in 2024 to $57.5 billion in 2025, even as overall deal volume fell—a sign of larger, higher-conviction investments rather than speculative churn. For property owners (as opposed to renters), the capital appreciation has been substantial. For skilled professionals in digital, manufacturing, and logistics sectors, Johor’s labor market has rarely been more competitive.
The New Straits Times has highlighted that even the previously stubborn property overhang problem—thousands of unsold units that once blighted Johor’s market—has largely resolved itself, with over 3,000 overhang units absorbed in the past year alone. That is not a trivial indicator of genuine underlying demand.
Natazha Harris frames the state’s position with tempered optimism: “This is about speed, certainty and coordination. That’s what investors care about once they’ve made the decision to commit.” The Johor state government, working in concert with federal agencies like MIDA and IRDA, has built a coordination infrastructure that investors across Asia—including a growing cohort of Chinese manufacturers exploring regional diversification—are finding unusually responsive.
Conclusion: Progress Must Earn Its Name
Johor is at an inflection point that Malaysia has rarely seen outside of Kuala Lumpur’s late-1990s construction frenzy or Penang’s semiconductor ascent. The scale of capital arriving—RM91.1 billion in nine months, tech giants committing decades-long infrastructure—is not noise. It is structural. And the Johor-Singapore Special Economic Zone, if its ambitions are realized, could genuinely redraw the economic geography of Southeast Asia.
But progress that is not deliberately shared is not progress—it is displacement rebranded.
Fatimah’s kopitiam, and the thousands of small establishments like it that constitute the social infrastructure of Johor Bahru, is not a footnote to this story. It is the story, in the way that the stories of ordinary people always ultimately are. The question Johor’s policymakers must answer—with policy instruments rather than platitudes—is whether the boom’s dividends can be channeled downward with the same efficiency that foreign capital has been channeled inward.
Concretely, this means expanding the affordable housing pipeline beyond premium segments; deploying cost-of-living assistance that is means-tested and substantial rather than symbolic; accelerating the ART and RTS infrastructure timelines to reduce the congestion tax on working residents; and establishing transparent wage benchmarking mechanisms so that labor market benefits of the JS-SEZ are not captured exclusively by the already-skilled.
Nomura’s projection of 5.2% growth for Malaysia in 2026 is achievable. Johor’s ambition to reach RM260 billion in GDP by 2030 may well be, too. But the most important metric—the one that will determine whether this era is remembered as a genuine leap forward or a cautionary tale about unmanaged urbanization—is whether the people of Johor can still afford to live, work, and linger over a cup of kopi in the city they built.
That affordability, once lost, is very hard to recover. And the time to protect it is now, while the investment wave is still rising and policy still has room to shape its course.
Discover more from The Economy
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
-
Markets & Finance2 months agoTop 15 Stocks for Investment in 2026 in PSX: Your Complete Guide to Pakistan’s Best Investment Opportunities
-
Analysis2 weeks agoBrazil’s Rare Earth Race: US, EU, and China Compete for Critical Minerals as Tensions Rise
-
Investment1 month agoTop 10 Mutual Fund Managers in Pakistan for Investment in 2026: A Comprehensive Guide for Optimal Returns
-
Banks1 month agoBest Investments in Pakistan 2026: Top 10 Low-Price Shares and Long-Term Picks for the PSX
-
Asia2 months agoChina’s 50% Domestic Equipment Rule: The Semiconductor Mandate Reshaping Global Tech
-
Global Economy2 months agoWhat the U.S. Attack on Venezuela Could Mean for Oil and Canadian Crude Exports: The Economic Impact
-
Global Economy2 months agoPakistan’s Export Goldmine: 10 Game-Changing Markets Where Pakistani Businesses Are Winning Big in 2025
-
Global Economy2 months ago15 Most Lucrative Sectors for Investment in Pakistan: A 2025 Data-Driven Analysis
