Analysis
How Beijing’s Crackdown on EV Price Wars Is Reshaping China’s Auto Supply Chain in 2026
After three years of ruinous discounting that cost China’s car industry an estimated $68 billion, Beijing has drawn a hard line—forcing carmakers to pay suppliers within 60 days. The intervention is rewriting the economics of EV manufacturing, but the pain is far from over.
For years, China’s electric vehicle industry ran on a peculiar kind of shadow credit. Carmakers locked in price wars—slashing sticker prices month after month to outlast rivals and capture market share—financed the fight partly on the backs of their own suppliers. Payment terms that should have lasted 30 or 60 days stretched to 90, then 180, and eventually to nearly 300 days. Component makers, from battery cell producers to seat manufacturers, became involuntary lenders to an industry racing toward the bottom.
That arrangement has now been forcibly dismantled. Following a sweeping government directive in June 2025 mandating that automakers settle supplier invoices within 60 days, the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM) confirmed in early 2026 that 17 assemblers it investigated had reduced average payment cycles to 54 days since the rule took effect—with four settling in under 50 days. It is a seismic operational shift for an industry that had normalized near-annual payment delays as a financial management tool.
The numbers behind this intervention are staggering. According to Nikkei Asia, China’s automotive sector collectively lost as much as $68 billion over the three-year price war from 2022 to 2024—a figure that underscores how profoundly irrational the competitive dynamics had become. Of the nearly 50 electric vehicle manufacturers operating on the mainland, only a handful have managed to turn a consistent profit. The rest have been burning capital in a war of attrition, gambling that their rivals will fold first.

The Anatomy of a 300-Day Payment Cycle
To understand why Beijing felt compelled to intervene so bluntly, it helps to understand exactly how the delayed-payment system functioned—and whom it served.
When a Chinese automaker extended its payment cycle to 300 days, it was, in effect, obtaining an interest-free revolving credit line from its entire supply chain. Funds that should have flowed to battery suppliers, steel fabricators, and electronics vendors were held in reserve and redeployed into research and development spending, marketing campaigns, or—critically—further price reductions. The carmakers avoided formal debt on their balance sheets while their suppliers absorbed the liquidity stress.
For suppliers, the consequences were severe. Companies running on thin margins could not easily access working capital to fund their own production without the payments owed to them. Some turned to expensive short-term borrowing. Others curtailed investment or began quietly rationing deliveries. A cash flow crisis was brewing beneath the surface of an industry that the outside world largely saw as a runaway success story.
“Without delayed payments to suppliers, they will not have sufficient cash on hand to sustain discount wars. The results showed government intervention worked—the automotive groups feared severe punishment if they failed to comply.”— Chen Jinzhu, CEO, Shanghai Mingliang Auto Service
Chen’s observation cuts to the heart of the intervention’s logic. The 60-day payment rule is not merely a cash-flow protection measure for suppliers. It is a structural brake on the price war itself. Without access to free supplier credit, carmakers must fund discounting from their own reserves or formal debt—a far more painful and transparent proposition. Beijing, in other words, has engineered a constraint on competitive behavior by attacking its financial scaffolding.
Beijing’s Broader Crackdown: The 60-Day Payment Rule in Context
The June 2025 directive did not emerge in isolation. It was the culmination of a years-long regulatory reckoning with the distortions produced by China’s EV boom. Beijing had watched domestic automakers sacrifice sustainable business models for market share, eroding the financial health of an industry it considers strategically vital—one it has invested hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidizing and cultivating over two decades.
Regulators had earlier attempted softer interventions. The National Development and Reform Commission and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology both issued guidance urging “healthy competition” and discouraging predatory pricing. Industry bodies published voluntary pledges. None of it produced meaningful change. The June 2025 mandate, backed by the credible threat of regulatory consequences for non-compliance—including potential delisting from government procurement programs and financing channels—had the force that prior exhortations lacked.
CAAM, whose membership encompasses virtually every Chinese carmaker, declined to publish the names of the 17 companies it assessed in its early 2026 progress report, citing sensitivity. But analysts note that the list almost certainly includes several of China’s largest volume producers. The association said it would maintain ongoing monitoring of payment practices to ensure “healthy growth of the automotive sector.”
~$68 BillionEstimated cumulative losses across China’s auto industry during the three-year EV price war, 2022–2024, according to Nikkei Asia.
Impact on Suppliers and Profitability: Who Gains, Who Still Struggles
The shift to shorter payment cycles represents meaningful relief for the supply chain. Tier-1 and Tier-2 component suppliers—many of them small and medium-sized enterprises operating on single-digit margins—can now plan cash flows with greater predictability. The working capital they had effectively lent to assemblers can be redeployed into capital expenditure, headcount, and their own supplier relationships.
Yet the transition is not without its own disruptions. Carmakers that had relied on extended payables as a funding mechanism must now either draw down cash reserves, raise formal debt, or curtail investment programs. For companies already operating in the red, this is a meaningful additional squeeze.
| Metric | Pre-Crackdown (2022–2024) | Post-Mandate (2025–2026) |
|---|---|---|
| Average supplier payment cycle | ~300 days | ~54 days (CAAM data) |
| Fastest-paying assemblers | Not tracked/enforced | 4 companies under 50 days |
| EV makers turning a profit | Handful of ~50 builders | Marginal improvement expected; majority still loss-making |
| Cumulative industry loss | Est. $68 billion over 3 years | Losses continuing; pace expected to moderate |
| Regulator oversight | Voluntary guidance only | Mandatory compliance; CAAM monitoring ongoing |
BYD, China’s EV sales leader and the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by volume, illustrates the paradox at the industry’s summit. While the company has posted record sales figures and expanded aggressively into Southeast Asia, Europe, and Latin America, it reported a quarterly loss in early 2026—a sobering signal that even the dominant player is not immune to the margin compression produced by years of discounting. Overseas revenue, while growing, has not yet offset the structural damage inflicted on domestic unit economics.
For smaller and mid-tier brands—companies like Leapmotor, Neta, and a cohort of names that rarely register outside of China—the situation is more acute. Several have curtailed production, restructured debt, or quietly suspended operations. The price war, perversely, appears to be achieving through attrition what no regulator explicitly ordered: consolidation. The question is whether it happens in an orderly fashion or through a wave of disorderly defaults.
China EV Supplier Cash Flow Crisis 2026: The Ripple Effects
The distress in China’s automotive supply chain does not stop at the factory gate. It radiates outward through a web of global dependencies that many Western manufacturers have only recently begun to map and stress-test.
China produces the majority of the world’s lithium-ion battery cells, cathode materials, and electric motor components. The companies supplying those inputs to Chinese automakers are, in many cases, the same companies supplying them to Tesla’s Shanghai Gigafactory, Volkswagen’s joint ventures, and a growing roster of international EV startups. When Chinese carmakers delayed payments for 300 days, the cash flow stress traveled upstream—compressing margins at battery material processors, rare earth refiners, and electronics manufacturers who collectively underpin global EV supply chains.
The normalization of payment terms reduces that systemic stress. But it introduces a different variable: if tighter working capital forces Chinese assemblers to curtail production or restructure their supplier relationships, global component availability and pricing could be affected in ways that are difficult to model from outside the ecosystem. Financial Times analysis has noted that Chinese carmakers’ price pledges to suppliers represent a structural shift in how the sector is financed—one with implications beyond China’s borders.
Trade Tensions and the Geopolitics of EV Dominance
Beijing’s intervention arrives at a moment of acute geopolitical friction over Chinese EV exports. The European Union imposed tariffs of up to 45% on Chinese electric vehicles in 2024, citing unfair state subsidies. The United States has maintained and in some cases extended its own tariff barriers. The argument in both capitals is that China’s EV industry is not competing on commercial terms—that subsidies, directed credit, and manipulated input costs have created a structural advantage that distorts global trade.
The 60-day payment mandate complicates that narrative in an interesting way. It is, unmistakably, a market-correcting intervention—one that forces Chinese carmakers to operate on more commercially rational terms, absorbing the cost of their competitive behavior rather than externalizing it onto suppliers. That is not the behavior of an industry designed purely for predatory export dumping. It is the behavior of a government trying to prevent an industrial sector from destroying itself.
Whether Western policymakers will adjust their reading of Chinese auto policy accordingly is another question. Trade cases move slowly, and political narratives about Chinese industrial policy are difficult to dislodge once embedded. But analysts at The Economist and elsewhere have flagged that the domestic regulatory tightening adds nuance to the simple “China subsidizes everything” framing that has dominated Western policy discourse.
EV Industry Profitability in China: A Long Road to Recovery
The fundamental arithmetic of China’s EV market remains challenging even with the payment rule in place. The country has somewhere north of 100 automobile manufacturers competing for a market in which consumer demand, while large, has been growing more slowly than production capacity. The inevitable result is oversupply, and oversupply means continued pressure on prices regardless of what regulators mandate about payment terms.
The more durable path to profitability runs through two channels: export growth and domestic consolidation. On exports, Chinese carmakers have made remarkable inroads in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and parts of Latin America, where tariff barriers are lower and EV adoption curves are steeper. BYD’s international expansion, in particular, has been cited by Reuters as a strategic hedge against deteriorating domestic margins. But international revenue takes time to scale and carries its own costs—logistics, warranty, brand-building—that compress margins in the near term.
Consolidation, meanwhile, is proceeding—but haltingly. The Chinese government has historically been reluctant to allow state-linked manufacturers to fail, which keeps zombified competitors alive and extends the duration of price wars. Private-sector EV startups face less political protection but often more loyal investor bases, some with long time horizons funded by sovereign wealth or venture capital. The result is a market that moves toward rationalization more slowly than pure economics would dictate.
54 DaysAverage supplier payment cycle reported by CAAM’s 17 monitored assemblers since June 2025—down from approximately 300 days in the preceding three years.
What Comes Next: Compliance, Competition, and the New Rules of Chinese Auto
CAAM’s commitment to ongoing monitoring of payment practices signals that Beijing views the June 2025 directive not as a one-time intervention but as a new permanent feature of the regulatory landscape. Companies that revert to extended payment cycles—as competitive pressures inevitably tempt them to do—will face scrutiny, and potentially enforcement actions, in a way that was simply absent before.
This represents a maturation of China’s auto regulatory framework. For two decades, Beijing’s dominant posture toward the automotive sector was promotional: subsidize, support, and stay out of the way of commercial competition. The shift to active policing of competitive behavior reflects a recognition that the promotional phase produced a market structure—120-odd competing automakers, chronic overcapacity, ruinous price wars—that now threatens the long-term viability of the very industry it was designed to nurture.
For global investors, supply chain strategists, and trade policymakers watching from London, Tokyo, Detroit, and Brussels, the lesson is worth internalizing. China’s auto sector is not a static threat. It is a dynamic one, actively managed by a government willing to impose painful constraints on its own champions when the alternative is systemic fragility. The $68 billion lesson appears, at least partially, to have been learned.
Whether 54 days becomes 60, or 60 becomes 90 again the moment enforcement attention drifts, remains the open question. History suggests that in highly competitive industries, financial innovation has a way of reasserting itself. But for now, the suppliers are getting paid—and China’s automakers are learning to compete on terms closer to their own merits.
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
