Connect with us

Finance

Opinion | How infrastructure borrowing can benefit Hong Kong for decades to come

Published

on

Opinion | How infrastructure borrowing can benefit Hong Kong for decades to come
Faced with a deficit of more than HK$100 billion (US$12.8 billion) this financial year, the Hong Kong government has proposed issuing bonds to finance large-scale infrastructure projects that could include the Northern Metropolis and land reclamation on Lantau Island.

This proposal makes sense. Hong Kong’s public debt to gross domestic product ratio is extremely low by international standards; the government therefore has the space and creditworthiness to borrow more – even though interest rates today are higher. There is also a strong economic case to rely on debt financing for infrastructure projects which incur costs today but generate benefits for the next few decades.

Nonetheless, there are concerns among some that such borrowing only deepens the government’s financial hole, burdens future generations, and masks the precarity of government finances. Rather than dismiss these concerns as invalid or ignorant, the government should engage seriously with them and, in so doing, build society’s trust in its ability to manage Hong Kong’s finances well. This is also an opportunity to educate the public on why borrowing for infrastructure is not only necessary, but may even be desirable in the current macroeconomic context.

A construction site for public housing on Hong Kong’s Lantau Island in 2020. Photo: Sam Tsang

Necessary and desirable

The first principle of public financial management that the Treasury should convey is that all deficits have to be financed eventually. In this, the government has to choose between three unpalatable options: raising taxes, cutting spending, or borrowing. Raising taxes – particularly the introduction of a Goods and Services Tax (GST) – is probably something that Hong Kong must do eventually.

But mainland China’s slow recovery, higher interest rates and a strong Hong Kong dollar (the result of the Hong Kong dollar’s peg to the US dollar) have contributed to the city’s current sluggish economic growth and in such an environment, authorities can ill afford to raise taxes that would reduce disposable incomes or consumer spending.
Cutting public spending in other areas is even less realistic than raising taxes. As long as growth remains weak (as is likely the case for 2024), the demand for publicly financed or subsidised services will increase. In the longer term, an ageing population will increase social spending as a share of GDP. While there is merit in reducing some health and welfare subsidies, the fact is that public provision of these services in Hong Kong is already very lean by the standards of developed economies. This also means the savings that can be squeezed in these areas are likely to be very small compared to the expenditure demands of an ageing society. Unless Hongkongers are willing to accept a significantly lower standard of health and welfare provision, there is little chance of public spending decreasing in the coming years.
An elderly man in a park at Cheung Sha Wan. In the longer term, an ageing population will increase social spending as a share of GDP, says academic Donald Low. Photo: Jelly Tse

That leaves increased public sector borrowing as the least bad option to finance Hong Kong’s infrastructure plans.

The second idea that the Treasury should convey is that borrowing is the more efficient and equitable way of financing infrastructure. It is more efficient because the benefits of infrastructure development accrue over many years – even decades – and so it makes sense to finance that development over a similar time frame. Just as households make costly capital purchases (such as a property) by taking a 30-year loan rather than pay for it entirely with cash, it is also more efficient for the government to finance infrastructure projects (which generate a stream of benefits over many years) using debt.

Debt financing is also more equitable because future generations are the major beneficiaries of these infrastructure projects. Future generations are likely to be richer than current generations, so it is only fair that future generations pay at least part of the costs. Meanwhile, paying for these projects with cash upfront represents a large subsidy from past and current generations of Hongkongers to future, richer generations. This is highly regressive. Unless one is extremely pessimistic about Hong Kong’s future – and believes that future Hongkongers would be poorer than today’s Hongkongers – debt financing is much fairer in terms of intergenerational equity.

Advertisement
An electronic ticker at the Exchange Square Complex, which houses the Hong Kong stock exchange, in January. The Hong Kong government should set up rules to ensure debt sustainability and build public trust. Photo: Bloomberg

A debt sustainability framework

While increased borrowing is a better way to finance infrastructure development, this does not mean the government should be allowed to borrow as much as it wants or to spend however it likes. To build public trust, the Treasury should put in place, and articulate, a set of principles to ensure debt sustainability. Such a framework would also assuage concerns that the Hong Kong government is becoming a less prudent or capable steward of public funds.

The first principle is that debt financing should be used only for infrastructure projects in which assets that can be valued are created. This is critical because debt financing creates liabilities for future generations of Hongkongers. Good financial management requires that these liabilities be matched with corresponding, long-term assets. This rule also means the government should borrow only for capital, not operating, expenditures.

Second, alongside the budget (that shows the government’s income and expenditure of the coming financial year), the Treasury should also present a debt sustainability report which shows the government’s outstanding liabilities and the estimated value of the assets. This need not be done for all the state’s assets and liabilities, only for those that result from its borrowing. The first two principles would address concerns that issuing debt boosts the government’s revenue for the year but masks (future) debt repayment obligations.

Why Hong Kong’s economy needs to become more than just China’s superconnector

Third, to the extent possible, the bonds the government issues should be linked to specific projects rather than be used for unspecified capital expenditure. While public funds are fungible (movable across various uses), this practice would require the government to make a strong case for the projects that it is borrowing for, and not rely only on its overall creditworthiness, to borrow at lower interest rates. This practice would also improve financial transparency and support the market’s scrutiny of the government’s development projects. Done well, this would establish Hong Kong as an issuer of high-quality government bonds, helping the city attract more capital through its bond market.

This principle does not mean the government would be barred from issuing bonds not linked to specific projects. But if it does so, it should have to explain why. Without this principle, governments always prefer more discretion over rules that constrain their flexibility or freedom of manoeuvre.

Advertisement

Finally, there should be a rule that sets a cap on the total stock of debt that the Hong Kong government owes, as well as a rule that limits (as a percentage of GDP) the amount of debt the government can issue in any one financial year. This would assure the public and financial markets that the government is still a disciplined steward of public funds.

Donald Low is Senior Lecturer and Professor of Practice, and Director of Leadership and Public Policy Executive Education, at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. He was formerly Director of Fiscal Policy at the Ministry of Finance in Singapore.

Finance

Study shows that Florida and Georgia rank among top states where people search for financial help

Published

on

Study shows that Florida and Georgia rank among top states where people search for financial help

Are you financially stressed? A new study by Coinfully.com, which analyzed Google searches tied to money worries, found Florida and Georgia rank among the top states where people are searching for help.

The study tracked more than 150 financial-stress-related terms people look up online—phrases like “debt help,” “cheap car insurance,” “rent help,” “cash advance,” and “how to get out of debt.” The states with the highest search activity included Louisiana, Texas, Florida, Georgia, and Alabama.

Florida ranked third, averaging 424,507 searches per month, which comes out to about 1,877 searches per 100,000 residents. Georgia ranked fourth with 201,088 average monthly searches, or about 1,823 searches per 100,000 residents.

To see how those findings resonate locally, we spoke with people in our area. One parent told us they have searched for financial help “because I have been very broke.”

A college student said keeping up with rent is a constant struggle with only a part-time, minimum-wage job. Another person said they’ve changed spending habits—like choosing the lowest-priced items whenever possible—just to stay ahead.

Advertisement

For people feeling that financial pressure, local organizations may be able to help. Catholic Charities says it assists with essentials like food, rent support, and even help for people behind on their JEA bill.

The group said requests have increased significantly, including from people who have never needed assistance before. And while housing costs were a major driver a year or two ago, they say the need has broadened—more people are struggling with groceries, gas, and other everyday expenses.

Hear more of what Regional Director Eileen Seuter says Catholic Charities can provide for people needing emergency help.

Top Local Resources in Jacksonville

  • Downtown Emergency Services (DESC): Located downtown in the First Presbyterian Church basement, this organization offers direct emergency financial assistance, case management, and a food pantry.
  • City of Jacksonville Emergency Financial Assistance: The city’s Parks, Recreation and Community Services department offers the Emergency Financial Assistance Program. You can call their social services line for help with rent, utilities, and other urgent needs.
  • JEA Hardship Programs: If you are behind on your electric or water bill, JEA can connect you with local Community Resources to assist with utilities, food, and housing.
  • Catholic Charities Bureau: Offers free assistance to people in need, regardless of faith, including help with unpaid rent and utility bills. You can reach out via Catholic Charities Instagram page.

County & State-Wide Programs

  • 211 United Way: Calling 2-1-1 or visiting the United Way 211 site connects you to a local specialist who has real-time data on bill-paying resources in Duval County.

Mental Health Support

Financial stress takes a heavy toll on mental well-being. NAMI Jacksonville provides free support groups, education, and outreach programs to help individuals and families. You can reach out to them via their local helpline at (904) 323-4723 or by dialing 9-8-8 for immediate crisis care.

Advertisement

For a broader, searchable directory of other localized charities and government programs, you can filter by zip code on FindHelp.org.

If you are located in or moving your focus to Southeast Georgia, extensive regional networks offer free financial counseling, emergency bill assistance, and crisis relief.

Region-Wide Crisis Resolution

  • Georgia 211 Helpline: Dial 211 from any phone to reach the United Ways of Georgia 211 Service. Specialists connect callers in the Coastal Empire and Southern regions to local food, housing, and utility funds.

Local Community Action Agencies

These organizations handle the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), emergency rental assistance, and financial literacy programs. Reach the agency managing your specific county:

  • Coastal Georgia Area Community Action Authority: Serves Glynn, Camden, McIntosh, and surrounding coastal counties. Contact the main office in Brunswick at (912) 264-3281 or explore services through the Coastal Georgia Area CAA Portal.
  • Action Pact: Serves inland Southeast Georgia counties (including Ware, Pierce, and Brantley). Reach the Waycross headquarters at (912) 285-6083 or look up local clinic sites on Action Pact Online.

State and Utility Support Programs

Advertisement

Copyright 2026 by WJXT News4JAX – All rights reserved.

Continue Reading

Finance

New global framework launched to help financial firms make transition plans

Published

on

New global framework launched to help financial firms make transition plans

Photo by Statkraft

The International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) has published a new framework aimed at helping financial institutions make credible plans to work towards the net zero transition.

The new voluntary standard for sustainable finance – ISO 32212 – includes guidelines for strategic transition planning by banking, insurance and investment institutions.

“The requirements and recommendations are designed to enable financial institutions to develop and maintain transition planning objectives and targets that advance the temperature and resilience goals of the Paris Agreement, and establish robust policies and processes to integrate these into their financial activities,” the ISO said.

Advertisement

ISO said the framework encourages institutions to assess climate-related impacts and dependencies associated with their activities, and to develop objectives and targets to better manage risks and opportunities. It includes guidelines on monitoring and reporting internally and externally, and on establishing guardrails and controls to ensure transition planning is credible.

A new report shows that the world’s biggest banks increased their funding to fossil fuel companies by 8% in 2025, although some, particularly in Europe, are cutting financing due to climate risk concerns and regulation.

The UK’s national standards agency, the BSI, welcomed the new ISO framework, noting that it had input from a broad coalition including representatives of finance sector organisations and experts from national standards bodies from around the world. 

“The framework will help institutions move from ambition to implementation through transparent and credible transition planning. We encourage financial institutions worldwide to pick up the standard, benefit their businesses and support the global adoption of credible transition planning,” said Scott Steedman, BSI director general of standards.

The BSI said research shows that 91% of UK businesses want help to accelerate their transition, with a focus on financial incentives and practical, skills-based guidance.

Advertisement

Sara Hall, co-executive director at advocacy group Positive Money, welcomed the new standards but said regulation had to be made binding, especially given the departure of many US banks from voluntary initiatives like the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) since Donald Trump became US President.

“Private financial institutions are not changing their behaviour at the scale or speed necessary to meet global climate targets,” Hall said. 

Any measures short of mandatory simply won’t cut it. That’s why binding regulation and supervisory standards enforced by central banks and financial regulators at the national level, with penalisation for transgression, are vital to drive transition”.

The European Union has removed the obligation for companies to adopt a climate transition plan under revisions to the corporate sustainability due diligence directive (CSDDD). However, companies still need to submit a transition plan under the corporate sustainability reporting directive (CSRD).

Only 41% of EU banks had published their transition plans in 2024, despite being required to do so, while very few have a Paris-aligned pathway, according to a report from Finance Watch.

Advertisement

This page was last updated June 12, 2026

Written by

Emma Thomasson author photo

Emma Thomasson is a British journalist, consultant and trainer based in Berlin. She is an expert in economics, politics, business and technology. She previously worked for Reuters as a correspondent and bureau chief in Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, South Africa and the UK.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Finance

Some motorists who pay monthly for insurance ‘charged annual rates close to 30%’

Published

on

Some motorists who pay monthly for insurance ‘charged annual rates close to 30%’

Some motorists are continuing to pay high interest rates when spreading the cost of their car insurance, according to analysis by Which?

The consumer group said some firms are charging annual percentage rates (APRs) comparable to expensive credit cards.

Some firms are still charging APRs of close to 30% on monthly motor insurance payments, Which? said.

Which? said it had found that between February and March 2026, several firms were charging APRs above 25% and some were charging as much as 29.9%.

It said that paying monthly is often the only realistic option for households facing financial pressure, creating a “poverty premium”.

Advertisement

Two years ago, some firms were charging rates above 35% APR, according to Which?

It said that while some providers have lowered their rates since then, it believes that progress has been too slow.

Which? said that between February and March, it attempted to contact 61 car insurance brands, asking about the representative APRs charged to their customers who pay monthly.

Some 48 responded with their rates, or said they did not charge extra for paying in instalments

Rocio Concha, director of policy and advocacy at Which? said: “Millions of motorists rely on monthly payments to afford essential car insurance cover, yet many are still being charged interest rates comparable to an expensive credit card.”

Advertisement

A spokesperson for the Association of British Insurers (ABI) said: “The industry recognises that many households are under financial pressure, and it understands why spreading the cost of cover is essential for many motorists.

Premium finance is widely used across the market with charges that can differ between insurers and by product.

“Our members remain committed to improving outcomes, and this includes being open about the fact that providing this service involves genuine operational costs – including keeping cover in place for a period even when payments are delayed or missed.

“Our premium finance principles make clear that any charges must be fair, transparent, and reflective of the costs incurred by insurers. The FCA’s (Financial Conduct Authority’s) own market study found that premium finance can deliver fair value for consumers and that the overall cost of premium finance has fallen since 2022.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending