Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik / Briefing Paper

Global development policy is a particularly revealing field in which the Trump administration combines crude transactionalism with a high level of ideological commitment, namely an authoritarian libertarianism oriented toward elite interests. This is coupled with, at times, a chaotic absence of tactical or strategic coherence. With Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025, a significant phase in international affairs, including global development policy, began. 
This policy brief traces the evolution of the US approach to development cooperation and exposes how Trump’s approach represents an overtly aggressive assault, delivering a high voltage shockwave to global sustainable development policy, undermining multilateral norms, institutional commitments and long-standing principles of international solidarity. The United States (US) has played a decisive role in the conception and evolution of global development policy since the mid-20th century. From the establishment of the post-Second World War order onward, the US shaped the normative, political and organisational foundations of development cooperation, often setting agendas, defining standards, and providing leadership and personnel for key multilateral institutions. Early reconstruction efforts such as the Marshall Plan and the establishment of the World Bank embedded development within a broader framework of power politics, positioning aid as both a tool of reconstruction and geopolitical influence. Since January 2025, US development cooperation has undergone a dramatic rupture. The administration rapidly withdrew from multilateral institutions, cut budgets, and de facto dissolved USAID, transferring residual functions to the State Department. This shift was accompanied by conspiracy narratives and an explicit rejection of multilateral norms, marking a sharp departure from previous Republican and Democratic approaches alike. The brief conceptualises this shift as the emergence of a “New Washington Dissensus”: a model of transactional, nationalist development cooperation that treats aid as an instrument of power rather than a global public good. Under this paradigm, development engagement is ideologically conditional, hostile to climate and equity agendas, oriented toward migration control, and explicitly transactional. The Trump administration’s National Security Strategy (December 2025) is consistent with this in the sense that it frames an “America First” approach that narrows US priorities to “core, vital national interests” and places strong emphasis on Western Hemisphere pre-eminence via a stated “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine. For global development, foreign assistance and development finance are thus instruments of strategic competition and commercial diplomacy. US agencies are mobilised to back US commercial positioning. The consequences are dramatic and systemic. The US retreat has destabilised the global development architecture and intensified geopolitical fragmentation. For many countries in the Global South, this represents a watershed moment, creating both new room for manoeuvre and new dependencies as states pursue multi-alignment strategies amid intensifying great-power rivalry. At the same time, humanitarian impacts are severe. Overall, the brief concludes that development policy has entered a new phase, which is narrower, more instrumental and overtly geopolitical, and is reshaping not only US engagement but the future of global development policy itself. 

Ces dernières années, le Maroc est passé du statut de pays de transit et d’émigration à celui de pays d’installation. Cette évolution est en grande partie due à l’augmentation des restrictions frontalières et des refoulements, lesquels ont rendu les routes migra­toires vers l’UE moins accessibles. En conséquence, Casablanca, qui accueillait déjà des migrants de manière durable, s’affirme désormais davantage comme un lieu central d’installation urbaine que comme une étape transitoire du parcours migratoire. Des entretiens menés avec des ONG et des OSC travaillant avec des migrants urbains et des personnes déplacées à Casablanca ont mis en évidence les façons dont la coopération au développement peut avoir un impact positif sur les contextes de migration urbaine. En effet, l’attitude plus permissive des autorités locales de Casablanca à l’égard des communautés migrantes contraste avec les pratiques policières répressives courantes à Rabat et dans les zones frontalières, ouvrant ainsi un espace à l’émergence d’organisations informelles de migrants au sein des communautés d’accueil. Ces organisations sont devenues des inter­locuteurs clefs des institutions officielles, jouant un rôle essentiel dans le rétablissement de la confiance des migrants et des communautés d’accueil envers celles-ci. Avec le soutien des OSC et des ONG, les com­munautés elles-mêmes ont également trouvé des moyens de favoriser l’inclusion et la coopération. Les valeurs islamiques et la tradition marocaine d’hospitali­té influencent la mise à disposition des biens communs au niveau des ménages et des quartiers. Les commu­nautés d’accueil et les migrants bénéficient égale­ment, sur le plan légal, des services d’éducation et de santé fournis par les organisations gouverne­mentales et non gouvernementales. Le principal défi consiste àgarantir que toutes les parties soient informées des services qui leur sont accessibles, dans de nombreux cas indépendamment de leur statut migratoire. Pourtant, le discours contemporain sur la migration et le déplacement au Maroc est imprégné de xéno­phobie, d’exclusion et de racisme, problèmes aggra­vés par un environnement médiatique très critique à l’égard des migrants et des personnes déplacées. Néanmoins, les experts ont souligné l’impact des interactions positives répétées entre les migrants et les communautés d’accueil pour tempérer ces discours hostiles.
Messages politiques clefs :
- La santé, l’éducation et le logement sont des besoins universels pour les communautés d’accueil et les migrants. Il faut veiller à ce que les programmes financés soient accessibles à toutes les personnes vivant dans le quartier, qu’elles soient hôtes ou migrantes, et que les espaces, services ou ressources auxquels ils aboutissent constituent des biens communs autour desquels l’identité de la communauté peut se construire.
- Il est essentiel de faire connaître l’histoire des migrations dans les zones d’arrivée. Ces récits peuvent aider les organisations internationales à con­textu­aliser leurs programmes et à inscrire l’immigration et les installations dans une histoire plus large autour de laquelle peut se construire une identité inclusive. Renforcer la coopération entre les organisations au niveau des villes et des municipalités à l’échelle nationale. La coopération entre les villes peut combler les lacunes en matière de connaissances sur la politique migratoire nationale et réduire la dispersion des efforts des OSC et des ONG qui travaillent avec les migrants.

Elise Delespesse est une consultante indépendante basée à Bonn, en Allemagne.

Die rasante Urbanisierung auf dem afrikanischen Kontinent ist ein Megatrend, der nicht aufzuhalten ist. Bereits jetzt lebt ungefähr die Hälfte aller Afrikanerinnen und Afrikaner in Städten und es wird geschätzt, dass 80 Prozent des Bevölkerungswachstums im Zeitraum von 2020-2050 in Städten stattfinden wird. Dies bringt nicht nur große Herausforderungen im Bereich der Infrastrukturentwicklung mit sich, sondern verändert auch fundamental das soziale und politische Miteinander.

Will die EU ihren Führungsanspruch beim Klimaschutz erneuern, muss sie ihren Ansatz zur internationalen Klimafinanzierung überdenken. Europa sollte den Partnerländern entgegenkommen, Emissionsvermeidung und Klimaanpassung als Paket behandeln und nicht gegeneinander ausspielen.

Aus den Europawahlen im Juni 2024 sind die europaskeptischen Parteien, die entweder eine Abschaffung oder erhebliche Kürzung der EU-Entwicklungszusammenarbeit und humanitären Hilfe fordern, gestärkt hervorgegangen. Parallel haben viele EU-Mitgliedstaaten ihre Budgets für die öffentliche Entwicklungshilfe im letzten Jahr deutlich gekürzt. Obwohl Ursula von der Leyen für ihre zweite Amtszeit formell nicht auf die Unterstützung dieser europaskeptischen Fraktionen angewiesen war, zeigten ihre im Juli 2024 vorgestellten politischen Leitlinien für die Legislaturperiode 2024–2029 eine deutliche Abkehr – wenn nicht gar eine Kehrtwende – vom Engagement für den europäischen Green Deal in ihrer ersten Amtszeit. Im Bereich der Entwicklungspolitik wurde das Ressort von Jozef Síkela übernommen, der bis zu seinem Amtsantritt als tschechischer Minister für Industrie und Handel tätig war. Die Wahl Donald Trumps für seine zweite Amtszeit und die Schließung der US-amerikanischen Entwicklungszusammenarbeitsbehörde (USAID) erhöhen den Druck auf Europa, mehr Verantwortung in der internationalen Entwicklung zu übernehmen – eine Rolle, die bislang vor allem mit Verweisen auf finanzielle Beiträge, jedoch ohne ein klares politisches Narrativ ausgefüllt wurde. Der Bereich der humanitären Hilfe wurde von der neuen Kommissarin für Vorsorge, Krisenmanagement und Gleichstellung, Hadja Lahbib, übernommen, die zuvor von 2022 bis 2024 belgische Außenministerin war. Die Kommissarin sieht sich in ihrem Portfolio mit einer global wachsenden Finanzierungslücke für humanitäre Hilfe konfrontiert, während die humanitären Bedarfe durch eine weltweite Zunahme von bewaffneten Konflikten, Naturkatastrophen und Krisen kontinuierlich steigen.

Informelle, plurilaterale Formate fungieren zunehmend als flexible Arenen für Koordination im internationalen System, erzeugen jedoch zugleich konkurrierende Governance-Strukturen. Vor diesem Hintergrund wird die Rolle der Europäischen Union in G7 und G20 untersucht. Anhand der G7-Präsidentschaft Italiens 2024 und des G20-Vorsitzes Brasiliens zeigt der Beitrag, wie unterschiedlich beide Foren mit geopolitischen Konflikten umgehen. Die G7 erzielte substanzielle Ergebnisse zur Ukraine, offenbarte jedoch interne Spannungen etwa im Umgang mit dem Gaza-Krieg. Die G20 fokussierte stärker auf Entwicklungs-, Armuts- und Reformfragen globaler Institutionen, vermied jedoch klare Schuldzuweisungen in aktuellen Konflikten. Der Artikel verdeutlicht, dass die EU ihre multilaterale Strategie anpassen muss: Durch aktive Mitgestaltung informeller Foren, differenzierte Rollenwahrnehmung in G7 und G20 sowie den Ausbau strategischer Partnerschaften mit Schwellenländern. Trotz begrenzter Durchsetzungsmacht leistet die EU so relevante Beiträge zur Weiterentwicklung globaler Governance in einer sich wandelnden Weltordnung.

Club governance formats were meant to work around blockages and challenges in the multilateral system. In a system under pressure, these have become more important. Simultaneously, they become embattled themselves in a political climate that has become more ruthless. Just after its presidence, South Africa has declared it would ”pause” its engagement in the G20 for 2026 after intense bullying by the US President. Yet, the existence of the G20 is based on the recognition that (financial) crisis of global scale require close cooperation among countries across the globe, going beyond the G7. That fact remains valid. The G20 is a collection of key countries that have to engage with each other – and that Europe has to engage with – to push for solutions for global challenges. Yet, polarisations are making G20 presidencies increasingly challenging. How did the last four “Southern” presidencies – Indonesia, India, Brazil and South Africa – navigate the increasingly choppy waters? And which elements can we distil from deliberations as communalities?

Foreign aid is an important component of international economic exchange and has historically been a central topic in International Relations (IR) scholarship. This phenomenon prompts fundamental questions regarding the motivations behind states’ allocation of resources beyond their national borders and the processes by which donor preferences are shaped at the nexus of power, interests, and ideas. Conventional IR theories concur on the premise that aid is inherently political. Subsequent scholarship has expanded upon this foundation, examining a broad range of systemic and domestic determinants of aid, emphasising how state interests, institutions, and the political economy of donors influence aid allocation. This article provides an overview of the extant literature, including pertinent debates, and presents significant advances in the field of the international political economy of aid. It also highlights how recent geopolitical shifts challenge conventional understandings of aid and concludes by proposing a reversal of the classic question for future research—from why states give aid to why they are increasingly reluctant to do so.

It is clear 2026 will not be a routine year for global development cooperation. The US is now a deliberate norm-breaker under Trump 2.0, China is edging into high-income status while insisting it is still “developing”, close to 80 per cent of the population in low- and middle-income countries live under some form of autocracy, and Russia is selling long-term nuclear dependence as a development offer. At the same time middle powers from Brazil to the Gulf states are quietly turning that turmoil into leverage. In a new IDOS Policy Brief we argue that these dynamics are not background noise but the core story that will shape cooperation in the next few years.

Despite strategic rivalry, bureaucratic behavior in China and the United States follows strikingly similar logics. Drawing on comparative research across foreign aid, environmental governance, and pandemic response, we show that Chinese and U.S. bureaucrats are often driven by strikingly similar incentives. Career pressures, blame avoidance, political signaling, and risk aversion shape day-to-day decision-making on both sides — frequently producing comparable outcomes, despite very different political systems. Understanding these shared bureaucratic dynamics helps explain why the two superpowers can appear deeply polarized politically, yet are surprisingly predictable in practice. Beneath geopolitical rivalry, common administrative logics continue to anchor state action.

Das Postgraduierten-Programm (PGP) des German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS, vormals Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik, DIE) ist ein renommiertes, neunmonatiges Ausbildungsprogramm für Hochschulabsolvent:innen, das seit 1965 jährlich durchgeführt wird. Ziel ist die gezielte Vorbereitung auf Fach- und Führungsaufgaben in der internationalen Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklungszusammenarbeit. Die Verbleibstudie wurde anlässlich des 60-jährigen Programmjubiläums 2025 durchgeführt, um erstmals systematisch die Berufswege und den Nutzen des Programms für die bislang fast 1.000 Absolvent:innen zu analysieren. Die Studie basiert auf einer Online-Befragung aller Absolvent:innen der Jahrgänge 1965–2023. Es wurden rund 800 ehemalige Teilnehmer:innen erreicht, von denen sich 366 an der Befragung beteiligten (Rücklaufquote: 46 %). Die Auswertung erfolgte Kohorten vergleichend (10-Jahres-Gruppen), um Hinweise auf über die Zeit erfolgte Veränderungen zu gewinnen. Das PGP des IDOS/DIE hat sich in den Augen der Alumni und Alumnae des Programms als wirkungsvolles Sprungbrett in den Arbeitsbereich der internationalen Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklungszusammenarbeit erwiesen. Es bietet nach ihren Einschätzungen gute Möglichkeiten für Kompetenzaufbau, Netzwerkbildung und persönliche Entwicklung. Die ehemaligen Absolvent:innen empfehlen das Programm überwiegend weiter, sehen aber auch Potenzial für mehr Praxisnähe, Diversität und gezielte Vernetzung. Ihre Aussagen decken sich mit Aussagen, die bereits in den letzten Jahren in Rückmeldungen von den jeweiligen Kursteilnehmenden geäußert wurden. Sie bestätigen damit die Stoßrichtung grundlegender Reformen des Programms im Jahr 2024. Die Ergebnisse dieser Verbleibstudie liefern weitere Hinweise für die Entwicklung des Programms, um es an die sich wandelnden Anforderungen des Arbeitsmarktes und an die Bedürfnisse künftiger Teilnehmender anzupassen. 

This paper examines how citizens in a large middle-income country evaluate the design of cash transfer programmes, and whether these preferences shift when vulnerability is framed as climate-induced. Using a pre-registered online survey in Brazil, we combined a multi-attribute conjoint experiment with a climate information treatment. Respondents evaluated programmes varying in benefit level, eligibility, conditionalities, implementing actor, payment schedule and financing.
Support depends strongly on perceived fairness and financing choices. Expanding eligibility from extreme poverty to poverty substantially increases approval, while further expansion yields no additional gains. Conditionalities (in particular, empowering ones, such as financial training or health check-ups) raise support, whereas work requirements have heterogeneous effects across different social groups. Financing through personal income tax or cuts to existing programmes enjoys lower levels of approval, while corporate taxation and subsidy reductions are more acceptable. Climate information modestly increases solidaristic attitudes but does not eliminate underlying ideological divides. This study highlights how citizens update not only the extent but also the preferred form of redistribution under climate stress.

Since the 1990s, the G7 has increasingly addressed gender equality in its political declarations. Treating gender equality initially as a challenge to be tackled mainly abroad, the group later acknowledged the need for change in its member countries too. In addition, over the years the G7 shifted from focusing on economic inclusion of women as a means to increase economic growth to considering gender equality as a goal in itself, to be addressed in other policy fields also. To what extent this changing approach to gender equality in the G7's declarations has influenced policy changes within G7 countries and abroad is hard to assess. In principle, the G7 has the potential to exercise two functions with respect to gender equality. First, the G7 might coordinate group members’ national policies and the activities of international organisations in this area. However, given the democratic deficits of the G7, it is questionable whether it is desirable for the group to exercise this function, especially since it does not seem necessary for the effectiveness of gender equality policies that these policies are internationally coordinated. Second, the G7 could serve as a forum for the transnational exchange of experiences and ideas.

The 2023 Tax Expenditures Report, published by the Ministry of Finance and National Planning, estimates that Zambia forfeited revenue equivalent to 1.5 percent of GDP, representing 7.5 percent of total taxes and levies collected in the year. It is important to note that this figure excludes Value Added Tax (VAT)-related tax expenditures, which, according to the Global Tax Expenditures Database (GTED), are a substantial source of revenue forgone. Tax expenditures in Zambia are delivered through a variety of mechanisms, including reduced rates, exemptions, and suspensions, applied across both domestic and trade-based taxes.
Transparency: Zambia published its first tax expenditure report, covering fiscal years 2022 and 2023, in December 2024, a milestone toward improving fiscal transparency. To build on this progress, while reinforcing the legal requirement for timely disclosure under the Public Finance Management Act of 2018, Zambia should institutionalise mandatory annual reporting on the cost and effectiveness of tax expenditures, thereby strengthening continuity and public accountability and ensuring this is not a once-off effort.
Complex landscape: Over the years, Zambia has adopted a range of tax incentives through rate adjustments, exemptions, and deferrals—to encourage investment, promote industrial growth, and stimulate trade. These policy tools reflect the government’s broader commitment to using the tax system as a lever for achieving inclusive and sustainable development. However, while these measures serve noble goals, they also add complexity by introducing different rates, exemptions, and rules that make the system harder for taxpayers to navigate.
Evaluation challenges: The absence of a comprehensive evaluation framework requiring regular assessments limits systematic review of TEs. With only one tax expenditure report produced to date, limited historical data also restricts possible evaluations of the economic and fiscal impact of tax incentives. This undermines the ability to determine whether current tax expenditures are achieving their intended policy objectives.
Fiscal sustainability: The fiscal cost of tax expenditures, coupled with Zambia’s mounting debt obligations, pose risks to fiscal sustainability. Without careful monitoring and rationalisation, tax expenditures could erode the domestic revenue base, compromising the country’s ability to meet its development goals.
Policy recommendations:
• Mandate and institutionalise the annual publication of a comprehensive Tax Expenditure Report as part of the National Budget process to support evidence-based policy and fiscal accountability.
• Publish comprehensive reports by December 31 each year, in time to inform the national budget.
• Include detailed disclosures on the scope, legal basis, objectives, and outcomes of each tax expenditure to enable performance evaluation and policy refinement.
• Establish an inter-agency working group (including Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA), MoFNP, and Zambia Development Agency (ZDA)) to coordinate the identification, recording, and review of TEs.
• Subject major tax expenditure provisions to periodic cost-benefit analysis to assess their effectiveness and fiscal trade-offs.

BMZ (Germany’s Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development or Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung) is consulting on how to implement a material reduction in its Official Development Assistance (ODA) budget. In this paper, we review where remaining funds would have the greatest impact, and propose a series of reforms accordingly. We recommend:

Focussed thematic allocation: Germany’s development projects have been substantially diluted over the last decade. We find that BMZ projects have progressively targeted a broader range of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The number of projects that target more than four goals, for example has risen almost nine-fold from 72 to over 600 in the last ten years. Evidence suggests that less complex measures would have been more efficient and effective.We suggest focussing on 4–5 SDGs that align with the Government’s priorities and BMZ’s expertise render overall ODA allocation more effective.

Strategic country allocations: BMZ currently funds projects in a 110 of the 141 ODA-eligible countries in total. It seems clear this will need to be reduced. Providing development finance makes the biggest difference to those in greatest need, so we undertake an analysis to ascertain the level of ODA that each of these recipients receives from other countries, expressed in terms of ODA per person in extreme poverty. We identify 31 BMZ partner countries that are under-prioritised—of which 13 are significantly under-prioritised. In contrast, we find 48 countries that are over-prioritised by other providers. We urge BMZ to fully protect budgets in the 31 under-prioritised countries, and concentrate reductions in the 48 over-prioritised. This enhances the impact of BMZ funding overall and enables German funding to represent a larger and more influential share of recipients’ economies.

Sharpening instruments: Over the last five years, funding for the “Multilateral and European development cooperation” federal budget instrument has been cut by 34 percent, while there has been 20 percent cuts in bilateral efforts. Germany is below average in the share of its international finance that is allocated multilaterally. We argue this split should be reversed. First, multilateral organisations are assessed as highly effective by independent assessments, and surveys of the German public also suggest they garner a high level of trust. But there is an additional compelling geopolitical case for allocating funding multilaterally. Following the abrupt withdrawal of the United States from a number of organisations, the international system is more vulnerable than ever. It is difficult envisage a future where Germany is secure and prosperous if the multilateral system fails to endure. We urge the German government to shield its multilateral contributions in from these cuts, refocus earmarked multilateral spend towards core funding, and increase its core multilateral share to at least 40 percent in the next two years. Regarding the remaining bilateral share, we propose that Germany reconsider its current approach to the volume and tendering of technical assistance.

Revised version, December 2025

Tax expenditures (TEs) are benefits granted through the tax system that lower government revenue and the tax liability of beneficiaries. Governments worldwide use TEs to pursue different policy goals such as attracting investment, boosting innovation and mitigating inequality. At the same time, TEs are costly: according
to the Global Tax Expenditures Database (GTED), the worldwide average over the 1990-2023 period is 3.7 percent of GDP and 23.0 percent of tax revenue
(Redonda et al., 2025). When ill designed, they can be ineffective in reaching their stated goals. They can also be highly distortive and trigger negative externalities.
Yet, despite the fact that TEs have similar effects on public budgets as direct spending programmes, the lack of transparency in the TE field is striking, as only
116 out of 218 jurisdictions have reported on TEs at least once since 1990.1 In addition, the quality, regularity and scope of such reports are highly heterogeneous and, in many cases, do not allow to engage in meaningful discussions on the effectiveness and efficiency of TEs. The Global Tax Expenditures Transparency Index (GTETI) is the first comparative assessment of TE reporting covering jurisdictions worldwide. It provides a systematic framework to rank jurisdictions according to the regularity, quality and scope of their TE reports, and seeks to increase transparency and accountability in the TE field. Note that countries are not scored, ranked or compared on the size of revenue forgone reported, nor on the quality of their TE policy as such. This new version of the Companion Paper introduces the GTETI, outlines the updates made to the index since December 2024, and provides an in-depth explanation of its five dimensions and 25 indicators. It also discusses the rationale, scope, methodology, and assumptions
underpinning the GTETI assessment process. The Companion Paper explains the limitations and issues users should bear in mind when consulting the index, which is publicly available free of charge on the Tax Expenditures Lab website,  www.taxexpenditures.org.

India’s growing footprint in the Indian Ocean is reshaping the partnership with Mauritius. This policy brief explores how Mauritius can balance deepening ties with India while safeguarding strategic autonomy amid rising regional competition.

Am Montag einigten sich Vertreter*innen des Europäische Parlament und des Europäischen Rats auf eine Reform wichtiger Nachhaltigkeitsregelwerke. Die EU-Richtlinie zur Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung (CRSD), die EU-Taxonomie und die europäische Lieferkettenrichtlinie regeln Berichtspflichten und Verantwortlichkeiten von Unternehmen in Bezug auf ökologische und soziale Auswirkungen ihrer Wirtschaftstätigkeit. In einem sogenannten Omnibuspaket sollen diese Regulierungen vereinfacht und damit Bürokratie abgebaut werden. Das ist ein legitimes Anliegen. Nach der Einigung ist jedoch klar, dass die Regelwerke zum Teil entkernt und die Zahl der Unternehmen, für die sie gelten, massiv reduziert wird.

Bus rapid transit (BRT) has been widely adopted in emerging economies for its affordability and incremental implementation potential. Yet, many cities are now starting to implement urban rail as a higher-quality mass-transit alternative. This raises the question of the role of existing BRT networks once rail arrives, particularly regarding their land-value effects. This paper examines how BRT-related land value uplift (LVU) evolves after rail begins operation, using Jakarta as a case study. The study analyses residential land values around Transjakarta BRT and MRT Jakarta stations for 2017 (pre-rail) and 2021 (post-rail) using Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) and Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR). The findings reveal that (1) proximity to Transjakarta stations was associated with uplift in 2017, particularly in South Jakarta; (2) by 2021, BRT proximity penalties were reported citywide, especially in the north and east, but also in Central Jakarta; and (3) proximity to MRT Jakarta stations was associated with consistent uplift in 2021, with strongest effects at upgraded interchange nodes in South Jakarta. The timing and spatial coherence of these patterns are consistent with a rail-led substitution mechanism in which urban policy attention and developer actions concentrate willingness-to-pay near rail, while stand-alone BRT corridors increasingly reflect proximity penalties in prices. Policy recommendations include strategic co-location and integration of BRT-MRT stations, mitigating BRT proximity effects with context-sensitive station design, and timely transit-oriented development (TOD) and land value capture (LVC) at integrated hubs to harness value where market signals are strongest.