Stadium Bonds and Fiscal Sustainability in a Shrinking City
City C has 280,000 residents and a shrinking population. Annual tax revenue is ¥92 billion; the debt-service ratio is 17.8%, above the national early-warning threshold. The city proposes a ¥28 billion stadium, 60% financed by city bonds, with 15,000 seats and 40 event days a year. A consultant estimates ¥4.2 billion in annual economic impact, but 30% is expected to leak outside the city. The city's debt service would rise by ¥1.6 billion a year for 20 years. The existing facility needs ¥3 billion in repairs. A citizens' group demands a referendum; the chamber of commerce supports the stadium. The national government offers a subsidy only if construction starts within one year. The city's population is projected to fall 0.6% a year, and 34% of residents are 65 or older.
1. Calculate the city's annual bond-financed cost and assess fiscal sustainability using the debt-service ratio. What additional information is needed?
Read the worked answer
Calculation. City bonds finance 60% of ¥28 billion = ¥16.8 billion. The setup gives debt service of ¥1.6 billion a year for 20 years. Against ¥92 billion tax revenue, that is 1.6/92 ≈ 1.7% of revenue. If the ratio is currently 17.8%, adding this debt service pushes it to about 19.5%, above the early-warning threshold. That is a material deterioration.
Sustainability. The ratio is not a full balance sheet. We need the interest rate, maturity, existing debt stock, whether the ¥1.6 billion includes principal and interest, and whether tax revenue will fall with population. The stadium's own revenue - rent, parking, naming rights - is not given. The ¥3 billion repair of the existing facility is an avoided cost if the stadium replaces it, but only if the old facility is actually closed.
Judgement. On the given numbers, the project is risky. A 20-year debt service is a long commitment for a shrinking city. The city should publish a cash-flow table and a downside case before borrowing.
2. Distinguish direct, indirect, and induced effects in the consultant's ¥4.2 billion estimate. Why might the net local benefit be lower?
Read the worked answer
Direct effects. Stadium construction and event-day spending by visitors inside the city. Indirect effects. Suppliers to the stadium and event organizers buy local inputs. Induced effects. Employees spend their wages locally. The consultant's ¥4.2 billion may combine all three.
Leakage. If 30% leaks outside the city, the local impact falls to about ¥2.94 billion before other adjustments. Substitution. Residents may shift spending from other local entertainment, so net new spending is less than gross. Displacement. A new stadium may pull events from the existing facility. Multiplier. Induced effects are not additional if workers would have been employed anyway.
Net benefit. The relevant figure is net local value added, not gross sales. It should subtract city debt service, operating costs, and the repair cost of the old facility. It should also count visitor spending that would not have occurred otherwise. On the setup, ¥4.2 billion is an upper-bound gross estimate; net benefit may be far lower or negative.
3. Evaluate the referendum demand and the chamber's support using concepts of representation, public choice, and opportunity cost.
Read the worked answer
Representation. A referendum can reveal residents' preferences directly, but turnout may be low and skewed toward older homeowners. A stadium's costs are diffuse and long-term; benefits are concentrated among nearby businesses and construction firms. The chamber of commerce is a legitimate stakeholder but not a neutral judge. The council is elected to make trade-offs, not to outsource every capital decision.
Public choice. The chamber has strong incentives to lobby; taxpayers face small individual costs and may stay uninformed. That asymmetry can produce a project even if total benefits are less than costs. A referendum can correct it, but only if the question is clear and the fiscal data are public.
Opportunity cost. The ¥16.8 billion in city bonds could repair the existing facility (¥3 billion) and fund other services. The national subsidy deadline creates artificial urgency. A better process is a published cost-benefit analysis, a binding debt cap, and a referendum only after the numbers are disclosed. If the project proceeds, pair it with a fiscal-impact agreement from the chamber.