This report does not constitute a rating action.
S&P Global Ratings assigns credit ratings to local and regional governments (LRGs) based on its qualitative and quantitative analysis of a range of financial, economic, managerial, and institutional factors. Our analytical framework for rating LRGs is now articulated around six major components, resulting from our methodology: institutional framework; economy; financial management; budgetary performance; liquidity; and debt burden.
Our assessment of the institutional framework is an important component of the rating. The institutional and legislative environment in which an LRG operates provides an important context in which to evaluate the LRG's individual credit profile. Therefore, we combine our assessment of the institutional framework and the five other factors listed above to determine an indicative credit level for an individual LRG. We then adjust this level for certain overriding factors to provide the final rating for the respective LRG (see "Methodology For Rating Local And Regional Governments Outside Of The U.S." published on July 15, 2019).
LRG Characteristics By Rating Category
The rating bias of LRGs in Asia-Pacific has tilted negative, predominantly because the number of negative outlooks has increased in New Zealand. This follows our revision of the trend of the New Zealand local council sector's institutional framework to weakening from stable and the large increase in spending at individual councils. The institutional framework assessment remains extremely predictable and supportive.
Elevated inflation and the economic recovery have helped boost operating revenues in recent years. But they were accompanied by higher operating spending in the form of wage adjustments and capital spending and borrowings becoming more costly. Capital expenditure continues to be elevated for many LRGs, as it became necessary to address infrastructure development needs following the normalization of migration.
This trend is most striking in Australia and New Zealand with higher inward migration rates compared with other countries in Asia-Pacific. LRGs in New Zealand also face the additional burden because of weaker operating accounts and substantial increases in capital expenditure, including national water reforms and disaster-related reconstruction efforts. This infrastructure push is resulting in higher debt levels and interest costs, which is weighing on the liquidity coverages of several LRGs.
We expect many Asia-Pacific LRGs to remain relatively resilient to periods of stress, given their high credit quality. Nevertheless, our five-year forecasts for 'AA' category rated LRGs' balance after capital accounts as a percentage of total revenue has deteriorated in recent years. This reflects loose fiscal policy in Australian LRGs, and substantial increases in New Zealand LRG's capital expenditure. Mirroring this, tax-supported debt as a percentage of consolidated revenue has also trended upwards in both the 'AA' and 'A' categories.
Chart 1
Chart 2
'AAA'
The State of Western Australia is the only rated LRG in the 'AAA' rating category. Australian states operate in an extremely predictable and supportive institutional framework. Their financial management practices are very good, as demonstrated by their detailed long-term planning and good internal and external risk management, particularly in their treasury functions.
Western Australia has a strong economy, with very high GDP per capita in a global context. However, Western Australia's economy is less diversified than the national average because of its exposure to mining and related construction. We estimate its GDP per capita reached US$98,100 in 2023, compared with US$64,700 at the national level. The state generally posts sound operating surpluses. We project its operating balance to average 9.7% of operating revenue over 2023-2027 while the balance after capital accounts will revert into a small deficit of about 1.3% during that period. Debt levels are moderate, with an average tax-supported debt of 64.6% over 2023-2027. Elevated commodity prices have resulted in unusually strong outcomes for Western Australia over the past few years, which we expect to have moderated more recently.
Table 1
Assessments for Asia-Pacific local and regional government risk indicators ('AAA' rated) | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rating factor assessments | ||||||||||||||||
Foreign currency ratings§ | Institutional framework | Economy | Financial management | Budgetary performance | Liquidity | Debt burden | ||||||||||
Australia* |
AAA/Stable/A-1+ | |||||||||||||||
Western Australia (State of) |
AAA/Stable/A-1+ | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | |||||||||
Institutional framework assessement is based on a six-point scale where 1 is the strongest and 6 the weakest, while the other factors consider a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being the strongest score and 5 the weakest. *Unsolicited ratings. §Issuer credit rating as of Sept. 13, 2024. |
Table 2
Asia-Pacific local and regional government financial and economic statistics ('AAA' rated) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
--Local GDP (nominal) per capita (US$) (single units)-- | --National GDP (nominal) per capita (US$) (single units)-- | --Operating balance (% of operating revenue)-- | --Balance after capital accounts (% of total revenue)-- | --Direct debt (% of operating revenue)-- | --Tax-supported debt (% of consolidated operating revenue)-- | --Interest (% of operating revenue)-- | ||||||||||||||||||||
2023a | 2023a | 2024e | Five-year average | 2024e | Five-year average | 2024e | Five-year average | 2024e | Five-year average | 2024e | Five-year average | |||||||||||||||
Global median (AAA) | 87,417.3 | 55,592.0 | 10.3 | 10.6 | 0.5 | (0.0) | 28.9 | 34.4 | 29.4 | 32.3 | 0.9 | 0.9 | ||||||||||||||
Australia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
State of Western Australia |
98,122.7 | 64,698.0 | 9.6 | 9.7 | (1.6) | (1.3) | 67.6 | 64.6 | 67.6 | 64.6 | 2.4 | 2.2 | ||||||||||||||
Five-year averages cover 2023-2027. Data refers to actuals whenever available, then estimates or base cases whenever available. The data and ratios above result in part from S&P Global Ratings' own calculations, drawing on national as well as international sources, reflecting S&P Global Ratings' independent view on the timeliness, coverage, accuracy, credibility, and usability of available information. The main sources are the financial statements and budgets, as provided by the issuer. a--Actual. e--Estimates. |
'AA'
LRGs in the 'AA' rating category form the biggest group in Asia-Pacific, comprising 21 councils in New Zealand, six Australian states and territories, and the Seoul Metropolitan Government (SMG) of Korea. The Australian states and New Zealand LRGs operate in an extremely predictable and supportive institutional framework that underpin their strong financial management.
We view Korea's intergovernmental system as very predictable and well-balanced. The institutional setup in Korea anchors Korean local governments' generally better budgetary outcomes compared with many international peers. As the economic center of Korea, SMG has stronger economic and financial profiles than its peers in the same rating category.
In general, LRGs in this rating category have weaker credit profiles than 'AAA'-rated peers because of wider or more-volatile budget deficits or higher debt burdens (except for SMG).
Key economic and financial risk indicators that we observe for 'AA'-category rated LRGs are:
- High national GDP per capita, with a median level of about US$49,700. Some economies in this category demonstrate a weaker socioeconomic profile compared with higher rated LRGs, especially in New Zealand.
- Moderate budgetary performance with strong operating margins but wider deficits after capital accounts, which vary in line with investment appetite of the LRGs. We usually see larger deficits at New Zealand councils than at SMG as the former have many infrastructure responsibilities, as a proportion of their balance sheets, among global peers. Meanwhile, deficits after capital accounts at Australian LRGs are elevated because their operating balances are weaker while conducting very large road construction and public transport initiatives. The median deficit after capital accounts is about 13.8% on average over 2023-2027, which is high compared with all other rating categories.
- High and increasing debt burden. We forecast that median tax-supported debt as a percentage of consolidated operating revenue will average 166.8% in 2023-2027. We also project the median interest payment as a percentage of operating revenue will remain elevated and should average roughly 6.0% in 2023-2027, as debt and interest costs increase.
- SMG is an exceptional LRG in this context. Despite its lower national GDP per capita (US$35,560 in 2023), we expect its strong revenue and prudent budgeting principles and process to keep anchoring its strong fiscal performance. We also expect it to record marginal surpluses after capital accounts over 2022-2026. Its tax-supported debt is among the lowest of all rated LRGs in Asia-Pacific at 41.5% of operating revenue in 2023, albeit increasing moderately. Similarly, interest expense is among the lowest, standing at 0.5% of total revenue on average in 2022-2026.
Table 3
Assessments for Asia-Pacific local and regional government risk indicators ('AA' rated) | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
--Rating factor assessments-- | ||||||||||||||||
Foreign currency ratings§ | Institutional framework | Economy | Financial management | Budgetary performance | Liquidity | Debt burden | ||||||||||
Korea, Republic of* | AA/Stable/A-1+ | |||||||||||||||
Seoul Metropolitan Government |
AA/Stable/A-1+ | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
1 |
|||||||||
Australia* | AAA/Stable/A-1+ | |||||||||||||||
Australian Capital Territory (Government of) |
AA+/Negative/A-1+ | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 4 | |||||||||
New South Wales (State of) |
AA+/Stable/A-1+ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4 | |||||||||
Queensland (State of) |
AA+/Stable/A-1+ | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 4 | |||||||||
South Australia (State of) |
AA+/Stable/A-1+ | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 4 | |||||||||
Tasmania (State of) |
AA+/Stable/A-1+ | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 3 | |||||||||
Victoria (State of) |
AA/Stable/A-1+ | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 4 | |||||||||
New Zealand* | AA+/Stable/A-1+ | |||||||||||||||
Auckland Council |
AA/Stable/A-1+ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 5 | |||||||||
Bay Of Plenty Regional Council |
AA-/Stable/A-1+ | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 5 | |||||||||
Christchurch City Council |
AA/Stable/A-1+ | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | |||||||||
Dunedin City Council |
AA/Negative/A-1+ | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 4 | |||||||||
Greater Wellington Regional Council |
AA+/Negative/A-1+ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4 | |||||||||
Hastings District Council |
AA-/Negative/A-1+ | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 5 | |||||||||
Hutt City Council |
AA-/Negative/A-1+ | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 4 | |||||||||
Kapiti Coast District Council |
AA/Negative/A-1+ | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 5 | |||||||||
Marlborough District Council |
AA/Negative/A-1+ | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 4 | |||||||||
Nelson City Council |
AA/Negative/A-1+ | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 4 | |||||||||
New Plymouth District Council |
AA+/Negative/A-1+ | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 4 | |||||||||
Palmerston North City Council |
AA/Negative/A-1+ | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | |||||||||
Porirua City Council |
AA-/Negative/A-1+ | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 5 | |||||||||
South Taranaki District Council |
AA/Negative/A-1+ | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 4 | |||||||||
Tasman District Council |
AA/Negative/A-1+ | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 5 | |||||||||
Taupo District Council |
AA+/Negative/A-1+ | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | |||||||||
Waimakariri District Council |
AA/Negative/A-1+ | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | |||||||||
Wellington City Council |
AA/Negative/A-1+ | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 5 | |||||||||
Western Bay of Plenty District Council |
AA/Negative/A-1+ | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 4 | |||||||||
Whanganui District Council |
AA/Negative/A-1+ | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 4 | |||||||||
Whangarei District Council |
AA/Stable/A-1+ | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4 | |||||||||
*Unsolicited ratings. §Issuer credit rating as of Sept. 13, 2024. Note: Institutional framework assessement is based on a six-point scale where 1 is the strongest and 6 the weakest, while the other factors consider a scale from 1 to 5, being 1 the strongest score and 5 the weakest. EMEA--Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. |
Table 4
Asia-Pacific local and regional government financial and economic statistics ('AA' Rated) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
--Local GDP (nominal) per capita (US$) (single units)-- | --National GDP (nominal) per capita (US$) (single units)-- | --Operating balance (% of operating revenue)-- | --Balance after capital accounts (% of total revenue)-- | --Direct debt (% of operating revenue)-- | --Tax-supported debt (% of consolidated operating revenue)-- | --Interest (% of operating revenue)-- | ||||||||||||||||||||
2023a | 2023a | 2023a | Five- year average | 2023a | Five- year average | 2023a | Five- year average | 2023a | Five- year average | 2023a | Five- year average | |||||||||||||||
Global median (AA) | 39,246.4 | 53,431.2 | 10.2 | 9.7 | (3.7) | (3.4) | 103.6 | 106.2 | 98.0 | 99.0 | 2.9 | 3.1 | ||||||||||||||
Asia-Pacific median | 52,886.2 | 49,695.3 | 14.8 | 14.4 | (14.4) | (13.8) | 171.2 | 166.8 | 171.2 | 166.8 | 6.6 | 6.0 | ||||||||||||||
Korea, Republic of* | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Seoul Metropolitan Government |
40,957.1 | 35,563.1 | 13.2 | 14.9 | (2.3) | 0.1 | 30.8 | 29.5 | 41.5 | 42.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | ||||||||||||||
2023a | 2023a | 2024e | Five-year average | 2024e | Five-year average | 2024e | Five-year average | 2024e | Five-year average | 2024e | Five-year average | |||||||||||||||
Australia* | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Australian Capital Territory (Government of) |
70,129.5 | 64,698.0 | (2.4) | (0.7) | (13.1) | (10.7) | 162.6 | 159.7 | 162.6 | 159.7 | 4.6 | 4.7 | ||||||||||||||
New South Wales (State of) |
58,631.9 | 64,698.0 | (1.1) | 1.4 | (20.3) | (14.6) | 153.4 | 145.8 | 153.4 | 145.8 | 5.0 | 4.5 | ||||||||||||||
Queensland (State of) |
57,230.8 | 64,698.0 | 2.3 | 7.5 | (10.2) | (5.8) | 107.9 | 118.4 | 107.9 | 118.4 | 3.4 | 3.8 | ||||||||||||||
South Australia (State of) |
48,495.1 | 64,698.0 | 3.7 | 2.1 | (6.9) | (7.7) | 142.7 | 148.6 | 142.7 | 148.6 | 5.1 | 4.8 | ||||||||||||||
Tasmania (State of) |
44,115.4 | 64,698.0 | 0.6 | 3.8 | (14.0) | (9.9) | 79.1 | 76.0 | 79.1 | 76.0 | 1.9 | 2.1 | ||||||||||||||
Victoria (State of) |
52,886.2 | 64,698.0 | (2.0) | (2.6) | (22.6) | (19.8) | 183.0 | 180.6 | 183.0 | 180.6 | 6.3 | 5.8 | ||||||||||||||
New Zealand* | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Auckland Council |
N.A. | 49,695.3 | 23.2 | 21.1 | (6.9) | (9.5) | 232.9 | 243.3 | 232.9 | 243.3 | 10.2 | 10.1 | ||||||||||||||
Bay Of Plenty Regional Council |
N.A. | 49,695.3 | 9.1 | 5.0 | (40.4) | (26.3) | 224.8 | 240.2 | 224.8 | 240.2 | 10.9 | 9.0 | ||||||||||||||
Christchurch City Council |
N.A. | 49,695.3 | 21.1 | 23.2 | (2.3) | (5.3) | 175.7 | 184.0 | 175.7 | 184.0 | 8.2 | 8.2 | ||||||||||||||
Dunedin City Council |
N.A. | 49,695.3 | 19.7 | 19.6 | (22.8) | (17.3) | 199.0 | 197.6 | 199.0 | 197.6 | 8.6 | 7.7 | ||||||||||||||
Greater Wellington Regional Council |
N.A. | 49,695.3 | 2.1 | 2.3 | (23.0) | (21.1) | 170.6 | 161.9 | 170.6 | 161.9 | 6.0 | 5.5 | ||||||||||||||
Hastings District Council |
N.A. | 49,695.3 | 20.3 | 18.2 | (23.8) | (26.4) | 212.2 | 217.0 | 212.2 | 217.0 | 9.7 | 9.0 | ||||||||||||||
Hutt City Council |
N.A. | 49,695.3 | (10.1) | 6.0 | (51.3) | (27.5) | 257.5 | 190.2 | 257.5 | 190.2 | 9.4 | 7.0 | ||||||||||||||
Kapiti Coast District Council |
N.A. | 49,695.3 | 15.4 | 20.8 | (34.4) | (20.8) | 273.8 | 274.9 | 273.8 | 274.9 | 11.1 | 10.5 | ||||||||||||||
Marlborough District Council |
N.A. | 49,695.3 | 15.8 | 16.2 | (11.4) | (11.5) | 90.1 | 97.8 | 90.1 | 97.8 | 3.6 | 3.9 | ||||||||||||||
Nelson City Council |
N.A. | 49,695.3 | 13.1 | 10.7 | (14.0) | (23.1) | 148.5 | 156.2 | 148.5 | 156.2 | 5.6 | 5.6 | ||||||||||||||
New Plymouth District Council |
N.A. | 49,695.3 | 18.4 | 17.1 | (8.1) | (13.5) | 140.2 | 138.0 | 140.2 | 138.0 | 5.4 | 5.1 | ||||||||||||||
Palmerston North City Council |
N.A. | 49,695.3 | 17.4 | 18.6 | (14.8) | (14.5) | 165.0 | 161.3 | 165.0 | 161.3 | 6.0 | 5.6 | ||||||||||||||
Porirua City Council |
N.A. | 49,695.3 | 24.6 | 23.0 | (19.9) | (22.8) | 171.8 | 184.6 | 171.8 | 184.6 | 9.4 | 8.5 | ||||||||||||||
South Taranaki District Council |
N.A. | 49,695.3 | 14.2 | 14.0 | (30.9) | (20.4) | 195.4 | 192.6 | 195.4 | 192.6 | 10.5 | 9.1 | ||||||||||||||
Tasman District Council |
N.A. | 49,695.3 | 13.8 | 13.7 | (4.7) | (8.9) | 181.1 | 172.5 | 181.1 | 172.5 | 6.9 | 6.3 | ||||||||||||||
Taupo District Council |
N.A. | 49,695.3 | 21.6 | 23.9 | (13.1) | (9.1) | 203.5 | 181.4 | 203.5 | 181.4 | 10.1 | 8.7 | ||||||||||||||
Waimakariri District Council |
N.A. | 49,695.3 | 9.5 | 11.3 | (19.7) | (9.6) | 177.8 | 171.6 | 177.8 | 171.6 | 7.5 | 6.9 | ||||||||||||||
Wellington City Council |
N.A. | 49,695.3 | 15.5 | 14.0 | (24.1) | (24.9) | 260.0 | 263.6 | 260.0 | 263.6 | 8.8 | 10.1 | ||||||||||||||
Western Bay of Plenty District Council |
N.A. | 49,695.3 | 23.2 | 23.0 | (7.4) | (7.7) | 81.9 | 83.5 | 81.9 | 83.5 | 4.4 | 4.7 | ||||||||||||||
Whanganui District Council |
N.A. | 49,695.3 | 17.0 | 18.0 | (8.4) | (6.6) | 145.2 | 141.5 | 145.2 | 141.5 | 7.2 | 6.6 | ||||||||||||||
Whangarei District Council |
N.A. | 49,695.3 | 16.8 | 19.3 | (14.7) | (14.0) | 149.3 | 145.8 | 149.3 | 145.8 | 6.4 | 5.6 | ||||||||||||||
Five-year averages cover 2023-2027 for Australia and New Zealand, and 2022-2026 for Japan. Data refers to actuals whenever available, then estimates or base cases whenever available. The data and ratios above result in part from S&P Global Ratings' own calculations, drawing on national as well as international sources, reflecting S&P Global Ratings' independent view on the timeliness, coverage, accuracy, credibility, and usability of available information. The main sources are the financial statements and budgets, as provided by the issuer. a--Actual. e--Estimates. N.A.--Not available. |
'A'
The LRGs in the 'A' rating category are in New Zealand, Japan, and Malaysia. The institutional frameworks of these LRGs vary, and while they are more indebted than LRGs in higher rating categories on average, it is difficult to derive common characteristics between these LRGs by looking at the medians. An increasing number of LRGs in New Zealand are rated in the 'A' category. This could increase further if the institutional framework assessment is lowered.
'A'-rated LRGs in their country of domicile exhibit the following characteristics:
- The 'A' ratings on four New Zealand councils reflect their weaker economic profiles, wider budget deficits, weaker liquidity assessments than 'AA'-category domestic peers, and idiosyncratic governance deficiencies, even though they benefit from an extremely predictable and supportive institutional framework. Weaker financial metrics stem from their proportionally higher capital spending, resulting in both widening deficits after capital accounts and high debt. We expect median tax-supported debt to average 268.4% of consolidated operating revenue in 2023-2027, based on higher spending pressures. On top of that, these entities have significantly higher interest charges, with a median of 9.2% of total revenue over 2023-2027.
- Japanese LRGs in this rating category are economic centers and thus GDP per capita in these regions exceeds the national average. Fiscal consolidation efforts and high revenue collection supported by moderate but persistent economic growth will leave their operating margins high throughout the forecast horizon. We expect median operating margins will reach 15.6% of operating revenue on average in 2022-2026. At the same time, we project balances after capital accounts to show a slight surplus, on average, helping outstanding debt balances to decline and offset the rise in funding costs. Nevertheless, the ratings on these LRGs are constrained by the sovereign rating on Japan. We anticipate that their financial profiles and debt servicing capacities would come under extreme pressure in the event of a sovereign default.
- The rating on Sarawak reflects a blend of stronger and weaker scores compared with peers. Although Sarawak's GDP per capita is higher than domestic peers', the state also faces concentration risk in the oil and gas sector. These weaknesses are more than offset by the state's large operating surpluses, which we expect will average 57.8% of operating revenues in 2022-2026. Sarawak achieves these surpluses by being one of the few LRGs in Asia-Pacific where high commodity prices and depreciation of the domestic currency both support its revenue. Thus, despite ongoing investments in infrastructure, we anticipate Sarawak will post solid surpluses after capital accounts of 17.7% over the same period and decreasing debt burden.
Table 5
Assessments for Asia-Pacific local and regional government risk indicators ('A' rated) | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
--Rating factor assessments-- | ||||||||||||||||
Foreign currency ratings§ | Institutional framework | Economy | Financial management | Budgetary performance | Liquidity | Debt burden | ||||||||||
Japan* | A+/Stable/A-1 | |||||||||||||||
Osaka (City of) |
A+/Stable/A-1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | |||||||||
Aichi (Prefecture of) |
A+/Stable/A-1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 5 | |||||||||
Tokyo Metropolitan Government |
A+/Stable/-- | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |||||||||
Malaysia* | A-/Stable/A-2 | |||||||||||||||
State of Sarawak |
A-/Stable/-- | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 4 | |||||||||
New Zealand* | AA+/Stable/A-1+ | |||||||||||||||
Horowhenua District Council |
A+/Negative/A-1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 5 | |||||||||
Tauranga City Council |
A+/Stable/A-1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 5 | |||||||||
Upper Hutt City Council |
A+/Negative/A-1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 5 | |||||||||
Hamilton City Council |
A+/Negative/A-1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 5 | |||||||||
Institutional framework assessement is based on a six-point scale, where 1 is the strongest and 6 the weakest, while the other factors consider a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being the strongest score and 5 the weakest. *Unsolicited ratings. §Issuer credit rating as of Sept. 13, 2024. EMEA--Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. |
Table 6
Asia-Pacific local and regional government financial and economic statistics ('A' rated) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
--Local GDP (nominal) per capita (US$) (single units)-- | --National GDP (nominal) per capita (US$) (single units)-- | --Operating balance (% of operating revenue)-- | --Balance after capital accounts (% of total revenue)-- | --Direct debt (% of operating revenue)-- | --Tax-supported debt (% of consolidated operating revenue)-- | --Interest (% of operating revenue)-- | ||||||||||||||||||||
2023a | 2023a | 2023a | Five-year average | 2023a | Five-year average | 2023a | Five-year average | 2023a | Five-year average | 2023a | Five-year average | |||||||||||||||
Global median (A) | 39,877.5 | 34,216.3 | 7.6 | 7.5 | (2.7) | (1.2) | 146.1 | 137.2 | 156.1 | 151.0 | 4.0 | 3.8 | ||||||||||||||
Asia-Pacific median | 47,906.8 | 41,955.8 | 14.5 | 15.6 | (9.0) | (9.0) | 236.8 | 220.6 | 258.9 | 242.4 | 7.6 | 6.5 | ||||||||||||||
Japan | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Osaka (City of) |
55,200.6 | 34,216.3 | 14.8 | 14.6 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 96.1 | 96.7 | 165.2 | 165.6 | 1.0 | 0.9 | ||||||||||||||
Aichi (Prefecture of) |
40,613.0 | 34,216.3 | 19.1 | 18.7 | 3.2 | 2.6 | 210.5 | 211.4 | 254.6 | 255.0 | 1.4 | 1.6 | ||||||||||||||
Tokyo Metropolitan Government |
61,040.4 | 34,216.3 | 15.7 | 15.6 | 1.4 | 0.6 | 45.3 | 44.9 | 82.5 | 81.7 | 0.5 | 0.5 | ||||||||||||||
Malaysia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
State of Sarawak |
18,261.3 | 11,974.6 | 58.3 | 57.8 | 25.7 | 17.7 | 148.8 | 124.0 | 148.8 | 124.0 | 6.9 | 5.9 | ||||||||||||||
2024e | 2024e | 2024e | Five-year average | 2024e | Five-year average | 2024e | Five-year average | 2024e | Five-year average | 2024e | Five-year average | |||||||||||||||
New Zealand | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Horowhenua District Council |
N.A. | 49,695.3 | 7.3 | 8.1 | (33.4) | (25.4) | 295.6 | 271.5 | 295.6 | 271.5 | 12.7 | 9.2 | ||||||||||||||
Tauranga City Council |
N.A. | 49,695.3 | 14.1 | 16.3 | (18.6) | (18.6) | 276.6 | 265.4 | 276.6 | 265.4 | 10.1 | 9.2 | ||||||||||||||
Upper Hutt City Council |
N.A. | 49,695.3 | (0.2) | 8.9 | (48.5) | (30.3) | 263.2 | 229.7 | 263.2 | 229.7 | 8.2 | 7.2 | ||||||||||||||
Hamilton City Council |
N.A. | 49,695.3 | 11.8 | 15.5 | (50.5) | (36.2) | 308.2 | 317.7 | 308.2 | 317.7 | 14.7 | 12.9 | ||||||||||||||
Five-year averages cover which covers 2022-2026, except for New Zealand, which covers 2023-2027. Data refers to actuals whenever available, then estimates or base cases whenever available. The data and ratios above result in part from S&P Global Ratings' own calculations, drawing on national as well as international sources, reflecting S&P Global Ratings' independent view on the timeliness, coverage, accuracy, credibility, and usability of available information. The main sources are the financial statements and budgets, as provided by the issuer. a--Actual. e--Estimates. N.A.--Not available. |
'BBB' and lower
We currently do not rate publicly any LRG in those categories in Asia-Pacific.
Related Research
- Australian States Face Pandemic Debt Hangover, July 29, 2024
- Institutional Framework Assessments For Local And Regional Governments Outside Of The U.S., June 18, 2024
- Global LRGs Rating History List, June 17, 2024
- China Local Governments: The Slow Road To Stabilization, June 13, 2024
- China LRGs: Recouping Revenue Is Key To Fiscal Sustainability, March 27, 2024
- Subnational Debt 2024: Fiscal Policy Differences Influence Borrowing In Developed Markets, March 4, 2024
- Subnational Debt 2024: Australian States' Debt Rift Deepens, Feb. 29, 2024
- Subnational Debt 2024: Focus On Debt Sustainability, Feb. 29, 2024
- Subnational Debt 2024: Chinese Governments Reach Their Limits; Other Emerging Markets Taper Borrowing, Feb. 29, 2024
- Subnational Debt 2024: Infrastructure Spending Succumbs To Economic Slowdown, Feb. 29, 2024
- Global Ratings List: International Public Finance Entities January 2024, Jan. 18, 2024
Primary Credit Analysts: | Kensuke Sugihara, Tokyo + 81 3 4550 8475; kensuke.sugihara@spglobal.com |
Anthony Walker, Melbourne + 61 3 9631 2019; anthony.walker@spglobal.com | |
YeeFarn Phua, Singapore + 65 6239 6341; yeefarn.phua@spglobal.com | |
Martin J Foo, Melbourne + 61 3 9631 2016; martin.foo@spglobal.com | |
Wenyin Huang, Singapore +65 6216 1052; Wenyin.Huang@spglobal.com |
No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software, or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced, or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees, or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.
Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses, and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment, and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors, and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating-related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses.
To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw, or suspend such acknowledgement at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal, or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.
S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain nonpublic information received in connection with each analytical process.
S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.spglobal.com/ratings (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.spglobal.com/usratingsfees.