Designed for a course in public finance or in transportation, this case describes the financial crisis that, in 2013, loomed over the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), the transit system serving Philadelphia and four surrounding counties. The difficulties were predominantly in the system's long-inadequate capital budget, which funded maintenance, repair, and replacement costs for the aging legacy system, but these problems were severe enough that they were threatening day-to-day operations. SEPTA had been forced to delay needed reinvestment in the system for so many years that, absent significant new funding, the SEPTA board and general manager warned that they would be forced to shrink its system dramatically over the next 10 years, reducing service in the city of Philadelphia and nearly eliminating suburban commuter rail service. To ground the discussion, the case provides political and structural background about SEPTA, alongside the recent financial history of both operating and capital budgets, allowing students to understand the nature of the funding difficulties that had historically beset the authority. The case also provides enough information on transit finance to support a more general conversation. Case exhibits include demographic and commuting data for the five counties served by SEPTA; fare and subsidy information by mode of transport; fare elasticity by mode of transport; sources of subsidy in both operating and capital budgets; information about the tax burden in Pennsylvania; the projected consequences of abolishing SEPTA for commuting costs, jobs, and property values; and pros and cons of using different kinds of state funding to finance transit. A brief 2-page sequel describes how proponents were eventually able to win legislative approval for additional funding, and what the legislature ultimately chose as its revenue source. Case number 2047.0

This sequel accompanies Case Number 2047.0. Designed for a course in public finance or in transportation, this case describes the financial crisis that, in 2013, loomed over the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), the transit system serving Philadelphia and four surrounding counties. The difficulties were predominantly in the system's long-inadequate capital budget, which funded maintenance, repair, and replacement costs for the aging legacy system, but these problems were severe enough that they were threatening day-to-day operations. SEPTA had been forced to delay needed reinvestment in the system for so many years that, absent significant new funding, the SEPTA board and general manager warned that they would be forced to shrink its system dramatically over the next 10 years, reducing service in the city of Philadelphia and nearly eliminating suburban commuter rail service. To ground the discussion, the case provides political and structural background about SEPTA, alongside the recent financial history of both operating and capital budgets, allowing students to understand the nature of the funding difficulties that had historically beset the authority. The case also provides enough information on transit finance to support a more general conversation. Case exhibits include demographic and commuting data for the five counties served by SEPTA; fare and subsidy information by mode of transport; fare elasticity by mode of transport; sources of subsidy in both operating and capital budgets; information about the tax burden in Pennsylvania; the projected consequences of abolishing SEPTA for commuting costs, jobs, and property values; and pros and cons of using different kinds of state funding to finance transit. A brief 2-page sequel describes how proponents were eventually able to win legislative approval for additional funding, and what the legislature ultimately chose as its revenue source. Case number 2047.1

This case looks at the provision of financial services both when a banking system is weak and inefficient and when it is liquid, solvent, and highly competitive, seen through the lens of Akbank's adaptation to the evolution of Turkey's banking sector. Of special interest are the effects on financial depth and financial inclusion of a commercial bank's efforts to align its internal capabilities with external opportunities. This case is accompanied by a video supplement that provides insights into contemporary Turkey as one of its most successful banks explores options for future growth. Images of urban and rural Turkey, cityscape and campus life, are viewed through the lenses of both Akbank's management and independent observers. Includes vignettes of bank customers and "unbanked" businesses.

Changes in the external environment and internal responses to these changes demonstrate the impact of government policies and administration on the strategic and tactical options for businesses - government decisions can produce unanticipated threats as well as provide unforeseen opportunities for businesses. This case looks at the provision of financial services both when a banking system is weak and inefficient and when it is liquid, solvent, and highly competitive, seen through the lens of Akbank's adaptation to the evolution of Turkey's banking sector. Of special interest are the effects on financial depth and financial inclusion of a commercial bank's efforts to align its internal capabilities with external opportunities. The film component (available soon) gives one a deeper understanding of both Turkey and Akbank in 2008, to better appreciate the context of Akbank's strategic and operational options. It portrays the dynamism of Turkey and Akbank, as well as both Akbank biases and beliefs of potential customers that might lead to missed opportunities in the provision of financial services for low income households and family businesses. HKS Case Number 1912.0

Income tax cuts for individuals and businesses, ambitious government spending plans, financial assistance for citizens affected by the December 2004 tsunami, rising costs of the national healthcare system, and public pressure to curb alcohol consumption all contributed to the Government of Thailand's decision to consider raising its excise taxes on alcoholic beverages. By September 2005 the Thai cabinet had to make a decision on reform of the system of liquor taxation. The current scheme was a mixed system that charged excise taxes based on both liquor values and the quantity of alcohol content, whichever yielded higher revenues. The cabinet caught between the competing interests of its own revenue needs, the profit objective of local producers, and consumer preferences and welfare was considering three options for reform proposed by the ministry of Finance's Excise Tax Department. The case reviews key factors that affected the conditions and desires of each stakeholder, as well as provides an international comparative perspective on the taxation of alcoholic beverages. The case can be used in both public policy and business courses, as it demonstrates the dynamic interaction between government policies, corporate strategies, and consumer interests. HKS Case Number 1857.0

Microfinance is a field that has received increasing attention over the years in the development community. It consists of the delivery of financial services to people excluded from traditional banking institutions. For many years, most work was done on issues like credit and saving methodologies. However, the emphasis has switched in recent years to institutional sustainability to maximize impact through the commercialization of microfinance. A key component of microfinance commercialization is the mobilization of funds from money and capital markets, to decrease dependency on donors and governments and to enhance the financial intermediation of microfinance institutions. One of the most innovative ways to mobilize funds for microfinance lending is through the establishment of microfinance funds that channel investments from capital markets to microfinance institutions either as loans, guarantees or - less often - equity. BlueOrchard Finance has been a major actor in this arena through the management of the Dexia Microcredit Fund (DMCF). HKS Case Number 1762.0