Stakeholder relations in land value capture (LVC) within a government-led decentralized governance system: The case of transport infrastructure development

• Policies both enable and constrain LVC, requiring flexible regulatory alignment. • Limited local fiscal authority weakens LVC use for transport infrastructure funding. • MRT Jakarta shows transit agencies need clear mandates and institutional support. • Intergovernmental collaboration is essential for effective LVC in multi-level systems. • Effective LVC needs risk sharing, incentives, and non-fiscal tools for private actors. Discussions of stakeholder relationships in land value capture (LVC) for transport infrastructure development remain limited, particularly within decentralized systems in the Global South and in multi-level government contexts, where strong government control is present. This paper examines the factors affecting stakeholder relationships and how these relationships influence the implementation of LVC. The case study focuses on Jakarta’s Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) in Indonesia, where LVC is considered a promising financing tool. The findings highlight that in the context of Jakarta, policy and regulations, institutional arrangements, and risk mitigation are the most influential factors. First, while policies and regulations are essential in defining stakeholder responsibilities, they also create rigid boundaries that can limit flexibility for local innovation in exploring LVC instruments. Second, the limited authority of the transit agency indicates the need for more explicit mandates and greater support from governing bodies. Third, public agencies need to take a more proactive role in risk mitigation by developing mutually beneficial partnerships with private entities. Overall, this study bridges theory and practice by placing LVC within a multi-level governance framework that links the governance of transport infrastructure development and land-use management. It shows that successful LVC implementation depends on collaboration among stakeholders from different sectors and requires institutional flexibility and adaptive governance that balance national policy coherence with local discretion. By highlighting these cross-sector and governance dynamics, the study contributes to wider discussions on urban development, transport infrastructure governance, and public–private collaboration, making it relevant to both scholars and practitioners across multiple disciplines.