Municipalities, being the closest level of government to citizens, have their capacity to respond to urgent needs limited: deteriorated streets, lack of public lighting, waste collection problems, abandoned public spaces, or lack of basic infrastructure. Citizens know their authorities, live through the works — or their absence — and have the ability to demand responses with greater immediacy. While some areas concentrate investment, infrastructure, and opportunities, others remain trapped in cycles of abandonment that do not respond to a lack of local will, but to a structural problem: the excessive centralization of resources. In this context, ensuring that the money from the Property Tax (IBI) reaches the municipalities effectively, timely, and fluidly is not just an administrative or financial discussion; it is, in essence, a bet on territorial equity and the dignity of communities. IBI, by its nature, is a tax deeply linked to the territory. In contrast, when municipalities have sufficient own resources, a more balanced dynamic is generated, where each district can drive its own development, reducing historical gaps. The effective flow of IBI to municipalities is not a concession; it is a structural necessity to build a more just country. Meanwhile, ministries and the central government, even with the best intentions, operate under complex administrative structures that hinder the rapid execution of specific solutions. The reality is clear: centralized bureaucracy does not have the agility that the local demands. Allowing IBI to flow directly to municipalities does not mean, in any way, promoting a discretionary or disorderly use of public funds. Decentralization cannot and should not be synonymous with opacity; rather, it should be an opportunity to strengthen local governance, bringing citizen oversight closer to resource management. When funds are managed at the municipal level, social control becomes more direct and effective. It is recognizing that development cannot continue to depend exclusively on centralized decisions, but must be nourished by the capacity for action of the territories. Panama needs to move towards a model where decentralization is not a discourse, but a tangible practice. It is about opportunities, dignity, and the real possibility that each community, regardless of its location, can build its own future. The author is a lawyer. It is they who know where a street is urgently needed, where a school is lacking, or which neighborhood requires immediate intervention. Decentralizing resources is, consequently, decentralizing solutions. But there is an even deeper argument: the redistribution of wealth. Where resources arrive on time, where works respond to the real needs of people, and where transparency accompanies every step of the process. Because, in the end, it is not just about money. However, when these resources are not transferred efficiently or get trapped in unnecessary bureaucratic processes, the basic logic of fiscal co-responsibility is broken: communities contribute, but do not receive in proportion or in time. This has direct consequences. A system where resources are concentrated at the central level tends to reproduce inequalities, because investment decisions do not always manage to balance territorial asymmetries. In Panama, talking about territorial development is still, in many ways, talking about inequality. No ministry, however efficient, can understand the priorities of each community with the same precision as its local authorities. On the contrary, this process must be accompanied by solid mechanisms of transparency, oversight, and accountability. It is generated from the value of real estate existing within each district, which makes it an ideal instrument to strengthen local management. Furthermore, the effective transfer of IBI would allow for more coherent planning with the realities of each territory.
