The aim of this study is to discuss the concept of “inclusive cities,” which has been used relatively sparingly in Turkish scholarship, from a local public finance perspective and to provide an analytical framework for how the concept can be interpreted in the Turkish context. Accordingly, the study subjects the metropolitan municipalities of Gaziantep and Ankara—both part of the OECD Champion Mayors for Inclusive Growth Initiative—to a document-based qualitative comparison with the cases of Seoul and Bilbao, for which the OECD provides comprehensive city reviews within the inclusive growth agenda.

Methodologically, OECD reports as well as the strategic plans and annual activity reports of the Gaziantep and Ankara metropolitan municipalities were examined through a document analysis approach; the inclusive cities agenda was thematically analysed across four OECD policy pillars: education and human capital; labour markets and productive employment; housing and the urban environment; and access to infrastructure and public services. The findings indicate that inclusiveness emerges not as a separate social policy domain within municipal budgets, but as a horizontal governance principle shaped through the logic of resource allocation, service design, and the structuring of fiscal instruments.

The comparative analysis reveals that inclusive city policies are produced through different local fiscal governance models across cities. In Bilbao, inclusiveness is shaped around human capital investments that support economic transformation, whereas in Seoul, redistributive and regulatory fiscal instruments stand out. In Gaziantep, a local development approach centred on productive employment and social cohesion is decisive, while in Ankara, a fiscal governance model is observed in which social transfers are linked to the local economy through digital tools.

The study shows that the inclusive cities approach can be addressed in conceptual alignment with the Turkish literature on social municipalism and participatory budgeting; however, it also demonstrates the need to more systematically link inclusiveness goals with local budgets, strengthen the target–indicator–output chain, and make the spatial equity dimension more visible. In this respect, inclusive cities provide an analytical framework that enables the redesign of local fiscal governance.