The Release and Symposium of the China Urban Competitiveness Report (2011) was Held in Hong Kong

(May 9, 2011, Hong Kong) The Hong Kong News Conference of the “China UrbanCompetitiveness Report (2011)” was held in Hong Kongon May 9, 2011. The conference was sponsored by the Better Hong KongFoundation, and jointly organized by the Research Center of City and Competitiveness of CASS andthe Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies of the ChineseUniversity of Hong Kong. The composition of the report took more than six months, andit was led by Dr. Ni Pengfei, head of the City and CompetitivenessResearch Centerin CASS, along with urban competitiveness experts from Mainland China, China’sTaiwan, Hong Kong and Macau. The theme of this year’sreport was “Cities: make the world tilted and flat”. The report used objective data to do quantitative analysis on the comprehensive competitiveness of 294 prefecture and abovelevel cities in Mainland China, China’sTaiwan, Hong Kong and Macau.

1. The rankings of the urban comprehensive competitiveness

Hong Kong remained the first and the mainland cities hada strong catching up momentum. In 2010, the top10 cities were: 1 Hong Kong, 2 Shanghai, 3 Beijing, 4 Shenzhen, 5 Taipei, 6 Guangzhou,7 Tianjin, 8 Dalian, 9 Changsha, and 10 Hangzhou. Hong Kong had maintained thefirst position in comprehensive competitiveness over the years nationwide, but asof vertical comparison, the gap between Hong Kong and Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen,Taipei and other cities was gradually narrowing. In 2010, the competitivenessindex of Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, and Taipei were 0.892, 0.881, 0.859, 0.858respectively, which were very close to Hong Kong’s 1.

ProfessorNi Pengfei pointed out that compared to cities in Mainland China, Hong Kong hadan absolute advantage in comprehensive competitiveness; it had for many yearsmaintained the first position. But the cities of Mainland China had enjoyed a rapidpace of development in recent years, and the gap between Hong Kong and themwere gradually narrowed. Overall, there were more cooperation than competition betweenHong Kong and the mainland cities, and showed a win-win situation.

2. The performance of Hong Kong’s urban competitiveness

Inthe eight sub-items of the comprehensive competitiveness, Hong Kong remained1st in income level, fell behind from 1st to 2nd in economic scale, economicefficiency and industrial level, remained 4th in development cost, remained 288thin comprehensive growth, and fell behind from 198th to 271st in the happinessindex.

Economic scale competitiveness: Due to the rapid development of theChinese mainland cities, Hong Kong’s advantage in economic scale graduallynarrowed. In recent years, Hong Kong’s advantage in scale competitiveness wasno longer obvious. Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen and other cities enjoyed rapiddevelopment; Shanghai had already surpassed Hong Kong.

Economic efficiency competitiveness: Hong Kong had advantagesthat far outweighed the mainland cities; it could be called the world model. Although ranked second, Hong Kong’s competitiveness in economicefficiency continued to lead the mainland cities. Its per capita GDP and perland GDP, as well as its degree of intensive economy and the utilization of infrastructurewere high. Hong Kong’s pursuit of efficiency and its intensive development wereworth learning for the Chinese mainland cities.

Development cost competitiveness: Hong Kong had obviousadvantages that were worth learning from for the Chinese mainland cities. Although Hong Kong only ranked fourth in this sub-item, compared with otherless developed inland cities, it still had obvious advantages. Hong Kong’seconomy had relatively low resource consumption and less environmentalpollution, and could be called the most cost-competitive development mode. Thismode was worth learning from for the mainland cities.

Industrial level competitiveness: Hong Kong’s industrialupgrading was slow, and was gradually caught up by the mainland cities. Although Hong Kong’s services sector accounted for 92% of its total GDP,and it had a higher comprehensive industrial level, it still enjoyed slowgrowth in labor productivity in recent years due to the lack of technologicalinnovation. The comprehensive industrial level of Hong Kong was caught up byBeijing, and fell behind in second place.

Income level competitiveness: Hong Kong had a higheroverall level of income, but it also showed a large gap between rich and poor. Though Hong Kong’s per capita income, benefits, and per capita financial incomewere significantly higher than the mainland cities and ranked in the firstposition, it still needed the adjustment of internal distribution of income.

Sense of happiness competitiveness: Hong Kong ranked verylow in the sense of happiness, and the index of this sub-item showed a downwardtrend. Compared with other indicators ofcompetitiveness, the happiness index of Hong Kong lagged behind in 2010 ranking271th out of 500 cities in China, down by 73 ranks compared with the year 2009,which was consistent with the inverted “U” rule of the income level and happiness.

Inaccordance with the theoretical framework of urban competitiveness, the report analyzedand compared the 12 sub-items of competitiveness in Hong Kong and 55 majorcities in Mainland China. Hong Kong continued to hold the first position intalent competitiveness, financial capital competitiveness, structuralcompetitiveness, environmental competitiveness, government managementcompetitiveness and opening-up competitiveness; it ranked second in the enterprisecompetitiveness, third in the integrated location competitiveness and business culturecompetitiveness, fourth in the infrastructure competitiveness and economicsystem competitiveness, and 26th in the IT competitiveness. Hong Kong ranked inthe front pack in most of the twelve sub-items of competitiveness, but alsoshowed an obvious falling behind in the scientific competitiveness. It wasstagnated in the infrastructure development competitiveness, in which it rankedfourth after Shanghai, Guangzhou and Beijing.

3. Hong Kong needed a third runway to enhance its urbancompetitiveness

ProfessorYang Ruwan from the Department of Geography and Resource Management of ChineseUniversity of Hong Kong, and Professor Shen Jianfa, director of the ResearchPlanning of Asia-Pacific Cities and Regional Development of the Hong KongInstitute of Asia-Pacific Studies in the Chinese University of Hong Kong attendedthe conference and reviewed on the findings. They commented on the constructionof a third runway at Hong Kong International Airport to consolidate Hong Kong’srole as an international aviation hub, and enhancing the urban competitivenessof Hong Kong.

ProfessorYang Ruwan pointed out that China’s Twelfth Five-Year Plan had been implementedsince 2011. The Plan supported the development of Hong Kong as an internationalshipping, logistics, finance and trade center. Being the international aviationand shipping hub was an important foundation for Hong Kong’s competitiveness.

ProfessorYang Ruwan noted that the aviation industry was an important industry in HongKong. Hong Kong had the world’s third busiest airport in international traffic.In 2010, it had carried the amount of 50.9 million passengers; as of the cargofreight, Hong Kong was the world’s busiest, handling 4.1 million tons of cargoin the same year. On the other hand, in 2007, Hong Kong’s aviation industry haddirectly and indirectly provided nearly 220,000 jobs, accounting for 8% of thetotal employment in Hong Kong. Looking ahead the future ten years, the airtraffic in Asia Pacific was expected to grow 7% annually, while China’s annualgrowth was expected to be as much as 11-14%. Hong Kong would be facing moreintense competitions from the Asia Pacific region, especially China. UnlessHong Kong managed to deal with the situation in the short term, otherwise itwould lose its competitive advantages in the aviation industry.

ProfessorYang Ruwan noted that the Hong Kong International Airport had reached 90% ofits upper limit of capacity in handling the entrances and exits of aircrafts.At the current growth rate of fast transport demand, it was expected that by2017 Hong Kong International Airport’s capacity would reach the state of saturation,and it would be difficult for it to handle any additional growth. It would take10 years to build a new runway. Even we decided to build a third runway today,there was at least three or four year after 2017 that the Hong KongInternational Airport could not cope with the increasing passenger and cargotraffic demand. Therefore, if Hong Kong did notmake immediate action, its position of being the aviation hub would bechallenged by other airports in the region. Meanwhile, Hong Kong would also missthe opportunity of sharing the rapidly growing demand of international andregional air transportation, and lose the advantages of being the shipping huband commercial center.

ProfessorYang Ruwan noted that the eight major airports in the region had built ordeployed the third or more runways. Shanghai and Guangzhou, according to thedevelopment plan, would eventually build five runways. In addition, the AsiaPacific hub of Federal Express (FedEx) had been put into operation in 2009 in Guangzhou Baiyun Airport, and theAsia Pacific hub of the United Parcel Service (UPS) was officially opened in 2010 in Shenzhen Bao’an Airport. These allreflected that Hong Kong was facing all kinds of pressure from the neighboringairports.

ProfessorYang Ruwan stated that the current achievements of the Hong Kong InternationalAirport from the timely and forward-looking decision of building the newairport at Chek Lap Kok in 1989. After eight years of construction, the HongKong International Airport had development into a miracle of the 20th century.This year, Hong Kong also needed to make an important decision of building athird runway in order to the support long-term development of Hong Kong. To conductpublic consultation would take a lot of time; if the whole process could beginas soon as possible, the third runway could be built in time. Problems such asnoise, air quality and marine ecosystems can be solved. The construction of thethird runway was vital to maintaining Hong Kong’s competitiveness. This wouldbe depended on our important decision this year.

4. The development trend of airports in the world’s majorcities and its inspirations for Hong Kong

ProfessorShen Jianfa noted that since 1978, Hong Kong had successfully transformed froman industrial city into a global city with the producer service-based economy. Inthe ranking of the global financial centers released in March 2011, Hong Kongranked high in the third place, with a score of 759 points, shortly behindLondon’s 775 points and New York’s 775 points. The global cities were internationalcosmopolitans with powerful control capabilities in the global city system.“Mobility” was crucial for the global cities. The success of the global citiesdepended on the free flow of people, goods, capital and information. Hong KongInternational Airport had made great contribution to the process of promotingHong Kong as Asia’s leading global city. Hong Kong had become the world’sleading international aviation hub. It was expected that by the year 2017, theHong Kong International Airport would be saturated. The limited carryingcapacity of the airport would become a major bottleneck in Hong Kong’s futureurban development.

ProfessorShen Jianfa stated that the current airlift capacity of the Hong KongInternational Airport fell far behind the airports of New York and London, andeven behind the major airports in Asia cities and China. The annual aviationtraffic volume of New York and London metropolitan areas reached more than 100million. The Greater New York metropolitan area had five airports, the three ofwhich had nine runways total. John F. Kennedy International Airport was thelargest, and had four runways. The Greater London metropolitan area has fiveairports and six runways. The three major airports in the Greater London had a totalof four runways. Seoul had two airports. Incheon International Airport hadthree runways, and in 2020 the number would be five. At that time, its annual capacityof passenger and cargo would reach 100 million people and 700 million tons.Beijing Capital International Airport had three runways, and its passenger volumein 2010 reached 73.95 million, becoming the world’s second busiest airport. NowBCIA was studying the possibility of adding a fourth runway. The new airportconstruction in Beijing had also been put on the agenda. Tianjin BinhaiInternational Airport was also in that region. Shanghai had two airports. In2010 its total passenger capacity reached 71.88 million. Pudong InternationalAirport had three runways, and a fourth runway would be built in 2015. HongqiaoInternational Airport had two runways. In 2015, the passenger and cargo capacityof Shanghai’s two airports would reach 100 million people and 5.5 million tons.By 2012, the Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport would have three runways.In 2011, Shenzhen would build a second runway in its the airport.

ProfessorShen Jianfa pointed out that New York and London were the top two of the world’sglobal cities and the international financial centers. Both of the two metropolitanareas had an annual passenger capacity of over 100 million people, which wereserved by their three major airports with at least six runways. Currently the Beijingand Tianjin region and the Shanghai region each had two airports with fiverunways (runways would be increased to six to eight in the future). If the HongKong International Airport did not build a third runway, the Hong Kong andShenzhen metropolitan area would only have four runways available. Therefore,the recent construction of a third runway was quite necessary. Hong Kong andthe Pearl River Delta cities would be connected by the transportation links ofhighway network and high-speed railway network. Hong Kong International Airportwas the key to strengthen international ties and promote the furtherdevelopment of producer services. Otherwise, the bottleneck of the airliftcapacity of Hong Kong International Airport would restrict the traffic flow of internationalpassenger and cargo, thus weaken Hong Kong’s international network. It would alsoaffect the development of the tertiary industry that provided nearly 90% of employmentopportunities for the local people. Under the circumstances of limited airliftcapacity of the Hong Kong International Airport, air tickets and cargotransportation costs would rise, affecting the travel plan of businessmen,residents, tourists and the logistics of enterprises.

Ms.Karen Tang, CEO of the Better Hong Kong Foundation, concluded, “The success ofthe global city depends on the free flow of people, goods, capital andinformation. All this time, the Hong Kong International Airport has contributeda lot to the city’s development. The construction of a third runway at HongKong International airport is a way to consolidate Hong Kong’s position as aninternational aviation hub, and it can enhance the competitiveness of Hong Kong.I hope citizens of Hong Kong can understand the importance of the third runway.Hong Kong’s future needs everyone’s support.”

If you have any inquiries, please contact Ms.Jimmie Chow, communication manager of the Foundation. Tel: (852) 28653529 /60306025; Fax: (852) 28613361; E-mail: jimmie_chow@betterhongkong.org; Website:www.betterhongkong.org. 

    


- END -

Better Hong KongFoundation


61th Floor Bank of China Tower, 1 Garden Road,Central, Hong Kong


Tel: (852) 28612622         Fax: (852) 28613361


E-mail: mailbox@betterhongkong.org   Website: www.betterhongkong.org

“Better Hong Kong Foundation” was founded by agroup of influential people from Hong Kong’s business community and the societyin 1995. The Foundation has been committed to maintaining a continuous andclose cooperation relations with foreign community, and actively introducesthem to the latest developments and achievements in Hong Kong, in order to makethe international community have a better understanding on the development ofHong Kong and China.