Summary of the “Global Urban Competitiveness Report 2005-2006”

Summary of the “Global Urban Competitiveness Report 2005-2006”

Published: 08:49:28 Jan 15, 2014

The “Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2005-2006)” (hereinafter referred to as the report) used 75 indicators to measure and assess the comprehensive competitiveness, talent competitiveness, industry competitiveness, living environment competitiveness, business environment competitiveness, innovation environment competitiveness, social environment competitiveness and overall industry competitiveness respectively.

The report listed the overall competitiveness ranking of 110 cities worldwide. Among the top twenty cities in the ranking, Europe accounted for 10, the United States accounted for eight, and Asia accounted for 2 (see Table 1). This result was consistent with the current global level of economic development, i.e., the European and American cities reflected a strong comprehensive competitiveness and a clear competitive advantage. In Asia, after several years of development, Tokyo and Hong Kong had entered the first tier of the international cities.

Table 1: Top 20 Cities in the Global Urban Competitiveness Ranking

From the perspective of the city groups, most of the top twenty cities were located in the world famous city agglomerations and city groups. For instance, New York, Philadelphia, Washington and Boston were located in the US northeastern city group, Chicago was located in the North America Great Lakes city group, Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego in California city group, with London, Paris, Frankfurt and Brussels Central in the Europe city group, Tokyo in the Japan Pacific Coast “Tokaido” city group, and Hong Kong in China’s Pearl River Delta city group. Thus, the city agglomeration (group) was the cradle of cities with strong international competitiveness.

I. The Six Sub-rankings of Global Urban Competitiveness

1. The top twenty cities in talent competitiveness:

San Jose, Boston, Paris, Minneapolis, San Francisco, Austin, London, Seattle, Washington, Baltimore, Copenhagen, Munich, Tokyo, Madrid, Singapore, Helsinki, Wellington, Zurich, Atlanta, Denver.

2. The top twenty cities in industry competitiveness:

Tokyo, New York, London, Osaka, Paris, Chicago, Houston, Singapore, Hong Kong, San Jose, Philadelphia, Dallas, Boston, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Toronto, Seoul, Melbourne, San Francisco.

3. The top twenty cities in living environment competitiveness:

   Zurich, Geneva, Vienna, Vancouver, Frankfurt, Munich, Copenhagen, Auckland, Sydney, Amsterdam, Brussels, Berlin, Melbourne, Toronto, Wellington, Canberra, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Nuremberg, Dublin, Montreal.

4. The top twenty cities in business environment competitiveness:

   London, New York, Sydney, Singapore, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Osaka, Melbourne, Amsterdam, Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland, Houston, Canberra, Berlin, Miami, Copenhagen, San Francisco, Atlanta, Boston.

5. The top twenty cities in innovation environment competitiveness:

   New York, Los Angeles, Washington, Seattle, Boston, Philadelphia, Tokyo, Paris, Chicago, Berlin, San Francisco, Baltimore, Toronto, Houston, Helsinki, Minneapolis, London, Montreal, Pittsburgh, Copenhagen.

6. The top twenty cities in social environment competitiveness:

   Ulsan, Sydney, Geneva, San Jose, Dubai, Busan, Yokohama, Minneapolis, Seoul, Kyoto, Zurich, San Francisco, Charlotte, Kaohsiung, San Diego, Taipei, Munich, Las Vegas, Kawasaki, Vienna.

The report found out that from the perspective of city's comprehensive competitiveness, the European and American cities reflected a strong comprehensive competitiveness and a clear competitive advantage; there was still a large gap between the cities of the developing countries in Asia, Africa, and South America an the European and American cities, which matched the current global level of economic development of countries.

It is worth noting that Asian cities, as represented by Japan, Tokyo and China’s Hong Kong, were constantly challenging the status of European and American cities in the world city system. Judging from the explanatory indicators, cities in North America and Europe dominated most of the leading indicators with great advantages; the rankings of indicators of cities in Asia, Africa, South America were relatively low, except for Tokyo, Singapore and Hong Kong, whose indicators were close to or exceeded the major cities of Europe and America.

Overall, the Chinese cities, especially those in the mainland, had relatively low scores and lower rankings. The competitiveness of Chinese cities was still relatively weak, and the gap between the Chinese cities and the international metropolitans was quite obvious.

In addition, the report also compared five categories of industry competitiveness indicators. These five categories were: manufacturing competitiveness, competitive allocation of services, consumer services competitiveness, social services and productive service industry competitiveness.

II. The Rankings of Global Urban Industry Competitiveness

1. The top 20 cities in manufacturing competitiveness:

   Ulsan, Kawasaki, Frankfurt, San Jose, Milan, Kyoto, Vienna, Nuremberg, Detroit, Glasgow, Liverpool, Milwaukee, Osaka, Munich, Montreal, Lyon, Nagoya, Melbourne, Zhuhai, Tokyo.

2. The top 20 cities in distributive service competitiveness:

   Madrid, Frankfurt, Zurich, Paris, Berlin, Munich, Geneva, Memphis, Cape Town, Lyon, Helsinki, Hong Kong, Kobe, Hamburg, Sapporo, Vienna, Nuremberg, Copenhagen, Milan, Miami.

3. The top 20 cities in consumer service competitiveness:

   Las Vegas, Kaohsiung, Taipei, Paris, Hong Kong, Macau, San Antonio, Sendai, Osaka, Memphis, Cincinnati, Miami, Nagoya, Sapporo, Kyoto, Sacramento, Milan, Copenhagen, Columbus, San Diego.

4. The top 20 cities in social service competitiveness:

   Washington, Geneva, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Canberra, St. Louis, Boston, Philadelphia, Zurich, Brussels, Nashville, Seattle, Minneapolis, New York, Amsterdam, Sacramento, Cleveland, Detroit, Austin, Columbus.

5. The top 20 cities in productive service competitiveness:

Dublin, San Francisco, Atlanta, Amsterdam, Washington, Charlotte, London, New York, Denver, Los Angeles, San Diego, Munich, Seattle, Dallas, Boston, Minneapolis, Chicago, Phoenix, Brussels, Austin.

Viewing from the above five rankings, it is noted that the industry competitiveness of US cities was relatively strong, with many EU cities also outstanding. In some industries, the competitiveness of Asian cities was relatively strong. These cities had good industrial structure and higher labor productivity, which played an important role in the economic development.

The industry competitiveness of China and other developing cities were relatively weak. Especially in respect of the industrial labor productivity, there was a significant gap between developed cities and the major cities in Mainland China.

It is said that this report would define its theme as the “Competitiveness challenges the world urban system”. The report’s findings include: 1. The level of the global urban technological innovation competitiveness rose, posing a challenge on the traditional urban system; 2. Some cities of the edges rose rapidly with fast-increase competitiveness, which also posed challenges on the global urban system.

In addition, the report also made constructive comments and suggestions on the strategy and countermeasures of increasing global urban competitiveness.