Summary of the “Global Urban Competitiveness Report 2007-2008”

Publish Date：2014-04-29 15:19:46

Published: 08:50:16 Jan 15, 2014

The Global Urban Competitiveness Report 2007-2008 (hereinafter referred to as the report), led by Dr. Ni Pengfei of CASS and Professor Peter Carl Kresl of Bucknell University, and written together with multi-country research scholars, was published on the morning of the Fifth International Forum on Urban Competitiveness on July 27, 2008. The report used nine indicators, i.e., per capita GDP, per land GDP, economic growth rate, employment rate, GDP scale, labor productivity, the numbers of distribution of multinational companies, the number of patent applications, and the price advantage, to carry out measurement on the competitiveness of 500 cities worldwide.

Table 1. The Ranking of the Nine Indicators of the Top Ten Cities in Comprehensive Competitiveness

City	Nominal exchange rate/ PPP exchange rate	Total GDP	Per capita GDP	Per land GDP	Growth rate	Employment	Patent	Labor productivity	Distribution of multinational companies	Comprehensive competitiveness
New York	470	4	6	12	332	254	4	1	2	1
London	474	90	19	38	337	322	127	16	145	2
Tokyo	479	196	131	180	356	338	167	135	240	3
Paris	471	24	128	7	368	314	65	180	107	4
Washington	475	105	4	92	320	145	110	22	95	5
Los Angeles	472	33	63	76	355	163	128	95	160	6
Stockholm	476	153	26	19	381	401	77	62	138	7
Singapore	480	202	17	9	316	78	104	90	221	8
San Francisco	478	195	8	61	354	108	188	38	197	9
Chicago	484	261	75	32	322	129	119	109	235	10

Through the study, it could be seen that the top 20 cities of comprehensive global competitiveness were: New York, London, Tokyo, Paris, Washington, Los Angeles, Stockholm, Singapore, San Francisco, Chicago, Toronto, Seoul, Boston, San Diego, Auckland, Helsinki, Madrid, Vienna, Philadelphia, and Houston. Four Chinese cities, i.e. Hong Kong, Shanghai, Shenzhen and Beijing ranked 26, 41, 64, and 66 respectively. The comprehensive centers and technological centers in North America and Europe were the strongest in competitiveness. Asian, particularly Chinese cities grew fastest in urban competitiveness. The top 20 cities with fastest-growing economic growth were mostly Chinese cities.

The report used cluster analysis method to analyze the nine indicators in 500 cities worldwide and found out:

Some of the world’s top cities in the core economic area were becoming more and more powerful, with the gap between them and other cities growing, while other developed cities in said core area were slowing down or even declining in urban development. Some cities in the relative edge zones caught up with rapid rise. Some economic backward cities in the edge zones further declined, with some caught up with rapid rise. This showed that in the context of global competition, the relationship between global cities had become more uncertain. Every thing was possible in every urban area in the future. Only when they complied with the law and be aggressive can they avoid failure and continue the success.

The detailed comparative study of 500 cities worldwide also found out that:

The “market structure” of the Global Urban Competitiveness presented an “oligopoly” pattern, i.e., the 10 cities that had the largest economies accounted for 27% of the total GDP in the 500 cities; the distribution of global urban income level was unequal, which was high in Europe and America, low in Africa, and high along the coastal area and low in inland.

The change of global economic decision-making center was taking place. The top ten cities in the distribution of multinational companies were: New York, London, Hong Kong, Paris, Tokyo, Singapore, Beijing, Shanghai, Moscow, and Sydney.

The developed cities highly monopolized the ranking, and some cities from emerging industrialized countries suddenly rose. The top ten cities in the number of patent applications that were of internationally recognition were Tokyo, Osaka, Paris, London, New York, Seoul, Stuttgart, San Diego, San Jose, and Stockholm. China’s Shenzhen, Shanghai, Beijing ranked in the front pack in this category, which were 33, 47, and 56 respectively.

Table 2. The Top 20 Cities in the Indicators and the Overall Competitiveness

Ranking	Nominal exchange rate / PPP exchange rate	Total GDP	Per capital GDP	Per Land GDP	Employment	Patent applications	Labor Productivity	Distribution of multinational companies	GDP Growth rate in 5 years	Comprehensive competitiveness
1	Yangon	Tokyo	Geneva	New York	Moscow	Tokyo	New York	New York	Baotou	New York
2	Harare	Paris	New York	Geneva	Tijuana	Osaka	New York	London	Hohhot	London
3	Addis Ababa	New York	Auckland	Victoria	Baku	Paris	Detroit	Hong Kong	Yantai	Tokyo
4	Phnom Penh	London	Edinburgh	Macao	Acapulco	London	New Orleans	Paris	Dongguan	Paris
5	Pyongyang	Mexico	Washington	Lyon	Quanzhou	New York	Philadelphia	Tokyo	Baku	Washington
6	Accra	Los Angeles	London	San Francisco	Auckland	Seoul	Boston	Singapore	Zhongshan	Los Angeles
7	Kinshasa	Hong Kong	Oslo	Manchester	Kuwait	Stuttgart	Cleveland	Beijing	Huizhou	Stockholm
8	Ho Chi Ming City	Seoul	Belfast	San Juan	Minsk	San Diego	Oslo	Shanghai	Weifang	Singapore
9	Hanoi	Sydney	Basel	Nottingham	Shenzhen	San Jose	San Jose	Moscow	Wuhu	San Francisco
10	Kampala	Melbourne	Zurich	Kawasaki	Huizhou	Stockholm	Baltimore	Sydney	Manaus	Chicago
11	Conakry	Chicago	Helsinki	Seoul	Weihai	Wellington	Stockholm	Milan	Weihai	Toronto
12	Delhi	Shanghai	Paris	London	Dushanbe	Houston	Helsinki	Madrid	Hefei	Seoul
13	Mumbai	Yokohama	Boston	Milan	Victoria	Yokohama	Auckland	Frankfurt	Dora	Boston
14	Calcutta	Singapore	San Jose	Nagoya	Beijing	Washington	Buffalo	Brussels	Rizhao	San Diego
15	Bangalore	Berlin	San Francisco	Tokyo	St. Louis	Palo Alto	Houston	Los Angeles	Nanchang	Auckland
16	Ahmedabad	Toronto	Stockholm	Boston	St. Petersburg	Kawasaki	Glasgow	Toronto	Veracruz	Helsinki
17	Lucknow	Madrid	Nottingham	Yokohama	Dongguan	San Francisco	Chicago	Taipei	Omsk	Madrid
18	Hyderabad	Houston	Bergen	Wellington	Merida	Chiba	Nice	Seoul	Zibo	Vienna
19	Jaipur	Osaka	Glasgow	Bristol	Morelia	Berlin	Atlanta	Warsaw	Shenzhen	Philadelphia
20	Chennai	Rome	Copenhagen	Honolulu	Arlington	Kyoto	Marseille	Washington	Suzhou	Houston

The report used 103 indicators to analyze the component elements of the global competitiveness in 150 cities in seven aspects, i.e., the corporate, industrial structure, human resources, hardware business environment, software business environment, living environment and global connections and found out that:

The top 20 cities in corporate competitiveness were: Seattle, Washington, Zurich, San Francisco, Berlin, Philadelphia, Dallas, Hague, San Jose, Boston, Helsinki, Tokyo, Houston, Osaka, Munich, Kyoto, San Diego, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, and Copenhagen.

The top 20 cities in industrial structure competitiveness were: Tokyo, New York, London, Paris, Hong Kong, Chicago, Toronto, Taipei, Zurich, Singapore, Atlanta, Madrid, Sydney, Washington, Mumbai, Seoul, Stockholm, Brussels, Dublin, and Amsterdam.

The top 20 cities in human resources competitiveness were: Paris, Tokyo, Sao Paulo, Singapore, Prague, Bogota, Mexico City, Washington, Seoul, Hague, Moscow, Helsinki, Madrid, Liverpool, Stockholm, Beijing, San Jose, London, Rio de Janeiro, and Warsaw.

The top 20 cities in hardware business environment competitiveness were: Tokyo, New York, Boston, San Francisco, Chicago, London, Washington DC, Philadelphia, San Jose, Seattle, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Houston, Yokohama, Kawasaki, St. Louis, Dallas, San Diego, Osaka, and Kyoto.

The top 20 cities in software business environment competitiveness were: Singapore, Chicago, Hong Kong, Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Wellington, Geneva, Seattle, Phoenix, Copenhagen, New York, Zurich, Las Vegas, San Jose, Auckland, Helsinki, Stockholm, Sydney, and Dublin.

The top 20 cities in living environment competitiveness were: Paris, Sydney, Lisbon, Melbourne, Brisbane, Rome, Vienna, Milan, Athens, Auckland, Barcelona, Geneva, Brussels, Wellington, Munich, Las Vegas, Madrid, Sacramento, Frankfurt, and Budapest.

The top 20 cities in global contact competitiveness were: New York, London, Los Angeles, Paris, Singapore, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Tokyo, Chicago, Boston, Dublin, Miami, Dubai, Shanghai, Hamburg, Philadelphia, Hong Kong, Barcelona, Athens, and Sydney.

The report used nonlinear fuzzy curve method and linear regression method to analyze the factors that affected the urban competitiveness and found out that: in corporate, the most important thing was business management; in industrial structure, the most critical thing was the industry cluster; in human resources, the most basic thing was education; in hardware business environment, the most fundamental thing was scientific and technological innovation; in software business environment, the most significant thing was strategic orientation; in living environment, the top priority was the environmental quality; in global contact, the most direct way was the contact with the enterprises.

The report selected the world’s most successful ten cities as case studies based on their innovation, sustainability, and the degree of usage for reference. The ten cities were: London, Seoul, Singapore, Toronto, Vienna, Helsinki, Phoenix, Dubai, Shenzhen, and Yangzhou.

The report found out that in order to cope with the fierce global competition, the world’s most advanced cities were making ongoing efforts of the following: 1, drafting development strategies and implementing the plan and guidance; 2, improving the business environment, and supporting SMEs; 3, promoting industrial upgrading, and realizing urban transformation; 4, promoting lifelong education, and recruitment of talented people worldwide; 5, paying attention to environmental protection, and the pursuit of sustainable development; 6, shaping the brand of the city, and carrying out urban marketing; 7, implementing of enterprise management, building the service-oriented government; 8, shaping the personality of the city, and cultivating multiculturalism.

The report stated that nowadays, nearly half the world’s population lived in cities. Therefore, from a strategic level, the central government should pay high attention to the sustainable development of urban economy, society, environment, and culture to enhance the urban competitiveness, and should be committed to building the city as the finest homes for human.

The report called for governments to correctly handle the following 10 important and complex relations:

Expand the local autonomy, and make its financial right and powers be equivalent; the government should actively create the environment for enterprise development, and actively attract the market to participate in the government’s public affairs; positively take advantage of the world, while adhere to the local characteristics; implement lifelong education; allow the residents to become the power of industrial upgrading, and let them share the results of the upgrading; promote national innovation and entrepreneurship, to achieve win-win situation between the immigrants and the local population; make overall arrangements to guide an integrated and balanced development between the economy and the society; in the relationship between the city and the region, the government should promote the integration in order to stimulate the motivation for competition, and to share the external economic development by cooperation; implement refocusing strategy to development multiple industries and functions rather than one; protect cultural and historical heritage, and promote sustainable development; adhere to the co-construction of business environment and living environment to build a paradise for entrepreneurship and livable home.