Disclaimer: The views andopinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflectthat of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and UN-Habitat.
“Silk Road Cities Network and GlobalUrban Competitiveness” Workshop & Press Release
December 28 ,2016, Beijing, China - The “SilkRoad Cities Network and Global Urban Competitiveness” breakout session was heldon the CAIJING Annual Conference organized by the National Academy of EconomicStrategy, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), China Social SciencePress, and IFeng Finance Institute. During the breakout session, academicdiscussions were focused on the Silk Road Cities Network. Keynote speakers includesLU Da dao, Academician of Chinese Academy of Science, Chairman of theGeographical Society of China; HOU Yong zhi, Director of the Department ofDevelopment Strategy and Regional Economy, Development Research Center of theState Council of the P.R.C; HUANG Qun hui, Director of the Institute ofIndustrial Economy, CASS; SHI Yulong, Director of the Institute of SpatialPlanning & Regional Economy，NationalDevelopment and Reform Commission P.R.C; TU Qi yu, Deputy Director of theInstitute of Urban and Demographic Studies, Shanghai Academy of SocialSciences. SONG Rui, Director of the CASS Tourism Research Center and LIU Yangping, Vise Director of the CASS Institute of City and Real Estate also providedreviews.
HE De xu,Director of the CASS National Academy of Economic Strategy; ZHAO Jian ying,Chairman and Chief Editor of the China Social Science Press; and LIU Bing,Director General of the IFeng provided remarks. The “Global UrbanCompetitiveness Report 2017——Cities Network along the Silk Road”, is authoredby the CASS (National Academy of Economic Strategy)-UN-Habitat joint research group. NI Peng fei, Director of the CASSCity and Competitiveness Research Center, Leader of the CASS-UN-Habitat joint research group, ChiefUrban Economist; and Marco Kamiya, Coordinator ofUrban Economy and Finance Branch of UN-Habitat, Co-Leader of theCASS-UN-Habitat joint research group provided overviews of the project. Ding Ruxi, Post-doc at the CASS National Academy of Economic Strategy introduced thethematic report on “Cities Network along the Silk Road”.
The preface ofthe report is addressed by WANG Wei guang, President of CASS, and Joan CLOS,Executive director of UN-Habitat and Deputy Secretary General of the UnitedNations. As a joint research output by leading international experts from CASSand UN-Habitat, the report will be released in the headquarter of CASS andUN-Habitat and is going to be published by the Springer publisher.
The globalcompetitiveness index system is based on the global urban competitiveness inputframework with six dimensions. This report is an empirical study and evaluationof the potential competitiveness of 505 cities around the world. The dataanalyses revealed significant changes(and potential changes) on the status quo of global urban competitiveness, withthe global economy center shifting towards the east. Among the 505 measuredsample cities, the TOP 10 competitivecities (by sequence) are: London, New York, Tokyo, Paris, Singapore City, HongKong, Shanghai, Beijing, Sydney, and Frankford. With more Asian cities thanEuropean and North American cities among the TOP 10, we have observed a trendof the rising of Asian cities. Among the most developed urban areas all aroundthe globe, European, American and Asian cities are in the similar developmentlevel. An inter-continental comparison shows that 1) In Asia, while only avery small percentage of cities rank high, most of the cities are laggingbehind. 2) In Europe, a small variation is found among cities. Russian citiesrank relatively lower among European cities. 3) In North America, advancedcities rank high among all cities. And small variation is found within citiesin the region. In other regions, on the one hand, Oceania is leading in thesouth hemisphere. On the other hand, South American cities rank slightly higherthan African cities.
Among the TOP 100 competitivecities, 37 of them are from Europe, 38 are from North America,19 are from Asia,and 6 are from the Oceania. None of the South American and African cities makesto the TOP 100 list. Among the TOP 20 competitive cities in Asia, 7 are fromChina and 6 are from Japan. The rest of the TOP 20 Asian citiesare located in Singapore, Korea, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, and Malaysia.
The researchillustrates that the China has an intermediate overall level of urbancompetitiveness with large variation.Only small number of cities topped the list while a large number cities areunderperformed. The average score (index) of the 69 sample cities fromChina is 0.310, slightly higher than that of the world average. Top Chinesecities such as Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Beijing are listed among the global TOP10 cities, being the most competitive cities worldwide. However, there are only17 Chinese cities among the TOP 200 global competitive cities. The coefficientof variation of China is 0.3774, lower than most of the developed countries. TOP 20 Chinesecities (by seqence in global rankings): Hong Kong (6), Shanghai (7), Beijing(8), Taipei (25), Shenzhen (66), Guangzhou (74), Macao (81), Tianjin(138),Hangzhou (139), Dongguan (154), Xi'an (161), Kaohsiung (168), Dalian (175),Suzhou (184), Hsinchu (186), Nanjing (187), Xiamen (198), Wuhan (215) and Ningbo(217).Besides, it is worth mentioningthat, the index system used in this research is different from that for the“China Urban Competitiveness Report” released earlier this year. The globalurban competitiveness index focuses more on potential competitiveness. Theresearch group believes that the earlier research conclusion of Shenzhen beingthe most competitive Chinese city remains sound.
Compared tothe United States, the largest economy in the world, even though the top Chinese cities are among the club of the mostdeveloped cities internationally, which represents the rising urbancompetitiveness of China, the overall urban development level (average score of0.31) is significantly lower than that of the U.S. (average score of 0.46).Also, the degree of balance in Chinese cities (coefficient of variation of0.3774) are not as good that of the U.S. (coefficient of variation of 0.2226). Insufficient number of cities withupper-middle level competitiveness is the main explanation of China’s overallphenomenon.
Looking at theglobal urban competitiveness in each dimension, we have the followingfindings:1) Key cities such as London,New York, Tokyo, Singapore city, Shanghai are far ahead in “Company Strength”.In this dimension, most of the sample cities score under the world average.Huge variation among cities is revealed all over the globe in terms of theirattractiveness to multi-national enterprises and their industrial structure.2) An almost normal distribution (of index) is demonstrated in the “LocalDemands” dimension. In this dimension,European and North American cities are of similar performance while Asiancities demonstrate big potential. 3) In the “Local Element” dimension,European and Asian cities perform better than North American cities. 4) In the “Hardware Environment” dimension, prominentadvantages are reflected in European and North American cities. Central Asia,Africa and Latin America fall behind. 5) In the “Software Environment”dimension, European and North American cities score high in urban environmentindicators while Africa and Latin American cities score low in these areas. 6) In the “Global Connection” dimension,significant variation is found among cities: European and North American citiesare the center of world connectivity; Major cities from the emerging economiesare catching up; African and Latin American cities are relatively marginalized.
The degree of global connection hasbecome a key factor that affects the level of innovation in cities. First,the global technological innovationactivities are clustered and unbalanced in geographic distribution. Second,Scientific innovation has become a crucial symbol of international cities.Third, the level of global connection of the primary cities represent or evensurpass that of the country. Fourth, asthe representative of the highest level of global connection, the connection ofprimary cities is being improved by the deepening agglomeration and connectionof functional agencies. Connections among primary cities remain to becharacterized by the regional connections. Thus, the capacity of accommodating high-end industries becomes the basis ofconnection among primary cities. The demands for international tradereflect the global connection among primary cities. In the future, cities from the emerging economies arecatching up from behind with advancing efficiency and visions to enter the clubof global elite cities.
The urban software environmentelements became very influential factors for enterprises in choosing theirlocation as companies are always sensitive to their hostingenvironment. In both Foreign DirectInvestment and Domestic Direct Investment networks, Chinese cities presentpatterns of clusters in geographic distribution. The Domestic Direct Investmentnetworks contains relatively fixed sub networks. Compared to other regions, theYangtze River Delta area are more agglomerative and balanced. Investors andCity decision makers should take the network agglomeration effects andlocational factors into consideration when making strategic plans.
Thecompetitiveness of metropolises is a new topic with gradually increasingsignificance. The planning and governance of large metropolises are essentialnot only to the cities themselves but also to the competitiveness of theircountries. Due to the complexity of metropolises, effective policies shouldintegrate sectors such as economic development, planning, and fiscalmanagement. Also, the governance of large metropolises should be placed in theintegrated background of formal and informal economic, planning and fiscalframework.
The thematic reportanalysis the cities and regions along the silk road on theirstatus of urban development and global connections based on rich dataresources. The report renders that cities are the engines of regional, nationaland trans-national economic and social development. Connections among citiesprovides vital supports to the open collaboration among countries and regions. The overall urban development level ofcities along the silk road presents a U-shape with the high east and west ends,and caved central area. Specifically speaking, cities in the eastern end(China, etc) develop rapidly with high variation within the region. Cities inthe western end (Europe) are with high development level but relatively slowergrowth rate; Cities located in the central area (Central Asia, West Asia, SouthAsia, East and north Africa) are with an overall lower urban development levelwith high variation within the region.
The connections amongthe cities network along the silk road follows a pattern with key cities fromeastern and western end dominant the international connection. At the sametime, the connection surpasses most of cities located in the central area. KeyCities from Subzone in East Asia,South East Asia, West Europe, Central Europe are with advantages in globalnetworks. The TOP 10 cities are (bysequence): London, Hong Kong, Paris, Singapore City, Shanghai, Dubai, Beijing,Milan, Mumbai, and Moscow. At the same time, however, keyCities from Subzone from NorthAfrican, Northeast Asian, and Central Asian are under performed in theanalyses. These cities are relatively closed and isolated. Besides, a positive correlation is found between the degree ofconnection and the cities income level among cities along the silk road. Astage by stage variation on the degree of connection is found among cities withdifferent population size. It is thus shown that the density of urban economyis the key element of their global connection.
The status quo and structure of the cities network alongthe silk road is under changes. Our research has outlined a map of city networkunder the patternof “central being the margin while marginbeing central” and with “establishednetworks on the 2 ends while belt shaped pattern of connection in the center”.This is to say that, in this network, the geographic centers are marginalizedin terms of the degree of global connection, while the two geographic ends arethe center of the global connection. Also, even though in irregular form, a silk road cities network and citystructure is established. Commercial service, production elements andindustrial structure make up the main content of global connection among thesecities. Changes in the hardware andsoftware environment deeply affects the shape and changing process of thisnetwork.
Under the background of the improving infrastructure andpolicy, changing commodity and service trade, production elements, andindustrial network, opportunities and challenges are both present. The future cities network along the Silk Roadwill reflects a pattern of “Expanding Europe, Thickening Asia, Rising India andAfrica, Dropping central Asia, and Dividing Middle East”. A “3 networks 4 belt”(Asia cities network, European cities network, and South Asian cities network;and the cities belt along the 1st Euro-Asia cities bridge, 2ndEuro-Asia cities bridge, Marine time Cities belt, and the cities belt along thewest coast of Africa) framework will be established. This network is going tochange the world economic geography system through net extension, belt-shapedexpansion and multi-polar supports.
Recognizing the vital role of global urbancompetitiveness and sustainable development, CASS (National Academy of EconomicStrategy) and UN-Habitat has reached to an agreement in research collaborationfor the next 5 years. With a goal ofproducing practical analytical tools for cities all around world, as well asthe New Urban Agenda, the research team plans to invite key internationalexperts to conduct researches jointly on important topics centered around the“Global Urban CompetitivenessReport”.