The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and UN-HABITAT jointly released the 《Global Urban Competitiveness Report 2019-2020 -The world: 300 years of transformation into city》

The annual general report examines the global 300-year change from the perspective of cities and finds that from 1750 to 2050, the world of 300 years will completely enter the city.

The annual theme report identifies municipal financing challenges and systematically summarizes “Experience and Methods of Global Municipal Finance”.

The annual competitiveness report found that the average value of global urban competitiveness declined slightly due to the decline in the competitiveness of Chinese, American and European cities.

The annual report puts forward a set of standards for city classification for the first time, and adopts hierarchical clustering method to classify more than1,000 cities all around the world.

The annual report attempts to measure the progress of the implementation of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) from the perspective of Urban Sustainable Competitiveness (USC) for the first time.

On November 12, 2019, the China Social Science Forum - Global Urban Forum was held in Ningbo. The meeting was co-organized by the Presidium of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences(CASS), UN-HABITAT and the Municipal People's Government of Ningbo, and undertaken by National Academy of Economic Strategy, CASS, along with the Government of Yinzhou District . The forum is also supported by "Economic Daily", "South China Morning Post", Phoenix Finance,.etc. World-renowned scholars from UN-HABITAT and CASS, entrepreneurs, government officials and media leaders attended and delivered keynote speeches, theme speeches and made dialogues on new type city, municipal finance, and media to enhance urban influence.

At the forum, The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (National Academy of Economic Strategy) and UN-HABITAT jointly released the 《Global Urban Competitiveness Report 2019-2020 - The world: 300 years of transformation into city 》(hereinafter referred to as the report). Led by Mr. Marco Kamiya (UN-HABITAT Head Urban Economy and Finance branch, Co-chief economist of CASS & UN-HABITAT joint research group) and Prof. Ni PengFei (Dean assistant of National Academy of Economic Strategy, Co-chief economist of CASS & UN-HABITAT joint research group), the report is prepared by many urban experts and professionals and lasted for a whole year to complete. This report authorizes the global premier to the English abstract of the "South China Morning Post", the Chinese abstract of the “Daily Economy”, and the live broadcast to the Phoenix Finance.

The annual general report examines the global 300-year change from the  perspective of cities and found that from the micro level, the change of leading cities causes the basic "cell" change of the world. There are three notable changes in this process: First is the change in the content of production, exchange and distribution activities in leading cities from goods to services and ideological products. The second is the change in the population size of leading cities from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands and millions. Third is the space of leading cities spread from single central cities to multi-center metropolitan areas, and then to continuous urban clusters. Leading cities not only bring the world into the city, but also change the city world.

Secondly, from the perspective of macro structure, the evolution of the global urban system determines the transformation of the world structure and system. First is the evolution of urban economic system: from global duality to global integration, from commodity trading system to factor trading system, and then from industrial chain system to innovation chain system. Second is the evolution of urban scale system: from the system dominated by small cities in Europe and America to the system dominated by big cities all over the world. Third is the evolution of urban space system: from isolated city to urban agglomeration and then to the world of metropolitan area.The transformation of the global urban system has leaded to the content upgrading and spatial remodeling of world system.

Thirdly, from the perspective of macro gross, the general report found that global urban development has completed the epoch-making transformation of human civilization. Urban economy in the overall economy plays roles from insignificant subsidiary, to pivotal support, and then to all-inclusive main body.Second, the proportion of urban population is about to increase from 5.5% (1750) to 70% (2050). Thirdly, The functional space of the city on earth ranges from scattered points to all human footprints.

Fourthly，from the perspective of space, the general report found that changes in global urban characteristics determine the evolution of world characteristics. First, cities lead the world: from dispersed-concentration to concentrated -concentration and then to concentrated-dispersion. Secondly, cities dominate the world: from regional connections to global connections, from “hard connections” of commodity elements to “soft connections” of information and service elements, from individual connections to the internet of everything, from infrastructure contribution to public service contribution, from hardware product sharing to software product sharing, from public product sharing to private product sharing. The three important characteristics of human society: aggregation, connection and sharing are accelerated by the development of cities.

Last but not least, from the dynamic mechanism, the general report found that the human development momentum bred by cities determines the appearance and change of the urban world. Mankind's insatiable and ever-escalating demand for a better life is the driving force behind the urbanization of the world in 300 years. The four technological revolutions have been the core driving force behind 300 years of urban world formation. The establishment and expansion of market economy system is the key driving force of urban world.

According to the theme report, the serious challenges of municipal financing and solutions need to be given high attention globally. Municipalities are the government entities that most closely manage cities, and are well situated to respond to the specific needs of their resident populations and businesses in terms of public services, education, an enabling business environment and governance impacting the local quality of life. However, lack of resources, capacity and authority often constrains the ability of municipalities to meet the needs of their cities. Therefore, improving the state of municipal finance will be critical for development, and is a global priority according to the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (United Nations, 2015B).

The theme report found that SDGs cannot be achieved without determined and far-reaching financial efforts in terms of capital investment. Thus, cities must concentrate a significant part of these efforts. However the expenditure and funding raising ability of local governments shown significant differences between high-income and low-income cities. Therefore, innovation in resource access mechanisms is essential.

The case study part of the theme report, centering on the experience and methods of municipal finance, deeply analyzes the cases of Sao Paulo, Botswana, and Latin America and the Caribbean, summarizes the experience and practices of these cities and regions in municipal finance so as to provide references for global urban.

Using a sound theoretical framework and indicator system, official statistical data, big data, and related calculation methods, the report measures the economic competitiveness of 1,006 cities (metropolitan areas) around the world, as well as their constituent indexes, rankings, and changes. The report shows that influenced by the decline in the average urban competitiveness of China, the United States and Europe, the average global urban competitiveness slightly declined. This also indicates that if the trade war between major countries continues, it will not only weaken the urban competitiveness of each country, but also weaken the global urban competitiveness and welfare.

According to the global urban economic competitiveness research, the top 20 cities in the 2019 Global Urban Economic Competitiveness ranking are: New York, London, Singapore, Shenzhen, San Jose, Tokyo, San Francisco, Munich, Los Angeles, Shanghai, Dallas, Houston, Hong Kong, Dublin, Seoul, Boston, Beijing, Guangzhou, Miami and Chicago. Nine of them were from North America, eight from Asia and three from Western Europe.Overall, the top 20 cities face fierce competition with significant changes in rankings. 14 cities has changed position with the largest change of 4 places. Global comprehensive centers and technology centers have generally improved, while specialized cities and manufacturing centers declined overall.

The study found that comparing the top200 cities in economic competitiveness, Europe has more cities declined in the ranking while Asia has more cities improved. Compared with 2018, among the top200 cities, 54.2% of European cities declined in terms of ranking of economic competitiveness while this ratio in Asia is only 31% which indicates that the majority of cities in Asia are improved in the ranking. Regarding North America, the number of risen is as much as fallen.

The study found that among the top ten urban agglomerations, Northern California has the highest average and Rhein-Ruhr has the smallest internal difference. The study found that the economic competitiveness of the top ten urban agglomerations showed a trend of increasing differentiation. The ranks of the Northern California urban agglomerations have risen significantly and the Seoul metropolitan area, the Yangtze River Delta and the Pearl River Delta have also improved in  but with smaller extent. The Northeastern US urban agglomeration, the Midwestern urban agglomeration, the London-Liverpool urban agglomeration, the Netherlands The Belgian urban agglomeration and the Rhine-Ruhr urban agglomerations have declined slightly . The overall ranking of the Mumbai urban agglomeration is relatively low but stable.

Comparing the three major economies of China, the United States and the European Union,  China has more cities declined in the ranking, while some European cities have declined steeply . As the three engines of world economic development, China, the United States and the European Union have attracted worldwide attention for the change of urban economic power. From the perspective of urban economic competitiveness, the overall level of the three major economies has declined. The United States has the smallest number of cities declined and China has the biggest number but with slight overall descent degree. However, severity declines have appear in some European cities.

Comparing the overall pattern of global economic competitiveness, the report found that the overall level has declined, but the divergence has narrowed. Comparing all 1006 samples, it is found that compared with 2018, the average level of global urban economic competitiveness in 2019 has decreased, but the difference has converged. Meanwhile, from the perspective of spatial distribution, the cities with better economic competitiveness output are still mainly concentrated in Western Europe and North America, while the number and scale of cities with strong economic competitiveness in east Asia are smaller. From the aspect of urban competitiveness upgrading, European and African cities present more growth than decrease, while Asian and north American cities present more decrease than growth.

Comparing changes of global sub-regional pattern, the report found that Northern China and Eastern Europe declined while Southern China and India rose in ranking. From the perspective of spatial distribution, the cities with rising global competitiveness are mainly distributed in the west coast of the United States (100 degrees west longitude), Western Europe (20 degrees east longitude) and China, Japan and South Korea (110-140 degrees east longitude), and the latitude is concentrated between north 25 to north 55 degrees. Cities in Northern China and Eastern Europe generally declined while those in southern China and India generally rose in ranking.

From the perspective of Chinese cities: the number of city declined is over the number of city increased and the average value has decreased. The Matthew effect of specific ranking is significant. However, from the perspective of index, the overall level has declined while the overall gap has narrowed. In terms of regions, there are more cities increased in Eastern China and Central China while the rest parts have the opposite situation.

According to the Global Urban Competitiveness Report 2019, five cities in China rank among the top 20, namely Shenzhen No. 4, Shanghai No. 10, Hong Kong No. 13, Beijing No. 17, and Guangzhou No. 18. Compared with 2018, Shanghai has increased by 3, Beijing has increased by 2, Hong kong has decreased by 2, and Guangzhou has decreased by 4. Shanghai surpasses Hong Kong.

Nine cities in China have entered the top 50, including Suzhou (25), Nanjing (42), Wuhan (43), and Taipei (44). Compared with the ranking in 2018, Nanjing has increased by 3, Suzhou and Taipei have increased by 2.

Twenty cities in China have entered the top 100, including Chengdu (54), Hangzhou (64), Wuxi (65), Changsha (68), Qingdao (76), Chongqing (81), Tianjin (82), Foshan (84), Ningbo (90), Zhengzhou(94) and Changzhou(99). Ningbo has increased by 11, Hangzhou by 10, Qingdao and Foshan by 9,  Changzhou by 8,  Chengdu by 6 , Zhengzhou by 5, Changsha by 3 and Tianjin has decreased by 40.

Thirty-nine cities in China have entered the top 200, including: Dongguan (104), Macao (113), Nantong (121), Kaohsiung (126), Ji’nan (141), Hefei (145), Quanzhou (148), Xiamen (149 ), Xi'an (150), Fuzhou (153), Yangzhou (163), Zhuhai (173), Zhenjiang (174), Yantai (175), Taizhou (180), Dalian (185), Xuzhou (191), Nanchang (197) ) and Shenyang (200). Compared with the ranking of 2018, Taizhou has increased by 38, Xi'an by 21, Fuzhou by 20, Dongguan by 20, Yangzhou by 19, Jinan by 16, Zhuhai by 14 and Quanzhou by11. Four cities, including Nantong and Nanchang, have increased by eight, and Chongqing and Xuzhou both have increased by one. Xiamen and Zhenjiang both have decreased by six, Yantai has decreased by nine, Shenyang has decreased by 30, and Dalian has decreased by 60.

According to the 2019 global urban economic competitiveness ranking, for China, there are more cities declined. By regions, in Eastern and Central China, there are more cities increased than decreased but in underdeveloped Western China and resource-based Northeastern regions, there are more cities decreased than increased. In 2019, 103 out of 291 cities in China have increased in terms of economic competitiveness, accounting for 35.4% of the total number. And 182 out of 291 cities have decreased, accounting for 62.54% of the total number.

In 2019, the overall urban economic competitiveness of China is in a middle level, with the mean value

declined slightly and the gap narrowed. In 2019, the mean value of economic competitiveness of 291 cities in China is 0.291, lower than that of 2018 (0.328), and close to the global average (0.292). In 2019, the variance of economic competitiveness level of 291 cities in China is 0.134, slightly lower than that of the last year (0.148) and the variance of the world (0.166). In 2019, the coefficient of variation of economic competitiveness of 291 cities in China is 0.449, slightly lower than that of 0.451 in 2018 and 0.568 of the world.

Using a sound theoretical framework and indicator system, official statistical data, big data, and related calculation methods, the report measures the sustainable competitiveness of 1,006 cities (metropolitan areas) around the world, as well as their constituent indexes, rankings, and changes. The report shows that North American and Western European cities perform well with small divergence, while Asian cities stay in low level with significance difference. Specific as follows:

According to the global urban sustainable competitiveness research, The top 20 cities in 2019 Global Urban Sustainable Competitiveness ranking are Singapore, Tokyo, New York, London, San Francisco, Paris, Hong Kong, Osaka, Los Angeles, Chicago, Barcelona, Moscow, Stockholm, Seoul, Munich, Stuttgart, Boston, Madrid, Shenzhen, and Frankfurt. It basically covers the major cities in the world and the center cities in the developed countries. There are five in U.S., nice in Europe, and the rest are in East Asia, including China, Japan, South Korea and Singapore. Among the top 20 cities, Europe holds the most seats, while Asia has the highest mean value.It is not difficult to find that all the top 20 cities almost represent the characteristics and development of their countries. These leading cities can be regarded as the symbol of the development and achievements of the whole country.

In terms of the top 200 cities, Asia holds the most seats and Europe has the highest mean value. Among the top 200 cities in the 2019 Global Urban Sustainable Competitiveness ranking, Asia has the largest number of cities, namely 65, indicating that Asia is fast growing with a strong upward trend. But we could also find that the average value of Asian cities is low, indicating that their sustainable competitiveness needs to be further improved. Northern America and Europe followed closely, with 60 cities and 58 cities respectively entering the top 200.The mean value of sustainable competitiveness of European cities is the highest, which indicates that the quality of urban development is worthy of recognition.

Comparing the ten largest urban agglomerations, the report found that Seoul has the highest mean value and Rhine-Ruhr is best balanced. Among the ten largest urban agglomerations, the strength of urban agglomerations in the United States and the United Kingdom is prominent. Although urban agglomerations in China, India and other developing countries are large in size, the gap between central cities and surrounding cities is obvious and the development is unbalanced. Due to the limited number of cities in Seoul city cluster, the average sustainable competitiveness index is in a leading position. And among the urban agglomeration in Europe, the Rhine-Ruhr urban agglomeration has the lowest standard deviation, which shows the balance of development in the Western European countries.

The report found that for three major economies: China, the United States and the European Union, the United States and the European Union far surpass China, and the development of US cities is of potential. In total, there are 439 cities in China, the EU and the US entered the global urban competitiveness ranking, which is close to half of the total number of 1006 cities. The overall performances of the EU and the US are in the same level while there is still a large gap for China to catch up. In the US-EU comparison, the United States has a higher cumulative average, indicating that the development potential of American cities is greater than that of Europe. In general, the sustainable competitiveness of Chinese cities has not yet reached the optimal level, and the US and EU cities are at the peak.

According to the report, in terms of the overall global spatial pattern, Northern American and Western European cities perform well with small divergence, while Asian cities stay in low level with significance internal difference. In terms of the global distribution，the average value of North America and Europe is much higher than the world average, and they are at the top of the global sustainable competitiveness with small internal differences. Asia is far ahead of the rest of the continent in terms of the number of cities, but the average value is slightly behind the world average and there are big internal differences. But it is also a sign of the rapid rise of central Asian sub-hubs.

From the perspective of global sub-regional spatial pattern, it shows that coastal cities and cities located in temperate zone are leading. Through the study, we find that the cities with strong sustainable competitiveness are mainly distributed in the coastal areas in the north temperate zone: 120-70 degrees west longitude (east and west coasts of the United States), 10 degrees east longitude to 10 degree west longitude (western European countries) and 110-140 degrees east longitude (China, Japan and South Korea). At the same time, in latitude, the top cities in these areas are mostly between 25 and 55 degrees north latitude.

From the perspective of Chinese cities, the mean value of sustainable competitiveness is close to the world average, and balanced degree surpasses the global average. The sustainable competitiveness of Chinese cities has been steadily improving for many years. According to the data in 2019, there are 2 cities in China ranking top 20, which is Hong Kong (No.7) and Shenzhen(No.19). Among the top 50 cities, Taipei ranks No.23 , Shanghai ranks No.29 , and Beijing ranks No.38. And there are 9 cities enter the top 100 , including Suzhou (58), Guangzhou (67), Nanjing (83), and Xiamen (94). 31 cities enter the top 200, including Wuxi (103), Tianjin (108), Foshan (109), Taizhong (110), Dongguan (121), Wuhan (122), Kaohsiung (124), Hangzhou (130), Chengdu (143), Qingdao (144), Macao (146), Zhongshan (149), Ningbo (154), Changzhou (158), Zhengzhou (159), Tai’nan (164), Changsha (165), Shenyang (182), Zhuhai (189), Dalian (193), Xi'an (197), and Hefei (199).

The sustainable competitiveness of Chinese cities is close to the world average level, and the internal differences are relatively small. The mean value of Chinese cities is 0.333, and the global average is 0.35. China's standard deviation is 0.12, and the global level is 0.17, indicating that Chinese cities, in terms of sustainable competitiveness, are relatively more balanced.

Ningbo has performed well in global competitiveness as its economic competitiveness ranked No.90 in the world in 2019. It is the first time that Ningbo has entered the top 100 most competitive ranking, increased by 11 compared to last year. Among the top 100 cities in the world, ranked No.1 in terms of ranking improvement among Chinese cities. And its sustainable competitiveness ranks No.154 in the world which is relatively of competitive.

For the first time, the report introduces the CASS and UN-HABITAT global urban classification standards . According to the report, urban classification is an important issue of global concern, and new contents and trends have emerged in the global urban development. There are four major innovations in the report: Firstly, from the perspective of elasticity of substitution and based on the theory of spatial economics, a more general economic theoretical framework based on the degree of aggregation and connection of cities is proposed. Secondly, considering the key characteristics of cities of aggregating and connecting, the framework of classification including both degree of aggregation and degree of connection is proposed, and the corresponding index system is designed. Thirdly, considering the major changes in the connotation of the urban world in the era of intelligence, we have re-examined the increasingly important soft elements and products since the origin of the city, and considered the invisible “soft” factors and tangible “hard” factors in the global urban classification framework. Fourth, considering the major changes of cities and their functional systems in the information age, besides traditional financial factors, factors of technological innovation are also emphasized when selecting the indicators of.

According to the theoretical framework, the report establishes the index system, uses the official statistical data and crawler big data, and adopts the hierarchical clustering method to cluster the central index of 1006 sample cities. According to the result, the global urban is divided into 3 layers, 2 categories, 5 groups, and 10 levels : A+,A，B+, B, C+, C, D+, D, E+, E. The first category is strong international cities and the second category is weak international cities. The first group is the global city (A), the second group is the international hub city (B); the third group is the international gateway city (C); the fourth group is the regional hub city (D); the fifth is the regional gateway city ( E).