Global Urban Competitiveness Report - (2019-2020) The World:300 years of transformation into city - UN-Habitat
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Global Urban
Competitiveness
Report
(2019-2020)
The World:300 years of
transformation into cityGlobal Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)
Introduction of GUCR
The Global Urban Competitiveness Report（GUCR） is a cooperative research conducted by the Chinese Academy
of Social Sciences (CASS) and UN-Habitat focusing on sustainable urban competitiveness, urban land and urban
finance. Led by Mr. Marco Kamiya and Prof. Ni Pengfei, the project is participated by experts from CASS, UN-
Habitat and well-known scholars in relevant fields. Through theoretical research and empirical investigation, the
report establishes an indicator system to measure the economic competitiveness and sustainable competitiveness
of more than 1,000 cities in the world. Meanwhile, it selects important issues of global urban development as
the theme report for in-depth study, aiming to promote the implementation of the UN 2030 agenda through the
assessment of urban competitiveness. At present,《GUCR (2015-2016)》
GUCR (2017-2018)
， 《GUCR (2018-2019)》
have been published successively, from which, 《GUCR (2018-2019)》was launched at the UN headquarters in
New York city during the 74th UN general assembly.
About the Authors
Marco Kamiya Ni Pengfei
Mr. Marco is the head of the Urban Economy and Director of Center for City and Competitiveness,
Finance Branch of UN-HABITAT, and his research CASS; Assistant to the Director of National
interests include development economics and public Academy of Economic Strategy, CASS; PhD
economics. Mr. Marco leads global operational in economics, doctoral supervisor. Leader and
work on urban economy and finance and conducts Chief Urban Economist of the CASS-UN-Habitat
research on municipal finance, the economics of joint research group. Specialized in theoretical
urban expansion and local infrastructure-investment and applied studies in urban economics, urban
policy. competitiveness and real estate economics.
1Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)
1.The Annual General Report- The World：300 years
of transformation into city
The annual general report Figure 1: Conceptual framework of General Report: Agglomeration,
Connection and Sharing:
examines the global 300-
The History and Future of the City
year change from the
perspective of cities and City Determinants
found that from the micro
level, the change of leading Demand Institution Technology
cities causes the basic
"cell" change of the world.
City Components
There are three notable changes
in this process: First is the
Population（Fanmily） Activities（Enterprises） Space（Government）
evolution of global urban economic
system: from global duality to
global integration, from commodity Connotations of individual city
trade system to factor trade
Popu scale & structure Econ scale & structure Space scale & structure
system, and then from industrial
chain system to innovation chain
system. The second is the change
Features of individual city
in the population size of leading
cities from tens of thousands to Space aggregation Space connection Space sharing
hundreds of thousands, millions
and tens of millions. Third is the
space of leading cities spread Connotations of cities
from single central cities to
Popu scale & structure Econ scale & structure Space scale & structure
multi-center metropolitan areas,
megalopolis and metropolitan
coordination regions. Leading
Features of city world
cities not only bring the world into
the city, but also change the city Space aggregation Space connection Space sharing
world.
Source: Global urban competitiveness database of CASS
Secondly, from the
perspective of macro structure and system. First is system, and then from industrial
structure, the evolution the evolution of urban economic chain system to innovation chain
of the global urban system: from global duality to system. Second is the evolution
system determines the global integration, from commodity of urban scale system: from the
transformation of the world trading system to factor trading system dominated by small cities
2Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)
in Europe and America to the (1750) to 70% (2050). Thirdly, The services, from hardware products
system dominated by big cities functional space of the city on to software products, from public
all over the world. Third is the earth ranges from scattered points goods to private goods. The three
evolution of urban space system: to all human footprints. important characteristics of human
from isolated cities to urban society: aggregation, connection
agglomerations and then to the In addition,from the and sharing are accelerated by
world of metropolitan coordination perspective of space,the the development of cities.
regions.The transformation of the general report found that
global urban system has leaded to changes in global urban Last but not least, from the
the content upgrading and spatial characteristics determine dynamic mechanism, the
remodeling of world system. the evolution of world general report found that
characteristics. First, cities the human development
Moreover, from the lead the world: from dispersed- momentum bred by cities
perspective of macro concentration to concentrated determines the appearance
gross, the general report -concentration and then to and change of the urban
found that global urban concentrated-dispersion. world. Mankind's insatiable and
development has completed Secondly, cities dominate the ever-escalating demand for a better
the epoch-making world: from regional connections life is the driving force behind the
transformation of human to global connections, from urbanization of the world in 300
civilization. Urban economy in “hard connections” of commodity years. The four technological
the overall economy plays roles elements to “soft connections” of revolutions have been the core
from insignificant subsidiary, to information and service elements, driving force behind 300 years
pivotal support, and then to all- from individual connections to of urban world formation. The
inclusive main body.Second, the the internet of everything. The establishment and expansion of
proportion of urban population contents of urban sharing range market economy system is the key
is about to increase from 5.5% from basic infrastructure to public driving force of urban world.
3Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)
2. The Annual Theme Report of GUCR(2019-2020)：
Experience and Methods of Global Municipal Finance
According to the theme municipalities to meet the needs of governments shown significant
report, the serious their cities. Therefore, improving differences between high-income
challenges of municipal the state of municipal finance will and low-income cities. Therefore,
financing and solutions need be critical for development, and innovation in resource access
to be given high attention is a global priority according to mechanisms is essential.
globally. Municipalities are the the Addis Ababa Action Agenda
government entities that most (United Nations, 2015B). The case study part of the
closely manage cities, and are well theme report, centering on
situated to respond to the specific The theme report found that the experience and methods
needs of their resident populations SDGs cannot be achieved of municipal finance, deeply
and businesses in terms of public without determined and far- analyzes the cases of Sao Paulo,
services, education, an enabling reaching financial efforts in Botswana, and Latin America
business environment and terms of capital investment. and the Caribbean, summarizes
governance impacting the local Thus, cities must concentrate a the experience and practices
quality of life. However, lack of significant part of these efforts. of these cities and regions in
resources, capacity and authority However the expenditure and municipal finance so as to provide
often constrains the ability of funding raising ability of local references for global urban.
4Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)
3. Economic Competitiveness of GUCR(2019-2020):
Influenced by the decline in the average urban
competitiveness of China, the United States and
Europe, the average global urban competitiveness
declined slightly. 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.
Global urban economic internal organization efficiency way by means of attracting,
competitiveness of a city can and the external economic controlling and transforming
be understood as the ability advantage which are formed resources and dominating the
of a city, in the process of by its factor endowments and market, so as to continuously
cooperation, competition and space foundation, to create more provide and maximize the
development relaying on the values in a rapid and extensive benefits for its residents.
According to the
Figure 2: The spatial distribution of economic competitiveness
output of 1,006 cities global urban economic
competitiveness research,
90 the top 20 cities in
the 2019 Global Urban
Economic Competitiveness
60
ranking are: New York,
London, Singapore,
30
Shenzhen, San Jose,
Tokyo, San Francisco,
0 Munich, Los Angeles,
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
Shanghai, Dallas, Houston,
-30 Hong Kong, Dublin,
Seoul, Boston, Beijing,
Guangzhou, Miami and
-60
Chicago. Nine of them were
from North America, eight from
-90
Asia and three from Western
Source: CCC of CASS Europe.Overall, the top 20 cities
5Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)
face fierce competition with competitiveness while this metropolitan area, the Yangtze
significant changes in rankings. ratio in Asia is only 31% which River Delta and the Pearl River
14 cities has changed position indicates that the majority of Delta have also improved
with the largest change of 4 cities in Asia are improved in in but with smaller extent.
places. Global comprehensive the ranking. Regarding North The Northeastern US urban
centers and technology centers America, the number of risen is agglomeration, the Midwestern
have generally improved, as much as fallen. urban agglomeration,
while specialized cities and The study found that the London-Liverpool
manufacturing centers declined among the top ten urban urban agglomeration, the
overall. agglomerations, Northern Netherlands The Belgian urban
California has the highest agglomeration and the Rhine-
The study found that average and Rhein- Ruhr urban agglomerations have
comparing the top200 Ruhr has the smallest declined slightly . The overall
cities in economic internal difference. The ranking of the Mumbai urban
competitiveness, Europe study found that the economic agglomeration is relatively low
has more cities declined competitiveness of the top but stable.
in the ranking while Asia ten urban agglomerations
has more cities improved. showed a trend of increasing Comparing the three major
Compared with 2018, among differentiation. The ranks of economies of China, the
the top200 cities, 54.2% of the Northern California urban United States and the
European cities declined in agglomerations have risen European Union, China
terms of ranking of economic significantly and the Seoul have more cities declined
6Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)
in the ranking, while east Asia is smaller. From the has narrowed. In terms of
European cities has a aspect of urban competitiveness regions, there are more cities
deeper descent degree upgrading, European and African increased in Eastern China
. As the three engines of cities present more growth than and Central China while the
world economic development, decrease, while Asian and north rest parts have the opposite
China, the United States and American cities present more situation.
the European Union have decrease than growth.
attracted worldwide attention According to the Global Urban
for the change of urban Comparing changes Competitiveness Report 2019,
economic power. From the of global sub-regional five cities in China rank among
perspective of urban economic pattern, the report found the top 20, namely Shenzhen
competitiveness, the overall level that Northern China and No. 4, Shanghai No. 10, Hong
of the three major economies Eastern Europe declined Kong No. 13, Beijing No.
has declined. The United States while Southern China 17, and Guangzhou No. 18.
has the smallest number of and India rose in ranking. Compared with 2018, Shanghai
cities declined and China has From the perspective of spatial has increased by 3, Beijing has
the biggest number but with distribution, the cities with increased by 2, Hong Kong has
slight overall descent degree. rising global competitiveness decreased by 2, and Guangzhou
However, severity declines have are mainly distributed in the has decreased by 4. Shanghai
appear in some European cities. west coast of the United States surpasses Hong Kong.
(100 degrees west longitude),
Comparing the overall Western Europe (20 degrees Nine cities in China have entered
pattern of global economic east longitude) and China, the top 50, including Suzhou
competitiveness, the Japan and South Korea (110-140 (25), Nanjing (42), Wuhan (43),
report found that the degrees east longitude), and the and Taipei (44). Compared with
average level has declined, latitude is concentrated between the ranking in 2018, Nanjing
but the divergence has north 25 to north 55 degrees. has increased by 3, Suzhou and
converged. Comparing all Cities in Northern China and Taipei have increased by 2.
1006 samples, it is found Eastern Europe generally
that compared with 2018, the declined while those in southern Twenty cities in China have
average level of global urban China and India generally rose entered the top 100, including
economic competitiveness in in ranking. Chengdu (54), Hangzhou (64),
2019 has decreased, but the Wuxi (65), Changsha (68),
difference has converged. From the perspective Qingdao (76), Chongqing (81),
Meanwhile, from the perspective of Chinese cities: more Tianjin (82), Foshan (84),
of spatial distribution, the cities declined than Ningbo (90), Zhengzhou(94)
cities with better economic increased and the average and Changzhou(99). Ningbo has
competitiveness output are value has decreased. The increased by 11, Hangzhou by
still mainly concentrated in Matthew effect of specific 10, Qingdao and Foshan by 9,
Western Europe and North ranking is significant. Changzhou by 8, Chengdu by 6
America, while the number However, from the perspective , Zhengzhou by 5, Changsha by
and scale of cities with strong of index, the overall level has 3 and Tianjin has decreased by
economic competitiveness in declined while the overall gap 40.
7Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)
Thirty-nine cities in China have both have decreased by six, decreased, accounting for
entered the top 200, including: Yantai has decreased by nine, 62.54% of the total number.
Dongguan (104), Macao (113), Shenyang has decreased by
Nantong (121), Kaohsiung 30, and Dalian has decreased In 2019, the overall urban
(126), Ji’nan (141), Hefei (145), by 60. economic competitiveness of
Quanzhou (148), Xiamen (149 According to the 2019 China is in a middle level, with
), Xi'an (150), Fuzhou (153), global urban economic the mean value declined slightly
Yangzhou (163), Zhuhai (173), competitiveness ranking, and the gap narrowed. In 2019,
Zhenjiang (174), Yantai (175), for China, there are more the mean value of economic
Taizhou (180), Dalian (185), cities declined. By regions, competitiveness of 291 cities in
Xuzhou (191), Nanchang in Eastern and Central China is 0.291, lower than that
(197) ) and Shenyang (200). China, there are more cities of 2018 (0.328), and close to
Compared with the ranking of increased than decreased but the global average (0.292). In
2018, Taizhou has increased in underdeveloped Western 2019, the variance of economic
by 38, Xi'an by 21, Fuzhou by China and resource-based competitiveness level of 291 cities
20, Dongguan by 20, Yangzhou Northeastern regions, there in China is 0.134, slightly lower than
by 19, Jinan by 16, Zhuhai by are more cities decreased that of the last year (0.148) and the
14 and Quanzhou by11. Four than increased. In 2019, 103 variance of the world (0.166). In
cities, including Nantong and out of 291 cities in China have 2019, the coefficient of variation of
Nanchang, have increased increased in terms of economic economic competitiveness of 291
by eight, and Chongqing and competitiveness, accounting cities in China is 0.449, slightly
Xuzhou both have increased for 35.4% of the total number. lower than that of 0.451 in 2018 and
by one. Xiamen and Zhenjiang And 182 out of 291 cities have 0.568 of the world.
Table 1: Chinese cities among Top200 economic competitiveness 2019
City Rank City Rank City Rank
Shenzhen 4 Qingdao 76 Quanzhou 148
Shanghai 10 Chongqing 81 Xiamen 149
Hong Kong 13 Tianjin 82 Xi'an 150
Beijing 17 Foshan 84 Fuzhou(FJ) 153
Guangzhou 18 Ningbo 90 Yangzhou 163
Suzhou 25 Zhengzhou 94 Zhuhai 173
Nanjing 42 Changzhou 99 Zhenjiang 174
Wuhan 43 Dongguan 104 Yantai 175
Taipei 44 Macao 113 Taizhou 180
Chengdu 54 Nantong 121 Dalian 185
Hangzhou 64 Kaohsiung 126 Xuzhou 191
Wuxi 65 Jinan 141 Nanchang 197
Changsha 68 Hefei 145 Shenyang 200
Source: CCC of CASS
8Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)
4. Sustainable Competitiveness of GUCR(2019-2020):
North American and Western European cities perform
well with small divergence, while Asian cities stay in
low level with significant difference
Global urban sustainable Global Urban Sustainable rest are in East Asia, including
competitiveness refers to the Competitiveness ranking China, Japan, South Korea and
ability of a city to enhance its are Singapore, Tokyo, Singapore. Among the top
advantages in economy, society, New York, London, San 20 cities, Europe holds the
ecology, innovation, global Francisco, Paris, Hong most seats, while Asia has
connection and other aspects, and Kong, Osaka, Los Angeles, the highest mean value.It
to seek systematic optimization Chicago, Barcelona, is not difficult to find that all the
to continuously meet the complex Moscow, Stockholm, Seoul, top 20 cities almost represent the
and advanced welfare utility of Munich, Stuttgart, Boston, characteristics and development
citizens. Madrid, Shenzhen, and of their countries. These leading
Frankfurt. It basically covers cities can be regarded as the
According to the global the major cities in the world and symbol of the development
urban sustainable the center cities in the developed and achievements of the whole
competitiveness research, countries. There are five in country.
The top 20 cities in 2019 U.S., nine in Europe, and the
In terms of the top 200
cities, Asia holds the most
Figure 3: The spatial distribution of sustainable competitiveness
output of 1,006 cities seats and Europe has
the highest mean value.
70
Among the top 200 cities in the
2019 Global Urban Sustainable
40 Competitiveness ranking, Asia
has the largest number of cities,
namely 65, indicating that Asia
10 is fast growing with a strong
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180 upward trend. But we could also
find that the average value of
20
Asian cities is low, indicating that
their sustainable competitiveness
needs to be further improved.
50
Northern America and Europe
Source: Global urban competitiveness database of CASS
9Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)
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 of US cities is of potential. low level with significance
strength of urban agglomerations In total, there are 439 cities in internal difference. In terms
in the United States and the China, the EU and the US entered of the global distribution, the
United Kingdom is prominent. the global urban competitiveness average value of North America
Although urban agglomerations in ranking, which is close to half of and Europe is much higher than
China, India and other developing the total number of 1006 cities. the world average, and they are at
countries are large in size, the The overall performances of the the top of the global sustainable
gap between central cities and EU and the US are in the same competitiveness with small
surrounding cities is obvious and level while there is still a large gap internal differences. Asia is far
the development is unbalanced. for China to catch up. In the US- ahead of the rest of the continent
Due to the limited number of cities EU comparison, the United States in terms of the number of cities,
in Seoul city cluster, the average has a higher cumulative average, but the average value is slightly
sustainable competitiveness indicating that the development behind the world average and
index is in a leading position. And potential of American cities is there are big internal differences.
among the urban agglomeration greater than that of Europe. But it is also a sign of the rapid
in Europe, the Rhine-Ruhr urban In general, the sustainable rise of central Asian sub-hubs.
agglomeration has the lowest competitiveness of Chinese cities
standard deviation, which shows has not yet reached the optimal From the perspective of
the balance of development in the level, and the US and EU cities global sub-regional spatial
Western European countries. are at the peak. pattern, it shows that
coastal cities and cities
The report found that for According to the report, in located in temperate zone
three major economies: terms of the overall global are leading. Through the study,
China, the United States spatial pattern, Northern we find that the cities with strong
and the European Union, American and Western sustainable competitiveness are
the United States and the European cities perform mainly distributed in the coastal
European Union far surpass well with small divergence, areas in the north temperate zone:
China, and the development while Asian cities stay in 120-70 degrees west longitude
10Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)
Table 2: Chinese cities among Top200 (east and west coasts of the United States), 10 degrees east
sustainable competitiveness 2019
longitude to 10 degree west longitude (western European
countries) and 110-140 degrees east longitude (China,
City Rank
Japan and South Korea). At the same time, in latitude, the
Hong Kong 7
top cities in these areas are mostly located between 25
Shenzhen 19 and 55 degrees north latitude.
Taipei 23
From the perspective of Chinese cities, the
Shanghai 29
mean value of sustainable competitiveness
Beijing 38
is close to the world average, and more
Suzhou 58 balanced than the global average. The sustainable
Guangzhou 67 competitiveness of Chinese cities has been steadily
improving for many years. According to the data in 2019,
Nanjing 83
there are 2 cities in China ranking top 20, which is Hong
Xiamen 94
Kong (No.7) and Shenzhen(No.19). Among the top 50
Wuxi 103 cities, Taipei ranks No.23 , Shanghai ranks No.29 , and
Tianjin 7 Beijing ranks No.38. And there are 9 cities enter the top 100
, including Suzhou (58), Guangzhou (67), Nanjing (83), and
Foshan 19
Xiamen (94). 31 cities enter the top 200, including Wuxi (103),
Taichung 23
Tianjin (108), Foshan (109), Taizhong (110), Dongguan (121),
Dongguan 29 Wuhan (122), Kaohsiung (124), Hangzhou (130), Chengdu
Wuhan 38 (143), Qingdao (144), Macao (146), Zhongshan (149), Ningbo
Kaohsiung 58
(154), Changzhou (158), Zhengzhou (159), Tai’nan (164),
Changsha (165), Shenyang (182), Zhuhai (189), Dalian (193),
Hangzhou 67
Xi'an (197), and Hefei (199).
Chengdu 83
Qingdao 94 The sustainable competitiveness of Chinese cities is close
Macao 103
to the world average level, and the internal differences
are relatively small. The mean value of Chinese cities is
Zhongshan 149
0.333, and the global average is 0.35. China's standard
Ningbo 154
deviation is 0.12, and the global level is 0.17, indicating that
Changzhou 158 Chinese cities, in terms of sustainable competitiveness,
Zhengzhou 159 are relatively more balanced.
Tainan 164
Ningbo has performed well in global
Changsha 165
competitiveness as its economic
Shenyang 182 competitiveness ranked No.90 in the world in
Zhuhai 189 2019. It is the first time that Ningbo has entered the top 100
most competitive ranking, increased by 11 compared to last
Dalian 193
year. Among the top 100 cities in the world, Ningbo ranked
Xi'an 197
No.1 in terms of ranking improvement among Chinese cities.
Hefei 199 And its sustainable competitiveness ranks No.154 in the world
which is relatively of competitive.
Source: CCC of CASS
11Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)
5. CASS and UN-HABITAT Global Urban Classification
Standards
According to the report, corresponding index system is establishes the index
urban classification is designed. Thirdly, considering the system, uses the official
an important issue of major changes in the connotation statistical data and crawler
global concern, and new of the urban world in the era of big data, and adopts the
contents and trends have intelligence, we have re-examined hierarchical clustering
emerged in the global the increasingly important soft method to cluster the central
urban development. There elements and products since the index of 1006 sample cities.
are four major innovations origin of the city, and considered According to the result, the global
in the report: Firstly, from the invisible “soft” factors and urban is divided into 3 layers,
the perspective of elasticity of tangible “hard” factors in the 2 categories, 5 groups, and 10
substitution and based on the global urban classification levels : A+,A，B+, B, C+, C, D+, D,
theory of spatial economics, a framework. Fourth, considering E+, E. The first category is strong
more general economic theoretical the major changes of cities and international cities and the second
framework based on the degree their functional systems in the category is weak international
of aggregation and connection information age, besides traditional cities. The first group is the global
of cities is proposed. Secondly, financial factors, factors of city (A group), the second group is
considering the key characteristics technological innovation are also the international hub city (B group);
of cities of aggregating and emphasized when selecting the the third group is the international
connecting, the framework of indicators of. gateway city (C group); the fourth
classification including both degree group is the regional hub city (D
of aggregation and degree of According to the theoretical group); the fifth is the regional
connection is proposed, and the framework, the report gateway city ( E group).
Table3: Conceptual framework and indicator system for urban classification
Primary Secondary
Tertiary indicators Quaternary indicators
indicators indicators
Distribution of top corporate headquarters in
High-end industrial agglomeration
banking, technology and other industries around
(enterprise)
the world.
Hard agglomeration
Degree of High income population concentration Population with an annual income of more than
agglomeration (population) $20,000 in each city
Number of patents Data of patent applications of each city
Soft agglomeration
Number of papers Data of papers published of each city
Number of aviation lines (population) Data of International flights of each city
Hard connection Distribution of the headquarters and branches
Multinational company contraction of 175 productive services companies worldwide
Degree of (enterprise) (legal, management consulting, accounting,
connection finance and advertising)
Information connection Google trends of each city
Soft connection
Data of papers published by cities in cooperation
Knowledge connection
with other cities
Source: CCC of CASS
12Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)
Figure 4: Conceptual framework and indicator system for urban classification
B C
A E
D
B
C E
A B+ C+ D+ D E+
A+
Source: CCC of CASS
Table4: Global Urban Classification
City Level Level Number Mean StDev C·V
A+ 3 0.9635 0.032 0.0332
Global City
(A)
A 2 0.9052 0.0006 0.0006
B+ 3 0.7585 0.0178 0.0234
International
Hub City
(B)
B 26 0.6423 0.0464 0.0723
C+ 29 0.5322 0.0251 0.0471
International
Gateway City
(C)
C 96 0.4185 0.0354 0.0845
D+ 122 0.3269 0.0181 0.0553
Regional
Hub City
(D)
D 266 0.2429 0.0244 0.1003
E+ 389 0.1769 0.19 0.1072
Regional
Gateway City
(E)
E 70 0.0776 0.0404 0.5208
Total 1006 0.2565 0.1327 0.5172
Source: CCC of CASS
13Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)
Specifically, there are 3 cities to the type of low agglomeration in connection degree, indicating
of A+ level, New York, London - low connection. The degree of that Shanghai has an advantage
and Tokyo; 2 cities of A level, agglomeration is more important in connection degree. The
including Beijing and Paris which than the degree of connection ranking of soft connection degree
shows that the global urban in determining the level of a city. and hard connection degree
system is undergoing important From the perspective of is 27th and 7th respectively,
changes, and Chinese cities global city distribution of which shows that Shanghai has
have become an important pole softness - hardness, most advantages in hard connection
in the world ; as international cities in the global city system degree and disadvantages in soft
hubs, there are 3 B+ level cities, belong to the type of weak connection degree.
including Seoul, Shanghai and hardness - weak softness, and
Chicago; 26 cities of B level, the role of soft factor is more Hong Kong and Taipei
mainly including Singapore, Hong important than hard factor in have advantages in
Kong, Sydney, Dublin,Munich,To determining the city level. hard agglomeration and
ronto,Osaka,etc; as international disadvantages in weak
gateways, there are 29 cities Beijing is the only city connection. Chinese Hong
of C+ level, mainly including of developing country in Kong and Taipei are among
Melbourne, Buenos Aires, Dubai the world within group A, the B level, international hub
and Warsaw,Copenhagen,etc. but other Chinese cities cities. Hong Kong's city level
are distributed in varying score ranks 9th, with 8th for
From the perspective levels. As a Global City, Beijing agglomeration and 20th for
of the intercontinental ranks 4th in the city level score, connection degree, which
distribution of cities of 5th in agglomeration degree and shows that Hong Kong has
different levels, there are 2th in connection degree. And a significant advantage in
obvious differences between Beijing has more advantages agglomeration degree and a
the north hemisphere and in connection degree, among weakness in connection degree.
the south hemisphere in the them, Beijing ranks 2th in hard Among them, the number of soft
global city system, and the connection degree and 4th in agglomeration degree and hard
north hemisphere still has an soft connection degree, which agglomeration degree is 16th and
absolute advantage; from the shows that Beijing has absolute 5th respectively, indicating that
perspective of the national advantages in hard connection Hong Kong has more advantages
distribution of cities of degree. in hard agglomeration; the
different levels, the cities of ranking of soft connection and
developed countries still have Shanghai has advantages hard connection is 48th and
an leading position in the global in hard connection and 18th respectively, indicating that
city system, but the cities of disadvantages in soft Hong Kong has disadvantages
developing countries represented connection. There are only in soft connection. Taipei ranks
by China and India are rising 3 B+ cities in the world, with 34th in the city level score, 18th
rapidly. From the perspective Shanghai occupying 1 seat. in the degree of agglomeration
of global city distribution As an international hub city, and 49th in the degree of
of agglomeration - Shanghai ranks 7th in the connection, indicating that
connection, most of the cities city level score, with 9th in Taipei has advantages in the
in the global city system belong agglomeration degree and 8th degree of agglomeration, and
14Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)
Table 5: Overview of Chinese cities of C level and above international gateway city
level, with 4 cities rank
Type of Type of C+ level, namely Guangzhou,
Agglomeration Degree Hardness Degree
Level City
- Connection - Softness Degree
Shenzhen, Chengdu and Nanjing,
Degree (AD-CD) (HD-SD) with their city level scores
ranking 40th, 42th, 59th and 60th
A（1） Beijing High AD -High CD Strong HD- Strong SD
respectively. Generally speaking,
B+（1） Shanghai Middle AD -Middle CD Middle HD- Strong SD
Chinese C+ level cities have
Hong Kong High AD - Middle CD Middle HD- Strong SD
B（2） more advantages in soft
Taipei Middle AD - Middle CD Middle HD- Middle SD
agglomeration. And there
Guangzhou Middle AD - Middle CD Weak HD- Strong SD
are 18 Chinese cities are
Shenzhen Middle AD - Middle CD Weak HD- Strong SD
C+（4） ranked C level , including
Chengdu Middle AD - Middle CD Weak HD- Middle SD
Hangzhou, Wuhan, Tianjin,
Nanjing Middle AD - Middle CD Weak HD- Strong SD Chongqing, Suzhou and Ningbo.
Hangzhou Middle AD - Middle CD Weak HD- Middle SD etc. Hangzhou, Wuhan, Tianjin,
Wuhan Middle AD - Low CD Weak HD- Middle SD Chongqing, Xi'an and Qingdao
Tianjin Middle AD - Low CD Weak HD- Middle SD rank in the top 100 cities in the
Chongqing Middle AD - Middle CD Weak HD- Middle SD world, ranking 66th, 69th, 73th,
Suzhou Middle AD - Low CD Weak HD- Middle SD 76th, 77th and 96th respectively.
Ningbo Middle AD - Low CD Weak HD- Middle SD Most of the C level cities
Xi'an Middle AD - Middle CD Weak HD- Middle SD
have advantages in soft
agglomeration, and some
Qingdao Middle AD - Low CD Weak HD- Middle SD
cities have disadvantages
Changsha Middle AD - Low CD Weak HD- Middle SD
C（18） in connection degree.
Xiamen Middle AD - Low CD Weak HD- Middle SD
Hefei Middle AD - Low CD Weak HD- Middle SD
Chinese cities have
Dalian Middle AD - Low CD Weak HD- Middle SD
some comparative
Shenyang Middle AD - Low CD Weak HD- Middle SD
advantages in the degree
Jinan Middle AD - Low CD Weak HD- Middle SD
of agglomeration, and
Zhengzhou Middle AD - Low CD Weak HD- Middle SD
weakness in the degree
Kunming Middle AD - Low CD Weak HD- Middle SD of connection. Most cities in
Harbin Middle AD - Low CD Weak HD- Middle SD China belong to the type of low
Fuzhou Middle AD - Low CD Weak HD- Middle SD agglomeration -low connection,
with a total number of 166,
Source: CCC of CASS
followed by the type of middle
agglomeration -low connection,
has weakness in the degree of soft connection and the hard with a total number of 114. In
connection, among which the connection are 117th and 43th terms of agglomeration degree,
soft agglomeration and the hard respectively. It can be seen that China has a certain comparative
agglomeration are 57th and Taipei has a certain disadvantage advantage in agglomeration
11th, indicating that Taipei has in soft connection . degree. There are 2 cities with
more advantages in the hard There are 22 Chinese high agglomeration degree, and
agglomeration; of which the cities have entered the the number of cities with middle
15Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)
and low agglomeration degree Chinese cities need to the number of cities with
are 123 and 166 respectively. strengthen both softness middle softness is in a certain
On the whole, the number of and hardness, but the advantage. The number of cities
middle agglomeration cities is weakness of hardness is with strong softness is 6, and
almost the same as that of low more obvious. Most cities the number of cities with middle
agglomeration cities. In terms in China belong to the weak softness and weak softness
of connection degree, there is hardness - weak softness type, are 93 and 192, respectively.
only 1 city ,Beijing, in China, with a number of 192. In terms of Compared with the hardness,
with high connection, and the hardness, China is at a certain the number of cities with middle
number of cities with middle disadvantage with only 1 city, softness is significantly more,
connection and low connection Beijing, with strong hardness. but nearly 2 / 3 of the cities are
is 10 and 280 respectively, The number of middle hardness still of the type of weak softness,
which indicates that most cities and weak hardness cities is indicating that the softness of
in China are in a state of low 3 and 287 respectively, which most cities in China are weak,
connection, so it is urgent to indicates that most cities in China so it is necessary to improve
improve their soft and hard have disadvantages in hardness. their soft agglomeration and soft
connection. From the perspective of softness, connection.
16Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020) 6.Progress monitoring towards SDGs from the perspective of urban sustainable competitiveness : The report, for the first thoroughly solve the development goals are not one-dimensional time, attempts to measure problems of society, economy related, but multi-dimensional the implementation and environment in an integrated related. The report creatively progress of the United way in the 15 years from 2015 deconstructs the target system of Nations Sustainable to 2030, and move towards SDGs, abstracts the core content Development Goals (SDGs) sustainable development. of SDGs in the way of target from the perspective matrix, and uses the indicator of Urban Sustainable The Sustainable Development system of Urban Sustainable Competitiveness(USC).The Goals of the United Nations Competitiveness as a tool to sustainable development goals of (SDGs), including 17 goals, monitor the progress of global the United Nations are committed 169 specific goals and 232 cities in implementing the SDGs, to eradicating poverty, protecting indicators, involve all aspects especially the sustainable cities the earth and ensuring peace of economic, social and and communities (SDG11). and prosperity for human beings environmental development. through concerted action. It was They are interrelated and form Through monitoring SDGs, put forward in September 2015 a comprehensive organic target the report found that to guide member countries to system. It is found that these almost all countries and 17
Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)
Table 6: Comparative study of USC and SDGs through matrix
Eradicate
Ensure peace and Sustainability
Poverty (fairness, Protect the Planet
prosperity (security, (innovation,
inclusiveness, (ecology, resilience)
well-being) sustainability)
affordability)
Goal 2 Zero hunger Labor productivity Ecological diversity
Goa l3 Good health
Quality of life index
and well-being
Cultural facilities University index
Goal 4 Quality
Education
Paper index
Human & Society
Goal 5 Gender
equality
Goal 10 Reduced
Social Equity
inequalities
Goal 16 Peace, Social Security Social Security
justice and strong Culture inclusiveness
institutions Culture inclusiveness Culture inclusiveness
Goal6 Clean water
Ecological diversity
and sanitation
Goal 7 Affordable Development threats
Power adequacy
and clean energy index
Ecological diversity
Goal 13 Climate
Cliamte confort
action
Resources &
Environment Environmental pollution
Goal 11 Sustainable
cities and
communities
Goal 14 Life below
Ecological diversity Ecological diversity
water
Goal 15 Life on land Ecological diversity Ecological diversity
Economic density growth
Goal 1 No poverty
Labor productivity
Technology enterprise
index
Goa l8 Decent
Entrepreneurial
work and economic Integrity degree
enthusiasm
growth
Business convenience
Economy
Airport index Sense of innovation
Development
Goal 9 Industry, Shipping convenience Patent index
innovation,
infrastructure Number of airlines
Information accessibility
Development threats
Goal l9 Industry, Population vitality
index
innovation,
infrastructure Unit GDP energy
Environmental pollution
consumption
Goal 17 Enterprise Connection
Global Connections Partnerships for the
goals Degree of information connection
Source: Global urban competitiveness database of CASS
18Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)
cities have varying degrees consumption and production. 5 in Europe, 3 in Asia and 2 in
of shortcomings in the North America as a whole is Oceania.
implementation of SDGs. doing well, but its performance
South America performed well in climate action and peace and From the regional distribution of
in goals such as clean energy, justice needs to be improved. the top 200 cities, North America
sustainable production and Most indicators of SDGs for and Europe lead the world,
consumption, and climate action African cities are well below the occupying 68 seats and 67 seats
but the rest are equal to or below world average, with only a few respectively, followed by Asia,
the global average. Asian cities doing well. occupying 56 seats. Others are
performed better than the world distributed in Oceania (6), South
average in zero hunger, water Specifically, the top 20 cities in America (6) and Africa (1).
and sanitation, underwater life, the world in terms of implementing
land life, and peace and justice the SDGs are: New York, London, In the comprehensive ranking
while the rest performed at Tokyo, Paris, Singapore, San of SDGs, China has 1 city in the
or below the global average. Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston, top 20, which is Taipei; 12 cities
Most European cities are well Dallas, Amsterdam, Atlanta, in the top 100, including Beijing,
above the global average in Sydney, Chicago, Seattle, Dublin, Shanghai, Chengdu, Hong Kong,
implementing the SDGs but they Philadelphia, Taipei, Houston, Nanjing, Guangzhou, Xi'an,
are facing significant challenges Copenhagen, Melbourne. Half Shenzhen, Hangzhou, Chongqing
in climate action and sustainable of them are in the United States, and Wuhan.
Table 7: Top20 Cities (SDGs)
Ranking for Ranking for
City Country City Country
SDGs SDGs
New York United States 1 Atlanta United States 11
London United Kingdom 2 Sydney Australia 12
Tokyo Japan 3 Chicago United States 13
Paris France 4 Seattle United States 14
Singapore Singapore 5 Dublin Ireland 15
San Francisco United States 6 Philadelphia United States 16
Los Angeles United States 7 Taipei China 17
Boston United States 8 Houston United States 18
Dallas United States 9 Copenhagen Denmark 19
Amsterdam Netherlands 10 Melbourne Australia 20
Source: Global urban competitiveness database of CASS
19Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)
Table 8: Country distribution Table 9: Continent Table 10: Chinese cities
for Top100 Cities distribution for Top200 Cities among Top100
(SDGs) (SDGs) (SDGs)
No. of Cites among
Country
No.of cities among
SDGs Top100
Continent City Ranking for SDGs
TOP200
United States 33 Taipei 17
North America 68
China 12
Beijing 25
Shanghai 40
Germany 9 Europe 67
Chengdu 44
United Kingdom 8 Hong Kong 49
Asia 56
Canada 5 Nanjing 59
Australia 3 Guangzhou 69
Oceania 6
Japan 3
Xi'an 73
Shenzhen 74
Italy 3 South America 2
Hangzhou 79
Switzerland 2 Chongqing 97
Spain 2
Africa 1
Wuhan 98
Source: Global urban competitiveness database of CASS
Table 11: Comparative study of USC and SDG11 through matrix
Economic Security Inclusive Resilience Sustainability
Universali- Disaster Pollution
Efficiency Affordability Life Property Resources Fairness Equality Green Persistence
zation Reduction Reduction
11.1 labor Social
Living cost
Housing productivity Equity
11.2
Traffic
Transpor-
congestion
tation
11.3.1 Human-
Ecological
Human-Land land
Diversity
relations relations
11.3.2
Citizen
Government
participation
adminstration
11.4
Ecological Heritage
Heritage
Diversity protection
protection
Develo-
11.5 pment
Facilities threats
index
Environ-
11.6
mental
Environment
pollution
11.7 Ecological
Social security
Public Space Diversity
11.a
Regional
Connections
11.b
Urban Urban sustainable competitiveness
communities
11.c
Builiding
support
Source: Global urban competitiveness database of CASS
20Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)
Table 12: Top20 Cities (SDG11)
City Country Ranking of SDG11 City Country Ranking of SDG11
Tokyo Japan 1 Philadelphia United States 11
London United Kingdom 2 Sydney Australia 12
Rome Italy 3 Stockholm Sweden 13
Paris France 4 Osaka Japan 14
new York United States 5 Seoul Korea 15
Hong Kong China 6 Los Angeles United States 16
Singapore Singapore 7 Stuttgart Germany 17
Seattle United States 8 San Francisco United States 18
Melbourne Australia 9 Hiroshima Japan 19
Boston United States 10 Barcelona Spain 20
Table 13: Country distribution Table 14: Continent Table 15: Chinese cities
for Top100 Cities distribution for Top200 Cities among Top100
(SDG11) (SDG11) (SDGs)
No. of Cites among No. of cities
Country Continent City Ranking of SDG11
SDGs Top100 among TOP200
United States 24 Hong Kong 6
Europe 63
Taipei 22
Germany 12
Shenzhen 57
China 12 North America 62
Nanjing 63
United Kingdom 8 Tainan 69
Asia 58
Japan 6 Xiamen 81
Italy 5 Shanghai 88
South America 9
Beijing 92
Canada 4
Taichung 94
Australia 3 Oceania 5
Wuhan 95
Spain 3 Shenyang 99
Africa 3
Israel 3 Suzhou 100
Source: Global urban competitiveness database of CASS
Cities play an increasingly Sustainable Development Goal 11 production and consumption
important role in economic and (SDG11) is a concentrated display mode, social security, etc.
social development. In the process of sustainable development in the are the common short
of rapid urbanization, sustainable city. boards of urban sustainable
development of cities has become development goals. The
one of the most important issues. Deconstructing SDG11 in a overall performance of Europe
Therefore, item 11 of the SDGs similar way of target matrix and North America is relatively
proposes "Make cities and and monitoring it we found: outstanding, but the development
human settlements inclusive, housing burden, social between cities is unbalanced,
safe, resilient and sustainable". equity, heritage protection, and most cities also have short
21Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)
boards. Living burden in South United States has 6 cities, Japan distribution of the top 200 cities,
America is heavy and the security has 3 cities, Australia has 2 cities Europe is the first, occupying
situation needs to be improved. and the rest 9 countries have 1 63 seats, North America is the
The progress coexist with the city respectively. second, occupying 62 seats,
deterioration of problems in Asia is the third, occupying 58
Asia cities, and the sustainable From the national distribution of seats. Others are distributed in
development of African cities lags the top 100 cities, 27 countries South America (9), Oceania (5),
behind in an all-round way. are involved, but 80 cities are and Africa (3).
In terms of ranking, the top 20 distributed within 10 countries.
cities in implementing sdg11 Among them, there are 24 in the In the global ranking of SDG11,
are: Tokyo, London, Rome, United States, 12 in Germany ,12 China has 1 city in the top 20,
Paris, New York, Hong Kong, in China, 6 in the United Kingdom, which is Hong Kong; 12 cities
Singapore, Seattle, Melbourne, 6 in Japan, 5 in Italy, 4 in Canada, in the top 100, including Taipei,
Boston, Philadelphia, Sydney, 2 in Australia, 2 in Spain and 2 in Shenzhen, Nanjing, Tainan,
Stockholm, Osaka, Seoul, Los Israel. Xiamen, Shanghai, Beijing,
Angeles, Stuttgart, San Francisco, Taichung, Wuhan, Shenyang and
Hiroshima and Barcelona. The In terms of the regional Suzhou.
This report is the fourth Annual Report on Global Urban Competitiveness, jointly launched
by the The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (National Academy of Economic Strategy) and
UN-HABITAT. Using the indicator system and objective data, the report provides a detailed
assessment of the competitiveness of 1,006 cities. The report measures the development
pattern of global urban competitiveness as a whole and discusses important theoretical
and practical issues in global urban development. The report has important reference
significance and research value for global urban government departments, domestic and
foreign enterprises, relevant research institutions, and the public.
22Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)
Appendix:
Global Cities Grading (2019-2020)
Level City Name Country C+ Frankfurt am Main Germany
A+ New York-Newark USA C+ Helsinki Finland
A+ London United Kingdom C+ Bogota Colombia
A+ Tokyo Japan C+ Montreal Canada
A Beijing China C+ Prague Czech Republic
A Paris France C+ Kuala Lumpur Malaysia
C+ Seattle USA
Level City Name Country C+ Oslo Norway
B+ Seoul Republic of Korea C+ Zurich Switzerland
B+ Shanghai China C+ Bangkok Thailand
B+ Chicago USA C+ Athens Greece
B Sydney Australia C+ Auckland New Zealand
B Dublin Ireland C+ Budapest Hungary
B Vienna Austria C+ Mumbai India
B Sao Paulo Brazil C+ Guangzhou China
B Brussels Belgium C+ ...... ......
B Munich Germany C Brisbane Australia
B Moscow Russian Federation C Abu Dhabi United Arab Emirates
B Amsterdam Netherlands C Cairo Egypt
B Toronto Canada C Rio de Janeiro Brazil
B Boston USA C Sofia Bulgaria
B Osaka Japan C Krakow Poland
B Stockholm Sweden C Stuttgart Germany
B Istanbul Turkey C Lyon France
B Madrid Spain C Incheon Republic of Korea
B Singapore Singapore C Rotterdam Netherlands
B Milan Italy C Vancouver Canada
B Hong Kong China C Doha Qatar
B ...... ...... C Zagreb Croatia
C Nairobi Kenya
Level City Name Country C Riga Latvia
C+ Melbourne Australia C Bucuresti Romania
C+ Buenos Aires Argentina C Charlotte USA
C+ Dubai United Arab Emirates C Lima Peru
C+ Warsaw Poland C Casablanca Morocco
C+ Copenhagen Denmark C Mexico City Mexico
23Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)
C Johannesburg South Africa D+ Colombo Sri Lanka
C Lisbon Portugal D+ Tunis Tunisia
C Nagoya Japan D+ Izmir Turkey
C Geneva Switzerland D+ Barcelona-Puerto La Cruz Venezuela
C Hangzhou China D+ Montevideo Uruguay
C Riyadh Saudi Arabia D+ Malaga Spain
C Ankara Turkey D+ Tehran Islamic Republic of Iran
C Kiev Ukraine D+ Kingston Jamaica
C Valencia Spain D+ Thessaloniki Greece
C Bologna Italy D+ Tel Aviv-Yafo Israel
C Delhi India D+ Florence Italy
C Jakarta Indonesia D+ Kolkata India
C Manchester United Kingdom D+ Belfast United Kingdom
C San Diego(US) Chile D+ Amman Jordan
C Ningbo China D+ Ho Chi Minh City Viet Nam
C ...... ...... D+ Changchun China
D+ ...... ......
Level City Name Country D Gold Coast Australia
D+ Baku Azerbaijan D Algiers Algeria
D+ Alexandria Egypt D Cordoba Argentina
D+ Addis Ababa Ethiopia D Muscat Oman
D+ Karachi Pakistan D Sharjah United Arab Emirates
D+ Panama City Panama D Luanda Angola
D+ Campinas Brazil D Lahore Pakistan
D+ Minsk Belarus D Asuncion Paraguay
D+ Antwerp Belgium D Curitiba Brazil
D+ San Juan Puerto Rico D Liege Belgium
D+ Wroclaw Poland D Cotonou Benin
D+ Santa Cruz Bolivia D Poznan Poland
D+ Cologne Germany D La Paz Bolivia
D+ Novosibirsk Russian Federation D Lome Togo
D+ Quito Ecuador D Santo Domingo Dominican Republic
D+ Nantes France D Kazan Russian Federation
D+ Manila Philippines D Guayaquil Ecuador
D+ Medellin Colombia D Toulon France
D+ San Jose Costa Rica D Cebu Philippines
D+ Tbilisi Georgia D Kinshasa Congo
D+ Almaty Kazakhstan D Tegucigalpa Honduras
D+ Busan Republic of Korea D Douala Cameroon
D+ Hague, The Netherlands D Kuwait City Kuwait
D+ Hamilton Canada D Abidjan The Republic of Cote d'ivoire
D+ Beirut Lebanon D Kigali Rwanda
D+ Milwaukee USA D Monrovia Liberia
D+ Dhaka Bangladesh D Johor Bahru Malaysia
D+ Guadalajara Mexico D Blantyre-Limbe Malawi
D+ Lagos Nigeria D Vientiane Lao People's Democratic Republic
D+ Hiroshima Japan D Tulsa USA
D+ Gothenburg Sweden D ...... ......
24Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020) Level City Name Country Level City Name Country E+ Kabul Afghanistan E+ Mwanza United Republic of Tanzania E+ Mar Del Plata Argentina E+ Denizli Turkey E+ Suez Egypt E+ Ashgabat Turkmenistan E+ Faisalabad Pakistan E+ Maracaibo Venezuela E+ Gaza State of Palestine E+ Kharkov Ukraine E+ Uberlandia Brazil E+ Damascus Syrian Arab Republic E+ Abomey-Calavi Benin E+ Sana'a' Yemen E+ Cochabamba Bolivia E+ Erbil Iraq E+ Ouagadougou Burkina Faso E+ Kerman Islamic Republic of Iran E+ Bujumbura Burundi E+ Varanasi India E+ Tomsk Russian Federation E+ Padang Indonesia E+ Asmara Eritrea E+ Newcastle upon Tyne United Kingdom E+ Davao Philippines E+ Da Nang Viet Nam E+ Brazzaville Congo E+ N'Djamena Chad E+ Pereira Colombia E+ Bangui Central African Republic E+ Port-au-Prince Haiti E+ Kitwe Zambia E+ Libreville Gabon E+ Baoji China E+ Lilongwe Malawi E+ ...... ...... E+ San Pedro Sula Honduras E Huambo Angola E+ Conakry Guinea E Greater Vitória Brazil E+ Kumasi Ghana E Tyumen Russian Federation E+ Mombasa Kenya E Zamboanga Philippines E+ Shymkent Kazakhstan E Kisangani Congo E+ Benghazi Libya E Bogra Bangladesh E+ Changwon Republic of Korea E Vereeniging South Africa E+ Djibouti Djibouti E Matola Mozambique E+ Bulawayo Zimbabwe E Pachuca de Soto Mexico E+ Bouake The Republic of Cote d'ivoire E Nay Pyi Taw Myanmar E+ Bamako Mali E Sekondi Ghana E+ Nouakchott Mauritania E Misratah Libya E+ Ipoh Malaysia E Warri Nigeria E+ Provo-Orem USA E Ta'if Saudi Arabia E+ Ulan Bator Mongolia E Hargeysa Somalia E+ Chittagong Bangladesh E Safaqis Tunisia E+ Arequipa Peru E Sanliurfa Turkey E+ Mandalay Myanmar E Samut Prakan Thailand E+ Fes Morocco E Ciudad Guayana Venezuela E+ Nampula Mozambique E Lvov Ukraine E+ Toluca Mexico E Hodeidah Yemen E+ Niamey Niger E Namangan Uzbekistan E+ Ibadan Nigeria E Nasiriyah Iraq E+ Niigata Japan E homs Syrian Arab Republic E+ Freetown Sierra Leone E Zahedan Islamic Republic of Iran E+ Nyala Sudan E Be'er Sheva Israel E+ Mogadishu Somalia E Kayamkulam India E+ Dushanbe Tajikistan E Hegang China E+ Mecca Saudi Arabia E ...... ...... 25
Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)
Top200 Cities for Economic Competitiveness
(2019-2020)
City Name Country Rank City Name Country Rank
New York-Newark USA 1 Baltimore USA 31
London United Kingdom 2 Bridgeport-Stamford USA 32
Singapore Singapore 3 Dusseldorf Germany 33
Shenzhen China 4 San Diego(US) USA 34
San Jose USA 5 Geneva Switzerland 35
Tokyo Japan 6 Atlanta USA 36
San Francisco-Oakland USA 7 Cleveland USA 37
Munich Germany 8 Perth Australia 38
Los Angeles-Long
USA 9 Denver-Aurora USA 39
Beach-Santa Ana
Shanghai China 10 Detroit USA 40
Dallas-Fort Worth USA 11 Istanbul Turkey 41
Houston USA 12 Nanjing China 42
Hong Kong China 13 Wuhan China 43
Dublin Ireland 14 Taipei China 44
Seoul Republic of Korea 15 Charlotte USA 45
Boston USA 16 Nashville-Davidson USA 46
Beijing China 17 Minneapolis-Saint Paul USA 47
Guangzhou China 18 Berlin Germany 48
Miami USA 19 Austin USA 49
Chicago USA 20 Hamburg Germany 50
Paris France 21 Vienna Austria 51
Frankfurt am Main Germany 22 Abu Dhabi United Arab Emirates 52
Tel Aviv-Yafo Israel 23 Raleigh USA 53
Seattle USA 24 Chengdu China 54
Suzhou China 25 Cologne Germany 55
Stockholm Sweden 26 Las Vegas USA 56
Philadelphia USA 27 Zurich Switzerland 57
Stuttgart Germany 28 Salt Lake City USA 58
Osaka Japan 29 Richmond USA 59
Toronto Canada 30 Copenhagen Denmark 60
26Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)
Orlando USA 61 Baton Rouge USA 96
Moscow Russian Federation 62 Cincinnati USA 97
Sydney Australia 63 Dortmund Germany 98
Hangzhou China 64 Changzhou China 99
Wuxi China 65 Haifa Israel 100
Barcelona Spain 66 Montreal Canada 101
Birmingham United Kingdom 67 Jakarta Indonesia 102
Changsha China 68 Nagoya Japan 103
Milwaukee USA 69 Dongguan China 104
Vancouver Canada 70 San Antonio USA 105
Brussels Belgium 71 Hiroshima Japan 106
Dubai United Arab Emirates 72 Oslo Norway 107
Calgary Canada 73 Dresden Germany 108
Doha Qatar 74 Hague Netherlands 109
Hannover Germany 75 Indianapolis USA 110
Qingdao China 76 Provo-Orem USA 111
Columbus USA 77 Hamilton Canada 112
Sendai Japan 78 Macao China 113
Louisville USA 79 Gold Coast Australia 114
Essen Germany 80 Kansas City USA 115
Chongqing China 81 Leipzig Germany 116
Tianjin China 82 Virginia Beach USA 117
Kuala Lumpur Malaysia 83 Jedda Saudi Arabia 118
Foshan China 84 Bangkok Thailand 119
Washington, D.C. USA 85 Brisbane Australia 120
Ulsan Republic of Korea 86 Nantong China 121
Oklahoma City USA 87 Pittsburgh USA 122
Manchester United Kingdom 88 Melbourne Australia 123
Riyadh Saudi Arabia 89 Helsinki Finland 124
Ningbo China 90 Madrid Spain 125
Phoenix-Mesa USA 91 Kaohsiung China 126
Charleston-North
Antwerp Belgium 92 USA 127
Charleston
Amsterdam Netherlands 93 Mexico City Mexico 128
Zhengzhou China 94 Hartford USA 129
Tampa-St. Petersburg USA 95 Ottawa-Gatineau Canada 130
27You can also read
