Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020) The World:300 years of transformation into city Global 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 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.

1 Global 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, examines the global 300- Connection and Sharing: 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 system, and then from industrial Popu scale & structure Econ scale & structure Space scale & structure 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

2 Global 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 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.

3 Global 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 (, 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.

4 Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)

3. Economic Competitiveness of GUCR(2019-2020): Influenced by the decline in the average urban competitiveness of , 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, , , 30 , San Jose, Tokyo, San Francisco, 0 Munich, Los Angeles, -180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180 , Dallas, Houston,

-30 Hong Kong, Dublin, Seoul, Boston, , , 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

5 Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)

face fierce competition with competitiveness while this , 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 - The study found that average and Rhein- 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 , China terms of ranking of economic significantly and the Seoul have more cities declined

6 Global 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 (20 degrees Nine cities in China have entered pattern of global economic east longitude) and China, the top 50, including Suzhou competitiveness, the and South Korea (110-140 (25), Nanjing (42), (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. (54), Hangzhou (64), 2019 has decreased, but the Wuxi (65), Changsha (68), difference has converged. From the perspective Qingdao (76), (81), Meanwhile, from the perspective of Chinese cities: more (82), (84), of spatial distribution, the cities declined than (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.

7 Global 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. (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

8 Global 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, , 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, , is not difficult to find that all the to continuously meet the complex , 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

9 Global 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 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

10 Global 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 (154), Changzhou (158), Zhengzhou (159), Tai’nan (164), Kaohsiung 58 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

11 Global 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

12 Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)

Figure 4: Conceptual framework and indicator system for urban classification

B C A D E 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

13 Global 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

14 Global 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 Shenzhen, Chengdu and Nanjing, - Connection - Softness Degree with their city level scores Degree (AD-CD) (HD-SD) 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 more advantages in soft B（2） 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 ranked C level , including C+（4） 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, Chongqing, Xi'an and Qingdao Wuhan Middle AD - Low CD Weak HD- Middle SD rank in the top 100 cities in the Tianjin Middle AD - Low CD Weak HD- Middle SD world, ranking 66th, 69th, 73th, Chongqing Middle AD - Middle CD Weak HD- Middle SD 76th, 77th and 96th respectively. Suzhou Middle AD - Low CD Weak HD- Middle SD Most of the C level cities Ningbo Middle AD - Low CD Weak HD- Middle SD have advantages in soft Xi'an Middle AD - Middle CD Weak HD- Middle SD 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 agglomeration -low connection, Fuzhou Middle AD - Low CD Weak HD- Middle SD 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

15 Global 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.

16 Global 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 Population vitality Goal l9 Industry, index innovation, Unit GDP energy infrastructure Environmental pollution consumption

Goal 17 Enterprise Connection Global Connections Partnerships for the goals Degree of information connection

Source: Global urban competitiveness database of CASS

18 Global 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, , 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 4 Seattle United States 14

Singapore Singapore 5 Dublin 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

19 Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)

Table 8: Country distribution Table 10: Chinese cities Table 9: Continent for Top100 Cities among Top100 distribution for Top200 Cities (SDGs) (SDGs) (SDGs) No.of cities among No. of Cites among Continent City Ranking for SDGs Country TOP200 SDGs Top100 Taipei 17 United States 33 North America 68 Beijing 25 China 12 Shanghai 40 Europe 67 9 Chengdu 44

United Kingdom 8 Hong Kong 49 Asia 56 Nanjing 59 Canada 5 Guangzhou 69 Australia 3 Oceania 6 Xi'an 73 Japan 3 Shenzhen 74 South America 2 Italy 3 Hangzhou 79

Switzerland 2 Chongqing 97 Africa 1 Wuhan 98 Spain 2

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

20 Global 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 15: Chinese cities Table 14: Continent for Top100 Cities among Top100 distribution for Top200 Cities (SDG11) (SDGs) (SDG11)

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

21 Global 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.

22 Global 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

C+ Seattle USA

Level City Name Country C+ Oslo Norway

B+ Seoul Republic of Korea C+ Zurich Switzerland

B+ Shanghai China C+ Bangkok

B+ Chicago USA C+ Athens Greece

B Sydney Australia C+ Auckland New Zealand

B Dublin Ireland C+ Budapest Hungary

B Austria C+ Mumbai India

B Sao Paulo Brazil C+ Guangzhou China

B 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

B Stockholm Sweden C Stuttgart Germany

B Turkey C Lyon France

B Madrid Spain C Incheon Republic of Korea

B Singapore Singapore C 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

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

23 Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)

C 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 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+ Pakistan D Sharjah United Arab Emirates

D+ Panama City Panama D Angola

D+ Campinas Brazil D 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+ 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 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+ Nigeria D Vientiane Lao People's Democratic Republic

D+ Hiroshima Japan D Tulsa USA

D+ Gothenburg Sweden D ......

24 Global 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+ 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 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

26 Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)

Orlando USA 61 Baton Rouge USA 96

Moscow Russian Federation 62 Cincinnati USA 97

Sydney Australia 63 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

27 Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)

Incheon Republic of Korea 131 Valencia Spain 166

Sapporo Japan 132 Lima Peru 167

Riverside-San USA 133 Akron USA 168 Bernardino

Bristol United Kingdom 134 Bogota Colombia 169

Gothenburg Sweden 135 Liverpool United Kingdom 170

Allentown USA 136 Medina Saudi Arabia 171

Rome Italy 137 Knoxville USA 172

Colorado Springs USA 138 Zhuhai China 173

Grand Rapids USA 139 Zhenjiang China 174

Lille France 140 Yantai China 175

Marseille-Aix-en- Jinan China 141 France 176 Provence

Kitakyushu-Fukuoka Japan 142 Sheffield United Kingdom 177

Milan Italy 143 Jerusalem Israel 178

Providence USA 144 Belfast United Kingdom 179

Hefei China 145 Taizhou(js) China 180

Lyon France 146 Panama City Panama 181

Samut Prakan Thailand 147 Bucuresti Romania 182

Quanzhou China 148 Venice Italy 183

Xiamen China 149 Sacramento USA 184

Xi'an China 150 Dalian China 185

Edmonton Canada 151 Glasgow United Kingdom 186

Rotterdam Netherlands 152 Buffalo USA 187

Fuzhou(FJ) China 153 Manila Philippines 188

Birmingham(US) USA 154 Mecca Saudi Arabia 189

Honolulu USA 155 New Haven USA 190

Santiago de Chile Chile 156 Xuzhou China 191

Columbia USA 157 Busan Republic of Korea 192

West Yorkshire United Kingdom 158 Warsaw Poland 193

Worcester USA 159 Ogden USA 194

Dayton USA 160 Changwon Republic of Korea 195

Delhi India 161 Buenos Aires Argentina 196

San Jose Costa Rica 162 Nanchang China 197

Yangzhou China 163 Gwangju Republic of Korea 198

Auckland New Zealand 164 Daejeon Republic of Korea 199

Cape Coral USA 165 Shenyang China 200

28 Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)

Top200 Cities for Sustainable Competitiveness (2019-2020)

City Name Country Rank City Name Country Rank

Singapore Singapore 1 Manchester United Kingdom 31

Tokyo Japan 2 Atlanta USA 32

New York-Newark USA 3 San Jose USA 33

London United Kingdom 4 Cleveland USA 34

San Francisco-Oakland USA 5 Sydney Australia 35

Paris France 6 Hiroshima Japan 36

Hong Kong China 7 Birmingham United Kingdom 37

Osaka Japan 8 Beijing China 38 Los Angeles-Long USA 9 Milan Italy 39 Beach-Santa Ana

Chicago USA 10 Montreal Canada 40

Barcelona Spain 11 Dallas-Fort Worth USA 41

Moscow Russian Federation 12 Buenos Aires Argentina 42

Stockholm Sweden 13 Vienna Austria 43

Seoul Republic of Korea 14 Tel Aviv-Yafo Israel 44

Munich Germany 15 Denver-Aurora USA 45

Stuttgart Germany 16 Hamburg Germany 46

Boston USA 17 Zurich Switzerland 47

Madrid Spain 18 Nagoya Japan 48

Shenzhen China 19 Kitakyushu-Fukuoka Japan 49

Frankfurt am Main Germany 20 Baltimore USA 50

Philadelphia USA 21 Copenhagen Denmark 51

Toronto Canada 22 Hannover Germany 52

Taipei China 23 Salt Lake City USA 53

Houston USA 24 San Diego(US) USA 54

Miami USA 25 Perth Australia 55

Berlin Germany 26 Washington, D.C. USA 56

Melbourne Australia 27 Incheon Republic of Korea 57

Rome Italy 28 Suzhou China 58

Shanghai China 29 Raleigh USA 59

Seattle USA 30 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia 60

29 Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)

Vancouver Canada 61 Glasgow United Kingdom 96

Amsterdam Netherlands 62 Adelaide Australia 97

Astana Kazakhstan 63 Dubai United Arab Emirates 98

Geneva Switzerland 64 Daegu Republic of Korea 99

Brussels Belgium 65 Santiago de Chile Chile 100

Detroit USA 66 Malaga Spain 101

Guangzhou China 67 Athens Greece 102

Austin USA 68 Wuxi China 103

Orlando USA 69 Dortmund Germany 104

West Yorkshire United Kingdom 70 Louisville USA 105

Cologne Germany 71 Pretoria South Africa 106

Helsinki Finland 72 Germany 107

Daejeon Republic of Korea 73 Tianjin China 108

Istanbul Turkey 74 Foshan China 109

Ulsan Republic of Korea 75 Taichung China 110

Richmond USA 76 Brisbane Australia 111

Valencia Spain 77 Auckland New Zealand 112

Jerusalem Israel 78 Dresden Germany 113

Columbus USA 79 Saint Petersburg Russian Federation 114

Sao Paulo Brazil 80 Virginia Beach USA 115

Bridgeport-Stamford USA 81 Calgary Canada 116

Phoenix-Mesa USA 82 Las Vegas USA 117

Nanjing China 83 Bogota Colombia 118

Doha Qatar 84 San Jose USA 119

Haifa Israel 85 Medina Saudi Arabia 120

Mexico City Mexico 86 Dongguan China 121

Antwerp Belgium 87 Wuhan China 122

Hartford USA 88 Lima Peru 123

Riyadh Saudi Arabia 89 Kaohsiung China 124

Sapporo Japan 90 Dusseldorf Germany 125

Gwangju Republic of Korea 91 Tampa-St. Petersburg USA 126

Busan Republic of Korea 92 Belfast United Kingdom 127

Naples Italy 93 Jedda Saudi Arabia 128

Xiamen China 94 Worcester USA 129

Milwaukee USA 95 Hangzhou China 130

30 Global Urban Competitiveness Report (2019-2020)

Lyon France 131 Leicester United Kingdom 166

Islamic Republic of New Haven USA 132 Tehran 167 Iran

Leipzig Germany 133 San Juan Puerto Rico 168

Dublin Ireland 134 Providence USA 169

Shizuoka-Hamamatsu Hamilton Canada 135 Japan 170 M.M.A.

Hague Netherlands 136 Verona Italy 171

Buffalo USA 137 Johannesburg South Africa 172

Charlotte USA 138 Baton Rouge USA 173

Liege Belgium 139 Bangkok Thailand 174

Zaragoza Spain 140 New Orleans USA 175

Torino Italy 141 Gold Coast Australia 176

Colorado Springs USA 142 Ottawa-Gatineau Canada 177

Chengdu China 143 Bologna Italy 178

Qingdao China 144 Leon Mexico 179

Nashville-Davidson USA 145 Sofia Bulgaria 180

Macao China 146 Indianapolis USA 181

Rio de Janeiro Brazil 147 Shenyang China 182

San Antonio USA 148 Pittsburgh USA 183

Zhongshan China 149 Ogden USA 184

Minneapolis-Saint Paul USA 150 Florence Italy 185

Sendai Japan 151 Kansas City USA 186

Lisbon Portugal 152 Budapest Hungary 187

Oslo Norway 153 Montevideo Uruguay 188

Ningbo China 154 Zhuhai China 189

Lille France 155 Honolulu USA 190

Barcelona-Puerto La Liverpool United Kingdom 156 Venezuela 191 Cruz

Provo-Orem USA 157 Oklahoma City USA 192

Changzhou China 158 Dalian China 193

Zhengzhou China 159 Minsk Belarus 194

Amman Jordan 160 Porto Portugal 195

Venice Italy 161 Mecca Saudi Arabia 196

Dammam Saudi Arabia 162 Xi'an China 197

Islamic Republic of Rotterdam Netherlands 163 Ahvaz 198 Iran

Tainan China 164 Hefei China 199

Marseille-Aix-en- Changsha China 165 France 200 Provence

31

Member of the Task Force Consultants: McMurray Sharif, Wang Weiguang, Huaan Clos, Gao Peiyong, He Dexu, Ronnie Chan, ,Fan Gang, Saskia Sassen, Peter Taylor, Fernan Henderson

Main author: Marco Kamiya, Ni Pengfei, Guo Jing, Li Bo, Ma Hongfu, Xu Haidong, Liz Pattern Gauntner, Serge Allou, Luc Aldon, Huáscar Eguino, Axel Radics, Mosha.A.C, Martim O. Smolka, Gong Weijin, Li Qihang, Cao Qingfeng, Guo Jinhong, Peng Xuhui.

Statistical data and big data group: Wang Yu, Li Jianquan, Liu Xiaokang, Xing Wentao, Bin Youcai, Hu Min, Hu Xufeng, Chen Jie, Li Moxuan, Xu Zhen, Chen Haichao, Zheng Yuhan, Qin Yige, Fan Wenying, Tang Keyu.

Report Coordinators: Huang Jin, Liu Shangchao,Zhang Yi, Guo Jing

Contact information:

National Academy of Economic Strategy, CASS No.28 Shuguangxil, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China. T: +86-10-59868299 E: [email protected]

United Nations Human Settlements Programme P.O.Box 30030, Nairobi 00100, Kenya T: +254-20-76263120 E: [email protected]

UN-HABITAT un-habitat