New York, London and Paris rank
first in a new index of global cities
Andrew Stevens reviews a report by
Foreign Policy, A. T. Kearney and the
Chicago Council on Global Affairs

30 October 2008: Assembled by Foreign Policy alongside management consultants A. T. Kearney and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs think tank, the Global Cities Index is the latest in a series of ranking tables to consider the physical manifestations of globalisation’s urban pull across the world. While not perhaps as scientific as the standard GaWC rankings for World Cities, the inaugural index is a fascinating study of recent and on-going urban trends.

Foreign Policy compiles an annual Globalization Index, which ranks nations on the global reach and interdependence, as well as a ‘Failed States’ list. However, on this occasion it has turned its attentions to inaugurating a Global Cities Index, which acknowledges that while national governments set the parameters of globalisation, it is cities, which act it out. As the magazine claims, “the story of globalization is the story of urbanization.”

Some city rankings have commentators reaching for their rhetorical revolvers, witness the critical reception afforded to Richard Florida’s diversity-led data rankings for Creative Cities in the US and the Boho Britain index. The methodology for the Global Cities Index avers on the side of more traditional areas of economic activity for the most part but does factor in a number of 'lifestyle' datasets to assess each city's cultural offer to compliment (or "round out") this:
• The value of its capital markets, the number of Fortune Global 500 firms headquartered there, and the volume of the goods that pass through the city
• How well the city acts as a magnet for diverse groups of people and talent
• How well news and information is dispersed about and to the rest of the world
• The level of diverse attractions for international residents and travelers
• The number of embassies and consulates, major think tanks, international organizations, sister city relationships, and political conferences hosted

Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the top four cities under this scoring system are the five that just about anyone would pick: New York, London, Paris and Tokyo (in that order). It’s China’s Special Administrative Region Hong Kong at number five that is likely to provide an element of the unexpected. Although New York’s economic clout and creative class secured the top spot overall, the organisers concede that culturally-speaking London could not be touched, though Paris achieved the highest rank in the information exchange category. While the capital markets criteria may be causing some to question the value of such a survey at the present time, the organisers concede that London’s financial ties around the world will aid a quicker recovery.

Somewhat evocative of Time Magazine’s 2005 ‘Town Hall Titans’ feature on the emergence of big city mayors as political heavyweights, the study finds time to single out three ‘Mayors of the Moment’. In doing so, the choices thankfully veer away from the wearily familiar big names, though Berlin’s Klaus Wowereit is tipped for all the right reasons: successful rebranding, forging new international links and a hallmark culture of tolerance. Karachi’s streetwise 36-year old Syed Mustafa Kamal is hailed for his ambition to transform the city into “the next Dubai”, while Chongqing mayor Wang Hongju’s stewardship of the 32m strong city’s is heralded for its record on anti-poverty and openness. A key facet of the urbanisation narrative in recent years has been the premium attached to city leadership and as cities emerge as brands, a CEO figure will be required to drive them.

Interestingly the study makes a stand-alone assessment on urbanisation in China, the fast growing urban society on the planet. As it notes, 170 new mass-transit systems are planned for construction by 2025, with 1bn city dwellers likely to be in place by 2030. Five of the 60 cities featured in the index are Chinese (as well as sui generis Hong Kong), with Beijing ranked highest in 12th place and Chongqing scraping in at 59. As the organisers remarked, “Shanghai’s staggering, decades-long double-digit annual economic growth alone can’t make it global”, the formerly “closed” city ranking 20th. Guangzhou, led by Zhang Guangning and arguably the embodiment of the country’s manufacturing boom as lead municipality of the Pearl River Delta, also registered a low 52 in the rankings, just ahead of innovation capital Shenzen (53). Taipei was not included by the organisers in this section, though at 34 this makes marginal difference to the tally. Hong Kong however surpassed all others to come behind Tokyo at fifth place, though regional rivals Singapore and Seoul also made the top 10 ahead of China’s other cities. Most commentators would agree that the table is likely to look somewhat different in the years to come.

As noted, the study is no dry account of economic data and perhaps to the annoyance of the theorists among us contains a number of subjective variables. For instance, London is the “best city to get a degree”, on account of its number of degrees by inhabitants and presence of top global universities, while Paris ranks only ninth. It’s a fun table but perhaps just that, as competing narratives emerge all the time via accumulated experience. We simply don’t know what factors will make a degree worth anything in the future. Toronto trumps Tokyo in the cultural stakes, by all accounts, while Cairo represents a plum diplomatic posting compared to Berlin. The methodology is fairly tight but the results erratic. Then again, globalisation has always produced winners and losers and in this case the results are no less likely to be disputed. As ranking systems go however, the inaugural Foreign Policy Global Cities Index is likely to provoke debate about what it takes to be a truly ‘Global City’ and for that we have much to be thankful.