return to the |
||
| Overall | ||
| 2011 | City | Score |
| 1 | New York | 68.00 |
| 2 | Frankfurt | 62.32 |
| 3 | London | 62.14 |
| 4 | Singapore | 61.02 |
| 5 | Paris | 60.17 |
| 6 | Hong Kong | 59.73 |
| 7 | Madrid | 59.26 |
| 8 | Moscow | 56.29 |
| 9 | Shanghai | 54.15 |
| 10 | Sao Paulo | 46.54 |
| Hard Infrastructure | ||
| 2011 | City | Score |
| 1 | Shanghai | 72.23 |
| 2 | New York | 71.51 |
| 3 | London | 66.24 |
| 4 | Madrid | 60.82 |
| 5 | Beijing | 60.06 |
| Technology and Innovation | ||
| 2011 | City | Score |
| 1 | New York | 77.10 |
| 2 | Singapore | 51.48 |
| 3 | Hong Kong | 50.77 |
| 4 | London | 49.36 |
| 5 | Madrid | 45.90 |
| Education | ||
| 2011 | City | Score |
| 1 | London | 57.45 |
| 2 | Singapore | 53.16 |
| 3 | Hong Kong | 50.07 |
| 4 | Sao Paolo | 43.17 |
| Healthcare | ||
| 2011 | City | Score |
| 1 | Paris | 72.68 |
| 2 | Madrid | 62.52 |
| 3 | New York | 58.34 |
| 4 | London | 56.31 |
| 5 | Hong Kong | 50.34 |
| Sustainability | ||
| 2011 | City | Score |
| 1 | Singapore | 75.81 |
| 2 | London | 74.98 |
| 3 | Madrid | 70.00 |
| 4 | Paris | 69.94 |
| 5 | Sao Paolo | 67.09 |
| Tax | ||
| 2011 | City | Score |
| 1 | Hong Kong | 91.11 |
| 2 | Singapore | 88.96 |
| 3 | Madrid | 79.39 |
| 4 | London | 73.73 |
| 5 | Paris | 73.46 |
| Financial Competitiveness | ||
| 2011 | City | Score |
| 1 | New York | 88.50 |
| 2 | London | 72.55 |
| 3 | Singapore | 66.18 |
| 4 | Sao Paolo | 63.80 |
| 5 | Hong Kong | 62.06 |
| Quality of mass transit transport | ||
| 2011 | City | Score |
| 1 | Munich | 6.80 |
| 2 | Madrid | 6.27 |
| 3 | Hong Kong | 6.23 |
| Law, order and security | ||
| 2011 | City | Score |
| 1 | Munich | 6.80 |
| 2 | Singapore | 6.48 |
| 3 | Hong Kong | 6.20 |
| Quality of roads | ||
| 2011 | City | Score |
| 1 | Munich | 6.20 |
| 2 | Frankfurt | 6.13 |
| 3 | Singapore | 5.79 |
| Quality of long distance travel | ||
| 2011 | City | Score |
| 1 | Frankfurt | 7.00 |
| 2 | Hong Kong | 6.57 |
| 3= | Munich | 6.40 |
| 3= | Singapore | 6.40 |
| Technology and Innovation: Availability of co-funding | ||
| 2011 | City | Score |
| 1 | Beijing | 5.40 |
| 2 | Singapore | 5.27 |
| 3 | Rio de Janeiro | 5.13 |
| Quality of technological infrastructure | ||
| 2011 | City | Score |
| 1 | Munich | 6.80 |
| 2 | Frankfurt | 6.38 |
| 3 | Beijing | 6.00 |
| Education: Availability of qualified city employees | ||
| 2011 | City | Score |
| 1 | Munich | 6.60 |
| 2 | New York | 6.50 |
| 3 | London | 6.03 |
| Sickness and absenteeism | ||
| 2011 | City | Score |
| 1= | Beijing | 5.60 |
| 1= | Munich | 5.60 |
| 3 | Paris | 5.10 |
| 4 | Frankfurt | 5.00 |
| Healthcare accessibility | ||
| 2011 | City | Score |
| 1 | Munich | 6.80 |
| 2 | Frankfurt | 6.38 |
| 3 | Paris | 6.20 |
| Promotion of green policies and initiatives | ||
| 2011 | City | Score |
| 1 | Munich | 6.60 |
| 2 | Frankfurt | 5.25 |
| 3 | Beijing | 5.20 |
| Air quality | ||
| 2011 | City | Score |
| 1 | Munich | 6.60 |
| 2 | Frankfurt | 5.29 |
| 3 | Singapore | 5.21 |
| Efficiency of tax system | ||
| 2011 | City | Score |
| 1 | Hong Kong | 6.13 |
| 2 | Singapore | 6.07 |
| 3 | Munich | 6.00 |
| Forward visibility of tax liabilities | ||
| 2011 | City | Score |
| 1 | Hong Kong | 5.97 |
| 2 | Munich | 5.80 |
| 3 | Singapore | 5.69 |
| Connectivity | ||
| 2011 | City | Score |
| 1 | New York | 6.75 |
| 2 | London | 6.62 |
| 3 | Frankfurt | 6.38 |
| Breadth and diversity of financial services | ||
| 2011 | City | Score |
| 1 | New York | 6.69 |
| 2 | London | 6.45 |
| 3 | Munich | 6.20 |
| Quality and efficiency of regulatory framework | ||
| 2011 | City | Score |
| 1 | Munich | 6.60 |
| 2 | Singapore | 6.13 |
| 3 | New York | 5.81 |
Air quality is a taxing problem for developing cities
by Helen Avery
It says something about the environment of São Paulo and Hong Kong that both cities’ inhabitants consider their air quality to be on a par with the capital of Greece’s ability to collect taxes.
These are among the revelations from Euromoney’s inaugural cities survey. Leading executives in the world’s biggest cities rated both the strengths and the weaknesses of the places in which they work – and the results of the latter are published opposite.
It is no great surprise that the biggest emerging market cities – Athens aside – fill most of the bottom slots. Cities such as São Paulo and Hong Kong face a constant struggle to cope with the environmental challenges of urbanization and industrialization, and the resulting concentration of populations into small land masses.
Our survey suggests that São Paulo faces the toughest task, with five bottom-20 rankings. Rio de Janeiro and Athens each have four – and the latter, strapped for cash, might be the one that struggles the most to improve its rankings.
But look more deeply into the results of the survey and you can see signs of encouragement for the world’s biggest developing cities. Take São Paulo: it ranks fourth overall for financial competitiveness, and in the top five for sustainability. Asia’s leading financial centres show the way for the emerging markets. Anyone familiar with the smog that regularly envelopes Hong Kong knows that the SAR’s environmental challenges might never be solved. But other building blocks for the future are in place: Hong Kong rates in the top three for tax, technology and innovation, and education.
The one to watch is clearly Singapore. The city state ranks in the top three in most of the main categories, for technology, education, sustainability, tax and financial competitiveness.
And looking further ahead, if you believe that transport and other infrastructure is the key for the future success of the world’s biggest cities, then watch out for Shanghai, which tops the field for hard infrastructure.
