Global Cities survey 2011: Results

Air quality is a taxing problem for developing cities

Overall results

Overall
Hard Infrastructure
Technology and Innovation
Education
Healthcare
Sustainability
Tax
Financial Competitiveness
Quality of mass transit transport
Law, order and security
Quality of roads
Quality of long distance travel
Technology and Innovation: Availability of co-funding
Quality of technological infrastructure
Education: Availability of qualified city employees
Sickness and absenteeism
Healthcare accessibility
Promotion of green policies and initiatives
Air quality
Efficiency of tax system
Forward visibility of tax liabilities
Connectivity
Breadth and diversity of financial services
Quality and efficiency of regulatory framework
Lowest scores 

return to the
Euromoney Global Cities survey 2011: Index
or read the Methodology

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

▲ back to top

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

▲ back to top

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

▲ back to top

Education
2011 City Score
1 London 57.45
2 Singapore 53.16
3 Hong Kong 50.07
4 Sao Paolo 43.17

▲ back to top

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

▲ back to top

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

▲ back to top

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

▲ back to top

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

▲ back to top

Quality of mass transit transport
2011 City Score
1 Munich 6.80
2 Madrid 6.27
3 Hong Kong 6.23

▲ back to top

Law, order and security
2011 City Score
1 Munich 6.80
2 Singapore 6.48
3 Hong Kong 6.20

▲ back to top

Quality of roads
2011 City Score
1 Munich 6.20
2 Frankfurt 6.13
3 Singapore 5.79

▲ back to top

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

▲ back to top

Technology and Innovation: Availability of co-funding
2011 City Score
1 Beijing 5.40
2 Singapore 5.27
3 Rio de Janeiro 5.13

▲ back to top

Quality of technological infrastructure
2011 City Score
1 Munich 6.80
2 Frankfurt 6.38
3 Beijing 6.00

▲ back to top

Education: Availability of qualified city employees
2011 City Score
1 Munich 6.60
2 New York 6.50
3 London 6.03

▲ back to top

Sickness and absenteeism
2011 City Score
1= Beijing 5.60
1= Munich 5.60
3 Paris 5.10
4 Frankfurt 5.00

▲ back to top

Healthcare accessibility
2011 City Score
1 Munich 6.80
2 Frankfurt 6.38
3 Paris 6.20

▲ back to top

Promotion of green policies and initiatives
2011 City Score
1 Munich 6.60
2 Frankfurt 5.25
3 Beijing 5.20

▲ back to top

Air quality
2011 City Score
1 Munich 6.60
2 Frankfurt 5.29
3 Singapore 5.21

▲ back to top

Efficiency of tax system
2011 City Score
1 Hong Kong 6.13
2 Singapore 6.07
3 Munich 6.00

▲ back to top

Forward visibility of tax liabilities
2011 City Score
1 Hong Kong 5.97
2 Munich 5.80
3 Singapore 5.69

▲ back to top

Connectivity
2011 City Score
1 New York 6.75
2 London 6.62
3 Frankfurt 6.38

▲ back to top

Breadth and diversity of financial services
2011 City Score
1 New York 6.69
2 London 6.45
3 Munich 6.20

▲ back to top

Quality and efficiency of regulatory framework
2011 City Score
1 Munich 6.60
2 Singapore 6.13
3 New York 5.81

▲ back to top

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.

Lowest Scores
2011 City Category Score
1 Athens Tax – Forward visibility of tax liabilities 2.11
2 São Paulo Sustainability – Air quality 2.24
3 Hong Kong Sustainability – Air quality 2.3
4 Athens Tax – Efficiency of the tax system 2.33
5 Rio de Janeiro Tax – Forward visibility of tax liabilities 2.43
6 Rio de Janeiro Healthcare – Healthcare accessability 2.5
7 São Paulo Hard Infrastructure – Quality of long distance travel 2.55
8 Istanbul Sustainability – Promotion of green policies and initiatives 2.67
9 Rio de Janeiro Tax – Efficiency of the tax system 2.71
10 São Paulo Hard Infrastructure – Quality of mass transit transport 2.79
11 Hong Kong Sustainability – Promotion of green policies and initiatives 2.83
12 Athens Technology and Innovation – Availability of co–funding 2.89
13 São Paulo Tax – Efficiency of the tax system 3.06
14 Moscow Technology and Innovation – Availability of co-funding 3.1
15 Moscow Sustainability – Promotion of green policies and initiatives 3.11
16 Rio de Janeiro Hard Infrastructure – Quality of long distance travel 3.13
17 Moscow Sustainability – Air quality 3.22
18 São Paulo Hard infrastructure – Law, order and security 3.24
19= Athens Sustainability – Promotion of green policies and initiatives 3.33
19= Moscow Tax – Forward visibility of tax liabilities 3.33

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.