2011

Singapore

2011

Summary of the Global Power City Index-2011

Preface The Global Power City Index evaluates and ranks the major cities of the world according to their magnetism, i.e., their comprehensive power to attract creative people and excellent companies from around the world amidst accelerated interurban competition. Since the release of the first Global Power City Index in 2008, The Mori Memorial Foundation has vigorously promoted its findings worldwide via the media and its website, resulting in numerous invitations to present at international symposiums in New York, Shanghai, Madrid and many other cities. The surveys findings have been received well and have stimulated active discussions amongst a large number of leading research institutions around the world on the topic of urban competitiveness. The 2011 edition of the Global Power City Index utilizes an extensive database comprised of data from previous year rankings up to this point to compare each indicator over years and see in what areas Tokyo and other major world cities are either growing or lagging. A more detailed look at these results will be presented in the GPCI-2011 YEARBOOKscheduled for publication at the end of 2011. It is hoped that these results will serve as a benchmark of the strengths and weaknesses which Tokyo and other global cities possess, and be utilized as a helpful resource in the development of urban policies and corporate strategies. Features of the Global Power City Index (GPCI) 1. 2. 3. The GPCI is the first effort in Japan to analyze and rank comprehensive power of the worlds major cities. Instead of just focusing on specific areas (finance, livability, etc.), the GPCI looks at a variety of functions which express urban strength in order to assess and rank cities' comprehensive power. Thirty-five of the worlds major cities are selected and evaluated based on six main functions representing city strength (Economy, Research & Development, Cultural Interaction, Livability, Environment, and Accessibility), and four global actors who are leading the urban activities in their cities (Managers, Researchers, Artists, and Visitors) and one local actor (Residents), thus examining cities from multiple angles. 4. 5. 6. The 2011 edition of the GPCI has been improved upon in many ways, such as by revising those indicators which are independently collected and by improving the method used for indicator collection. Challenges which must be addressed for Tokyo to overcome the weaknesses revealed by this ranking survey have been clarified. This ranking has been produced with the involvement of academics such as Sir Peter Hall, a global authority in city planning, as well as other experts and analysts, and has been peer reviewed by third parties.

Findings of GPCI-2011 Key Message Of the top-ranked cities, Tokyo maintains its position but shows a downward trend in its international competitiveness. While the Asian cities in second tier group such as Singapore, Seoul, Hong Kong, Beijing and Shanghai show remarkable progress and are catching up with the top four cities, European cities continue to struggle.
1. Function-specific Comprehensive Ranking (p.8) New York, London, Paris, and Tokyo are ranked as the top four in the function-specific comprehensive ranking for 2011. This lineup and ranking of the top four cities have remained unchanged now for four consecutive years since the 2008 GPCI ranking. After the top four, the second tier group, with the exception of No. 5 Singapore, has a gap of forty points or less separating No. 6 Berlin from No. 24 Brussels, and shows comparatively large fluctuation in ranking. The bottom tier extends from No. 25 Toronto to No. 35 Cairo and has little fluctuation in ranking. Looking at the change in score for Tokyo between GPCI-2010 and GPCI-2011 shows that the gap between Tokyo and Paris widened from 2.8 points to 4.4 points, and the gap between Tokyo and Singapore shrank 7.1 points, from 56.1 points to 49.0 points. Although the gap in score between Singapore, which is at the head of the second tier group, and Tokyo, is still large, if Singapore continues to increase its score at this rate, it will catch up with Tokyo in seven years. The gap in score between Tokyo and No.1 New York has also shrunk between 2008 and 2011. Looking at the fluctuation in ranking amongst the second tier group, the major cities of Asia - Seoul, Hong Kong, Beijing, Shanghai and Osaka- saw an across-the-board rise in rank; this is particularly true for Beijing, which leapt from No. 24 to No. 18. Beijing's increase is largely attributable to a significant increase in indicator score in the Economy function. Amongst cities in the United States, Los Angeles, Boston and San Francisco rose in rank, suggesting recovery from a stagnating trend. Canada, Australia and a majority of the cities in Europe, on the other hand, decreased in ranking. 2. Function-specific Ranking (p.9) All of the top four cities in function-specific comprehensive ranking are also ranked in the top ten for the functions of Economy, Research and Development (R&D), Cultural Interaction, and Accessibility, however, this trend does not necessarily hold in term of Livability and Environment. Tokyo is the only one of the top four cities to have single digit rankings in all functions, thus demonstrating balanced comprehensive power. In the function of Economy, the global recession (September 2008) caused New York to fall from the No.1 position and be replaced by Tokyo. In the function of Research and Development (R&D), like the previous year, New York maintained its high score and continues to pull away from the other cities. In the function of Cultural Interaction, London, Paris and New York are the three cities with the highest scores, and there is a considerable gap between these cities and the fourth-ranked city. In the function of Livability, cities in Japan have moved up close to cities in Europe and North America. In the function of Environment, European cities continue to score in the top five. And in the function of Accessibility, the strength of the top four cities is well demonstrated.

3. Actor-specific Ranking (p.10) The top four cities also rank high amongst actor groups; however, Tokyo ranks comparatively low (No. 8) amongst Managers. Last year Tokyo faced fierce competition with Beijing and Shanghai, and with this year's results, it has finally been surpassed. While Tokyo is stagnant in terms of indicators for the Economy function, Beijing and Shanghai have surged forward, resulting in a reversal. New Yorks ranking amongst Managers also declined, going from No. 1 to No. 4. This appears to be the result of a drop in indicator scores stemming from the global recession (September 2008). Like last year, the comprehensive rank of North American and European cities is middling; however, they are ranked in the top ten by Artists and Residents. 4. Comparison of Top 4 Cities <Function-specific> (p.11) Comparing the deviation scores for the top four cities shows a trend similar to the previous year's. New York and London rank comparatively low in the functions of Livability and Environment. Paris ranks comparatively low in Environment, New York offsets these lower rankings, however, with a high ranking in Research and Development (R&D), and London offsets them with a high ranking in Cultural Interaction. Tokyo is weak in Cultural Interaction compared with the top three cities; nevertheless, it is above the average in all functions. However, as will be discussed later in 6. Analysis of the Strengths and Weaknesses of Tokyo, although Tokyo is above average in all functions, it does not have the kinds of stand-out strengths that the top three cities possess, thus keeping it firmly in the No. 4 spot. 5. Comparison between Tokyo and Major Asian Cities <Function-specific> (p.11) Comparing the major cities of Asia shows that, while Tokyo maintains relative superiority over all other cities except in the function of Cultural Interaction, Beijing is closing the gap in the Economy function. In the Accessibility function, reduced traveling time to Narita Airport from Tokyo has helped raise Tokyo's score compare to the other major Asian cities. Beijing and Shanghai are below the average in the functions of Research and Development (R&D) and Environment, revealing these as weaknesses for both cities. 6.Analysis of the Strengths and Weaknesses of Tokyo (p.12-13) Looking at Tokyo's strengths and weaknesses by indicator group shows that Tokyo has a number of strengths in the functions of Economy and Research and Development (R&D), while strong indicator groups in other functions include Shopping & Dining, Life Support Functions, Ecology and Infrastructure of Inner-city Transportation. On the other hand, indicator groups where Tokyo displays weakness include Regulations and Risks, Accommodation Environment, Cost of Living and Natural Environment. Comparing Tokyo's strengths and weaknesses between GPCI-2010 and GPCI-2011 shows that Tokyo has increased its score over the previous year in the Research and Development (R&D) indicator groups of Readiness for Accepting and Supporting Researchers and Research Achievement; the Livability indicator group of Life Support Functions; and the Accessibility indicator group of Infrastructure of Int'l Transportation. Tokyo has weakened, however, in the Economy indicator group of Business Environment; the Research and Development (R&D) indicator group of Research Background; and the Cultural Interaction indicator group of Accommodation Environment. 7. Over year trends (p.14) Looking at Tokyo's change over time show that, while still possessing a significant economic concentration, there is a downward trend reflecting such factors as decreasing scores for presence of top companies and visitors from overseas.

1. GPCI-2011 Methodology

1-1. GPCI-2011 Research Organization

This ranking is created under the GPCI Committee, chaired by Heizo Takenaka, chairman of the Institute for Urban Strategies at the Mori Memorial Foundation and professor at Keio University. The Committee also includes scholars such as Sir Peter Hall, a global authority in city planning, as well as expert partners in various fields. A third-party peer review has been undertaken to ensure the fairness of the ranking.

The GPCI Committee is comprised of five members, including Sir Peter Hall, Professor at University of London as Principal Advisor, and Heizo Takenaka, Professor at Keio University and the Director of the Global Security Research Institute, as Chairman. The Committee provides supervision of the ranking creation process at key point. The Working Group, headed by Hiroo Ichikawa, Professor and Dean of the Graduate School of Governance Studies at Meiji University, as its Principal, performed research and analysis and elicited advice from expert partners worldwide regarding the perspective of global actors to help in the creation of the ranking. In order to ensure the adequacy of the ranking creation process and results, a third-party peer review by two reviewers is undertaken which checks over the contents and provides suggestions for improvement. The GPCI-2011 has been created under the organization shown below. Fig. 1-1 Research Organization

1-2. Cities for GPCI-2011

Fig. 1-2 35 cities for GPCI
Copenhagen

Paris
Amsterdam

London Moscow Berlin Vienna Zurich Geneva Cairo Mumbai Brussels Bangkok Milan Kuala Lumpur Sydney So Paulo Seoul Taipei Frankfurt Toronto Beijing Fukuoka Tokyo Vancouver Boston San Francisco New York Osaka Shanghai Los Angeles Chicago

Hong Kong

Madrid

Singapore

Areas Europe Africa Asia Oceania North America South America Copenhagen, Vienna, Moscow Cairo

Cities Madrid, London, Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Geneva, Frankfurt, Berlin, Zurich, Milan,

Mumbai, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Hong Kong, Beijing, Shanghai, Taipei, Seoul, Fukuoka, Osaka, Tokyo Sydney Vancouver, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Toronto, New York, Boston Sao Paulo

* Cities are arranged by longitudinal coordinates (from lowest to highest).

1-3. Ranking Creation Method

Fig. 1-3 Flow of Creation for Function-based Ranking

Function

Indicator Group
Market Attractiveness

Indicator
3 3 5 3

Economy

Economic Vitality Business Environment Regulations and Risks Research Background

3 2 3 4 2 5 2 3 2 2 4 5 4 4 2 4 4

Research & Development

Readiness for Accepting & Supporting Researchers

Research Achievement Trendsetting Potential Accommodation Environment

ComprehensiveRanking

Cultural Interaction

Resources of Attracting Visitors Shopping & Dining Volume of Interaction Working Environment Cost of Living

Livability

Security and Safety Life Support Functions Ecology

Environment

Pollution Natural Environment

Infrastructure of Int'l Transportation

Accessibility

Infrastructure of Inner-city Transportation

Total69Indicators

Fig. 1-4 Flow of Creation for Actor-specific Ranking

Actor
Manager Researcher Artist Visitor Resident

Important Factors Demanded by Each Actor

1. Accumulation of Enterprises and Business Deals 2. Potential of Business Growth 3. Ease of Doing Business 4. Business Environment 5. Richness in Human Resources 6. Accumulation of Industry to Support Business 7. Favorable Environment for Employees and their Families 8. Political and Economic Risk, and Disaster Vulnerability 1. Qualities of Research Institutions, Researchers and Directors 2. Accumulation of Research Institutions & Researchers 3. Opportunities that stimulate Researchers in Conducting Academic Activities 4. Readiness for Accepting Researchers (Research Funding, Support with Living Expenses etc.) 5. Career Opportunities for Researchers 6. Environment for Daily Life (Ease of Living)

1. Cultural Stimulation 2. Accumulation of Artists 3. Accumulation of Art Markets 4. Environment for Creative Activities (Studio Rent and Spaces) 5. Environment for Daily Life (Ease of Living)

1. Cultural Attractiveness and Opportunities for Interaction 2. Public Safety 3. Richness in Tourist Spots 4. High-class Accommodations 5. Dining (Variety of Cuisines, Prices etc.) 6. Shopping (Environment, Prices, Attractiveness etc.) 7. Mobility (Travel Time and Fares to Destinations)

1. Environment to Purchase Goods (Prices and Easiness to Get Products) 2. Environment for Daily Life (Ease of Living) 3. Work Environment (Income and Employment Opportunities) 4. Educational Environment 5. Leisure Activities 6. Public Safety 7. Quality of Medical Treatment

Economy
Research & Development

14 2

3 7 7 8 6 3 34 Indicators
Researcher Score

2 7 8 6 1 24 Indicators
Artist Score

12 5 7 24 Indicators
Visitor Score

6 2 7 11 9 4 39 Indicators
Resident Score

Cultural Interaction Livability

Environment

Indicators

Function

7 12 7 7 49 Indicators
Manager Score

Accessibility

ActorspecificRanking

2. GPCI-2011 Results 2-1. Function-specific Comprehensive Ranking

Fig. 2-1 Comprehensive Ranking

GPCI-2011Total score and rank by Functions

0.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0

New York 320.9 [1 (322.6)] London 320.6 [2 (313.6)] Paris 308.7 [3 (303.1)] Tokyo 304.3 [4 (300.3)] Singapore 255.3 [5 (244.2)] Berlin 234.8 [6 (232.9)] Seoul 233.4 [8 (228.5)] Hong Kong 231.1 [9 (223.8)] Amsterdam 226.6 [7 (230.8)] Frankfurt 225.1 [13 (212.3)] Sydney 215.8 [10 (219)] Vienna 215.3 [11 (217.4)] Los Angeles 212.2 [14 (210.7)] Zurich 211.4 [12 (215)] Osaka 205.8 [18 (205.6)] Boston 205.7 [20 (203.3)] Geneva 205.2 [19 (205.4)] Beijing 204.2 [24 (199.2)] Copenhagen 203.2 [17 (206.3)] Madrid 202.8 [15 (208.8)] San Francisco 201.5 [22 (202.4)] Vancouver 201.3 [16 (208.4)] Shanghai 199.3 [26 (196.9)] Brussels 199.2 [21 (202.9)] Toronto 194.6 [23 (199.5)] Chicago 189.4 [25 (197.3)] Milan 183.6 [27 (184.2)] Fukuoka 177 [28 (181.9)] Taipei 175.2 [29 (176.6)] Bangkok 171.8 [31 (169.6)] Kuala Lumpur 167.2 [30 (169.9)] Sao Paulo 161.5 [33 (159.2)] Moscow 160.8 [32 (159.3)] Mumbai 142.4 [34 (145.3)] Cairo 139.1 [35 (137.6)] Economy RD CulturalInteraction Livability Environment Accessibility

*Numbers in [ ] are scores/ranks from the GPCI-2010

2-2. Function-specific Ranking

Table 2-1 Function-specific Ranking

R D Cultural Interaction Livability Environment Accessibility

Rank

Total Score

Economy

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

New York London Paris Tokyo Singapore Berlin Seoul Hong Kong Amsterdam Frankfurt Sydney Vienna Los Angeles Zurich Osaka Boston Geneva Beijing Copenhagen Madrid San Francisco Vancouver Shanghai Brussels Toronto Chicago Milan Fukuoka Taipei Bangkok Kuala Lumpur Sao Paulo Moscow Mumbai Cairo

320.9 320.6 308.7 304.3 255.3 234.8 233.4 231.1 226.6 225.1 215.8 215.3 212.2 211.4 205.8 205.7 205.2 204.2 203.2 202.8 201.5 201.3 199.3 199.2 194.6 189.4 183.6 177.0 175.2 171.8 167.2 161.5 160.8 142.4 139.1

Tokyo New York Beijing London Singapore Hong Kong Paris Shanghai Zurich Geneva Copenhagen Sydney Amsterdam Frankfurt Vienna Toronto Seoul Vancouver Berlin San Francisco Osaka Brussels Taipei Boston Chicago Los Angeles Moscow Madrid Kuala Lumpur Sao Paulo Fukuoka Milan Bangkok Mumbai Cairo

57.2 55.5 55.0 53.8 45.4 45.0 44.7 43.3 42.5 41.7 40.8 39.5 38.9 38.5 36.8 36.5 36.3 35.1 34.4 34.4 32.9 32.8 32.7 32.6 30.1 30.0 30.0 29.8 29.2 28.8 26.8 26.5 23.4 22.0 20.2

New York Tokyo Boston London Seoul Los Angeles Paris Singapore Hong Kong Chicago San Francisco Osaka Berlin Sydney Toronto Zurich Geneva Moscow Vancouver Amsterdam Fukuoka Frankfurt Taipei Beijing Brussels Copenhagen Vienna Shanghai Madrid Milan Bangkok Mumbai Sao Paulo Kuala Lumpur Cairo

76.3 58.8 42.5 42.1 40.0 38.4 37.9 37.1 31.7 29.0 26.6 24.7 22.2 21.2 18.2 17.7 17.7 17.1 16.9 16.7 15.0 14.7 13.8 13.7 13.3 12.8 12.8 11.4 10.1 9.4 4.8 2.6 2.6 2.6 0.7

London Paris New York Singapore Tokyo Hong Kong Berlin Beijing Los Angeles Shanghai Sydney Vienna Bangkok Seoul Madrid Brussels Chicago Milan Amsterdam Moscow San Francisco Toronto Kuala Lumpur Osaka Boston Vancouver Cairo Frankfurt Copenhagen Mumbai Sao Paulo Zurich Taipei Geneva Fukuoka

61.4 52.9 51.1 34.0 30.0 29.5 28.3 28.2 27.5 25.6 25.0 24.5 23.4 22.2 20.8 20.5 19.2 19.0 17.5 16.4 15.2 14.7 12.6 12.4 12.0 11.8 10.9 10.2 9.6 9.0 8.5 6.7 6.5 4.5 3.5

Paris Vancouver Osaka Berlin Tokyo Fukuoka Amsterdam Madrid Vienna Milan Frankfurt Taipei Copenhagen Geneva London Shanghai Zurich Brussels Toronto San Francisco Sydney Mumbai Beijing Seoul Singapore Sao Paulo Kuala Lumpur New York Cairo Chicago Bangkok Moscow Los Angeles Boston Hong Kong

57.5 56.4 51.6 49.8 49.2 48.9 48.8 48.3 48.2 47.9 47.1 46.7 46.4 46.4 46.0 45.9 44.3 44.1 43.3 43.1 42.3 40.7 40.5 39.0 38.5 38.0 37.8 37.2 37.0 36.7 36.1 36.0 35.7 34.9 33.6

Geneva Zurich Frankfurt Berlin Vienna Tokyo Amsterdam Sao Paulo Madrid Copenhagen Singapore London Sydney Los Angeles Paris Seoul Fukuoka Vancouver San Francisco Brussels Kuala Lumpur Hong Kong Osaka New York Toronto Mumbai Bangkok Boston Taipei Milan Chicago Cairo Shanghai Beijing Moscow

73.0 71.5 70.5 67.4 64.7 64.5 63.3 62.9 60.1 59.2 59.2 58.3 58.2 58.0 56.5 55.7 55.1 55.1 54.9 54.5 54.4 52.2 52.0 51.5 50.9 50.9 50.2 49.3 48.4 48.2 44.2 43.3 40.0 35.4 25.2

Paris London New York Tokyo Frankfurt Amsterdam Singapore Seoul Hong Kong Moscow Boston Copenhagen Brussels Bangkok Madrid Shanghai Berlin Milan Osaka Beijing Toronto Kuala Lumpur Chicago Sydney Zurich Vienna Fukuoka San Francisco Taipei Cairo Vancouver Los Angeles Geneva Sao Paulo Mumbai

59.3 59.0 49.3 44.6 44.1 41.4 41.1 40.2 39.0 36.1 34.5 34.3 34.0 33.9 33.6 33.1 32.6 32.6 32.2 31.4 30.8 30.5 30.3 29.6 28.7 28.3 27.6 27.3 27.0 27.0 26.0 22.5 21.9 20.7 17.2

2-3. Actor-specific Ranking

Table 2-2 Actor-specific Ranking

Researcher Artist Visitor Resident

Rank

Manager

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

London Singapore Hong Kong New York Beijing Paris Shanghai Tokyo Zurich Geneva Amsterdam Copenhagen Seoul Vancouver Vienna Berlin Frankfurt Sydney Toronto Taipei Kuala Lumpur Madrid Boston Brussels Osaka San Francisco Sao Paulo Los Angeles Chicago Fukuoka Bangkok Milan Moscow Cairo Mumbai

55.3 53.7 49.6 48.2 47.5 47.2 47.1 44.8 42.2 42.2 41.0 40.6 40.5 40.4 40.3 38.2 38.2 37.7 37.4 36.9 36.4 36.2 35.6 35.3 33.5 33.1 32.8 32.2 32.2 30.6 30.3 29.1 29.0 27.6 27.4

New York Tokyo London Paris Boston Seoul Singapore Los Angeles San Francisco Hong Kong Sydney Chicago Berlin Vancouver Osaka Amsterdam Zurich Geneva Beijing Vienna Copenhagen Toronto Brussels Moscow Shanghai Taipei Frankfurt Milan Madrid Fukuoka Sao Paulo Bangkok Kuala Lumpur Mumbai Cairo

64.7 53.6 49.8 47.6 37.0 36.4 34.0 33.7 32.2 30.2 30.0 28.7 28.4 25.9 25.7 25.7 25.3 24.9 24.8 24.6 24.4 23.5 21.7 21.6 21.2 20.3 19.0 18.1 17.6 17.4 15.9 15.0 13.5 11.8 8.2

Paris London New York Tokyo Berlin Vienna Los Angeles Amsterdam Madrid Milan San Francisco Beijing Osaka Chicago Copenhagen Brussels Toronto Sydney Vancouver Frankfurt Shanghai Boston Seoul Moscow Bangkok Kuala Lumpur Taipei Fukuoka Singapore Sao Paulo Zurich Mumbai Geneva Cairo Hong Kong

60.6 52.1 51.6 47.2 44.3 39.5 37.1 34.0 33.0 32.9 31.6 30.9 30.6 30.3 30.2 30.1 29.7 29.1 28.9 28.3 27.4 26.8 26.1 25.2 24.6 23.8 23.7 23.7 23.7 22.9 22.6 22.5 22.3 20.5 20.4

London New York Paris Hong Kong Tokyo Beijing Shanghai Singapore Berlin Seoul Vienna Bangkok Madrid Amsterdam Milan Brussels Sydney Osaka Taipei Frankfurt Los Angeles Toronto Chicago Vancouver Cairo Boston San Francisco Copenhagen Zurich Kuala Lumpur Fukuoka Moscow Mumbai Geneva Sao Paulo

54.8 52.4 51.8 43.3 42.0 41.5 41.4 38.6 37.6 35.4 34.9 34.1 33.3 32.5 32.0 30.3 30.0 30.0 29.3 28.6 28.5 28.1 27.1 27.0 26.2 25.9 25.6 25.4 24.6 24.3 23.8 23.6 22.3 20.9 17.2

Paris London Tokyo New York Zurich Berlin Frankfurt Vienna Vancouver Geneva Amsterdam Copenhagen Osaka Hong Kong Milan Boston San Francisco Seoul Sydney Fukuoka Brussels Singapore Madrid Toronto Beijing Taipei Los Angeles Shanghai Chicago Moscow Bangkok Mumbai Sao Paulo Cairo Kuala Lumpur

62.5 56.0 54.0 53.4 50.8 50.6 50.5 48.9 48.1 47.4 47.2 46.9 46.5 45.8 45.4 45.2 44.7 43.4 42.5 42.4 42.2 42.0 41.8 41.7 41.7 39.6 37.5 36.7 35.6 35.0 29.0 27.5 26.7 26.2 23.3

2-4. Comparison of Top 4 Cities

Fig. 2-2 Function-specific Deviation Scores
Function-specific Deviation Scores (Top 4 Cities)
90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0
Economy Research and Development Cultural Interaction
New York(1st)

Livability
London(2nd)

Environment
Paris(3rd)

Accessibility
Tokyo(4th)

2-5. Comparison of Major Asian Cities

Fig. 2-3 Function-specific Deviation Scores

Function-specific Deviation Scores (Major Asian Cities)

75.0 70.0 65.0 60.0 55.0 50.0 45.0 40.0 35.0 30.0
Economy Research and Development
Tokyo(4th)

Cultural Interaction
Singapore(5th) Seoul(7th)

Livability
Hong Kong(8th)

Environment
Beijing(18th)

Accessibility
Shanghai(23th)

11

2-6. Analysis of the Strengths and Weaknesses of Tokyo Tokyo's Strengths and Weaknesses by Indicator Group
Looking at indicator group-specific deviation scores reveals that Tokyo has numerous strong indicator groups (defined as those having deviation scores of 65 or higher compared with other cities) in the functions of Economy and Research & Development, and is also strong in the indicator groups of Shopping and Dining (Cultural Interaction function), Life Support Functions (Livability function), Ecology (Environment function), and Infrastructure of Inner-city Transportation (Accessibility function). Indicator groups where Tokyo is particularly weak (defined as those having deviation scores of 50 or less) compared with other cities include Regulations and Risks (Economy function), Accommodation Environment (Cultural Interaction function), Cost of Living (Livability function), and Natural Environment (Environment function).

Tokyos Strengths (65 or higher) Function Economy Indicator Group Market Attractiveness Economic Vitality

Tokyos Weaknesses Compared to the Top Four Cities (50 65) Function Cultural Interaction Indicator Group Trendsetting Potential Resources for Attracting Visitors Function Economy Cultural Interaction Livability Environment

Tokyos Weaknesses (50 or lower) Indicator Group Regulations and Risks Accommodation Environment Cost of Living Natural Environment

Business Environment Research and Development Research Background Readiness for Accepting and Supporting Researchers Research Achievement Cultural Interaction Livability Environment Accessibility Life Support Functions Ecology Infrastructure of Inner-city Transportation Shopping and Dining Environment Accessibility Livability

Volume of Interaction Working Environment Security and Safety

Pollution Infrastructure of Intl Transportation

Comparing Tokyo's indicator group deviation score strengths and weaknesses between GPCI-2010 and GPCI-2011 shows that Tokyo has increased over the previous year in the Research and Development (R&D) indicator groups of Readiness for Accepting and Supporting Researchers and Research Achievement; the Livability indicator group of Life Support Functions; and the Accessibility indicator group of Infrastructure of Int'l Transportation. Tokyo has weakened, however, in the Economy indicator group of Business Environment, the Research and Development (R&D) indicator group of Research Background, and the Cultural Interaction indicator group of Accommodation Environment.

12

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

40
Market Attractiveness Economic Vitality Business Environment Regulations and Risks Research Background Readiness for Accepting and Supporting Researchers Research Achievement Trendsetting Potential Accommodation Environment Resource of Attracting Visitors Shopping and Dining Volume of Interaction Working Environment Cost of Living Security and Safety Life Support Functions Ecology Pollution Natural Environment Infrastructure of Int'l Transportation Infrastructure of Inner-city Transportation

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

Market Attractiveness

GPCI-2011

GPCI-2010

Economic Vitality

Business Environment

Regulations and Risks

Research Background

Readiness for Accepting and Supporting Researchers

Research Achievement

Trendsetting Potential

Accomodation Environment

Resource of Attracting Visitors

Fig. 2-4 Indicator Group Deviation Score Distribution (Tokyo)

13
Ecology Pollution

Shopping and Dining

Volume of Interaction

Working Environment

Cost of Living

Security and Safety

Life Support Functions

Natural Environment

Infrastructure of Int'l Transportation

Infrastructure of Inner-city Transportation

2-7. Over year trends

An interannual comparison for some of the indicators where Tokyo shows a declining trend is given below based on the indicator data obtained from previous GPCI rankings. The indicator data used in each of the GPCI from 2009 to 2011 is applied in the comparison here. 1) World's Top 300 Companies (Indicator Group: Economic Vitality) Fig. 2-5 World's Top 300 Companies Score
Score 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2009

Periodical change
World's Top 300 Companies Major Asian Cities
2009 2010 2011

World's Top 300 Companies Top 4 Cities

2010 2011

Score 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

Singapore

Seoul

Hong Kong

Beijin

New York

2) Number of Visitors from Abroad (Indicator Group: Volume of Interaction) Fig. 2-6 Number of Visitors from Abroad
Number of Visitors from Abroad Top 4 Cities
2009
14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 0

Periodical change
Number of Visitors from Abroad Major Asian Cities
2009 2010 2011

Person
16,000,000

Person
16,000,000

2010

2011
14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 0

New York

London

Paris

Tokyo

Beijin

Singapore

14

Hong Kong

Shanghai

Tokyo

Seoul

Shanghai

London

Tokyo

Tokyo

Paris

Published on October 19, 2011 Edited and published by The Mori Memorial Foundation
For inquiry about this report, please contact directly to: Chiharu Hirota, Yasuyuki Miwa Institute for Urban Strategies The Mori Memorial Foundation

ARK Mori Building 1-12-32 Akasaka, Minato-ku, Tokyo 107-6004 JAPAN Facsimile: +81-3-3224-7227 Email: info@mori-m-foundation.or.jp
Copyright 2011 The Mori Memorial Foundation All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized reproduction of this document is forbidden. JPY 500+TAX