Singapore

2011

2011

2011

2011

1. New York

2. London

3. Paris

4. Tokyo

5. Singapore

6. Berlin

7. Seoul

8. Hong Kong

9. Amsterdam

10. Frankfurt

11. Sydney

12. Vienna

13. Los Angeles

14. Zurich

15. Osaka

16. Boston

17. Geneva

18. Beijing

19. Copenhagen

20. Madrid

21. San Francisco

22. Vancouver

23. Shanghai

24. Brussels

25. Toronto

26. Chicago

27. Milan

28. Fukuoka

29. Taipei

30. Bangkok

31. Kuala Lumpur

32. Sao Paulo

33. Moscow

34. Mumbai

35. Cairo

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 survey’s 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

YEARBOOK”scheduled 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. The GPCI is the first effort in Japan to analyze and rank comprehensive power of the world’s major cities.

2. 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.

3. Thirty-five of the world’s 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. 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.

5. Challenges which must be addressed for Tokyo to overcome the weaknesses revealed by this ranking

survey have been clarified.

6. 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.

1

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)

2. Function-specific Ranking (p.9)

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.

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.

2

3. Actor-specific Ranking (p.10)

4. Comparison of Top 4 Cities <Function-specific> (p.11)

5. Comparison between Tokyo and Major Asian Cities <Function-specific> (p.11)

6.Analysis of the Strengths and Weaknesses of Tokyo (p.12-13)

7. Over year trends (p.14)

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 York’s 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.”

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.”

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.

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.

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.

3

1. GPCI-2011 Methodology

1-1. GPCI-2011 Research Organization

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

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.

4

1-2. Cities for GPCI-2011

Fig. 1-2 35 cities for GPCI

Areas Cities

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

Copenhagen, Vienna, Moscow

Africa Cairo

Asia Mumbai, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Hong Kong, Beijing, Shanghai, Taipei, Seoul,

Fukuoka, Osaka, Tokyo

Oceania Sydney

North America Vancouver, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Toronto, New York, Boston

South America Sao Paulo

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

Tokyo New York

Boston

Los Angeles

San Francisco

ChicagoSeoul

Toronto

Sydney

Mumbai

Taipei

Hong Kong

Beijing

Shanghai

Bangkok

Kuala Lumpur

Singapore

Moscow

Madrid

Milan

London

Paris

Vienna

Berlin

Amsterdam

Zurich

Geneva

Brussels

Copenhagen

Frankfurt

São Paulo

Cairo

Fukuoka

Osaka

Vancouver

Tokyo New York

Boston

Los Angeles

San Francisco

ChicagoSeoul

Toronto

Sydney

Mumbai

Taipei

Hong Kong

Beijing

Shanghai

Bangkok

Kuala Lumpur

Singapore

Moscow

Madrid

Milan

London

Paris

Vienna

Berlin

Amsterdam

Zurich

Geneva

Brussels

Copenhagen

Frankfurt

São Paulo

Cairo

Fukuoka

Osaka

Vancouver

5

1-3. Ranking Creation Method

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

Comprehensive

 Ranking

Economy

Research & Development

Cultural Interaction

Livability

Environment

Accessibility

Function

Market Attractiveness

Research Background

Trendsetting Potential

Working Environment

Ecology

Economic Vitality

Business Environment

Regulations and Risks

Readiness for Accepting& Supporting Researchers

Research Achievement

Accommodation Environment

Resources of Attracting Visitors

Shopping & Dining

Volume of Interaction

Cost of Living

Security and Safety

Life Support Functions

Pollution

Natural Environment

Infrastructure of Int'l Transportation

Infrastructure of Inner-city Transportation

Indicator Group

3

3

4

2

4

4

3

5

3

2

3

2

5

2

3

2

4

5

4

2

4

Indicator

Total 69 Indicators

6

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

Research & Development

Cultural Interaction

Livability

Environment

Accessibility

Functio

n

Indicato

rs

Economy

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. 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. 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)

Actor‐specific Ranking

Actor

Manager Artist Visitor Resident

14

ManagerScore

49Indicators

2

7

12

7

7

ResearcherScore

34Indicators

3

7

7

8

6

3

ArtistScore

24Indicators

2

‐

7

8

6

1

VisitorScore

24Indicators

‐

‐

12

5

‐

7

ResidentScore

39Indicators

6

2

7

11

9

4

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 Activities6. Public Safety7. Quality of Medical

Treatment

1. Cultural Attractiveness and Opportunities for Interaction

2. Public Safety 3. Richness in Tourist

Spots4. High-class

Accommodations 5. Dining (Variety of

Cuisines, Prices etc.)

6. Shopping (Environment, Prices, Attractiveness etc.)

7. Mobility (Travel Time and Fares to Destinations)

Researcher

Important Factors Demanded by Each Actor

7

2. GPCI-2011 Results

2-1. Function-specific Comprehensive Ranking

Fig. 2-1 Comprehensive Ranking

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)]

0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0

【GPCI-2011】Total score and rank by Functions

Economy

R＆D

Cultural Interaction

Livability

Environment

Accessibility

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

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

8

2-2.

Fun

ctio

n-sp

ecifi

c R

anki

ng

Tabl

e 2-

1 Fu

nctio

n-sp

ecifi

c R

anki

ng

Rank 1

New

York

320.

9To

kyo

57.2

New

York

76.3

Lond

on61

.4Pa

ris57

.5G

enev

a73

.0Pa

ris59

.32

Lond

on32

0.6

New

York

55.5

Toky

o58

.8Pa

ris52

.9Va

ncou

ver

56.4

Zuric

h71

.5Lo

ndon

59.0

3Pa

ris30

8.7

Beijin

g55

.0Bo

ston

42.5

New

York

51.1

Osa

ka51

.6Fr

ankf

urt

70.5

New

York

49.3

4To

kyo

304.

3Lo

ndon

53.8

Lond

on42

.1Si

ngap

ore

34.0

Berli

n49

.8Be

rlin

67.4

Toky

o44

.65

Sing

apor

e25

5.3

Sing

apor

e45

.4Se

oul

40.0

Toky

o30

.0To

kyo

49.2

Vien

na64

.7Fr

ankf

urt

44.1

6Be

rlin

234.

8Ho

ng K

ong

45.0

Los

Ange

les

38.4

Hong

Kon

g29

.5Fu

kuok

a48

.9To

kyo

64.5

Amst

erda

m41

.47

Seou

l23

3.4

Paris

44.7

Paris

37.9

Berli

n28

.3Am

ster

dam

48.8

Amst

erda

m63

.3Si

ngap

ore

41.1

8Ho

ng K

ong

231.

1Sh

angh

ai43

.3Si

ngap

ore

37.1

Beijin

g28

.2M

adrid

48.3

Sao

Paul

o62

.9Se

oul

40.2

9Am

ster

dam

226.

6Zu

rich

42.5

Hong

Kon

g31

.7Lo

s An

gele

s27

.5Vi

enna

48.2

Mad

rid60

.1Ho

ng K

ong

39.0

10Fr

ankf

urt

225.

1G

enev

a41

.7Ch

icag

o29

.0Sh

angh

ai25

.6M

ilan

47.9

Cope

nhag

en59

.2M

osco

w36

.111

Sydn

ey21

5.8

Cope

nhag

en40

.8Sa

n Fr

anci

sco

26.6

Sydn

ey25

.0Fr

ankf

urt

47.1

Sing

apor

e59

.2Bo

ston

34.5

12Vi

enna

215.

3Sy

dney

39.5

Osa

ka24

.7Vi

enna

24.5

Taip

ei46

.7Lo

ndon

58.3

Cope

nhag

en34

.313

Los

Ange

les

212.

2Am

ster

dam

38.9

Berli

n22

.2Ba

ngko

k23

.4Co

penh

agen

46.4

Sydn

ey58

.2Br

usse

ls34

.014

Zuric

h21

1.4

Fran

kfur

t38

.5Sy

dney

21.2

Seou

l22

.2G

enev

a46

.4Lo

s An

gele

s58

.0Ba

ngko

k33

.915

Osa

ka20

5.8

Vien

na36

.8To

ront

o18

.2M

adrid

20.8

Lond

on46

.0Pa

ris56

.5M

adrid

33.6

16Bo

ston

205.

7To

ront

o36

.5Zu

rich

17.7

Brus

sels

20.5

Shan

ghai

45.9

Seou

l55

.7Sh

angh

ai33

.117

Gen

eva

205.

2Se

oul

36.3

Gen

eva

17.7

Chic

ago

19.2

Zuric

h44

.3Fu

kuok

a55

.1Be

rlin

32.6

18Be

ijing

204.

2Va

ncou

ver

35.1

Mos

cow

17.1

Mila

n19

.0Br

usse

ls44

.1Va

ncou

ver

55.1

Mila

n32

.619

Cope

nhag

en20

3.2

Berli

n34

.4Va

ncou

ver

16.9

Amst

erda

m17

.5To

ront

o43

.3Sa

n Fr

anci

sco

54.9

Osa

ka32

.220

Mad

rid20

2.8

San

Fran

cisc

o34

.4Am

ster

dam

16.7

Mos

cow

16.4

San

Fran

cisc

o43

.1Br

usse

ls54

.5Be

ijing

31.4

21Sa

n Fr

anci

sco

201.

5O

saka

32.9

Fuku

oka

15.0

San

Fran

cisc

o15

.2Sy

dney

42.3

Kual

a Lu

mpu

r54

.4To

ront

o30

.822

Vanc

ouve

r20

1.3

Brus

sels

32.8

Fran

kfur

t14

.7To

ront

o14

.7M

umba

i40

.7Ho

ng K

ong

52.2

Kual

a Lu

mpu

r30

.523

Shan

ghai

199.

3Ta

ipei

32.7

Taip

ei13

.8Ku

ala

Lum

pur

12.6

Beijin

g40

.5O

saka

52.0

Chic

ago

30.3

24Br

usse

ls19

9.2

Bost

on32

.6Be

ijing

13.7

Osa

ka12

.4Se

oul

39.0

New

York

51.5

Sydn

ey29

.625

Toro

nto

194.

6Ch

icag

o30

.1Br

usse

ls13

.3Bo

ston

12.0

Sing

apor

e38

.5To

ront

o50

.9Zu

rich

28.7

26Ch

icag

o18

9.4

Los

Ange

les

30.0

Cope

nhag

en12

.8Va

ncou

ver

11.8

Sao

Paul

o38

.0M

umba

i50

.9Vi

enna

28.3

27M

ilan

183.

6M

osco

w30

.0Vi

enna

12.8

Cairo

10.9

Kual

a Lu

mpu

r37

.8Ba

ngko

k50

.2Fu

kuok

a27

.628

Fuku

oka

177.

0M

adrid

29.8

Shan

ghai

11.4

Fran

kfur

t10

.2Ne

w Yo

rk37

.2Bo

ston

49.3

San

Fran

cisc

o27

.329

Taip

ei17

5.2

Kual

a Lu

mpu

r29

.2M

adrid

10.1

Cope

nhag

en9.

6Ca

iro37

.0Ta

ipei

48.4

Taip

ei27

.030

Bang

kok

171.

8Sa

o Pa

ulo

28.8

Mila

n9.

4M

umba

i9.

0Ch

icag

o36

.7M

ilan

48.2

Cairo

27.0

31Ku

ala

Lum

pur

167.

2Fu

kuok

a26

.8Ba

ngko

k4.

8Sa

o Pa

ulo

8.5

Bang

kok

36.1

Chic

ago

44.2

Vanc

ouve

r26

.032

Sao

Paul

o16

1.5

Mila

n26

.5M

umba

i2.

6Zu

rich

6.7

Mos

cow

36.0

Cairo

43.3

Los

Ange

les

22.5

33M

osco

w16

0.8

Bang

kok

23.4

Sao

Paul

o2.

6Ta

ipei

6.5

Los

Ange

les

35.7

Shan

ghai

40.0

Gen

eva

21.9

34M

umba

i14

2.4

Mum

bai

22.0

Kual

a Lu

mpu

r2.

6G

enev

a4.

5Bo

ston

34.9

Beijin

g35

.4Sa

o Pa

ulo

20.7

35Ca

iro13

9.1

Cairo

20.2

Cairo

0.7

Fuku

oka

3.5

Hong

Kon

g33

.6M

osco

w25

.2M

umba

i17

.2

Tota

l Sco

reA

cces

sibi

lity

Econ

omy

R＆

DC

ultu

ral I

nter

actio

nLi

vabi

lity

Envi

ronm

ent

9

2-3.

Act

or-s

peci

fic R

anki

ng

Tabl

e 2-

2 A

ctor

-spe

cific

Ran

king

Rank 1

Lond

on55

.3Ne

w Yo

rk64

.7Pa

ris60

.6Lo

ndon

54.8

Paris

62.5

2Si

ngap

ore

53.7

Toky

o53

.6Lo

ndon

52.1

New

York

52.4

Lond

on56

.03

Hong

Kon

g49

.6Lo

ndon

49.8

New

York

51.6

Paris

51.8

Toky

o54

.04

New

York

48.2

Paris

47.6

Toky

o47

.2Ho

ng K

ong

43.3

New

York

53.4

5Be

ijing

47.5

Bost

on37

.0Be

rlin

44.3

Toky

o42

.0Zu

rich

50.8

6Pa

ris47

.2Se

oul

36.4

Vien

na39

.5Be

ijing

41.5

Berli

n50

.67

Shan

ghai

47.1

Sing

apor

e34

.0Lo

s An

gele

s37

.1Sh

angh

ai41

.4Fr

ankf

urt

50.5

8To

kyo

44.8

Los

Ange

les

33.7

Amst

erda

m34

.0Si

ngap

ore

38.6

Vien

na48

.99

Zuric

h42

.2Sa

n Fr

anci

sco

32.2

Mad

rid33

.0Be

rlin

37.6

Vanc

ouve

r48

.110

Gen

eva

42.2

Hong

Kon

g30

.2M

ilan

32.9

Seou

l35

.4G

enev

a47

.411

Amst

erda

m41

.0Sy

dney

30.0

San

Fran

cisc

o31

.6Vi

enna

34.9

Amst

erda

m47

.212

Cope

nhag

en40

.6Ch

icag

o28

.7Be

ijing

30.9

Bang

kok

34.1

Cope

nhag

en46

.913

Seou

l40

.5Be

rlin

28.4

Osa

ka30

.6M

adrid

33.3

Osa

ka46

.514

Vanc

ouve

r40

.4Va

ncou

ver

25.9

Chic

ago

30.3

Amst

erda

m32

.5Ho

ng K

ong

45.8

15Vi

enna

40.3

Osa

ka25

.7Co

penh

agen

30.2

Mila

n32

.0M

ilan

45.4

16Be

rlin

38.2

Amst

erda

m25

.7Br

usse

ls30

.1Br

usse

ls30

.3Bo

ston

45.2

17Fr

ankf

urt

38.2

Zuric

h25

.3To

ront

o29

.7Sy

dney

30.0

San

Fran

cisc

o44

.718

Sydn

ey37

.7G

enev

a24

.9Sy

dney

29.1

Osa

ka30

.0Se

oul

43.4

19To

ront

o37

.4Be

ijing

24.8

Vanc

ouve

r28

.9Ta

ipei

29.3

Sydn

ey42

.520

Taip

ei36

.9Vi

enna

24.6

Fran

kfur

t28

.3Fr

ankf

urt

28.6

Fuku

oka

42.4

21Ku

ala

Lum

pur

36.4

Cope

nhag

en24

.4Sh

angh

ai27

.4Lo

s An

gele

s28

.5Br

usse

ls42

.222

Mad

rid36

.2To

ront

o23

.5Bo

ston

26.8

Toro

nto

28.1

Sing

apor

e42

.023

Bost

on35

.6Br

usse

ls21

.7Se

oul

26.1

Chic

ago

27.1

Mad

rid41

.824

Brus

sels

35.3

Mos

cow

21.6

Mos

cow

25.2

Vanc

ouve

r27

.0To

ront

o41

.725

Osa

ka33

.5Sh

angh

ai21

.2Ba

ngko

k24

.6Ca

iro26

.2Be

ijing

41.7

26Sa

n Fr

anci

sco

33.1

Taip

ei20

.3Ku

ala

Lum

pur

23.8

Bost

on25

.9Ta

ipei

39.6

27Sa

o Pa

ulo

32.8

Fran

kfur

t19

.0Ta

ipei

23.7

San

Fran

cisc

o25

.6Lo

s An

gele

s37

.528

Los

Ange

les

32.2

Mila

n18

.1Fu

kuok

a23

.7Co

penh

agen

25.4

Shan

ghai

36.7

29Ch

icag

o32

.2M

adrid

17.6

Sing

apor

e23

.7Zu

rich

24.6

Chic

ago

35.6

30Fu

kuok

a30

.6Fu

kuok

a17

.4Sa

o Pa

ulo

22.9

Kual

a Lu

mpu

r24

.3M

osco

w35

.031

Bang

kok

30.3

Sao

Paul

o15

.9Zu

rich

22.6

Fuku

oka

23.8

Bang

kok

29.0

32M

ilan

29.1

Bang

kok

15.0

Mum

bai

22.5

Mos

cow

23.6

Mum

bai

27.5

33M

osco

w29

.0Ku

ala

Lum

pur

13.5

Gen

eva

22.3

Mum

bai

22.3

Sao

Paul

o26

.734

Cairo

27.6

Mum

bai

11.8

Cairo

20.5

Gen

eva

20.9

Cairo

26.2

35M

umba

i27

.4Ca

iro8.

2Ho

ng K

ong

20.4

Sao

Paul

o17

.2Ku

ala

Lum

pur

23.3

Resi

dent

Man

ager

Rese

arch

erAr

tist

Visi

tor

10

2-4. Comparison of Top 4 Cities

Fig. 2-2 Function-specific Deviation Scores

2-5. Comparison of Major Asian Cities

Fig. 2-3 Function-specific Deviation Scores

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

Economy Research and Development

Cultural Interaction Livability Environment Accessibility

Function-specific Deviation Scores (Top 4 Cities)

New York(1st) London(2nd) Paris(3rd) Tokyo(4th)

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

60.0

65.0

70.0

75.0

Economy Research and Development

Cultural Interaction Livability Environment Accessibility

Function-specific Deviation Scores (Major Asian Cities)

Tokyo(4th) Singapore(5th) Seoul(7th) Hong Kong(8th) Beijing(18th) 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).

・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.”

Tokyo’s Strengths

(65 or higher)

Tokyo’s Weaknesses Compared to the

Top Four Cities (50 – 65)

Tokyo’s Weaknesses

(50 or lower)

Function Indicator Group Function Indicator Group Function Indicator Group

Economy Market Attractiveness Cultural

Interaction

Trendsetting Potential Economy Regulations and Risks

Economic Vitality Resources for Attracting

Visitors

Cultural

Interaction

Accommodation

Environment

Business Environment Volume of Interaction Livability Cost of Living

Research and

Development

Research Background Livability Working Environment Environment Natural Environment

Readiness for Accepting and

Supporting Researchers

Security and Safety

Research Achievement Environment Pollution

Cultural

Interaction

Shopping and Dining Accessibility Infrastructure of Int’l

Transportation

Livability Life Support Functions

Environment Ecology

Accessibility Infrastructure of Inner-city

Transportation

12

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

【GPCI-2011】

【GPCI-2010】

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

Mar

ket A

ttrac

tiven

ess

Econ

omic

Vita

lity

Busi

ness

Env

ironm

ent

Reg

ulat

ions

and

Ris

ks

Res

earc

h Ba

ckgr

ound

Rea

dine

ss fo

r Acc

eptin

g an

d Su

ppor

ting

Res

earc

hers

Res

earc

h Ac

hiev

emen

t

Tren

dset

ting

Pote

ntia

l

Acco

mm

odat

ion

Envi

ronm

ent

Res

ourc

e of

Attr

actin

g Vi

sito

rs

Shop

ping

and

Din

ing

Volu

me

of In

tera

ctio

n

Wor

king

Env

ironm

ent

Cos

t of L

ivin

g

Secu

rity a

nd S

afet

y

Life

Sup

port

Func

tions

Ecol

ogy

Pollu

tion

Nat

ural

Env

ironm

ent

Infra

stru

ctur

e of

Int'l

Tran

spor

tatio

n

Infra

stru

ctur

e of

Inne

r-city

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

Mar

ket A

ttrac

tiven

ess

Econ

omic

Vita

lity

Busi

ness

Env

ironm

ent

Reg

ulat

ions

and

Ris

ks

Res

earc

h Ba

ckgr

ound

Rea

dine

ss fo

r Acc

eptin

g an

d Su

ppor

ting

Res

earc

hers

Res

earc

h Ac

hiev

emen

t

Tren

dset

ting

Pote

ntia

l

Acco

mod

atio

n En

viro

nmen

t

Res

ourc

e of

Attr

actin

g Vi

sito

rs

Shop

ping

and

Din

ing

Volu

me

of In

tera

ctio

n

Wor

king

Env

ironm

ent

Cos

t of L

ivin

g

Secu

rity a

nd S

afet

y

Life

Sup

port

Func

tions

Ecol

ogy

Pollu

tion

Nat

ural

Env

ironm

ent

Infra

stru

ctur

e of

Int'l

Tran

spor

tatio

n

Infra

stru

ctur

e of

Inne

r-city

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

13

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 Periodical change

2) Number of Visitors from Abroad (Indicator Group: Volume of Interaction)

Fig. 2-6 Number of Visitors from Abroad Periodical change

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

16,000,000

Toky

o

Sin

gapore

Seoul

Hong

Kong

Beiji

n

Shangh

ai

Person Number of Visitors from Abroad （Major Asian Cities）

2009 2010 2011

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

16,000,000

New

Yor

k

Lon

don

Paris

Tok

yo

Person Number of Visitors from Abroad （Top 4 Cities）

2009 2010 2011

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

New Y

ork

Londo

n

Par

is

Toky

oScore World's Top 300 Companies （Top 4 Cities）

2009 2010 2011

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Toky

o

Sin

gapo

re

Seoul

Hong

Kong

Beiji

n

Shan

ghai

Score World's Top 300 Companies （Major Asian Cities）

2009 2010 2011

14

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