201 New York...Key Messages Economy ： As with last year, Tokyo is again ranked No.1, but as some...

20132013

1 London

2 New York

3 Paris

4 Tokyo

5 Singapore

6 Seoul

7 Amsterdam

8 Berlin

9 Vienna

10 Frankfurt

11 Hong Kong

12 Shanghai

13 Sydney

14 Beijing

15 Zurich

16 Stockholm

17 Madrid

18 Toronto

19 Barcelona

20 Copenhagen

21 Brussels

22 Los Angeles

23 Osaka

24 Vancouver

25 Geneva

26 Washington D.C.

27 Istanbul

28 San Francisco

29 Chicago

30 Milan

31 Boston

32 Bangkok

33 Taipei

34 Kuala Lumpur

35 Fukuoka

36 Moscow

37 Mexico City

38 Sao Paulo

39 Mumbai

40 Cairo

London

New York

Paris

Tokyo

Singapore

October 2013

2013

2013

Considering the �erce global competition between cities, the Global Power City Index （GPCI）evaluates and

ranks the major cities of the world according to their ‘magnetism,’ ie. their comprehensive power to attract

creative people and business enterprises from around the world.

Since the release of the �rst Global Power City Index in 2008, the Institute for Urban Strategies at The Mori

Memorial Foundation has been actively promoting its �ndings worldwide via the media and its website. This

has led to numerous invitations to present at international symposiums in the U.S., China, South Korea and

many other countries. The GPCI’s �ndings have been well-received within the international community, stimu-

lating active discussion and creating the opportunity to share ideas with the world’s leading research institutes

on the topic of urban competition.

The 2013 edition of the Global Power City Index includes data from newly conducted surveys on the resi-

dents of all the cities included in the index to re�ect most recent trends. A careful review of the data of some

indicators was also performed.

In addition, every effort was made to assess the ‘Intangible Urban Value’ of cities, a new value that will affect

the urban power of a city in the future and which appeals to human sensitivities such as ef�ciency, accuracy,

speed, cleanliness and security and safety of urban management, rather than just the city’s physical aspects.

It is hoped that these results will provide a benchmark in better understanding the strengths and weaknesses

that Tokyo and other global cities possess, while offering a valuable resource to the public sector in the devel-

opment of urban policy planning and private sector corporate strategies.*Currently scheduled for publication, the ‘GPCI YEAR BOOK 2013’ includes more detailed data from indicators and analyses by city

1. The GPCI is the �rst attempt made by a research institute in Japan to analyze and rank the

comprehensive power of the world’s major cities.

2. As opposed to limiting the ranking to particular areas of research such as ‘Finance’ and ‘Liv-

ability,’ the GPCI focuses on a wide variety of functions in order to assess and rank the global

potential and comprehensive power of a city.

3. Forty of the world’s leading cities were selected and their global comprehensive power evalu-

ated based on the following viewpoints; six main functions representing city strength （Econo-

my, Research and Development, Cultural Interaction, Livability, Environment and Accessibility）,

four global actors who lead the urban activities in their cities （Manager, Researcher, Artist and

Visitor） as well as one local actor （Resident）, thus providing an all-encompassing view of the

cities.

4. The challenges that Tokyo must address in order to overcome the weaknesses revealed by this

survey have been clari�ed.

5. This ranking has been produced with the involvement of Professor Sir Peter Hall, a global au-

thority in Urban Studies, as well as other academics in this �eld. It has been peer reviewed by

third parties, all international experts from both the public and private sectors.

Features of the Global Power City Index （GPCI）

Global Power City Index 2013 01

Preface

Key Messages

Economy ： As with last year, Tokyo is again ranked No.1, but as some indicators were affected by

previous strong phases in the Japanese yen, Tokyo only appears to be maintaining its position at the

top. In contrast, Beijing at No.3 has recorded a high score for World’s Top 300 Companies and closed

the gap on New York in 2nd place. Seoul has moved up from 13th place last year to No.8 this year. This is

due to increased scores for Wage Level and Level of Political, Economic and Business Risk.

Research and Development ： No major changes have taken place in rankings and scores, but Los

Angeles has moved up from No.6 last year to No.4.

2.Function-Specific Ranking

◆　 London’s Livability score has fallen, but due to increases in other functions, the city ultimately

continues to be ranked No.1, further widening the gap in overall score from last year with 2nd

place New York.

◆　 Tokyo maintains its No.4 position and has closed the gap with 3rd ranked Paris, but its gap with

London No.1 and New York No.2 has grown. At the same time, the gap between Tokyo and

Singapore, in 5th position, has shrunk.

◆　 Led by Frankfurt, EU cities are showing signs of a recovery, while scores and rankings of North

American cities are also on the rise.

◆　 The score increase in Economy of the two Chinese cities still stands out, particularly for Bei-

jing. Shanghai’s scores in Cultural Interaction and Accessibility have increased and the

city is now placed 12th, ahead of Beijing in the comprehensive ranking.

As with last year, London, New York, Paris and Tokyo are ranked as the top four cities respectively in

the 2013 GPCI comprehensive rankings.

London’s Livability score has been lowered, but due to increased scores in Economy, Research and Development and Environment, the overall score difference between London and New York has

widened. Paris and Tokyo have seen a signi�cant decrease in their scores and the gap between them and

2nd　 place has grown larger, while the score difference between 4th　placed Tokyo and 5th　placed Singa-

pore has shrunk. Looking only at the relationship between Tokyo and Paris, the difference in score has

shrunk from last year and the possibility has emerged that Tokyo could move into 3rd　place on the back

of the announcement that the city will play host to the Olympic Games.

As for trends in comprehensive rankings for cities placed 5th and lower, 6th　placed Seoul has largely

closed the gap on Singapore at No.5, while Frankfurt and Vienna have risen in the rankings. In particular,

Frankfurt’s scores for Environment and Accessibility increased, which contributed to a move in

comprehensive ranking from 12th to 10th.

Meanwhile, there has been marked growth in Economy for both of the Chinese cities. More speci�-

cally, in Economy, Beijing is still ranked No.3 but its score has risen while scores for the cities ranked

1st and 2nd have seen a major decline. Despite trailing Beijing in Economy, Shanghai’s scores for Cul-tural Interaction and Accessibility have risen signi�cantly and the city has overtaken Beijing, in 14th　

place, to be now ranked 12th　in the comprehensive rankings.

1.Overall Trends

Global Power City Index 201302

Findings of the GPCI-2013

From the perspective of actors that play active roles in cities, urban attractiveness is not necessarily

limited to just physical elements. It is thought that being able to evoke feelings of comfort, excitement or

pride in a city’s residents is due to the fact that all cities have the ‘power to appeal to human sensitivity.’

Accordingly, this power has been de�ned as Intangible Urban Value and is an attempt to evaluate

and portray from a fresh viewpoint the future urban power of 10 cities in the GPCI, namely, Barcelona,

London, Paris, Vienna, Istanbul, Singapore, Beijing, Seoul, Tokyo and New York.

As part of the framework for conducting new evaluations from the perspective of Intangible Urban Value, the Quantitative and Qualitative Characteristics of a city have been established with the

three elements of Spatial Setting, Activities and Spatial Management, while the Sense of Values

of a city have been established with the three elements of Universal Value, Regional and Cultural Value and Individual Value. Analyses were then performed based on this framework.

Analyses were applied to some of the indicator groups in the GPCI by contrasting the GPCI evaluation

axis with the Intangible Urban Value evaluation axis.

As a result, for example, in the GPCI indicator group of “International Transportation Network,” despite

not having the best international �ight network, compared with other major global cities Tokyo has a

high score for the Intangible Urban Value of Flight On-time Rate and demonstrates superior manage-

ment capabilities, which indicates that there is a new value that cannot be assessed solely by the physi-

cal aspects of a city.

4.Intangible Urban Value

Manager ： China’s two cities have climbed higher in the rankings from last year with Shanghai and

Beijing taking 3rd and 4th places respectively, while Tokyo has slipped from 7th　to 9th　.

Researcher ： In addition to Los Angeles jumping from 7th last year to 5th and surpassing Boston, Osaka

has risen from 17th to 13th.

Artist ： New York has earned a good score in “Cultural Stimulation” and improved from 5th to 2nd.

Visitor ： With relative rating decreases for “Dining （Variety of Cuisines, Prices, etc.）” and “Shopping

（Environment, Prices, Attractiveness, etc.）” Tokyo has slipped from 6th position to 9th.

Resident ： As a result of lower scores for Tokyo, Osaka, Fukuoka and some North American cities for

“Environment to Purchase Goods （Prices and Easiness to Get Products）,” multiple EU cities have moved

up in ranking.

3.Actor-Specific Ranking

Cultural Interaction ： Continuing on from last year, London has recorded a considerable gap against New York

and maintains its top position. Indicator scores based on surveys on Level of Satisfaction for Dining and

Level of Satisfaction for Shopping etc. have risen for Shanghai, which jumps from 22nd　 to 16th　in this function.

Livability ： Due to the effects of the weak US dollar last year, scores for Price Level and Average House Rent have �uctuated considerably in some cities. Scores for London, New York and Tokyo have fallen,

but of the top four cities only Paris has achieved a high score and as a result maintains its top position.

Environment ： Tokyo maintains its No.1 position from last year and there have been no changes in the

top �ve positions. Frankfurt has improved from No.10 last year to No.6 with a particular increase in its

score for Percentage of Renewable Energy Used.

Accessibility ： Frankfurt has climbed from No.6 to No.3. The city has recorded high scores for Number of Cities with Direct International Flights and Number of Cities with Direct International Freighter Flights.


This ranking is created under the GPCI Committee,comprised of �ve members, including Sir Peter Hall,

Professor at The Bartlett University College London as Principal Advisor, and Heizo Takenaka, Chairman of

Institute for Urban Strategies, The Mori Memorial Foundation, Professor at Keio University and Director of the

Global Security Research Institute, as Chairman. The Committee provides supervision of the ranking creation

process at key points.

The Working Group, headed by Hiroo Ichikawa, Executive Director of The Mori Memorial Foundation, Profes-

sor and Dean of the Graduate School of Governance Studies at Meiji University, as its Principal, performed the

necessary research and analysis in order to create the rankings for the cities, and sought advice from expert

partners worldwide regarding the perspective of global actors to help in the creation of the ranking.

In order to ensure the impartiality of the ranking creation process and its results, a third-party peer review is

undertaken to validate the contents and provide suggestions for improvement.

The GPCI-2013 has been created under the organization shown below.

Working Group・Fundamental Research of Cities・Analysis of Data・Creation of Draft Rankings

Hiroo Ichikawa

Principal

Institute for Urban Strategies,The Mori Memorial Foundation

Mitsubishi Research Institute, Inc.

Member

CommitteeSupervision ofCreating Rankings

Saskia SassenProfessor, Columbia University

Member

Hiroo IchikawaProfessor and Dean, Graduate School of GovernanceStudies, Meiji University

Executive Director of The Mori Memorial Foundation

Member

Heizo TakenakaProfessor, Keio UniversityThe Director of the Global Security Research Institute

Chairman, Institute for Urban Strategies,The Mori Memorial Foundation

ChairmanSir Peter HallProfessor, Bartlett School of Planning, University College London

Principal Advisor

Richard BenderProfessor and Dean Emeritus,University of California, Berkeley

Member

Peer Reviewers

Allen J. ScottDistinguished Professor,University of California, Los Angeles

Review and Comment on the Ranking

Peter NijkampProfessor, VU University AmsterdamFellow, Tinbergen Institute

Expertise PartnersCooperation on Ranking

Intellectuals and Professionalswith International Experiencesas Global Actors

Fig.1-1　Research Organization

GPCI-2013 Research Organization1－1


1.GPCI-2013 Methodology

The Criteria for Selection

●　 Cities found in the top ten of existing, in�uential city rankings （The Global Financial Centres Index, World-

wide Centers of Commerce Index and Cities of Opportunity）

●　 Major cities of countries which are in the top ten in terms of competition according to in�uential international

competiveness rankings （created by World Economic Forum, and International Institute for Management

Development）

●　 Cities which do not meet the above criteria but which are deemed appropriate for inclusion by the GPCI

committee or its working group members.

Region City

EuropeMadrid, Barcelona, London, Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Geneva, Frankfurt, Berlin, Zurich, Milan, Copenhagen, Vienna, Stockholm, Istanbul, Moscow

Africa Cairo

AsiaMumbai, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Hong Kong, Beijing, Shanghai, Taipei, Seoul, Fukuoka, Osaka, Tokyo

Oceania Sydney

North AmericaVancouver, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Toronto, Washington, D.C., New York, Boston

Latin America Mexico City, Sao Paulo

Tokyo Tokyo New York New York Boston Boston

Mexico City Mexico City

San Francisco San Francisco

Chicago Chicago

Seoul Seoul Toronto Toronto

Sydney Sydney

Mumbai Mumbai

Taipei Taipei

Hong Kong Hong Kong

Beijing Beijing

Shanghai Shanghai

Bangkok Bangkok

Kuala Lumpur Kuala Lumpur

Singapore Singapore

Moscow Moscow

Madrid Madrid

Milan Milan

London London Paris Paris

Vienna Vienna Berlin Berlin

Amsterdam Amsterdam

Zurich Zurich

Geneva Geneva Brussels Brussels

Copenhagen Copenhagen

Frankfurt Frankfurt

Sao Paulo Sao Paulo

Cairo Cairo Fukuoka Fukuoka Osaka Osaka

Vancouver Vancouver

Istanbul Istanbul

Barcelona Barcelona

Stockholm Stockholm

Los Angeles Los Angeles Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.

Fig.1-2　Selected Forty Cities

Cities for GPCI-20131－2


Economy

Research andDevelopment

CulturalInteraction

Livability

Environment

Accessibility

Co

mp

rehensive Ranking

2

2

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

4

3

2

2

4

3

3

Total 70Indicators

3

3

2

2

3

3

Function Indicator Group Indicator

Market Size

Academic Resources

Trendsetting Potential

Ecology

International Transportation Network

Economic Vitality

Business Environment

Regulations and Risks

Research Background

Research Achievement

Cultural Resources

Facilities for Visitors

Attractiveness to Visitors

Volume of Interaction

Pollution

Natural Environment

Infrastructure of International Transportation

Market Attractiveness

Human Capital

Transportation Service of Inner-city

Trafc Convenience

Working Environment

Cost of Living

Security and Safety

Living Environment

Living Facilities

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

The Ranking Creation Method1－3


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）


1.Environment to Purchase Goods （Prices and Easiness to Get Products）


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 Safety3.Richness in

Tourist Spots4.High-class

Accommodations5.Dining （Variety of

Cuisines, Prices etc.）

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

7.Mobility （Travel Time and Fares to Destinations）

Fu

nc

tion

Actor

Actor‐Speci�c Ranking

Economy

Research &Development

CulturalInteraction

Livability

Environment

Accessibility

ManagerScore

ResearcherScore

ArtistScore

VisitorScore

ResidentScore

Manager Researcher Artist Visitor Resident

Important Factors Demanded by Each Actor

13

2

7

6

12

9

49indicators

2

7

7

5

9

4

34indicators

2

－

7

5

8

2

24indicators

－

－

12

－

6

8

26indicators

5

2

7

8

12

5

39indicators

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


【GPCI-2013】Total score and rank by Functions

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800

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

36

37

38

39

40

London（1457.9）［1（1452.5）］

New York（1362.9）［2（1376.6）］

Paris（1291.8）［3（1349.6）］

Tokyo（1275.4）［4（1324.9）］

Singapore（1113.3）［5（1118.6）］

Seoul（1104.4）［6（1081.1）］

Amsterdam（1061.8）［7（1068.3）］

Berlin（1039.6）［8（1047.3）］

Vienna（1015.0）［10（1016.7）］

Frankfurt（995.3）［12（966.7）］

Hong Kong（985.8）［9（1038.2）］

Shanghai（975.2）［14（964.5）］

Sydney（965.0）［15（962.8）］

Beijing（965.0）［11（978.3）］

Zurich（964.8）［18（937.9）］

Stockholm（948.4）［16（961.2）］

Madrid（923.7）［22（908.6）］

Toronto（921.5）［21（925.6）］

Barcelona（919.8）［13（964.6）］

Copenhagen（919.5）［20（929.7）］

Brussels（905.9）［19（931.3）］

Los Angeles（900.8）［23（890.7）］

Osaka（879.8）［17（942.1）］

Vancouver（879.0）［24（890.1）］

Geneva（872.5）［26（867.8）］

Washington D.C.（843.5）［30（836.5）］

Istanbul（841.6）［25（875.4）］

San Francisco（839.3）［31（833.3）］

Chicago（833.7）［28（854.1）］

Milan（830.3）［29（850.5）］

Boston（827.2）［27（858.4）］

Bangkok（810.6）［35（781.4）］

Taipei（755.8）［32（807.9）］

Kuala Lumpur（749.8）［34（788.1）］

Fukuoka（735.6）［33（790.3）］

Moscow（726.2）［37（760.2）］

Mexico City（716.0）［36（781.0）］

Sao Paulo（689.9）［38（667.7）］

Mumbai（633.9）［39（608.1）］

Cairo（579.9）［40（601.0）］*Numbers in [ ] are scores/ranks from the GPCI-2012

Economy R&D Cultural Interaction Livability Environment Accessibility

Fig.2-1　Comprehensive Ranking

Function-Speci�c Comprehensive Ranking2－1


2.GPCI-2013 Results

Table.2-1　Function-Specific Ranking

Ran

kTo

tal S

co

re

1Lo

ndo

n1

45

7.9

2N

ew Y

ork

13

62

.93

Par

is1

29

1.8

4To

kyo

12

75

.45

Sin

gap

ore

11

13

.36

Seo

ul1

10

4.4

7A

mst

erd

am1

06

1.8

8B

erlin

10

39

.69

Vie

nna

10

15

.01

0Fr

ankf

urt

99

5.3

11

Ho

ng K

ong

98

5.8

12

Sha

ngha

i9

75

.21

3S

ydne

y9

65

.01

4B

eijin

g9

65

.01

5Z

uric

h9

64

.81

6S

tock

holm

94

8.4

17

Mad

rid

92

3.7

18

Toro

nto

92

1.5

19

Bar

celo

na9

19

.82

0C

open

hage

n9

19

.52

1B

russ

els

90

5.9

22

Los

Ang

eles

90

0.8

23

Osa

ka8

79

.82

4Va

nco

uver

87

9.0

25

Gen

eva

87

2.5

26

Was

hing

ton

D.C.

84

3.5

27

Ista

nbul

84

1.6

28

San

Fran

cisc

o8

39

.32

9C

hica

go

83

3.7

30

Mila

n8

30

.33

1B

ost

on

82

7.2

32

Ban

gko

k8

10

.63

3Ta

ipei

75

5.8

34

Kua

la L

umpu

r7

49

.83

5Fu

kuo

ka7

35

.63

6M

osc

ow

72

6.2

37

Mex

ico

City

71

6.0

38

Sao

Pau

lo6

89

.93

9M

umb

ai6

33

.94

0C

airo

57

9.9

Ac

ce

ssib

ility

Lond

on

25

2.2

Par

is2

40

.8Fr

ankf

urt

22

5.6

Am

ster

dam

21

7.6

Ho

ng K

ong

20

9.4

Seo

ul2

08

.2N

ew Y

ork

20

4.3

Sin

gap

ore

18

3.7

Ista

nbul

17

8.6

Toky

o1

74

.6S

hang

hai

16

8.5

Bru

ssel

s1

63

.0M

adri

d1

59

.3M

ilan

15

7.4

Bar

celo

na1

56

.9B

ang

kok

15

1.5

Vie

nna

15

0.6

Mo

sco

w1

49

.0To

ront

o1

45

.9C

open

hage

n1

45

.5B

erlin

14

3.2

Zur

ich

13

9.0

Taip

ei1

38

.8C

hica

go

13

6.2

Bo

sto

n1

31

.8S

ydne

y1

30

.7B

eijin

g1

28

.5O

saka

12

5.6

Kua

la L

umpu

r1

23

.9S

tock

holm

12

0.1

Vanc

ouv

er1

15

.3Sa

n Fr

anci

sco

11

5.1

Mex

ico

City

11

3.3

Los

Ang

eles

10

6.7

Was

hing

ton

D.C.

10

6.3

Cai

ro1

05

.9Fu

kuo

ka9

9.1

Gen

eva

91

.2M

umb

ai8

7.8

Sao

Pau

lo7

1.6

En

viro

nm

en

t

Toky

o2

08

.9S

tock

holm

20

5.3

Gen

eva

20

3.4

Zur

ich

20

0.3

Sao

Pau

lo1

97

.1Fr

ankf

urt

19

0.6

Mad

rid

18

9.1

Sin

gap

ore

18

6.8

Lond

on

18

6.3

Ber

lin1

84

.5V

ienn

a1

82

.0S

eoul

18

1.6

Cop

enha

gen

18

0.7

Fuku

oka

17

3.1

Am

ster

dam

17

2.5

Syd

ney

16

5.6

Par

is1

63

.9Va

nco

uver

15

8.7

Bar

celo

na1

55

.8O

saka

15

4.5

Los

Ang

eles

15

1.9

Was

hing

ton

D.C.

15

0.0

New

Yo

rk1

48

.5Sa

n Fr

anci

sco

14

8.1

Mila

n1

45

.9B

ang

kok

14

0.4

Toro

nto

13

9.8

Kua

la L

umpu

r1

37

.0B

ost

on

13

4.8

Bru

ssel

s1

34

.1H

ong

Ko

ng1

33

.6M

umb

ai1

33

.6M

exic

o C

ity1

19

.4S

hang

hai

11

7.6

Chi

cag

o1

12

.8Is

tanb

ul1

08

.6C

airo

10

6.4

Taip

ei1

05

.1B

eijin

g1

00

.3M

osc

ow

75

.0

Liv

ab

ility

Par

is2

95

.6V

ienn

a2

93

.0A

mst

erd

am2

83

.1B

arce

lona

28

1.5

Vanc

ouv

er2

81

.2B

erlin

27

5.0

Cop

enha

gen

27

1.6

Zur

ich

26

8.9

Sto

ckho

lm2

68

.1G

enev

a2

68

.1M

ilan

26

6.4

Toro

nto

26

4.2

Mad

rid

26

3.5

Bru

ssel

s2

61

.4O

saka

25

9.5

Fuku

oka

25

4.9

Fran

kfur

t2

54

.4Ta

ipei

25

4.0

Sha

ngha

i2

50

.5To

kyo

24

3.9

Kua

la L

umpu

r2

39

.1Lo

ndo

n2

34

.5S

eoul

22

9.1

Bei

jing

22

2.7

Mum

bai

21

9.6

Ban

gko

k2

18

.4S

ydne

y2

17

.1M

exic

o C

ity2

10

.2C

airo

20

5.0

San

Fran

cisc

o2

02

.8Is

tanb

ul2

00

.9H

ong

Ko

ng

20

0.0

New

Yo

rk1

97

.9S

ing

apo

re1

97

.7C

hica

go

19

5.2

Sao

Pau

lo1

94

.5W

ashi

ngto

n D.

C.1

84

.2Lo

s A

ngel

es1

79

.2B

ost

on

17

7.0

Mo

sco

w1

58

.1

Cu

ltu

ral I

nte

rac

tio

n

Lond

on

34

8.0

New

Yo

rk2

73

.8P

aris

24

3.9

Sin

gap

ore

17

8.5

Ber

lin1

66

.2B

eijin

g1

55

.0V

ienn

a1

51

.9To

kyo

15

0.3

Los

Ang

eles

14

8.9

Ista

nbul

14

6.4

Syd

ney

14

5.7

Bar

celo

na1

43

.4B

russ

els

13

7.5

Seo

ul1

28

.3A

mst

erd

am1

27

.0S

hang

hai

12

3.9

Mad

rid

12

3.9

Ban

gko

k1

20

.8M

exic

o C

ity1

14

.1M

osc

ow

11

3.2

Chi

cag

o1

09

.6M

ilan

10

5.7

Was

hing

ton

D.C.

10

2.2

San

Fran

cisc

o1

00

.9To

ront

o9

8.4

Ho

ng K

ong

96

.3S

tock

holm

90

.3B

ost

on

80

.0Fr

ankf

urt

75

.8C

open

hage

n7

4.7

Osa

ka7

3.2

Vanc

ouv

er7

2.0

Zur

ich

66

.3S

ao P

aulo

61

.7K

uala

Lum

pur

57

.2C

airo

56

.2M

umb

ai4

9.0

Gen

eva

34

.2Ta

ipei

23

.9Fu

kuo

ka2

1.5

R＆

D

New

Yo

rk2

18

.9To

kyo

16

2.7

Lond

on

15

2.7

Los

Ang

eles

14

2.6

Bo

sto

n1

21

.8S

eoul

11

7.2

Par

is1

16

.6S

ing

apo

re1

10

.8C

hica

go

10

0.0

Ho

ng K

ong

89

.5Sa

n Fr

anci

sco

88

.6O

saka

83

.6W

ashi

ngto

n D.

C.7

1.4

Syd

ney

70

.3B

erlin

63

.3S

hang

hai

60

.0To

ront

o5

8.8

Zur

ich

57

.9S

tock

holm

57

.1M

osc

ow

53

.5A

mst

erd

am5

0.3

Bei

jing

49

.0Va

nco

uver

46

.4Ta

ipei

45

.9V

ienn

a4

1.4

Gen

eva

40

.8Fu

kuo

ka4

0.1

Fran

kfur

t3

8.5

Cop

enha

gen

36

.8B

russ

els

35

.0Is

tanb

ul3

4.6

Bar

celo

na3

0.5

Mad

rid

29

.9M

ilan

26

.3B

ang

kok

23

.6S

ao P

aulo

21

.3K

uala

Lum

pur

17

.7M

umb

ai1

2.4

Mex

ico

City

12

.4C

airo

3.3

Ec

on

om

y

Toky

o3

35

.0N

ew Y

ork

31

9.5

Bei

jing

30

9.4

Lond

on

28

4.2

Ho

ng K

ong

25

7.0

Sin

gap

ore

25

5.9

Sha

ngha

i2

54

.5S

eoul

24

0.0

Syd

ney

23

5.6

Gen

eva

23

4.8

Zur

ich

23

2.5

Par

is2

31

.0W

ashi

ngto

n D.

C.2

29

.4To

ront

o2

14

.3A

mst

erd

am2

11

.2Fr

ankf

urt

21

0.4

Cop

enha

gen

21

0.3

Ber

lin2

07

.6S

tock

holm

20

7.4

Vanc

ouv

er2

05

.5V

ienn

a1

96

.2Ta

ipei

18

8.1

San

Fran

cisc

o1

83

.8O

saka

18

3.4

Bo

sto

n1

81

.7C

hica

go

17

9.8

Mo

sco

w1

77

.4K

uala

Lum

pur

17

4.9

Bru

ssel

s1

74

.9Is

tanb

ul1

72

.4Lo

s A

ngel

es1

71

.4M

adri

d1

58

.1B

ang

kok

15

5.8

Bar

celo

na1

51

.7Fu

kuo

ka1

46

.9M

exic

o C

ity1

46

.6S

ao P

aulo

14

3.8

Mum

bai

13

1.6

Mila

n1

28

.7C

airo

10

3.2

Function-Speci�c Ranking2－2


Table.2-2　Actor-Specific Ranking

Ra

nk

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

36

37

38

39

40

Re

sid

en

t

Par

is6

2.6

Lond

on

54

.3N

ew Y

ork

53

.0To

kyo

52

.1Z

uric

h5

1.5

Vie

nna

51

.0B

erlin

50

.5Fr

ankf

urt

49

.5S

tock

holm

48

.9A

mst

erd

am4

8.7

Mila

n4

7.2

Co

pen

hag

en4

6.9

Gen

eva

46

.7W

ashi

ngto

n D

.C.

46

.2M

adri

d4

5.7

Vanc

ouv

er4

5.4

Bar

celo

na4

5.0

Osa

ka4

4.8

San

Fra

ncis

co4

4.7

Bo

sto

n4

4.6

Bru

ssel

s4

4.5

Toro

nto

44

.4H

ong

Ko

ng4

4.2

Seo

ul4

4.1

Syd

ney

44

.0S

hang

hai

42

.1B

eijin

g4

2.1

Sin

gap

ore

41

.1Fu

kuo

ka4

1.0

Taip

ei4

0.2

Los

Ang

eles

38

.9C

hica

go

38

.3M

exic

o C

ity3

4.5

Mo

sco

w3

4.5

Sao

Pau

lo3

1.6

Ban

gko

k3

1.1

Ista

nbul

30

.5K

uala

Lum

pur

28

.9M

umb

ai2

7.4

Cai

ro2

7.2

Vis

ito

r

Lond

on

58

.4N

ew Y

ork

54

.4P

aris

51

.3S

hang

hai

44

.0Is

tanb

ul4

2.9

Bar

celo

na4

2.2

Bei

jing

41

.5B

erlin

41

.1To

kyo

40

.4S

ing

apo

re4

0.0

Vie

nna

38

.5B

ang

kok

38

.3A

mst

erd

am3

8.2

Mad

rid

37

.9H

ong

Ko

ng3

7.5

Seo

ul3

7.0

Toro

nto

34

.4B

russ

els

34

.0Fr

ankf

urt

33

.1M

ilan

32

.3S

ydne

y3

2.2

Chi

cag

o3

1.3

Vanc

ouv

er3

1.1

Mex

ico

City

31

.0C

airo

30

.2Z

uric

h3

0.1

San

Fra

ncis

co2

9.8

Osa

ka2

9.8

Bo

sto

n2

9.7

Was

hing

ton

D.C

.2

9.2

Sto

ckho

lm2

9.0

Co

pen

hag

en2

8.9

Los

Ang

eles

28

.8Ta

ipei

27

.5K

uala

Lum

pur

27

.3M

osc

ow

25

.0M

umb

ai2

3.8

Fuku

oka

23

.0G

enev

a2

2.7

Sao

Pau

lo1

9.5

Art

ist

Par

is5

5.2

New

Yo

rk5

2.3

Ber

lin5

0.2

Lond

on

49

.6V

ienn

a4

7.7

Toky

o4

5.9

Bar

celo

na4

5.7

Los

Ang

eles

45

.0A

mst

erd

am4

4.7

Bei

jing

44

.1M

adri

d4

2.7

Mex

ico

City

40

.3S

hang

hai

39

.0C

hica

go

38

.8M

ilan

38

.1To

ront

o3

8.0

Vanc

ouv

er3

7.3

Bru

ssel

s3

6.9

Fran

kfur

t3

6.9

San

Fra

ncis

co3

6.8

Sto

ckho

lm3

6.8

Co

pen

hag

en3

6.3

Was

hing

ton

D.C

.3

6.0

Ban

gko

k3

5.5

Ista

nbul

34

.9C

airo

34

.4O

saka

34

.3S

ydne

y3

3.5

Mum

bai

33

.4S

ao P

aulo

33

.0Fu

kuo

ka3

2.4

Kua

la L

ump

ur3

1.7

Seo

ul3

0.8

Zur

ich

30

.5M

osc

ow

30

.4B

ost

on

28

.7Ta

ipei

26

.9G

enev

a2

5.1

Sin

gap

ore

22

.4H

ong

Ko

ng1

6.5

Re

sea

rch

er

New

Yo

rk6

3.5

Toky

o5

3.2

Lond

on

50

.6P

aris

46

.4Lo

s A

ngel

es3

8.1

Bo

sto

n3

6.3

Seo

ul3

6.2

Sin

gap

ore

34

.5S

an F

ranc

isco

33

.7S

ydne

y3

0.4

Was

hing

ton

D.C

.3

0.4

Chi

cag

o2

9.4

Osa

ka2

8.9

Bei

jing

27

.7H

ong

Ko

ng2

7.5

Ber

lin2

7.0

Zur

ich

26

.5V

ienn

a2

5.9

Am

ster

dam

25

.6Va

nco

uver

24

.9S

tock

holm

24

.8To

ront

o2

4.4

Co

pen

hag

en2

3.4

Gen

eva

22

.8M

osc

ow

21

.7B

russ

els

20

.8Fr

ankf

urt

19

.5S

hang

hai

19

.2M

exic

o C

ity1

9.0

Mila

n1

8.7

Fuku

oka

18

.5Ta

ipei

18

.5M

adri

d1

8.4

Bar

celo

na1

7.5

Ban

gko

k1

7.1

Ista

nbul

15

.9S

ao P

aulo

14

.9K

uala

Lum

pur

14

.4M

umb

ai1

2.2

Cai

ro6

.6

Ma

na

ge

r

Lond

on

56

.1S

ing

apo

re5

2.7

Sha

ngha

i4

9.1

Bei

jing

48

.4H

ong

Ko

ng4

7.9

New

Yo

rk4

6.8

Seo

ul4

5.5

Par

is4

5.1

Toky

o4

3.7

Zur

ich

42

.3A

mst

erd

am4

1.5

Ber

lin4

1.4

Gen

eva

40

.1V

ienn

a3

9.9

Sto

ckho

lm3

9.9

Kua

la L

ump

ur3

9.6

Syd

ney

39

.6Va

nco

uver

39

.3To

ront

o3

9.1

Taip

ei3

8.7

Ista

nbul

38

.4Fr

ankf

urt

38

.3C

op

enha

gen

38

.0B

arce

lona

36

.0B

ost

on

35

.4B

russ

els

35

.3M

adri

d3

4.6

Ban

gko

k3

4.3

Was

hing

ton

D.C

.3

3.3

Osa

ka3

2.9

Chi

cag

o3

1.5

San

Fra

ncis

co2

9.9

Fuku

oka

29

.8Lo

s A

ngel

es2

9.4

Mum

bai

29

.4M

ilan

27

.8M

osc

ow

26

.5S

ao P

aulo

25

.3C

airo

25

.3M

exic

o C

ity2

4.1

Actor-Speci�c Ranking2－3


As in the past, Tokyo’s strengths lie in “Market Size,” “Economic Vitality” and “Human Capital” under Econo-my, as well as in all the indicator groups of the “Research and Development” function. Tokyo also displays

strength with “Living Facilities” under Livability, “Ecology” under Environment, and “Transportation Service

of Inner-city” under Accessibility. Conversely, as with last year, Tokyo’s weaknesses lie in “Market Attractive-

ness” and “Regulations and Risks,” under Economy, “Cultural Resources” under Cultural Interaction, “Cost

of Living” under Livability, and “International Transportation Network” and “Traf�c Convenience” under Acces-sibility. Looking at the number of indicators by deviation score for Tokyo and the top four cities, Tokyo, with

nine, has the fewest number of indicators in which it holds an advantage with a deviation score of 70 or higher,

which is one reason why Tokyo is still ranked 4th.

Cultural InteractionR＆DEconomy Livability Environment Accessibility

2030405060708090

100

Mar

ket S

ize

Mar

ket A

ttrac

tiven

ess

Eco

nom

ic V

italit

y

Hum

an C

apita

l

Busin

ess

Envir

onm

ent

Regu

latio

ns a

nd R

isks

Acad

emic

Res

ourc

es

Rese

arch

Bac

kgro

und

Rese

arch

Ach

ieve

men

t

Tren

dset

ting

Pote

ntia

l

Cul

tura

l Res

ourc

es

Faci

litie

s fo

r Vis

itors

Attra

ctive

ness

to V

isito

rs

Volu

me

of In

tera

ctio

n

Wor

king

Env

ironm

ent

Cos

t of L

ivin

g

Sec

urity

and

Saf

ety

Livi

ng E

nviro

nmen

t

Livi

ng F

acilit

ies

Eco

logy

Pol

lutio

n

Nat

ural

Env

ironm

ent

Inte

rnat

iona

l T

rans

porta

tion

Netw

ork

Infras

tructu

re of

Intern

ation

al Tr

ansp

ortat

ionTr

ansp

orta

tion

Ser

vice

of I

nner

-city

Traf

�c C

onve

nien

ce

Fig.2-2　Tokyo’s Indicator Group-specific Deviation

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Under 20 20～30 30～40 40～50 50～60 60～70 70～80 80～90 Over 90

3

13

26

14

74 3

London

14 Indicators over the Deviation Score of 70




0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Under 20 20～30 30～40 40～50 50～60 60～70 70～80 80～90 Over 90

New York

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Under 20 20～30 30～40 40～50 50～60 60～70 70～80 80～90 Over 90

Tokyo

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Under 20 20～30 30～40 40～50 50～60 60～70 70～80 80～90 Over 90

Paris

13

2017

10 11

52

1

17

30

119

1 14

16

29

12

3 3 3

（Indicators）

（Indicators）

（Indicators）

（Indicators）

Economy R＆D Cultural Interaction Livability Environment Accessibility

Fig.2-3　Indicator Number of Top 4 cities by Deviation Score

Analysis of Tokyo’s Strengths and Weaknesses2－4


GDP（Top 4 cities） GDP（Major Asian Cities）

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Lond

on

New

Yor

k

Par

is

Toky

o（billion U.S. $）（billion U.S. $）

Toky

o

Sing

apor

e

Seo

ul

Hong

Kon

g

Bei

jing

Shan

ghai

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

GPCI-2009 GPCI-2010 GPCI-2011 GPCI-2012 GPCI-2013

Fig.2-4　GDP – Periodical Change

1）GDPCompared with the top four cities and leading cities of Asia, Tokyo remains dominant. However, it should be

noted that nominal GDP was affected by the use of an exchange rate during the yen’s appreciation against the

dollar. In addition, even though the GDP growth rate for both Beijing and Shanghai is remarkable, when com-

pared with previous year-on-year growth rates, the period between GPCI-2012 and GPCI-2013 indicates

sluggish nominal GDP.

2）Number of Visitors from AbroadTokyo ranks the lowest among the top four cities and the major Asian cities in this indicator. Of the top four

cities, London, fresh from hosting the Olympic Games, is recovering, while among the leading cities of Asia,

�gures are steadily increasing for Singapore and Seoul.

Number of Visitors from Abroad（Top 4 cities） Number of Visitors from Abroad（Major Asian Cities）

Lond

on

New

Yor

k

Par

is

Toky

o

Toky

o

Sing

apor

e

Seo

ul

Hong

Kon

g

Bei

jing

Shan

ghai

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000（1000 persons）

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000（1000 persons）

GPCI-2009 GPCI-2010 GPCI-2011 GPCI-2012 GPCI-2013

Fig.2-5　Number of Visitors from Abroad – Periodical Change

Over Year Trends2－5


In order to assess the comprehensive power of cities, the GPCI employs 70 indicators from both quantitative

and qualitative perspectives. Using these indicators, but excluding the qualitative indicators based on surveys,

the so-called physical appeal of cities is evaluated.

At the same time, from the perspective of actors that play active roles in cities, urban attractiveness is not

necessarily limited to just physical elements. It is thought that being able to evoke feelings of comfort, excite-

ment or pride in a city’s residents is due to the fact that all cities have the ‘power to appeal to human sensitivity.’

This power has been de�ned as Intangible Urban Value and is an attempt to evaluate and portray from a

fresh viewpoint the future urban power of 10 cities in the GPCI, namely, Barcelona, London, Paris, Vienna,

Istanbul, Singapore, Beijing, Seoul, Tokyo and New York.

As part of the framework for conducting new evaluations from the perspective of Intangible Urban Value,

Quantitative and Qualitative Characteristics and Sense of Values have been established.

Quantitative and Qualitative Characteristics ： Characteristics of a city are evaluated from the

viewpoints of Spatial Setting, Activities and Spatial Management.

▶　Spatial Setting ：

Layout and geographical features of various elements that constitute urban space, such as

social infrastructure, housing, commercial facilities, natural environment and risk of disaster.

▶　Activities ：

Value generated by human activity and consumption, such as daily life, business, movement,

entertainment and transmission of information in urban spaces.

▶　Spatial Management ：

Management and operational ability for realizing the facilitation and promotion of the activities

carried out in a city with a certain spatial setting.

Sense of Values ： How actors perceive city characteristics is evaluated from the viewpoints of Univer-sal Value, Regional and Cultural Value and Individual Value.

▶　Universal Value ：

Value felt by any person regardless of area of residence and individual attributes like cultural

background, gender, age or occupation.

▶　Regional and Cultural Value ：

Unique value felt by people in�uenced by area of residence or cultural background.

▶　Individual Value ：

Value determined by standards of value each individual possesses.


3.Intangible Urban Value

As shown below, analyses are applied to some of the indicator groups in the GPCI by contrasting the GPCI

evaluation axis with the Intangible Urban Value evaluation axis.

GPCI

6 Functions

Intangible Urban Value

Economy

R&D

CulturalInteraction

Livability

Environment

Accessibility

Manager

Researcher

Artist

Resident

Visitor

Quantitative andQualitative

CharacteristicsSense of Values

Universal Value:Value felt by any person regardless of area of residence and individual attributes like cultural background, gender, age or occupation.

Regional and Cultural Value:Unique value felt by people in�uenced by area of residence or cultural background.

Individual Value: Value determined by standards of value each individual possesses.

Spatial Setting:Layout and geographical features of various elements that constitute urban space, such as social infrastructure, housing, commercial facilities, natural environment and risk of disaster.

Activities:Value generated by human activity and consumption, such as daily life, business, movement, entertainment and transmission of information in urban spaces.

Spatial Management:Management and operational ability for realizing the facilitation and promotion of the activities carried out in a city with a certain spatial setting.

5 Actors

Fig.3-1　Evaluation Image of Intangible Urban Value and Differences with GPCI


1）Evaluation of “Market Attractiveness” from the viewpoint of ActivitiesThe GPCI uses GDP Growth Rate and Level of Economic Freedom to assess the “Market Attractiveness” of

cities from the perspective of economic growth potential and market environment, but in terms of Intangible Urban Value, ”New Creative Activities and Business Creativity/Acceptability”* is utilized to evaluate whether

or not a new value has emerged with respect to urban activities.

Singapore stands out with a high “Market Attractiveness （GPCI）” rating, but its rating for “New Creative

Activities and Business Creativity/Acceptability （Intangible Urban Value）” is low. This suggests that even

though Singapore’s strengths lie with its high economic growth and robust market environment, the city still

has certain issues it must address from the aspect of new business creation activity and acceptability.

In contrast, New York, Tokyo and Paris have low scores for “Market Attractiveness （GPCI）,” but their ratings

for “New Creative Activities and Business Creativity/Acceptability （Intangible Urban Value）” are high. Owing to

the fact that these cities are mature, they trail other cities particularly in terms of economic growth potential

with low GDP Growth Rate, but they continue to maintain a strong resilience due to a high level of attractive-

ness from the standpoint of new business activity and creation.

20

30

40

50

60

70

80（Deviation Score）

Bei

jing

Toky

o

Sin

gapo

re

Lond

on

Seo

ul

Ista

nbul

Bar

celo

na

New

Yor

k

Vie

nna

Par

is

Market Attractiveness （GPCI） New Creative Activities and Business Creativity/Acceptability （Intangible Urban Value）

Fig.3-2　“Market Attractiveness （GPCI）” and “New Creative Activities and Business Creativity/Acceptability （Intangible Urban Value）”

*Note ： Cities are listed in order of deviation score for “Market Attractiveness （GPCI）.”The deviation score for “Market Attractiveness （GPCI）” represents the relevant indicator group deviation score （of 10 cities） in the GPCI-2013.The deviation score for “New Creative Activities and Business Creativity/Acceptability （Intangible Urban Value）” represents the deviation score （of 10 cities） calculated with data related to Creation of New Culture, Art, Entertainment and Business and Acceptability of New Culture, Art, Entertainment and Business collected from The Mori Memorial Foundation’s ‘Survey on Urban Attractiveness’ conducted on the residents of each city.


2）Evaluation of “Facilities for Visitors” from the viewpoint of Spatial ManagementThe GPCI uses the three indicators of Number of Theaters and Concert Halls, Number of Museums and

Number of Stadiums to assess whether or not there are enough “Facilities for Visitors,” but in terms of Intan-gible Urban Value, the indicator of “Diversity of Entertainment”* is utilized to evaluate the variety of entertain-

ment, recreation and streetscape from the perspective of spatial management.

In terms of “Facilities for Visitors （GPCI）” London and New York are separated by the slimmest of margins and

there follows a slight gap between those two cities and Paris, but looking at “Diversity of Entertainment （Intan-

gible Urban Value）,” Paris greatly exceeds both London and New York. In addition to having an abundance of

facilities for visitors, this result shows that Paris is an extremely diverse city from a spatial management view-

point.

Of the 10 cities evaluated, Istanbul and Barcelona have low scores for “Facilities for Visitors （GPCI）” but are

ranked strongly for “Diversity of Entertainment （Intangible Urban Value）” after Paris and New York.

At the same time, the Asian cities of Tokyo, Beijing, Singapore and Seoul tend to have low scores for “Diver-

sity of Entertainment （Intangible Urban Value）.” Tokyo has received a reasonable score for its number of facili-

ties for visitors, but a lack of diversity is one of the city’s weaknesses.

20

30

40

50

60

70


New

Yor

k

Sin

gapo

re

Lond

on

Par

is

Vie

nna

Toky

o

Bei

jing

Ista

nbul

Bar

celo

na

Seo

ul

Facilities for Visitors （GPCI） Diversity of Entertainment （Intangible Urban Value）

Fig.3-3　“Facilities for Visitors （GPCI）” and “Diversity of Entertainment （Intangible Urban Value）”

*Note ： Cities are listed in order of deviation score for “Facilities for Visitors （GPCI）.” The deviation score for “Facilities for Visitors （GPCI）” represents the relevant indicator group deviation score （of 10 cities） in the GPCI-2013.The deviation score for Diversity of Entertainment （Intangible Urban Value） represents the deviation score （of 10 cities） calculated with data related to Diversity of Entertainment and Recreation, Diversity of Seasonal Entertainment and Recreation and Diversity of Streetscape collected from The Mori Memorial Foundation’s ‘Survey on Urban Attractiveness' conducted on the residents of each city.


20

30

40

50

60

70


Ista

nbul

Bei

jing

Lond

on

Seo

ul

Par

is

Sin

gapo

re

Vie

nna

New

Yor

k

Toky

o

Bar

celo

na

International Transportation Network （GPCI） Flight On-time Rate （Intangible Urban Value）

Fig.3-4　“International Transportation Network （GPCI）”and Flight On-time Rate （Intangible Urban Value）

*Note ： Cities listed in order of deviation score for “International Transportation Network （GPCI）.”The deviation score for “International Transportation Network （GPCI）” represents the relevant indicator group deviation score （of 10 cities） in the 2013 GPCI.The deviation score for Flight On-time Rate （Intangible Urban Value） represents the deviation score （of 10 cities） calculated with data from ‘Flight Stats On-time Report, May 2013’.

3） Evaluation of “International Transportation Network” from the viewpoint of Spa-tial Management

The GPCI uses Number of Cities with Direct International Flights and Number of Cities with Direct Inter-national Freighter Flights to assess the “International Transportation Network” of cities from the perspective

of how well developed the networks are between cities. However, in terms of Intangible Urban Value, Flight On-time Rate* is utilized to evaluate the strength of network administration and management capabilities from

the perspective of spatial management.

London, Istanbul, Seoul and Paris all score highly for “International Transportation Network （GPCI）,” but not

so for Flight On-time Rate （Intangible Urban Value）. Despite well-developed international �ight networks for

these cities, poor �ight punctuality is their weakness.

Conversely, Singapore, Vienna, Tokyo and Barcelona all score poorly for “International Transportation Net-

work （GPCI）” compared with other cities such as London, but are rated highly for Flight On-time Rate （Intan-gible Urban Value）. Tokyo, in particular, does not have such a well developed international �ight network

among the 10 cities evaluated, but it has the highest score for Flight On-time Rate （Intangible Urban Value） and ensures a certain level of punctuality by demonstrating its superior management capabilities.


Published in October, 2013Edited and published byThe Mori Memorial Foundation

For inquiry about this report, please contact directly to ：

Chiharu Hirota, Yasuyuki Miwa, Yuko Hamada

ARK Mori Building

1-12-32 Akasaka, Minato-ku, Tokyo

107-6004 JAPAN

Facsimile ： +81-3-3224-7227

Email ： [email protected]

Copyright © 2013 The Mori Memorial Foundation All Rights Reserved.Unauthorized reproduction of this document is forbidden.

2013

2013

1 London

2 New York

3 Paris

4 Tokyo

5 Singapore

6 Seoul

7 Amsterdam

8 Berlin

9 Vienna

10 Frankfurt

11 Hong Kong

12 Shanghai

13 Sydney

14 Beijing

15 Zurich

16 Stockholm

17 Madrid

18 Toronto

19 Barcelona

20 Copenhagen

21 Brussels

22 Los Angeles

23 Osaka

24 Vancouver

25 Geneva

26 Washington D.C.

27 Istanbul

28 San Francisco

29 Chicago

30 Milan

31 Boston

32 Bangkok

33 Taipei

34 Kuala Lumpur

35 Fukuoka

36 Moscow

37 Mexico City

38 Sao Paulo

39 Mumbai

40 Cairo

London

New York

Paris

Tokyo

Singapore

October 2013

2013

2013

201 New York...Key Messages Economy ： As with last year, Tokyo is again ranked No.1, but as some...

Documents

Transcript of 201 New York...Key Messages Economy ： As with last year, Tokyo is again ranked No.1, but as some...