Using the now well-established methodology of its “Cities of opportunity” reports that aim “to shine a light on urban success in […] cities by measuring their livability, sustainability, and competitiveness”, PwC has produced a holistic document that compares 28 cities across the APEC economies in order to provide guiding principles of best practices derived from actual experiences. Criteria and ranking are relative – from best to worst of the 28 urban centers on each of the 39 variables – and thus not normative: the idea is not to shame anyone, but to let everybody, at every level of responsibility, realize what works better. Inspirational lessons are sought out, and the whole study noticeably substantiates that “pondering” is needed if “acting” is to be successful.
I was originally attracted to the PwC study because of an op-ed regarding Hong Kong – Hong Kong is one of the 21 APEC economies whereas Macao is not, although our SAR has applied for membership –
in which the author was lamenting that out of the 28 cities considered, Hong Kong only ranked 11th and therefore concluded that the branding of Hong Kong as “Asia’s World City” was nothing more than “an empty marketing shell.”
APEC is particularly interesting for us as it brings together “political entities” with very different economic, social, cultural and political backgrounds. Consequently, criteria that define the fundamentals of any city have to be diverse and broad if they are to pay justice to all participants. Indicators were grouped together into five categories: Culture and Social Health, Connectivity, Health and Welfare, Sustainability, and Economics.
Culture and Social Health included criteria such as “tolerance and inclusion”, “cultural vibrancy”, “political environment” and “income equality”. Best performers were Toronto, Melbourne and Auckland. Connectivity, both physical and digital, encompassed, among others, “public transport systems”, “traffic congestions” and “broadband quality,” and the lead was taken by Singapore, followed by Hong Kong and Tokyo. Health and Welfare brought together criteria such as “health system performance”, “controlling crime” and “housing.” Best performers were Tokyo, Osaka and Toronto.
Sustainability was concerned by criteria such as “air pollution”, “natural disaster risk” or “public park space.” Top performers were Vancouver, Toronto and Seattle. Finally, for Economics, meaning “ease of doing business”, “GDP per capita”, “foreign direct investment” but also “incidence of economic crime,” Hong Kong, Singapore and Tokyo snatched the top positions.
Interestingly enough Hong Kong scored low for Culture and Social Health – with the Fragrant Harbor achieving its unique lowest ranking out of 28 for “economic equality” – as well as Health & Welfare, and very low for Environmental Sustainability. I could not help wonder how Macao would have fared, especially with Shanghai (13) and Beijing (14) in the middle of the pack: closer to Kuala Lumpur (15) or to Port Moresby (28)? With APEC, one has to measure itself against Toronto, Vancouver and Singapore as the three overall top performers!
Eventually, the PwC study provides a set of recommendations for what it calls “city managers” and “city and national leaders”.
To the former, the message is clear: “build a brand”! Thus, what matters is to clearly define ones’ own identity and attractiveness, and this should “ring true for all stakeholders”: a city “must preserve its unique past while inspiring residents to imagine a rich future.” Could this be the meaning of a diversification through “creative industries” and a greater reliance on SMEs, yet grounded on the gambling industry and a dynamized unique heritage?
To the latter, the path is unequivocal: strike “a new urban-national partnership”! Could this be the meaning of an extension to Hengqin island as well as an enlarged maritime perimeter together with a greater integration with the Pearl River Delta? It could very well be, if the partnership is genuine…
Published in Macau Daily Times, December 18th 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment