Download pdf - Liveanomics Urban liveability and economic growth...iveanomics: Urban liveability and economic growth is the second of two Economist Intelligence Unit reports, commissioned by Philips,

Commissioned by Philips

LiveanomicsUrban liveability and economic growthA report from the Economist Intelligence Unit

LiveanomicsUrban liveability and economic growth

© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 20111

Preface

Liveanomics: Urban liveability and economic growth is the second of two Economist Intelligence Unit reports, commissioned by Philips, which examine the issue of liveability in cities. The first report

in the series addressed what city residents want from their cities, and how city leaders can deliver on citizens’ requirements. This second report examines the role of business within cities. The Economist Intelligence Unit bears sole responsibility for the content of this report. The findings and views expressed within do not necessarily reflect the views of Philips.

Our research drew on two main initiatives:

l In September 2010, we conducted a survey of urban professionals around the world. In total, 575 respondents took part, representing cities in Asia (30%), North America (30%), Western Europe (30%) and the rest of the world (10%). See Who took the survey? for more details.

l To supplement the survey results, we conducted in-depth interviews with business and civic leaders and other experts in urban affairs. See Interviewees for more details.

Sarah Murray was the author of the report, and David Gow contributed. Iain Scott and Chris Webber were the editors. We would like to thank everyone who participated in the survey, and all the interviewees, for their time and insight.January 2011

Who took the survey?

Respondents range in age, from 19-80, with most aged between 26 and 60. More than one-third have lived in their city for more than 20 years, one-fifth for 10-20 years, and another one-fifth for 5-10 years. Three-quarters of respondents are married (of those, 58% have children). They are professionals

who work for a range of industries, with the majority from the financial and professional services, IT and technology, energy and natural resources, manufacturing, education and healthcare, publishing and media, and retail.

Please note that not all figures quoted correlate precisely with the charts provided, typically because of rounding.



l Sam Adams, mayor of Portland, Oregon (USA)

l Andrew Carter, head of research, Centre for Cities (UK)

l Greg Clark, city expert (UK)

l Warrick Cleine, managing partner, KPMG (Vietnam)

l Carol Coletta, president and chief executive of CEOs for Cities (USA)

l Karl-Heinz Daehre, minister for regional development and transport, Sachsen-Anhalt (Germany)

l Ryan Gravel, urban designer and senior associate, Perkins+Will (USA)

l Frank Jensen, president, Eurocities and mayor, Copenhagen (Denmark)

l John Kasarda, co-author of Aerotropolis: The Way We’ll Live Next and a professor at University of North Carolina’s Kenan-Flagler Business School (USA)

l Stanley Litow, head of corporate citizenship and corporate affairs, IBM; and president, IBM Foundation (USA)

l Teresa Lynch, senior vice-president for research, Initiative for a Competitive Inner City (USA)

l Josh McManus, co-founder and creative strategist, CreateHere (USA)

l Harold Miller, president, Future Strategies (USA)

l T.V. Mohandas Pai, head of human resources, education and research, and board member, Infosys, Bangalore (India)

l Wally Olins, chairman of Saffron Brand Consultants, London (UK)

l Deanna Oppenheimer, chief executive of UK retail banking, and vice-chair of global retail banking, Barclays, London (UK)

l Professor Philipp Oswalt, head of the IBA and the Bauhaus Foundation, Dessau (Germany)

l Paul Romer, economist and senior fellow, Stanford Center for International Development and the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, and Henry Kaufman visiting professor at the Stern School of Business, New York University (USA)

l Terry Schwarz, director, Cleveland Urban Design Collaborative, Kent State University (USA)

l Todd Sinai, associate professor of real estate and business and public policy at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business, (USA)

l Fred Smith, chairman, president and chief executive officer, FedEx (USA)

l Regina Sonnabend, an urban planner at the Bauhaus Foundation (Germany)

l Colin Tweedy, chief executive, Arts & Business, London (UK)

Interviewees



Executive summary

T here is no doubt that the lives of cities and of the businesses located in them are inextricably intertwined. But how closely linked are cities’ economic growth and their liveability?

A survey of urban professionals conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit shows that the idea of liveability has a number of different components. Jobs and cost of living, public transport and roads, safety and security and culture and nightlife all rank highly among our respondents’ list of factors contributing to a city’s attractiveness as a place to live and work.

In the first report in this series, we spelled out the strategies policymakers need to adopt in order to maintain and improve liveability for citizens. Some of the key steps include providing a good public transport system, getting a bigger say in planning policy, taking a more sensitive approach to urban design and handing over more control of public services to citizens. This second report explores the relationship between business performance and liveability in cities, and highlights some of the ways in which business and policymakers are working together to make cities more liveable.

Whatever the type of challenge being faced by an individual city, improving liveability can only help to strengthen its attractiveness for residents, workers and potential investors. But coming up with a realistic and effective strategy for boosting economic growth is a hugely difficult challenge, particularly when wider economic forces are working in the opposite direction. History has shown that long-term shifts in patterns of trade across the globe and the introduction of new technologies or production methods can undermine the industries upon which some cities were built. Declining cities in the former manufacturing heartlands of the north of England and in the “rust belt” of the United States provide powerful evidence of this. And, try as they might, policymakers have frequently found it agonisingly difficult to hold back the tide of change.

Even in those cities where economic growth is occurring, the challenge of enabling this can be enormously complex. Often the problem is that those people already living in high growth areas resent the changes associated with it and try to block the developments and investments—in housing and transport, for example—that are needed to facilitate growth. Rather than blocking growth altogether, however, these kinds of obstructions frequently lead to congestion and affordability problems as more and more people and businesses try to cram into houses, offices and trains that were simply not designed to meet such high levels of demand.


© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2011�

It is important to look at liveability—a misunderstood and often misused term—but equally important to understand that for citizens and companies, there is a clear hierarchy of needs. What is clear from our research is that what business primarily wants from city leadership is policy that helps to stimulate job creation, followed by basic liveability factors such as good infrastructure, schools and so on.

Mayors and civic leaders can occasionally be beguiled by the “softer” aspects of liveability. Opera houses, parks and other assets associated with liveability are all important components of great cities’ brands, but getting the basics right first helps cities to compete globally on a more equal footing.

Among the key findings of our research are:

Jobs take precedence over liveability when people are choosing where to locateOur survey shows that the main reason for urban professionals to move to a city is its jobs market and cost of living. Moreover, respondents say that their organisation’s main benefit in being located in their city is its access to talent and labour. But with workforces increasingly prepared to relocate for the best opportunities, there is a question mark over policymakers’ ability to develop local skill levels and encourage skilled workers to remain in their city.

Deliver the housing needed to meet demandAs we spelled out in our first report, rising house prices are often seen as a sign of a city’s economic success. One important challenge for policymakers who are looking for ways to help maintain their city’s economic growth is to make sure that there is enough housing to meet demand in economically dynamic areas. Failure to do so can result in housing affordability problems, dissuading talent from moving from low-performing to high-performing areas. This is not simply an issue for policymakers. As Todd Sinai of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business points out, “in a city that’s more expensive, the first thing that has to happen is that workers need to get paid more”.

Open the door to foreign investmentIn difficult economic times, policymakers are often pressured into favouring support for local businesses over foreign companies. But such strategies are not necessarily the right way forward, according to our survey—only 15% of respondents see that as a priority for their civic leaders, as opposed to almost one-third who would prefer it if multinationals were encouraged to set up shop in their city, in order to make it more competitive for business. The presence of multinational companies in a city can raise its image elsewhere, and branding can play a big role in the business life of a city. More than one-half of respondents regard their city’s international profile and good reputation as important benefits to their organisation’s decision to locate there, and nearly three-quarters believe their city’s image helps it to attract important industries.

Enlist the help of the commercial sectorRespondents to our survey consider that it is the public sector that should shoulder most responsibility for services such as public transport and the maintenance of parks and schools. But the business sector already plays a key role in developing cities’ liveability, supporting culture, sporting events, healthcare



facilities, transport infrastructure and environmental initiatives. As civic leaders face tighter budgets they should be prepared to take the initiative in asking business for more help. The cost to the city of London’s ambitious cycle hire scheme, for example, would have been far greater without a substantial investment from Barclays, a bank. Of course, in engaging in philanthropic endeavours an organisation’s ambition may largely be to generate brand awareness. But Londoners, for their part, have shown that they are prepared to become two-wheeled advertisements for Barclays in exchange for a more convenient journey around town.

Focus on the basics of urban life – transport, roads, houses, schools and safetyWhen a city secures a major sporting event such as the Olympic Games, is it a boon for business? Urban professionals don’t think so. They think it is far more important to get the basics right by improving public transport and roads, providing better schools and improving safety. CEOs such as FedEx’s Fred Smith agree. “Ultimately, you have to have both good economics and good quality of life—they feed each other,” he says.



From the earliest times of human commerce, when trade crossroads became sites for settlements, the world’s greatest cities have arisen and flourished around commerce. Florence had its Medici

bankers; Flanders its wool merchants; Manchester its cotton mills; and Detroit its carmakers. Wherever you look around the world, business has often played a pivotal role in the story of urban growth and change.

Business continues to play a central part in the development of the world’s cities, but the economic role played by different cities has evolved over time as the forces of globalisation and technological change have reshaped patterns of trade and shifted the focus of business growth. Some cities, including Manchester and Detroit, have declined as the industries on which they were built have shed jobs. Others, such as Bangalore in India and Beijing in China, have grown rapidly as economic growth in developing countries has surged.

Against the backdrop of intense competition and long-term change, urban policymakers must find ways to maximise their city’s economic growth. In attempting to do so, many have become interested in the relationship between economic growth and liveability. The thinking is that businesses and highly-skilled workers, particularly those in mature industrialised economies, are increasingly basing their location decisions on the quality of life on offer in a city as well as the strength of its economy. The basic idea, therefore, is that if city leaders can improve the liveability of their city, they can attract the businesses and skilled workers needed to grow their economies.

This argument seems straightforward enough, but how strong is the relationship between liveability and economic growth in cities? Can a modern city thrive without having a high quality of life? Which other factors influence economic performance in cities? And, after looking at the evidence, what should be the priorities for city leaders trying to stimulate economic growth in their areas?

Introduction



What businesses want from cities varies enormously. As Greg Clark, an adviser to city agencies around the world, says: “If you’re in film, fashion and TV you want London or New York—big

and dirty, with lots of different people and real edge that creates a buzz. If you’re doing bioscience or pharmaceuticals, you want precision labs and so you might prefer Boston, Zurich or Singapore.” But despite the diverse range of needs that businesses have, there are some requirements that are important to all. We discuss these below and explain the role that liveability plays in fostering their development.

A talented workforceIn mature, industrialised economies where knowledge-based services businesses are an increasingly important driver of growth, having access to a skilled workforce is becoming more of a necessity than a luxury. Cities often play a crucial role here, providing a rich source of talent upon which knowledge intensive businesses can draw.

Key points

n Whatbusinesseswantfromcitiesvariesenormously.

n However,somerequirementsarecommontoall:talent,transport,affordablehousingandgoodgovernance.

n Expertsdifferontheimportanceofqualityoflifeasadriverofeconomicgrowth.

Part I: What businesses need from cities

39

29

24

21

15

14

11

9

8

3

8

To seek better work opportunities

I was born here/it has always been my home

I was posted here by my employer

To be closer to family/friends

To go to school or university, or to be near to better schools or universities

For culture/nightlife

For greater personal freedom

For existing relationship/To find new relationship

For safety/security considerations

For healthcare considerations

Other

What were your main motivations in coming to your city? Select up to three. (% respondents)



In our survey, access to talent and labour were cited by 63% of respondents as being what makes their city a good place in which to locate their organisation, while 58% said that their organisation had chosen its location because it could access a happy, healthy workforce. One-third of urban professionals say improving schooling and education would make their city more competitive for business, making it their second-highest priority.

Businesses are looking for a deep talent pool in the fields in which they need to be successful,” says Carol Coletta, president and chief executive of CEOs for Cities, a US network of urban leaders. “Talent pools in places where there are other talented people. That speaks highly to the need for quality of place and quality of opportunity.”

Cities’ power to attract talent is why KPMG sited its Ho Chi Minh City offices in the downtown area, rather than where its clients are, in industrial zones outside the city. “The number one reason for being located where we are is the people,” says Warrick Cleine, managing partner of KPMG Vietnam. “What forms part of being an employer of choice is having a high-quality office building and shops and restaurants around it that staff can go to.”

There is a question mark over just how much city leaders and other policymakers can do to retain skilled workers, however. “A lot of places are successful in developing talent because they have the right higher education institutions, but they can’t necessarily hang on to that talent,” says Ms Coletta.

Andrew Carter, head of research at Centre for Cities, a London-based think-tank, explains that this is because workers are increasingly mobile. “When a city is creating jobs, its population tends to increase and when it’s losing them its population falls,” he says. “That’s just a normal part of the adjustment process in all economies. Skilled people find it easier to access jobs elsewhere so they’re often among the first to leave when the jobs begin to dry up. It’s very difficult to see how city leaders in places like Liverpool [UK] can prevent that from happening.”

“What forms part of being an employer of choice is having a high-quality office building and shops and restaurants around it that staff can go to.”Warrick Cleine, KPMG

61

33

32

29

27

25

22

15

12

11

7

Improving public transport/roads

Improving schooling/education

Encouraging multinational companies to set up business

Improving safety and security

Raising the city's profile and improving its reputation

Reducing corruption

Reducing environmental impact

Supporting local businesses ahead of multinationals

Improving healthcare facilities and access to care

Attracting major sporting/cultural events

Other

What do you think should be the main priorities for your city's mayor/leadership in order to make your city more competitive for business? Select up to three. (% respondents)



Transport and connectivityTransport connections have always been a key driver of economic growth in cities and towns. In the past, a city might have grown up around a river crossing. Today a city’s growth is more likely to be linked to its proximity to an airport (see box), port or motorway hubs.

In our survey of urban professionals, 37% of respondents regard transport links to other key cities and markets as being a primary benefit of being located in their city. And 61% of respondents say city leaders should address transport, far ahead of factors such as better education (33%), encouraging multinationals to set up business (32%), and improving safety and security (29%).

Getting people to work on time is one function of a good transport system. But our respondents’ emphasis on transport links reflects another evolving trend—the fact that the line between people’s professional and private lives is becoming increasingly blurred.

“Time is becoming ever more valuable,” says Ms Coletta. “Technology is becoming richer and more diverting and as a result people are living 2�-7, so if you don’t provide good public transport or alternatives to the automobile that’s a real problem.”

Deanna Oppenheimer, the chief executive of UK retail banking at Barclays, argues that good transport systems are essential to the economic health of cities such as London, where the company sponsors a city-wide cycle hire scheme. “Investment and improvements to London’s transport infrastructure will assist economic prosperity in the city,” she says.

Transport systems are clearly important both in maintaining quality of life and business performance, but policymakers should not see investment in transport as a magic solution that will always spark growth irrespective of underlying circumstances. According to Mr Carter, “areas that have experienced decline often have transport systems that are easily able to cope with the demands now being placed on them because they were designed for much higher usage. The fact that some areas have really great public transport systems doesn’t necessarily mean that they will be attractive to businesses and workers. There are plenty of other factors at play.”

The aerotropolis

As transport and logistics companies gather around the world’s biggest airports and their related transport corridors, a new urban form is emerging: the airport city. Professor John Kasarda of the University of North Carolina’s Kenan-Flagler Business School argues that airports are set to shape urban development in the decades to come. “Show me the busiest airports today and I’ll show you the great urban centres of tomorrow,” he says.

Professor Kasarda, who has co-authored a book on the concept (Aerotropolis: The Way We’ll

Live Next), points to a shift in many places where airports no longer simply serve the city but have themselves become airport cities. “They’re taking on all the functions of a modern metropolitan centre,” he says. “Upscale restaurants, casinos, hotels, trade and exhibition complexes and financial units are all locating around the airport, and this is creating a second downtown.”

“The aerotropolis should bring together urban and regional planning, and business strategy and site planning,” Professor Kasarda continues, “so airports function more efficiently and the region itself is more economically efficient, aesthetically appealing and environmentally sustainable.”



Affordable housingLiveability also means being able to find decent, affordable housing. Housing features highly among the schemes highlighted by our respondents when asked to outline something they believe would benefit their city. Many respondents suggest access to “affordable housing”. One respondent cites “mass housing projects and eradication of ghettos”, while another believes it would be beneficial to curb “certain building restrictions that artificially inflate the cost of living.”

However, high house prices are not necessarily a problem in themselves. “New York is expensive but it has no trouble getting good workers,” says Todd Sinai, associate professor of real estate and business and public policy at Wharton. “But in a city that’s more expensive, the first thing that has to happen is that workers need to get paid more.”

Indeed, high or rising house prices should probably be seen more as a sign of economic success, reflecting the fact that more people want to live in an area. The big challenge for policymakers is to ensure that the supply of housing is meeting demand for it as this evolves over time. In the UK in particular, the failure to build houses in economically dynamic areas where there is high demand, such as London, Cambridge and Brighton, is regularly identified as one of the key failings of cities policy.1 As a result, there have been increasing volatility and affordability problems in the UK housing market, making it harder for people to move from low- to high-performing areas where jobs are more plentiful.

Efficient governanceGood governance and efficient permitting procedures are among the criteria companies consider when looking at potential sites for their operations. The importance of governance and bureaucratic

FedEx in Memphis

With around 30,000 employees in the Memphis area, FedEx is the city’s largest private sector employer, while the cargo shipped by the company from Memphis International airport makes a big contribution to the airport’s economic impact on the local economy (an estimated US$28.6bn in goods and services and US$8bn in total wages earned in 2007).

However, Fred Smith, FedEx Corporation’s chairman, president and chief executive officer, maintains that businesses support cities through more than wealth and employment generation. “Businesses should offer their particular expertise to the city at large and to segments within the city,” he says. “We’re logistics experts, for instance, so we can share our expertise with any company trying to move goods, including non-profits such as food banks and

agencies providing disaster relief.”In turn, Mr Smith says, cities need to offer

incentives to make it attractive for companies to locate or do business in them. He cites sales tax exemptions on new equipment, tax moratoriums on land or capital improvements, tax incentives for industrial investment or the creation of jobs, tax exemption to encourage research and development, and accelerated depreciation of industrial equipment. Cities, he adds, can also provide bond financing and loans for construction and equipment.

Beyond such business incentives, however, Mr Smith stresses that quality of life—good schools, safe neighbourhoods, cultural opportunities, reasonable living costs—is critical in attracting businesses to a city, fuelling the local economy, which in turn generates more jobs and attracts more businesses. “It’s a restorative cycle,” he says. “Ultimately, you have to have both good economics and good quality of life. They feed each other.”

1 Nickell, S. ‘Housing’ in Options for a New Britain London: Palgrave (2009); Aldred, T. Arrested Development: Are we building houses in the right places? London: Centre for Cities (2010)



efficiency is reflected in some of the things our respondents say they would like to implement in their city. “Make city government more transparent and accountable,” says one. Others would like to see a reduction in “red tape” and “barriers to business”. Meanwhile, 20% of respondents say that good local governance and political stability are the main benefits of being located in their city. And with most city leaders across the world facing a prolonged period of fiscal austerity, they may find it worthwhile to increase their engagement with business to both understand their needs and draw on their expertise.

Liveability and city growth: a mixed pictureWhile the idea that city growth and liveability might go hand in hand is appealing, experts’ views differ on the importance of quality of life as a driver of economic growth.

Harold Miller, president of US consulting firm Future Strategies, argues that “Pittsburgh’s greatest strength is quality of life. People want to come to an area with a high quality of life and lots of amenities that were built up over decades.” And Greg Clark suggests that companies look to cities to provide the liveability factors that can attract a healthy supply of talented workers to their doors because “businesses follow talent and talent follows quality of life”.

Meanwhile, Mr Carter recognises that liveability can be an important factor in the location decisions of people and businesses, but stresses that the city growth equation tends to be more complicated than this. “Studies show that the processes of globalisation and technological change have created a long-term shift in the geography of job creation in the UK. Improving a city’s liveability may help to maximise economic growth, but we shouldn’t pretend that’s going to completely reverse a major long-term shift in where jobs are being created. I’m afraid the evidence just doesn’t support that kind of conclusion.”



Liveability takes on a whole new meaning when it comes to employment—nobody wants to live in a city where there are no jobs. Indeed, unless city leaders are able to foster economic opportunities,

their city is likely to decline. The evidence shows this clearly, with places like Detroit and Liverpool experiencing significant population losses over recent decades as the number of jobs available in these cities has fallen.

This point is supported by the findings of our survey. Almost 60% of respondents cite the job market and cost of living as the leading factor in their decision to live in a city. And, of those respondents who have moved to their current city, 89% did so because they were either posted there by their employer or because they were “seeking better work opportunities”.

Concern about the availability of jobs and the strength of the economy over the next three to five years is also an issue for many of our respondents. Nearly �0% cite economic uncertainty as one of the most critical pressures their city will face over this period. And 30% say that improving the jobs market and cost of living would be one of the first things they would change in order to make life less stressful.

Key points

n Unlesscivicleadersareabletofostereconomicopportunities,theircityislikelytodecline.

n Thebenefitoftaxbreaksforbusinessesishardtocalculate—policymakersshouldlookatotherincentives.

n Brandingofcitiesplaysanimportantrole,bothinattractingtalentandinboostingbusinessopportunities.

Part II: What the city must deliver

58

47

44

34

28

23

20

17

17

6

Jobs market and cost of living

Public transport, road links and parking

Safety and security

Culture, nightlife and sporting facilities/events

Access to decent childcare and education

Parks and access to green/open spaces

General environment and cleanliness

Layout of the city, quality of its buildings and housing

Access to quality healthcare

Range of shops and stores

In your view, which factors are most important to you in making a city an attractive place in which to live and work? Select up to three. (% respondents)



On the other hand, urban professionals, who are often less vulnerable to unemployment than less skilled workers, are understandably more confident that their city can deliver on business and employment opportunities than on other things. More than half (51%) of our survey respondents think their city has been performing well on this issue, significantly higher than those who cite social factors such as housing, safety, culture and community relations (37%) and infrastructure such as transport and utilities (26%).

Policies to spark business growthWhile the public and non-profit sectors contribute to city employment, the private sector is often the main driver of growth in the jobs market. And it will need to be relied upon even more heavily as public spending cuts are introduced by governments across the world over the next five years.

So what can cities do to try to stimulate private sector jobs growth in their areas? Some have adjusted their tax regimes; San Francisco, for example, froze payroll taxes for two years, and also offered payroll tax incentives to businesses creating new jobs.

However, Ms Coletta warns policymakers against relying too heavily on tax incentives when trying to attract new businesses to locate to their city. “In most cases, cities don’t know what the payback on tax incentives is,” she says. “It’s very difficult to calculate, and most cities would be better off focusing on other incentives—on the quality of talent, quality of place, quality of opportunity and making sure there’s a good business climate.”

In the wake of the global economic downturn, of course, a good business climate is harder to find. “Capital requirements are rising to the surface and there’s a real sense among small businesses that their access to capital is limited,” says Teresa Lynch, senior vice-president for research at the Initiative for a Competitive Inner City, a non-profit company founded to promote private sector engagement in inner city prosperity. “It becomes more of a concern in cities that are concentrated in manufacturing, a sector in which there hasn’t historically been a big equity play.”

Some cities are devising innovative programmes to help small businesses expand and generate employment. In the US, Portland has set up working groups to develop microcredit programmes that could provide local entrepreneurs with access to capital and a micro-exchange, that would offer local investors opportunities to invest directly in local non-public companies.2

In good times and bad, cities also need to find ways of smoothing the path to business creation. “City governments can use their influence to speed up processes like getting telephone systems established, or reducing the time it takes from agreeing a lease to occupying a building,” says Mr Clark.

Many cities are using technology to do this, creating one-stop shops to which businesses can turn when establishing their enterprises, in order to obtain permits and licences, pay taxes and so on. Singapore’s EnterpriseOne portal offers everything from market research and information on funding options to online business registration. But a flashy online interface means little unless there is also back-office co-ordination between city departments. “It’s important to have a political decision and a strategy from the beginning,” says Frank Jensen, president of Eurocities, a network of major European cities, and mayor of Copenhagen, which is providing a one-stop-shop for businesses locating in the

2 Portland job creation and stimulus, Office of the City Auditor, Portland, Oregon, June 2010

“City governments can use their influence to speed up processes like getting telephone systems established, or reducing the time it takes from agreeing a lease to occupying a building.”Greg Clark


© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 20111�

city. “If it’s based only on what the civil servants are dealing with, it’s much harder to concentrate all the functions in one office.”

Civic authorities can also support business incubation organisations, often in public-private partnerships. In Pittsburgh, economic revival has been boosted by a culture of innovation, helped by organisations such as the Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse, which is partly funded by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the state’s department of community and economic development.

Some believe that the challenge of generating economic activity should be looked at more broadly—and that means bringing artists and designers into the process. In Chattanooga, Tennessee, a non-profit organisation called CreateHere organises business planning workshops and initiates joint projects—such as the creation of a park in Detroit—that bring together individuals and groups from diverse sectors of the city, including artists, designers, architects, engineers and general contractors.

Josh McManus, founder of CreateHere, says that few cities have yet to make the connection between creativity and economic development. “In more cosmopolitan cities, there’s sometimes a recognition of creativity as impacting quality of life,” he says. “But to draw a link between sustainable economic development and creativity is very rare.”

Charter Cities in developing economies

Poor governance and corruption are often cited as barriers to growth in developing countries, which are also home to some of the world’s fastest-growing cities. But, as any policy expert or development specialist will tell you, retrofitting for good governance is extremely difficult to do. Corruption is hard to weed out once it is embedded in urban institutions, business models and cultures.

One new concept in urban planning—called Charter Cities—explores ways in which good governance and freedom from corruption may be built into new cities from the very start, by outsourcing their development. The idea behind Charter Cities is that by building special reform zones, using unoccupied pieces of land and establishing charters to govern them, governments could quickly adopt new systems of rules that might be very different from those that exist in the rest of the country.

“Just as developing countries have learned that they can import technology, countries could leverage systems of governance that are working,” says Paul Romer, an economist and senior fellow at the

Stanford Center for International Development and the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, and the Henry Kaufman Visiting Professor at NYU’s Stern School of Business

Professor Romer and his team have developed several Charter Cities scenarios. In one, Australia and Indonesia join forces to create a new regional manufacturing hub. Another suggests that Canada could develop a Hong Kong in Cuba, by modifying the existing treaty between Cuba and the US to shift control to Canada. A Canadian administrator would establish and enforce legal protection and institutional stability for the territory.

“Once you’ve appointed this strong executive, it could look a lot like Hong Kong,” says Professor Romer. “In Hong Kong civil service and regulatory traditions were brought in to some extent along with expatriates, but to a large extent they were developed by training people from the region.”

Strong governance would attract foreign investors and residents to the city, while suburbs would emerge on the Cuban side of the city boundary. As in the case of Hong Kong, the territory would eventually be returned to Cuban control, with a special administrative treaty shaping how the city would be governed.



However, he argues, it is something to which cities should devote more attention. “Stimulating enough raw creativity in a community serves as the precursor to innovation,” he says. “This innovation, when nurtured, turns into a much more sustainable form of economic development.”

City branding: Messaging for the metropolis In the same way that companies need to advertise their products and services, civic leaders, planners and strategists need to be touting their cities’ strengths constantly in order to attract companies to invest in their economies. A city’s image also helps it to build and retain the vibrant, creative populations from which companies hire their employees.

In marketing themselves, some cities have it easy. Historic buildings and architectural monuments, seats of government and ancient academic centres guarantee many cities a place at the top of the metropolitan league tables.

These big city brands exert a powerful pull—for example, despite their threats to desert London in favour of better tax breaks in Switzerland, few bankers or hedge funds have actually done so. Meanwhile, 73% of respondents to our survey believe that their city’s image helps it attract important industries. For others, a strong dose of creativity is needed to establish the brand recognition that will help their cities compete socially, economically and culturally.

Even big-brand cities face outdated views about what they represent. “If you ask someone in Tokyo or Moscow who’s not visited London what they know about London, in Tokyo, you’ll get Sherlock Holmes and in Moscow, you’ll get Charles Dickens and fog,” says Wally Olins, chairman of Saffron Brand Consultants. “The levels of misunderstanding are vast for almost any city.”

To correct this, or build up a new image, cities need to be ready to spend money. Toronto, in Canada, invested US$�m in its Toronto Branding Project, launched in 2005. Part of the funding went on brand development and marketing, and consumer research was undertaken to identify what differentiated Toronto from other cities.

“Starchitects”–celebrity architects—can also help to put cities on the map. Since the Guggenheim Bilbao Museum opened its doors in 1997, Frank Gehry’s iconic design for the building has propelled to international stardom the once little-known Spanish industrial city in which it is located. If Bilbao is anything to go by, then, the lesson for civic authorities seems to be that one way of creating distinction in an undistinguished city is to build it. But some cities struggle to find or develop their identities, and instead try to mimic the characteristics of others. “The tendency is to study the best practices and copy what’s safe because it’s been proven elsewhere,” says Ms Coletta. “But you need to do something new and stand out in a way that makes you different—and that’s a very difficult thing to get cities to understand.”

Ms Coletta cites the much-emulated Millennium Park in Chicago. “You can pull it off the first time, but once you have the fifth version and people claim it’s their answer to Millennium Park, no one gets excited any more. Then you’re an also-ran.”

The trick for cities is to recognise what they cannot be and to identify and emphasise their differentiating characteristics. “Cities have to go though a painful process,” says Mr Clark. “It’s about accepting constraints moving beyond rhetoric into reality.”

“You need to do something new and stand out in a way that makes you different—and that’s a very difficult thing to get cities to understand.”Carol Coletta, CEOs for Cities



The new economy?Portland, Oregon, is one city that has gone through that process. The city conducted an analysis of both its local industrial strengths and of the industries likely to show most growth nationally or globally. It identified four industries—advanced manufacturing, clean technology and sustainability, digital development and open source software, and active wear—and is now focusing on those. “We’re not the size of the Seattle area and we don’t have the profile or the economic heft of San Francisco,” says Portland’s mayor, Sam Adams, “so we have to be more clever and agile.”

Policymakers are learning that industrial strength is only one path towards developing a strong brand. For Copenhagen, green city solutions are seen as a way to compete. The city’s goal is to become carbon neutral by 2025, and plans to develop an international laboratory for foreign investment in the field of clean technology. “Every city should find its core strength and invite business and universities into partnerships to develop that core strength,” says its mayor, Mr Jensen.

Mr Adams agrees. “Any city worth its salt will tell you that the welcome mat is open for business,” he says. “But when you’re making additional investments to keep what you have, to grow and to recruit others to come to your city, you have to work from strengths.”

Mr Carter, of Centre for Cities, warns policymakers against too much bullishness. “Our research has shown that UK policymakers probably need to be a little bit more pragmatic in some of their business growth aspirations,” he says. “For example, almost 70% of England’s cities have identified the creative

Infosys in Bangalore

In Bangalore’s extraordinary transition from a dusty town to a thriving IT hub that is home to more than 600,000 IT executives, Infosys has played a leading role. The IT services company has developed a large campus at Electronics City—based on Microsoft’s in Seattle—that is one of India’s largest industrial parks, and representatives from the company sit on many city and state committees.

However, T.V. Mohandas Pai, a member of the board at Infosys, believes that the urban policymakers should be playing a greater role in attracting other businesses to the city. “We want the city to market Bangalore and improve its image so that more and more companies in similar industries will come and settle here, which creates an ecosystem,” he says. “This ecosystem generates vibrancy and innovation.”

He adds that developing the softer side of city liveability has also yet to receive sufficient attention. “The focus in Bangalore has not been on quality of

life so far in terms of arts and culture,” he says. “The city is not doing as much as it should in that respect.”

However, for the company, influencing the development of the city means striking a careful balance between stepping up and holding back. “We don’t want to be seen as having a disproportionate share of the city’s attention,” says Mr Mohandas Pai. “The city has to articulate how it’s going to grow and then invite stakeholders to participate.”

At the same time, he believes that before this can happen, Bangalore needs stronger governance and leadership. “The challenge in Bangalore is that we don’t have a permanent city administration or an executive mayor,” he says. “We have to get the legal structures in place.”

While this may be a source of frustration for Infosys, the phenomenon is not an unusual one. Ultimately, many city administrations still require the approval of state and national governments before they can act. Mr Mohandas Pai believes this needs to change. “Unless you fix the governance model, dramatic improvement cannot take place,” he says.



industries sector as a strength that’s worth supporting. The problem with that is, when you look at the statistics, a lot of these places just don’t have that big a concentration of creative industry workers. The desire to have creative industries, life sciences or an advanced manufacturing sector is totally understandable, but it needs to be grounded in a realistic assessment of a city’s position.”

Shrinking cities

Many cities seem to work under an unofficial mantra of “bigger is better”. But that’s not the case in the Sachsen-Anhalt region of eastern Germany, where the motto of an urban regeneration scheme, International Building Exhibition (IBA), is “Less Is Future”.

Sachsen-Anhalt’s population has fallen by 17% since Germany’s reunification, and continues to fall. Today it is around 2.�m; Karl-Heinz Daehre, the region’s minister for regional development and transport, predicts that it will fall to 1.5m by 2060 if policies remain unchanged.

By 2050, 70% of the world’s population is expected to be urban. But while most cities are growing, one in every four cities is shrinking, according to Professor Philipp Oswalt, head of both the IBA and the Bauhaus Foundation in Dessau. But embracing shrinkage, the IBA argues, can be a stimulus for re-inventing cities that are smaller, and promoting their quality of life.

Professor Oswalt took the notion of shrinking cities as a potentially positive phenomenon to Detroit, Michigan, whose population has fallen from 1.85m in 1950 to just 790,000 today. In the autumn of 2010, Detroit’s mayor, Dave Bing embarked upon a series of heated town hall meetings to present his controversial plan to demolish 10,000 of the city’s empty homes by the end of 2013, and to revitalise the urban core by “greening” it.

With a budget deficit of more than US$300m, Mr Bing has closed more than 60 schools and cannot pay enough fire-fighters to combat blazing houses. Unemployment is officially around 28% and one in three lives below the poverty line. There is no hospital for the uninsured in downtown Detroit (although there are three casinos).

Sachsen-Anhalt faced similar problems, albeit on

a less dramatic scale, and took earlier action to try to manage urban shrinkage in its cities—the inner cores of cities like Magdeburg and Halle had been neglected for decades, in favour of new town suburbs. Now politicians and planners have embarked on “re-urbanisation” of inner cities, with tower blocks knocked down to create “green corridors” linking hubs of collective activity, including small businesses, artistic communities and conference facilities. In the surrounding country reindustrialisation is encouraged through incentives such as solar and wind energy projects. The region plans to be wholly weaned off fossil fuels by 2060.

Eastern Germany has benefited from €1.5trn (US$1.9trn) in financial transfers from the federal government and EU since reunification in 1990 and unemployment is now, finally, below 10%. But this money is now running out—it is even becoming too costly to demolish housing—and it has not stopped shrinkage. This has led to scepticism about longer-term prospects for some of these shrinking European cities. “Some of these cities will be abandoned completely, utterly devastated,” says Regina Sonnabend, an urban planner at the Bauhaus Foundation.

But in the US, whose population is expected to grow by 1�0m by 2050, the outlook is more positive. Terry Schwarz, director of Cleveland Urban Design Collaborative at Kent State University, says that Cleveland, where she lives, has seen its population more than halve over the last 60 years. Now, she says, it is on the verge of a transformation unlike anything she has seen in her 20-year career.

“We have to find a way to accommodate this rapid growth while reducing our national carbon footprint,” she says. “I think the gradual repopulation of post-industrial cities in the US must be part of this equation.”



As well as generating wealth and employment, businesses play a central part in developing a city’s quality of life—by investing in the built environment, by funding cultural venues and events and

by engaging in other forms of corporate philanthropy. As city governments struggle with tightening budgets, civic leaders are looking for ways to

leverage private sector investment so that they can deliver the infrastructure and amenities that their cities need. In the UK, for example, city leaders are looking at the idea of schemes called local asset-backed vehicles, by which local government combines its land assets with private sector investment in order to help fund regeneration projects. In this way, they hope to continue to be able to invest in the built environment, despite a sharp contraction in public capital investment. “City leaders are looking for new ways of getting infrastructure projects funded in partnership with the private sector,” says Andrew Carter. “Without that, they’re going to suffer from a period of very low investment in their built environments”.

For companies, philanthropy is only partly altruistic. “There’s self-interest in a larger context, which is that as a business you are more successful if the community is successful,” says Stanley Litow, head of corporate citizenship and corporate affairs at IBM, and president of the IBM International Foundation. “A city that’s absorbed with a transportation crisis or public safety crisis is unstable, and that has an impact on all the operations in that city including business.”

In Atlanta, the Atlanta BeltLine—a US$2.8bn redevelopment project that will create a network of public parks, trails and transit systems along a historic railway corridor—has received financial support from companies such as Cox Enterprises, an Atlanta media group, and Kaiser Permanente, a healthcare group. “Those corporations are looking at the Atlanta BeltLine as a way of keeping Atlanta competitive,” says an urban designer and senior associate at Perkins+Will, Ryan Gravel, who developed the idea for the BeltLine project.

But delivering city liveability is not only about delivering infrastructure. For example, companies have long played a role in supporting the recreational side of their cities. And there are business benefits—corporate sponsorship of the arts, recreational amenities, sports and entertainment can provide attractive branding opportunities.

Moreover, corporate leaders know that the presence of these amenities can help make their cities

Key points

n Asbudgetsshrink,civicleadersarelookingfornewwaystopartnerwiththeprivatesectortomaintainandimproveliveability.

n Theprivatesectorisalsoplayingalargerroleinhelpingcitiesbecomegreener.

n Businessplaysanincreasinglyimportantroleinraisingcities’profile.

Part III: Business helps build city liveability



more attractive to the workforces they need to employ. Respondents to our survey make the same connection—85% agree that the cultural and social attributes of cities are as important to business as good infrastructure. Many companies make the link between availability of cultural amenities and availability of talented workers; Deutsche Bank, for example, is a major sponsor of the arts in London, even though it is headquartered in Frankfurt. “[The bank] could have focused on Frankfurt,” says Colin Tweedy, chief executive of Arts & Business, a UK-based organisation that connects companies to cultural organisations. “But their employees love being in London because it’s hip and stylish and that’s why they sponsor major exhibitions there.”

Big corporate sponsorship deals can help civic authorities to provide more of what makes a city appealing, underwriting programmes that municipal governments would find hard to fund. In the past, this has brought cities everything from libraries and art galleries to concert halls and sports stadiums, as dominant companies have sought to boost their prestige in the city in which they are headquartered.

However, the relationship between businesses and the cities in which they operate is changing. No longer is there necessarily a strong correlation between corporate philanthropy and company headquarters, as the Deutsche Bank sponsorship approach demonstrates. As companies become more global, their philanthropic efforts are becoming less closely associated with individual cities. Waves of corporate consolidation have seen smaller businesses with strong local allegiances snapped up by multinationals with a global agenda.

Companies still tend to have close relationship with their local educational institutions. Even here, however initiatives can take a broader, more regional approach. In Latin America and the Caribbean, for example, companies such as Nokia, Alcatel-Lucent and Microsoft support Entra 21, a regional program providing disadvantaged young people with employment training. While residents in metropolitan areas across the region benefit, the programme makes no explicit links with specific cities.

In some cases, corporate largesse is distributed far beyond a company’s home base. “New business leaders in sectors such as IT have a different ethos in terms of their philanthropic responsibilities,” says ICIC’s Ms Lynch. “There’s still a great sense of responsibility but [Microsoft founder Bill] Gates, for example is looking at global disease rather than putting up cultural monuments in cities.”

Of course, the role of business in the success of cities goes beyond philanthropy or sponsorship. Through their profit-making activities, companies deliver services such as electricity supplies and communications technologies. In our survey, 65% of respondents see the private sector as best placed to deliver energy while 93% look to business for the most efficient telecommunications delivery and 5�% see waste management as best handled by companies.

Increasingly, however, companies are also playing a role in fostering another element of an appealing city—its greenness. While in our survey, 22% of respondents believe that their city’s leaders should make reducing environmental impact a priority, local governments realise they need the technical know-how of the private sector to help them do so. In Copenhagen, the mayor is working to involve the private sector in the city’s mission to become carbon neutral. “We cannot reach this goal alone,” says the city’s mayor, Mr Jensen. “We need public and private partners that are interested in developing green city solutions.”

“We cannot reach this goal alone. We need public and private partners interested in developing green city solutions.”Copenhagen’s mayor Frank Jensen on the city’s aim to become carbon neutral



Meanwhile, businesses and industry associations can act as ambassadors for their city, helping bring in new enterprises. Almost one-third of respondents to our survey feel that this should be a priority for civic leaders, but Greg Clark believes that the message is more effective when it comes from the private sector. “Businesses can talk to the rest of the world about why it’s good to do business in their city,” he says. “That’s much more powerful than the city government talking about it.”

Banking on bikes

Since July 2010, certain corners of London have become home to a new form of public transport—bicycles for hire. Along with the Transport for London roundel logo in the bikes’ livery is the bright blue logo of Barclays, the bank that has sponsored the scheme. So while the scheme is getting more Londoners to use a new form of public transport, it is also an example of how corporate philanthropy is penetrating further into the services that contribute to city liveability.

Users sign up for membership, pay a membership fee and can then pick up and deposit the bikes at docking stations around the city; journeys of less than 30 minutes are free of charge. Visitors can also buy casual access. Since the scheme was launched, more than 2m journeys have been made on the bikes, while some 100,000 or more members have signed up to use the service.

Barclays made a successful bid to sponsor the scheme via an open tender process that was run by Transport for London. As part of its five-year sponsorship, the bank is investing up to £25m

(US$39m) in Barclays Cycle Hire and Barclays Cycle Superhighways, new cycle lanes into central London from outer London.

For Barclays, the branding rewards from funding these schemes are clear—the distinctively-coloured machines catch the eye as they make their way through London or sit in ranks on street corners. However, the investment will bring the company other benefits too, including bolstering the bank’s environmental credentials.

“Branding is one benefit of our sponsorship,” says Deanna Oppenheimer, chief executive of UK retail banking and Western Europe, and vice-chair of global retail banking at Barclays. “But it is also about making a positive contribution to society in London. The schemes have clear benefits of partnering Barclays with a sustainable and environmentally friendly mode of transport.”

Ms Oppenheimer also points to another, longer-term benefit for the bank of being involved in this kind of scheme. “More cyclists on London’s roads will help to create a friendly, attractive city with more pleasant shared spaces,” she says. “This is vital if London is to continue to attract bright, talented people to live and work in the city.”



Our survey of urban professionals shows that a city’s liveability plays an important role in making it a more attractive place for workers and businesses. But when they are exploring ways to boost

economic growth in their cities, policymakers’ first priority must be to find ways in which to stimulate job growth, primarily by making sure that the basics of infrastructure are in the right place. Of course, liveability has a role in attracting skilled workers to a city. But this should not be overplayed, especially in the face of longer-term forces of change across economies. Ultimately, policymakers have limited power to counteract these trends, whether it is by improving liveability, business support or skills.

The point this makes is that above all, urban policymakers need to be flexible and realistic in the strategies they adopt to promote business growth in different areas. After all, the route to growth remains far from clear, particularly in times of economic volatility. Improving a city’s liveability is an important goal regardless of its impact on economic growth, but its value as an economic development strategy seems likely to vary from place to place, and depends greatly on the circumstances prevailing in each location. Policymakers should pay heed to this reality when formulating their plans. And they should question the wisdom of advice that offers them a quick fix to deep-rooted problems.

Conclusion

22 © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2011

AppendixSurvey results


25

10

10

5

4

4

3

3

2

2

2

2

United States of America

United Kingdom

India

Canada

Australia

Singapore

Hong Kong

Germany

China

Brazil

Mexico

Switzerland

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

Italy

Spain

Malaysia

Sweden

Japan

Belgium

Denmark

Netherlands

Where are you personally located? (Top 20 locations; % respondents)

Appendix: Survey results




39

29

24

21

15

14

11

9

8

3

8

To seek better work opportunities

I was born here/it has always been my home

I was posted here by my employer

To be closer to family/friends

To go to school or university, or to be near to better schools or universities

For culture/nightlife

For greater personal freedom

For existing relationship/To find new relationship

For safety/security considerations

For healthcare considerations

Other

What were your main motivations in coming to your city? Select up to three. (% respondents)

4

6

15

21

20

34

Less than one year

1-2 years

2-5 years

5-10 years

10-20 years

More than 20 years

Don’t know

How long have you lived in this city, and for how much longer do you believe you will live there?(% respondents) Have lived Plan to live

4

6

15

14

15

27

19

Economic (business/employment opportunities)

Social (safety, culture, housing, community relations)

Infrastructure (roads/transport, utilities)

Environmental (air/water quality)

Based on recent trends, how do you expect your city will perform in the following categories? Select one in each row (% respondents)

51

37

26

26

39

49

47

47

9

14

26

26

1

1

1

1

Well Moderately Poorly Don't know/not applicable

2� © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2011



34

36

20

9

1

Excellent

Above average

Average

Below average

Poor

How would you rate the overall relative quality of life in your city, thinking broadly about factors such as the local standard of living, natural environment and work opportunities? (% respondents)

30

43

19

7

1

As a place to live As a place to work

Student

First job

Career development

Family/raising children

Retirement

If you had a choice, in which environment would you prefer to live at the following stages of your life? Select one in each row. (% respondents)

70

81

73

18

19

10 1

3

3

24 4

42 15

20

16

24

53

24

Inner city urban Suburban/city outskirts Smaller town/villageRural

58

47

44

34

28

23

20

17

17

6



Safety and security








In your view, which factors are most important to you in making a city an attractive place in which to live and work? Select up to three. (% respondents)




59

35

30

27

23

20

16

15

15

10

6




Safety and security







Other

What would be the primary things you would improve/change in your city to make life less stressful and/or improve the quality of life there? (% respondents)

57

38

37

31

30

25

10

10

7

7

7

Pressure on public services, eg healthcare, schools

Migration into the city

Economic uncertainty

Pollution levels

Crime and safety

Shortage of jobs

Migration away from the city

Availability of clean water

Labour/social unrest

Political instability

Availability of clean energy

What do you think will be the most critical pressures on your city in the next 3 to 5 years? Select up to three. (% respondents)




63

54

37

21

21

20

18

12

8

2

10

Access to talent/labour

City has a high profile nationally/internationally, and a good reputation

Transport links to other key cities/markets

Cost of talent/labour

Affordability/cost of living

Good local governance/political stability

Safe and secure environment

Beneficial tax/regulatory regime

Good healthcare

Access to raw materials

Other

What do you feel are the primary benefits for your company or organisation in being located in your city? Select up to three. (% respondents)

61

33

32

29

27

25

22

15

12

11

7

Improving public transport/roads

Improving schooling/education

Encouraging multinational companies to set up business

Improving safety and security

Raising the city's profile and improving its reputation

Reducing corruption

Reducing environmental impact

Supporting local businesses ahead of multinationals

Improving healthcare facilities and access to care

Attracting major sporting/cultural events

Other

What do you think should be the main priorities for your city's mayor/leadership in order to make your city more competitive for business? Select up to three. (% respondents)




44

34

34

32

26

23

23

23

22

20

18

Financial services

Professional services

Education

IT and technology

Entertainment, media and publishing

Construction and real estate

Healthcare, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology

Logistics and distribution

Retailing

Transportation, travel and tourism

Energy and natural resources

Government/Public sector:Local authority (city, community, municipality)17

17

17

14

13

13

12

10

9

6

Telecommunications

Government/Public sector:National or Federal authority

Consumer goods

Government/Public sector:Regional authority (state, province)

Automotive

Manufacturing

Chemicals

Aerospace/Defence

Agriculture and agribusiness

In which of the following industry sectors would you say your city is most competitive? (% respondents)

Immigrant workers

Foreign direct investment

Tourists

Global retail brands

International sporting/cultural events

Trading links

Imported ideas and culture

How open is your city to the following? (% respondents)

42

61

75

67

58

57

42

43

28

20

25

28

32

40

11

6

4

7

12

9

15

3 1

1 3

1

1 1

1 1

1 3

2 1

Very open Somewhat open Not especially open Opposed Don't know/not applicable




Public transport

Energy provision

Telecommunications

Parks/natural environment

School/education

Healthcare

Crime

Waste management

Social housing

Who do you think would be most effective in providing the following services in your city? (% respondents)

63

32

6

73

50

44

85

39

53

33

65

93

11

42

53

6

54

25

2 1

1 2

1

15 1

6

2

1

1

5 4

6 1

18 4

Public sector Private sector Local community/volunteer sector Don't know/not applicable

56

40

37

36

34

27

26

23

22

19

12

Public transport/roads

Schools/educational facilities

Reduced pollution/better air quality

Parks/natural environment

Police/security

Recreational facilities

Healthcare facilities

Waste management

Basic services (eg, water, electricity, internet)

Childcare facilities

Social housing

Which of the following amenities in your city would you be prepared to pay more for, either directly or in the form of higher taxes, to improve their quality? Select all that apply (% respondents)

My city’s image helps it to attract important industries

The cultural and social attributes of cities are as important to business as good infrastructure

My organisation is located here because it can access a happy, healthy workforce

To what degree do you agree or disagree with the following? (% respondents)

30

37

15

43

48

43

15

10

32

9

5

7

1

1

3

2

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know




3

24

33

31

9

19-25

26-35

36-45

46-60

61-80

How old are you? (% respondents)

58

22

17

3

Married, children

Single

Married, no children

Prefer not to say

Which of the following best describes your relationship status? (% respondents)

59

41

Life in my city is getting better

Life in my city is getting tougher

Which statement best describes your view of life in your city? (% respondents)

My city is a leader in making environmental improvements to make it more liveable for citizens

Urban “quality of life” is just a rich city concern—poor cities can’t hope to offer it

In my city there is a strong sense of participation and contribution to the local community

Cultural tolerance and good community relations are essential in making a city attractive as a place to live and work

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following?(% respondents)

4

8

192128329

224361520

110242729

2 254646

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know




61

21

10

3

2

1

1

1

I do not own a business but am an employee

I am an owner/manager

I run/am a partner in a company of which I was a founder

I run/am a partner in a subsidiary of a larger group

I am a family member within a family business

I am retired

I am not currently working

I run/am a partner in a company that I purchased

What is your current work situation? (% respondents)

30

30

28

6

4

2

Asia-Pacific

North America

Western Europe

Latin America

Middle East and Africa

Eastern Europe

In which region are you personally based? (% respondents)

93

4

1

0

1

1

Full-time

Part-time

Retired

Student

Unemployed

Prefer not to say

Which of the following best describes your employment status? (% respondents)

While every effort has been taken to verify the accuracy of this information, neither The Economist Intelligence Unit Ltd. nor the sponsor of this report can accept any responsibility or liability for reliance by any person on this white paper or any of the information, opinions or conclusions set out in this white paper.

Cover image - © Petrenko Andriy/Shutterstock

LONDON26 Red Lion SquareLondon WC1R 4HQUnited KingdomTel: (44.20) 7576 8000Fax: (44.20) 7576 8500E-mail: [email protected]

NEW YORK750 Third Avenue5th FloorNew York, NY 10017United StatesTel: (1.212) 554 0600Fax: (1.212) 586 1181/2E-mail: [email protected]

HONG KONG6001, Central Plaza18 Harbour RoadWanchai Hong KongTel: (852) 2585 3888Fax: (852) 2802 7638E-mail: [email protected]

GENEVABoulevard des Tranchées 161206 GenevaSwitzerlandTel: (41) 22 566 2470Fax: (41) 22 346 93 47E-mail: [email protected]