Description
Greg Clark is a city and regional development advisor, speaker, and facilitator, with 20 years experience, principally in leadership roles in city agencies in London.
The British Council is the United Kingdom’s internacional organisation for educational opportunities and cultural
relations. Our purpose is to build mutually beneficial relationships between people in the UK and other countries and
to increase appreciation of the UK’s creative ideas and achievements. We are registered in England as a charity.
© British Council
We thank the group of cities willing to take our proposition forward into a 2-3 years project. Their objective will be to
better understand the impact of openness and diversity in cities and the local factors that influence such success.
Towards
Greg Clark (Ed.)
Introduction
2
First Published in 2008 by:
British Council
Martínez Campos 31
28010 Madrid
Author: Greg Clark
Copy Editor: Carolina Jiménez
Design: www.baetica.com
@ British Council
ISBN: 978-84-612-2121-9
D.L.: M-8868-2008
Print: Lerko Print S.A.
Acknowledgements
Thanks are due to Carolina Jiménez at British Council Madrid, who commissioned this
paper, to Laura Ciof? who provided research support for this paper, and to Jan de Vet
from ECOTEC Research and Consulting in Brussels who gave permission to use the EU
State of the Cities Report typology and background descriptions. Thanks are also to
Emily Pinder, Laura Gledhill, and Andrew Voysey who provided research input on city
indexes and internationalisation.
The Author
Greg Clark is a city and regional development advisor, speaker, and facilitator, with 20 years
experience, principally in leadership roles in city agencies in London, UK, and advisory
roles with many cities/regions, Governmental and inter-Governmental organisations,
internationally. He currently holds a portfolio of core roles; including Lead Advisor on
City, Regional, and Economic Development at the Department for Communities and
Local Government, UK, and Advisor to the OECD, British Council, and Urban Land Institute
on City and Regional Development. He is also chairman of the OECD LEED Forum of
Development Agencies and Investment Strategies. www.citiesandregions.com.
Disclaimer
The British Council is not responsible for the contents of any external website referred
to in this publication.
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 5
(by Chris Hickey)
Section One: Cities and Internationalisation ...................................................................... 9
1.1. Why OPENCities? .......................................................................................................... 11
1.2. The Context of OPENCities ...................................................................................... 14
1.3. Drivers and trends in immigration and human mobility ............................. 17
1.4. The role of Cities in immigration and human mobility ................................ 20
1.5. Who are the migrants? ............................................................................................... 29
1.6. Strategies of cities to attract and retain international populations ...... 33
1.7. City Types and Population Attraction .................................................................. 37
1.8. Competitive advantages of diversity to Cities and their nations ........... 49
1.9. Factors of Openness in cities .................................................................................. 54
1.10. The role of social integration of migrants ......................................................... 56
1.11. Recent Studies on Cultural Diversity in Cities ................................................ 58
1.12. Principles for Open Cities Leadership ............................................................... 62
Section Two: Population Change in European Cities ................................................. 65
2.1. Population change in Cities ....................................................................................... 67
2.2. Apparent Trends in Population Change .............................................................. 68
2.3. Where do Europe’s cities grow or stagnate? .................................................... 74
2.4. Challenges for Cities with Population Changes ............................................... 76
2.5. Population Change and Openness ........................................................................ 78
Section Three: Indexes or Kitemarks of City Openness? ........................................ 81
3.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 83
3.2. Key Ingredients .............................................................................................................. 84
3.3. Ingredients for an OPENCities Index ................................................................... 84
3.4. Learning from existing indexes: Measuring City Performance ............... 85
3.5. Issues associated with Benchmarks, Reports and Indexes ..................... 86
3.6. Reports, Benchmarks and Indexes ...................................................................... 87
3.7. Examples of City Indexes .......................................................................................... 89
Section Four: Local Leadership and Local Planning for OPENCities ........... 105
4.1. Towards Leadership of OPENCities ................................................................... 107
4.2. Local Strategies and Plans .................................................................................... 109
4.3. Does a city need an internationalisation strategy? .................................... 116
4.4. Ten principles for city internationalisation .................................................... 121
4.5. Implications for Local Leadership and Strategies of OPENCities ....... 123
Annex I: Collaborating European Cities ......................................................................... 125
1. Intro to case studies methodology ................................................................................ 127
2. Participating Cities Case Studies .................................................................................... 129
2.1. Belfast .............................................................................................................................. 129
2.2. Bilbao ............................................................................................................................... 131
2.3. Cardiff .............................................................................................................................. 134
2.4. Dublin ............................................................................................................................... 138
2.5. Düsseldorf ..................................................................................................................... 141
2.6. Gdansk ............................................................................................................................ 144
2.7. Madrid ............................................................................................................................. 145
2.8. So?a ................................................................................................................................... 148
2.9. Vienna ............................................................................................................................. 149
3. Case Studies Conclusions ................................................................................................ 154
4. Case Studies References ................................................................................................... 156
Annex II: Global Case Studies ................................................................................................ 159
1. Birmingham: Cultural diversity as an asset and opportunity ........................... 161
1.1. Cultural diversity: as an asset and opportunity ......................................... 163
2. Dubai: moving fast towards a knowledge based economy ............................. 164
3. Hong Kong: Settlement of Immigrants ......................................................................... 166
4. London: Global City, Global Population, Global Companies ............................. 167
5. Los Angeles ............................................................................................................................. 169
5.1. Los Angeles Foreign Born, 2005 ....................................................................... 169
6. Miami: an international trade centre ............................................................................. 170
7. Malmö: Regionalism and Infrastructure .................................................................... 172
7.1. Regionalisation .......................................................................................................... 173
7.2. Collaboration ................................................................................................................ 174
8. Rotterdam: Culture, diversity, and development ................................................... 175
9. Singapore: a hub strategy ............................................................................................... 178
10. Toronto: Settlement and Employment of Immigrants ......................................... 181
5
Introduction
By Chris Hickey
Director British Council, Spain
6
Introduction
By Chris Hickey
This publication presents a short summary of the thinking and re?ection which has
gone into scoping the options for the development of our OPENCities project. It de-
scribes the point we are at now, and I hope provides a good basis for future work. The
initial de?nition of openness outlined in chapter 1 is the starting point for the project.
This is a collaboration project between the British Council and City Governments in
Europe, which is seeking European Commission support. It aims to develop a robust
understanding of the potential for cities to more fully embrace the opportunities
presented by international population ?ows. In an internationally open knowledge
driven economy human capital is an essential, but highly mobile economic asset. Cities
that seek to succeed in knowledge driven economies have to:
Build up human capital
Attract human capital from outside
Retain human capital.
To service globally trading activities a diverse international population base can be very
important. To maintain good quality local services migrants can also play an important
part. Cities that want to attract and retain international populations have to be ‘open’
cities that create a good ‘offer’ for international workers and foster a local climate that
recognises and welcomes diversity and provides freedom of thought and speech.
Our network of partner cities in the OPENCities project will work on establishing:
i. A de?nition of “Open-ness” for cities, based on economic, regulatory, cultural, amen-
ity, accessibility or risk factors and an examination of how cities can shape how they
attract and retain new populations.
ii. A set of guidelines and best practice examples on how diversity in cities can help
drive success.
iii. A diagnostic tool for cities to test their open-ness pro?le and the degree to which
they include the potential and contribution of migrants in their planning.
iv. A publication aimed at national, regional & local policy makers as well as to the
general public.
v. A series of high-pro?le international conferences to disseminate and contrasts our
?ndings & cultural, educational, social activities to widen the debate.
vi. An agreed World Wide ‘City Openness Index or Kitemark’ and a network of
OPENCities.
The OPENCities project addresses issues of central importance in Europe, the UK and
across the world. We are proud of the dynamic relationships we are developing with
and between European and non-European City governments and of their commitment
to engage in a collaborative 3-year project. I am con?dent that our joint efforts will
make a real contribution to de?ning and extending the concept of “openness” for cities
in the modern world.
Apart from the cities directly involved, we are grateful to the many people and institu-
tions who have supported us thus far: the UK’s Department for Communities and Local
Government, the Migration Policy Group, the Maytree Foundation, BAK Basel Econom-
ics ECOTEC Research Consulting and Eurocities. Without their interest and support,
expertise and critical comments, we would not have come this far.
Chris Hickey
February 2008
9
Section One:
Cities and
Internationalisation
Internationalisation, Openness, and the Competitive
Advantage of Diversity
10
Cities and
Internationalisation
Introduction
1.1. Why OPENCities?
We live in a global age where cities have become the junction boxes of international
interactions at the local level. Cities variously play roles as hosts of global events, loca-
tions for international companies, and destinations for international visitors.
If there is a new consensus about the success of cities, it is that they should
align themselves with the opportunities created by globalisation and continental
integration and play a more international set of roles in a more open environment.
Freed from some of the rigid characteristics of old urban hierarchies within national
economies and national states, they are free to internationalise their roles and
functions in new ways.
In the British Council Project, The City of the Future, we traced the importance of large
scale drivers of economic globalisation, population mobility, technological advance,
climate change, and continental governance to cities, and we assessed how eight were
responding.
One theme that consistently emerged was the desire of cities to attract and retain
international populations. Such populations, as we shall see, are not only seen to
contribute to the labour force, but also to add enormously to the quality of life and
the wider attractiveness of the city for international ?rms, events and investors. In
certain economic niches international talent is essential and a multi-lingual and
globally connected labour force can help promote international economic roles in
a city.
So, in this project we are focussing on the theme of the internationalisation of city
populations, as one of the important realms in which cities can adjust to international
change and to the demand of modern ?rms, investors, visitors, and traders.
11
1. Cities and Internationalisation
12
Two key facts underpin our approach:
Cities do not have control over immigration rules and systems, which are the
preserve of national governments.
Not all cities are equally attractive to international populations, and some cities
appear to internationalise their population quicker than others, even within the
same national systems.
We are therefore interested in the local variables (the city dimension) that cause
international populations to settle in one city rather than another. An understanding
of this will allow us to draw conclusions on what cities can do to be more attractive to
international populations in the context of their given national immigration systems.
We use the terms Openness and OPENCities, to refer to the local conditions that appear
to attract and retain international populations. Our working de?nition of Openness is
simply stated:
Openness is the quality and sum of the local conditions that attract and retain international
populations over time.
We assume that cities will be:
More or less open in sum, and that cities operating within the same national systems
will demonstrate different level of openness.
More or less open in some aspects of the city’s life than in others.
More or less open in different ways, perhaps shaped by their history, location,
current pre-occupations and that ‘city types’ may be helpful in understanding
different degrees or qualities of openness.
More or less open to different population groups, re?ecting historical positions,
cultural norms, and other factors.
In this OPENCities project we aim to better de?ne and understand openness and
to provide cities with much better means of assessing their own openness and of
developing and delivering practical leadership and strategies to make themselves
open to international populations - as one plank of their strategy for engaging with
an increasingly international world. We set out to develop practical answers to 10 key
questions:
i. Why do some cities appear to be more attractive to international populations
despite similar national frameworks and conditions? Can cities take effective
actions locally to make themselves more open to international populations? What
will make such local actions successful?
ii. What is city openness and how to de?ne what makes OPENCities - considering
number of factors – economic, regulatory, cultural, amenity, connectivity, risks,
13
leadership and internationalisation ? How can we better de?ne and measure these
factors? How do they affect one another?
iii. What are the different starting points of selected cities within the EU in terms of City
types, economic structure, immigration history, location, stage of development and
how do these affect the attractiveness of the cities for international populations?
iv. What role does the social and economic integration of migrants play in city
competitiveness and the attraction of further international human capital? For
example, does an integrated city offer a more attractive environment for higher
skilled international knowledge workers? Does an integrated city make better use
of its existing human capital?
v. How do different groups of international workers respond to different factors of
openness? For example, are international workers in different age and income
groups, in different economic sectors, or from different parts of the world, sensitive
to different local factors?
vi. What measures and programmes do various European cities have in place in
terms of local population attraction strategies, international promotion, settlement
services, employment, education, and enterprise to facilitate the attraction and
retention of international populations?
vii. Can we explore the opportunity through exchange of best practice, peer reviews
and development of case studies to develop and test the use of local action plans
and strategies, and co-ordinated action involving city stakeholders, to attract
international populations?
viii. Can we develop clear guidance for city leaders on how to increase and promote
the openness of cities to international populations?
ix. Can we develop an OPENCities ‘index’/framework to compare and benchmark
various European cities and to consider the potential for an internationally
recognised openness ‘standard’ or ‘kitemark’ for cities?
x. Given that cities across the EU have different powers, competences, and ?scal
systems, how can cities both manage their own open-ness and best in?uence
other local, regional, and national bodies to help make cities, and the EU, more
open to international talent? What leadership role can cities play?
This is a practical project with practical outcomes that will enable cities to take real steps
and to be con?dent about the steps they take to attract international populations.
1. Cities and Internationalisation
14
1.2. The Context of OPENCities
Cities are junction boxes for human mobility.
The case for OPENCities.
The quest for the OPENCities.
Building the approach.
The year 2007 represents a key milestone in human history. For the ?rst time, more
than half of the world’s population lives in urban areas, according to the 2006 UNPF
State of the World’s Population Report. The last century saw rapid urbanisation of the
world’s population, as the global proportion of urban population rose from 13% (220
million) in 1900, to 29% (732 million) in 1950, to 49% (3.2 billion) in 2005.
As urban areas – both smaller towns and cities, and larger cities and metropolitan areas -
continue to grow in size, about 5 billion people are expected to live in cities by 2030 - c 61%
of the global population of 8.1 billion, the UN predicts.
Figure 1: World Population (billions)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1900 1925 1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100
The 21
st
Century will have also to contend with another demographic issue: an ageing
population. The overall population size of the more developed countries is likely to show
little change over the next 43 years, remaining at about 1.2 billion. Fertility is below
replacement level in all 45 developed countries or areas, as well as in 28 developing
countries, including China. The population of developed regions is ageing and would
actually decline were it not for in-migration. The populations of Germany, Italy, Japan
and most of the successor states of the former Soviet Union are expected to be lower
in 2050 than they are today.
Source: UN Population Division and Statistics Division, 2005
15
Figure 2: % of total population aged 60 years or more.
2002
2050
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
10%
21%
5%
10%
9%
23%
20%
37%
8%
22%
16%
27%
W
o
r
l
d
A
f
r
i
c
a
A
s
i
a
E
u
r
o
p
e
L
a
t
i
n
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
&
C
a
r
i
b
e
a
n
N
o
r
t
h
e
m
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
These two demographic trends outline that whilst there will be ageing populations in
Europe, Japan and North America, young mobile populations will be provided by China,
India and Africa
Cities are the key gateways for international immigrants
Immigration is primarily an urban phenomenon. Cities around the world are being
shaped on political, economic, social and cultural dimensions by unprecedented levels
of global immigration. In the last ?fty years, immigration at a global scale has intensi?ed
as more countries (and hence cities) are impacted by migratory movements (Castles
and Miller, 2003). Through globalisation, rate of migration has accelerated, and the
diversity of origin points has increased. It is recognised that much of this immigration
is driven by economic factors, most notably wage differentials between countries.
But not all cities are equally open to international migrants. In the OPENCities project
we aim to ?nd out what openness is and to de?ne how cities can become more open.
What is an OPENCities?
Open-ness for a city has not yet been fully de?ned but we assert throughout this
document that it can include the combined inter-play of several key factors:
i. Economic factors: such as the availability of jobs, income, access to affordable
basic standards of living, and the comparable cost of living. Labour market and
housing market ?exibility and open-ness may be especially critical. Also important
Source: 2002, UN Population Division
1. Cities and Internationalisation
16
may be the approach of ?rms to innovation and co-operation, and their willingness
to embrace diversity as a potential source of future innovation.
ii. Regulatory factors: such as the overall immigration and asylum policies of the
country, coupled with any speci?c labour market, welfare bene?ts, land/home
ownership, service access, and other local/national regulations that may apply
differentially to foreigners.
iii. Cultural factors: such as the extent to which local culture and entertainment is
attractive to diverse audiences, as well as the propensity of the local population to
respect, celebrate, and enjoy diversity of culture.
iv. Amenity factors: including availability of generic amenities such as housing,
schools, hospitals, as well as more bespoke amenities such as places of worship,
community organisations, specialist support services, entertainment and leisure
choices, communities of interest, street signage, availability of interpretation/
translation, and other specialist services.
v. Connectivity and Accessibility factors: including ease of access to the city and
the potential it offers for connection to other places that are important sources
of opportunity or welfare. According to the Globalisation and World Cities Study
Group and Network
1
, the most connected cities are the most diverse ones.
vi. Internationalisation factors: such as the level of internationalisation in other
areas of city life including business events, fairs & conferences, international
organisations, leisure and culture. Cities as locations for international investments,
visitor destinations, or as centres for inter-governmental institutions, are important
factors in attracting diverse populations. Cities that have proactive approaches to
internationalisation tend to have developed clearer policies on becoming open to
international populations.
vii. Risk factors: such as the general perceptions of the stability of the local political
environment, coupled with other factors such as the perceived incidence of racial/
ethnic persecution or discrimination, or more general concerns about how likely
foreigners are to ‘succeed’ in the city concerned. A key variable may be the extent
to which there are active anti-discrimination policies which appear effective in
addressing many forms of disadvantage.
viii. Leadership factors: how proactive is the city in setting and pursuing an
agenda of open-ness, diversity, and tolerance? Does city leadership provide the
basis for ‘belonging’ and ‘inclusion’ and promote the bene?ts of diversity to the
city? This not only concerns understanding how diversity is an advantage in a
globalising age, but also long-standing issues of how to maintain civil order and
also new challenges — dealing with difference and different levels of wealth and
17
opportunity. Leadership is also a key factor in reaching out to speci?c communities
in order to understand immigrants’ perspectives, needs and interests as well as to
engage their support for developing the common good and shared urban spaces.
Leadership factors involve seeing openness as an asset that enriches the local
environment and makes a city more competitive on the world stage.
From a policy and programme perspective, this view would have municipal governments
working with other governments and with the voluntary and private sectors to remove
barriers and take advantage of opportunities arising from a city’s diverse character.
This approach of eight key factors of openness implies that different kinds of cities
might be differently ‘open’. We will explore this further below. The point here is that
because all cities are different, and because there are at least eight important factors
in how open a city is, there are bound to be different combinations of such factors,
producing not just different degrees of openness within cities, but also different kinds
of openness.
This simple observation leads to an important initial conclusion; cities will not become
more open by following a rigid formula, they will become more open by carefully
diagnosing their own openness, and by making progress on factors which are revealed
as the key constraints on their openness at this point.
The British Council OPENCities project aims to help. It is being designed to establish
an agreed de?nition of openness, build a diagnostic tool that cities can use, and then
support cities to develop a clearer action plan to address their openness.
1.3. Drivers and trends in immigration and human mobility
Globalisation.
The knowledge economy.
Travel and transport costs.
Continental integration and reduction of borders.
Technology.
Exile.
We are familiar with the way in which trade, business, and technological interaction has
increased in the past two decades.
1
Diversity and Power in the World City Network, P.J. Taylor, D.R.F. Walker, G. Catalano and M. Hoyler
1. Cities and Internationalisation
18
Globalisation and Immigration
We use the term globalisation to capture the complex nature of the increasing
integration of economies and societies around the world. Certainly, capital moves
globally and nation states are now placed in a dynamic and changing world as jobs
move ‘off shore’, manufacturing production is replaced by services, and the knowledge
industries change the nature and pace of inter-connections between countries.
Inexpensive telephone connections, cheap international travel and email exchanges
have linked the world in a way which is quite different from the period before the growth
of computers and information technology more broadly. Multinational corporations
manufacture products in many countries and sell to consumers around the world.
Simple statistics capture the nature and increasing reach and range of globalisation.
Trade between countries as a % of gross world product increased from about 15 %
in 1986 to nearly 27 % in 2006. Communication has changed – 30 % of the world’s
population are cell phone users and it is estimated that internet users will soon reach
a billion (Clark, 2006).
A 2002 issue of The Economist devoted itself to surveying migration concluding “it is
impossible to separate the globalisation of trade and capital from the global movement of
people” (Economist, 2002). Researchers Castles and Miller hold that “while movements
of people across borders have shaped states and societies since time immemorial,
what is distinctive in recent years is their global scope, their centrality to domestic and
international politics and their enormous economic and social consequences”.
Knowledge economy
In 2000, the conclusions of the presidency of the Lisbon European Council
established the goal of making the European Union the ‘most competitive and dynamic
knowledge-based economy in the world.’ In so doing, it explicitly acknowledged the
gap separating the EU from the present world leader – the USA – and announced
their intention to catch up within a ten-year period
2
.
Initially, there was no explicit spatial dimension, but the Lisbon Agenda has since
been linked directly to cities. For example, the longest section of a report called
‘Cities and the Lisbon Agenda’ was titled “Cities as engines of regional development”
(European Commission, 2006). In another report paving the way for the Structural
Funds 2007-2013, the Commission reiterated: ‘Cities and metropolitan areas are
drivers of economic development … creating growth, innovation and employment’
(European Commission, 2005).
‘The European Union will be most successful in pursuing its growth and jobs agenda,
2
A year earlier, the President of the United States had set a similar goal: “maintaining world leadership in
science, mathematics, and engineering” (NTSC 1999).
19
if all regions – especially those with the greatest potential for higher productivity and
employment – are able to play their part. Cities are essential in this effort. They are the
home of most jobs, businesses, and higher education institutions and are key actors
in achieving social cohesion. Cities are the centres of change, based on innovation,
entrepreneurship and business growth’ (European Commission, 2005).
This shift towards a recognition of the importance of cities in a knowledge led economy
also provides a link to immigration and human mobility. In a knowledge led economy,
human beings becoming the mobile economic assets upon which local and regional
economies can build their strategies. This means that the emphasis in local and regional
economic development is shifting: both towards strategies to internationalise the base
and trading relations of cities and regions, but also towards the goal of attracting,
retaining, creating, and/or expanding the base of knowledge and human capital in
a locality or a region. In other words, the shift is simultaneously towards people/
knowledge based and internationally oriented strategies.
Cities, in this case, can employ ‘incentivised immigration’ to build their stock of
knowledge assets and human talent more quickly than would be possible simply
through training and education of indigenous populations; although these are not
exclusive or alternative approaches. Cities want to attract a labour force that will in turn
attract private sector jobs, investment, and R&D. In summary, the knowledge economy
and globalisation simultaneously encourage both the mobility of people, and the
urbanisation of production. These two drivers, more than any other current thinking,
explain the growth of cities and the rise of immigration. But they also point to some
initial insights into what makes a city open:
In terms of economic factors, the presence of a dynamic stock of knowledge
economy jobs, and of globally trading and international ?rms.
In terms of regulatory factors, labour market ?exibility, a responsive welfare
system, and mechanisms that allow mobile workers to settle quickly and to convert
previous experience and quali?cations into active labour market participation.
In terms of connectivity and accessibility factors, good transport connections
externally and within the city that support the internationalisation of the city’s
economy and its labour pool.
In terms of leadership factors, a willingness to embrace knowledge and human
capital as key economic assets and a drive towards seeing the city in an open
international context, not just within a rigid nation state urban system.
For cities that take their own internationalisation seriously, and develop an
internationalisation strategy, these are important factors to integrate.
1. Cities and Internationalisation
20
1.4. The role of Cities in immigration and human mobility
Role of immigrants in city population growth.
Importance of immigrants to cities.
Which cities get the immigrants?
Big cities, International cities, and other “OPENCities”.
Importance of international populations to cities
One consequence of the shift towards a globalising, knowledge led (and metropolis
located) economy is that cities and urban areas are increasing in number and in size
(Figure 3). They are gaining an estimated 60 million people per year.
Figure 3: The growth of the World’s population in urban areas
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
u
r
b
a
n
a
r
e
a
s
o
f
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
o
n
e
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
p
e
o
p
l
e
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1950 1975 2000 2020
Growth in the number of large cities in the developed and developing countries, 1950-2000
United Nations, Population Division, 2005
Table 1: Foreign Born Populations (250,000 +) in European Nations – Ranked by Share of Total
Population
Country Foreign Born (000s) Foreign Born Share
Switzerland 1,660 22.9
Latvia 449 19.5
Austria 1,234 15.1
Developed countries
Developing countries
Cont.
21
Source: OCED Database and UN Migration Database (2005)
In 2006 the total population of Western and Central Europe, the Balkans and Turkey
was 594 million. The European Union alone (the EU 25) had 462 million people. Europe
is not growing from natural increase –which is only about 0.7 per 1000 inhabitants.
Rather, almost all the growth in Europe is coming from immigration, and in some cases,
as in Spain, Portugal and Italy, that growth is substantial. The foreign born stock as a
share of total population in 2005 varied from a low of 1.8 per cent in Poland to a high of
23 per cent in Switzerland (Table 1). Many European countries now have a population
which is more than 10 per cent foreign born, and their number is set to rise.
With free movement of people guaranteed across most of the EU since the 1995
‘Schengen Agreement’, movement from regions with a jobs de?cit to regions with a
jobs surplus is considerable.
Thus Ireland, with its growing economy, has received large numbers of new immigrants
in the past 10 years. The EU is also committed to developing a common policy on
immigration. The goals will include the ef?cient management of migration, the pursuit
of immigrant smugglers, and the development of common asylum policies (Salt, 2005).
Already there is evidence of increasing ?ows from Eastern European countries. Major
bene?ciaries are the UK, Germany, and Ireland. Anecdotal descriptions of French
Country Foreign Born (000s) Foreign Born Share
Ireland 585 14.1
Sweden 1,177 12.4
Germany 10,144 12.3
France 6,471 10.7
Netherlands 1,638 10.1
United Kingdom 5,408 9.1
Greece 974 8.8
Spain 4,790 8.5
Norway 334 7.4
Portugal 764 7.3
Denmark 388 7.2
Belgium 719 6.9
Czech Republic 453 4.4
Italy 2,519 4.3
Hungry 316 3.1
Poland 703 1.8
1. Cities and Internationalisation
22
waiters in London and Polish computer programmers in Dublin are simply indications
of the movement of Europeans within the EU for economic opportunities outside their
places of birth (New York Times, June 2, 2006).
Migration has shaped and energised Europe’s cities for centuries. It is a truism to
observe that international populations have been critical to the success of European
cities for at least 2 millennia. However, there is substantial evidence that migration
levels have stepped up in an increasingly integrated and mobile Europe.
Migrants into EU cities can have many origins; many of them are nationals moving
from rural areas and smaller cities and towns, some are from other EU Member
States and others are from outside the EU. The main elements that explain the map
of migration in the late 1990s are related to national trends, border changes and
economic development. For instance in Germany, East – West migration became an
important phenomenon, while the UK has seen strong migration ?ows from the North
to the South.
If we look at the share of newcomers to EU Urban Audit cities (Figure 4), we can note that
it varies widely across Europe. Data available dos not cover the UK and several Nordic
countries. However, in Ireland, France, Denmark and the southern half of Germany,
substantial portions of the urban population have only recently moved into their cities.
In most of these cases the turnover of urban population is rapid, as more than 5% of
the city dwellers moved to the city less than two years ago.
In Paris the share exceeded 11% and in Dublin it was nearly 13%. The single highest
rate is also in Ireland, namely Galway, where more than a ?fth of its total population
(21%) has migrated into the city in the last two years. In absolute terms, Berlin and
Paris are the primary destinations for urban in-migration in Europe. Roughly a quarter
of a million persons (in 2001) migrated to these cities less than two years earlier
(Figure 4).
In addition many other French cities (e.g. Lyon, cities along the Mediterranean/Atlantic
coast), Madrid, Dublin, Vienna, Copenhagen and Budapest have much in-migration.
Apart from Berlin, Munich and the Rhineland are the primary magnets for recent
migrants in Germany. Also in Cayenne in French Guyana, the rate of newcomers was
above 13%.
23
Figure.4.
Despite these extreme differences across the European territory, a general pattern is
that large cities tend to have a high in?ow of migrants whereas smaller ones tend to
have much lower shares of in-migrants. It is also important to recognise that smaller
cities largely attract new citizens from nearby – often from the surrounding region. Their
magnet function is simply not as strong as that for larger cities, their reach is generally
more local, except for smaller research and knowledge hubs, as we shall see later.
Another simple observation is that successful cities tend to attract more migrants than
less successful cities. After all, many migrants look for opportunities and are driven to
those cities where they consider their own chances of success in the labour market
to be the largest. Modern communication tools allow migrants to be better informed
about such opportunities, while guidance from settled relatives and friends are likely to
be at least as important. The strong in?ow of migrants into cities such as London and
Madrid (more so than Rome or Berlin) illustrates this pattern.
1. Cities and Internationalisation
24
Migrants often join pre-existing migrant communities, which can make a city feel more
‘open’ for many. Migrants transform the local economies, local communities, and by ex-
tension, wider political processes of their chosen cities. The importance of immigrants
to cities can be seen, according to one author, in terms of the impact on local labour
markets and local communities (Clark, 2006):
1. Transforming local labour markets: In the United States migrants (2000 Cen-
sus data) make up about 16% of the labour force, well above their proportion in
the population as a whole (Clark, 2003). There has been close to a 200% increase
in the proportions of foreign born in the labour force in the past two decades. In
the big immigrant states of California, New York, Texas, Illinois and Florida, foreign
born make up the majority of workers in some industries and occupations. For
example, Spanish has become the language of the construction site, and heavy
manual labour is increasingly the province of young Mexican and Central Ameri-
can workers. They are also increasingly the tile and brick layers, masons and stone
workers. In the personal service industry, nannies and other household help are
likely to be Central American while in the nail industry, technicians are most likely
to be women from Vietnam and Thailand. Nonetheless, it is important to realize
that in the United States the foreign born workforce is a presence in all occupa-
tions, not only in services, construction and agriculture (Table 2). The pattern is
somewhat different in Europe where there are greater controls on workplace par-
ticipation. United Kingdom data shows that many legal immigrants are profession-
als. Still, local labour markets in London, Amsterdam, Berlin and Paris do have large
numbers of foreign born blue-collar workers. Construction sites in Germany, The
Netherlands, France and Italy employ many Eastern Europeans who have moved
in search of jobs and opportunities.
Table 2: % Distribution of the Foreign born by occupation in the United States and the United Kingdom
i
Occupation United States United Kingdom
Managerial/professional 23.4 56.4
Technical/Sales/Admin. Support 20.6 32.4
Service 21.1 5.8
Precision Production 12.7 5.3
Operators/Labourers 18.3 -
Farming/Forestry 3.8 -
Source: Clark 2006
25
2. Transforming local communities – diversity and cultural change: Just
as labour markets are changed by immigration, so too are local communities of
individuals and families. Take for example the United States, once the bastion of
little league baseball, but which is now a location for the growth of soccer(Price,
et al. 2005). Immigration can prompt a true community transformation, changes
in local mores and culture. The most visible changes are in the ethnic restaurants
and in the signs for ethnic food stores, beauty shops and cheque cashing services.
As the cultural landscape changes so too does the political landscape, as new
immigrants provide new ideas about community organisation and participation.
Ethnic diversity has been celebrated in North America, especially in Canadian
Municipalities, as the beginning of a new blended society. In its Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act (2002) Canada explicitly detailed its ‘two way street’
approach to integration. While newcomers were expected to adapt to Canada,
Canadian society and its institutions are also expected to adapt to a diversifying
population (Biles, et al, 2005).
What is the extent of community transformation? If we look at communities in North
America, we note that they are often mixes, not just of the major ethnic groups, Asians,
Hispanics, Whites and Blacks but also a myriad of different Asian, Hispanic White and
Black ancestry and origins. Many US cities no longer have a white majority, but have
mixes of Asian, Hispanic and African American populations which are between 30 and
40 %. Monolithic white metropolitan areas are a feature of the past. Canadian cities are
also complex mixes of ethnic and racial groups. Nor is this only true of cities in North
America – Birmingham, Amsterdam, London, Paris, Berlin and other large European
cities are also increasingly mixes of different ethnicities.
Which Cities get the Migrants?
Answering the question ‘What are the world’s top urban immigrant destinations?’ requires
drilling down into existing census data from countries on every continent — data that has
never before been gathered.
In most cases, international migrants do not randomly choose their country of
destination. On the contrary, they migrate to certain countries for a variety of economic,
social, linguistic, and other reasons, and within these countries, to certain cities.
A useful tool that allows us to expand our knowledge and understanding of the
movements of international migrants to urban gateways around the world is the Global
City Migration Map. This map utlises city-level data provided by the Globalization,
Urbanization and Migration project, which hosts data on the foreign born in over 150
metropolitan areas of 100,000 million or more people in more than 50 countries
ii
.
1. Cities and Internationalisation
26
Map 1: Cities with over 100,000 Foreign-born Residents
Source: Nuala Cowan, Department of Geography, George Washington University (2006)
The selectivity of immigrant destinations underscores the signi?cance of cities,
especially a few large ones, as locations that are disproportionately impacted by
immigration.
The data reveal 20 cities with more than 1 million foreign-born residents (see Map
1). Combined, these metropolitan areas have 37 million foreign-born residents,
which accounts for 19% of the world’s foreign-born stock according to the United
Nations. These few points on the globe are the destinations for one in ?ve of the
world’s immigrants.
With over 1,000,0000 immigrants, many of these cities are established immigrant
gateways such as Sydney, New York, London, Chicago, and Toronto. Some cities have
topped the 1-million mark only recently; in 2005, Dubai; Houston; Washington, DC;
Dallas-Ft. Worth; and San Francisco were added
3
. In short, for the most part, the
larger immigrant cities are also the world cities for advanced traded services and
creative industries.
3
Latin American and African cities are absent from Map1 although they are destinations for internal and
international migrants. This re?ects the fact that most countries in these regions have a negative rate of
net migration, meaning more emigrants leaving then immigrants arriving.
27
The map also clearly demonstrates that immigration is a global phenomenon - there
are another 59 cities worldwide with a presence of 100,000 or more foreign born
residents. Among them, 11 are cities with an immigrant presence between 500,000
and 1 million (Atlanta, USA; Boston, USA; Buenos Aires, Argentina; Montreal, Canada;
Phoenix, USA; Riverside, USA; San Diego, USA; San Jose, USA; St. Petersburg, Russia; Tel
Aviv, Israel; Vancouver, Canada).
The following table shows the cities where at least one-quarter of the urban population
is foreign-born.
Table 3: Cities with 25% or more foreign born residents
Source: Migrant Policy institute
Table 3 demonstrates that many cities that appear on most global urban hierarchies
also rank highly for the proportion of foreign-born. These include London and New
York, Miami, Amsterdam, Toronto, Vancouver, Los Angeles, Sydney, Frankfurt, and
Brussels. The North American and Australian cities are traditional areas of settlement
1. Amsterdam Netherlands
2. Auckland New Zealand
3. Brussels Belgium
4. Dubai United Arab Emirates
5. Frankfurt Germany
6. Hong Kong China
7. Jerusalem Israel
8. Jeddah Saudi Arabia
9. London United Kingdom
10. Los Angeles USA
11. Medina Saudi Arabia
12. Melbourne Australia
13. Miami USA
14. Muscat Oman
15. New York USA
16. Perth Australia
17. Riyadh Saudi Arabia
18. San Francisco USA
19. San Jose USA
20. Singapore Singapore
21. Sydney Australia
22. Tbilisi Georgia
23. Tel Aviv Israel
24. Toronto Canada
25 Vancouver Canada
1. Cities and Internationalisation
28
for immigrants; however, the percentage of foreign-born in many of these cities far
exceeds the national percentage of foreign-born for their respective countries. For
example, Miami has a 51 % foreign born population which is nearly ?ve times greater
than the U.S. national average of 11.5 %.
Accounting for Diversity
The percentage of foreign-born is an important but crude indicator of cultural
globalisation. However, this indicator does not reveal anything about the diversity of
the immigrant stock or ?ow; it does not tell us if immigrants are crossing one border, or
many, to get to their new city. Perhaps most importantly, it does not explain the spatial
integration or segregation of immigrants within these new localities, or the status of
immigrants, or their impact on the host cities
Consider the cases of New York City and Los Angeles. Both cities are home to more than
3 million foreign-born residents according to US Census 2000. New York’s percentage-
foreign born is 33.7 %; Los Angeles percentage foreign- born is 36.2 %. As Figures 5
illustrates, the crude measurement of % foreign-born hides the true level of diversity in
these two cities. In the case of Los Angeles, Mexican immigrants account for 44 % of the
foreign-born stock. In New York City, the largest group--from the Dominican Republic
--accounts for just 12 % of the foreign-born population. Two countries (Mexico and El
Salvador) account for half of all the foreign-born in Los Angeles, while in New York City
ten countries account for half of the foreign-born.
By examining the composition of the foreign-born in these two cities, it is clear that New
York City has a more diverse stock of foreign-born residents. Also in New York City, no
one group dominates the ?ow compared to the way Mexicans dominate Los Angeles. So,
there are many factors at work here, each differently de?ning the open-ness of these two
cities. Connectedness and accessibility clearly play a part, but so do cultural factors.
Figure 5: Foreign Born Population in Los Angeles and New York
Los Ángeles: 36.2% is foreign born
Vietnam
3%
Iran
3%
China
3%
Korea
4%
Guatemala
4%
Philippines
6%
El Salvador
7%
Mexico
44%
All other
26%
Italy 3%
Trinidad and Tobago
3%
Colombia 3%
Haiti 3%
Ecuador 4%
México 5%
Jamaica 6%
China 7%
Dominican Republic 12%
Guyana 4%
All Others
50%
New York: 33.7% is foreign born
29
The relative importance of Central Americans and Mexicans in LA contrasts with the role
of the Caribbean Islands in New York. Connectivity and accessibility are the important
primary factors here.
1.5. Who are the migrants?
Who moves and why?
How do they select where to go?
Where from and where to?
In these early years of the 21st century, the largest volume of international emigration
clearly comes from the developing world. The world migration map below shows the
broad historical breaks and especially the massive North-South imbalances which
embody labour market push and pull factors, the constraints of population ageing
in the North, and the legitimate aspirations of the underprivileged populations in
the South.
Map 2: Map of net migration – arrivals less departures – in the period 1990-2000
iii
1. Cities and Internationalisation
30
In the forty years between 1960 and 2000 the number of international migrants from
developed nations increased from about 35 million to 110 million. (Table 4).
International migrants are de?ned as people who have lived outside their homeland for
a year or more. This group has increased dramatically (as Map 2 above shows). Now
about 175-190 million people live outside their country of birth. While on one level
the 175-190 million people who live outside of their country of birth is certainly large,
many of the world’s 6.3 billion people only move short distances in their lifetime, if they
move at all. Of those who do move to live outside their country of birth, many are legal
migrants, but many others are undocumented workers, asylum-seekers and refugees.
However, many migrants move temporarily to study, travel, and work. Family reuni?cation
is the most commonly registered reason for international immigration. In the US
these immigrants make up up to 75% of all legal immigrants. Asylum claims, based
on persecution in migrants’ homelands, is the second most signi?cant reason cited.
Unfortunately these two reasons are frequently subject to concerns over fraud and
abuse. Therefore, many countries scrutinise family reuni?cation and are now trying to
reduce the numbers of asylum based migrants. Nations are also limiting the numbers of
refugees they will take in, restricting refugees’ access to welfare services, and choosing
who to accept and who to refuse based on economic potential. As a result, the weakest
or neediest immigrants can be left to fend for themselves (Clark, 2006).
Regions 1960 1980 2000
World 75.9 99.8 174.9
Developed nations 32.1 47.7 110.3
Developing Nation 43.8 52.1 64.6
Continents
Africa 9.0 14.1 16.3
Asia 29.3 32.3 43.8
Europe 14.0 22.2 32.8
USSR (former) 2.9 3.3 29.5
Latin America (Caribbean) 6.0 6.1 5.9
North America 12.5 18.1 40.8
Oceania 2.1 3.8 5.8
Source: United Nations, Trends in Total Migrant Stock – the 2003 Revision
Between 1980 and 2000, while the increase in foreign born populations in less
developed nations was only from 52 million to 65 million, the foreign stock in developed
countries doubled. Most OECD nations have between 5% and 15 % migrant populations.
However there are some countries with a considerably higher percentage including
Australia, with 25%, New Zealand with 23%, and Canada with 19%.
31
The destination of international migrants varies from the 6 million in Latin America and
the Caribbean, and a similar amount in Oceania to the 41 million in North America and
33 million in Europe. Indeed the United States dominates with more than 35 million
foreign born residents. Germany, Russia, the Ukraine, France, India and Canada each
have more than 5 million foreign born residents.
Why do people migrate?
When explaining why people choose to migrate we can examine push and pull factors.
Push factors are issues that drive individuals from a place. They include issues such
as dif?cult living conditions, government persecution, or discrimination of some
sort. Pull factors are conditions that draw people to a new place. Examples of pull
factors include good economic prospects, or the presence of family members and
fellow countrymen who have already migrated there, which may allow for a smooth
beginning in the new place.
Regardless of push and pull factors, it is still not easy to move to a new country. One
must be prepared to face challenges including a different language and culture, being
away from family and friends, and entering into a future full of uncertainties. In addition,
immigrants have to go through lengthy bureaucratic processes in the new nation
before they can become legal residents and/or citizens.
European citizens are, on average, less likely to move residence or change job while,
according to the Lisbon goals, a mobile labour force is essential for creating a more
competitive and dynamic economy. A 2005 Eurobarometer study carried out in all 25
EU Member States which looked at mobility levels across the European Union, shows
that only around 2% of the EU workforce was born in a Member State other than their
current state of residence. The same study shows that only approximately 4% of the
EU population has ever lived in another EU country, while another 3% has lived in a
country outside the EU.
It is often argued that this level of mobility is too low, particularly in comparison to the
USA. In the USA, 32% of the population live outside the state in which they were born.
However, because of the lower institutional and language barriers, moving between
states in the USA cannot be compared to moving between countries in the EU.
The study then assessed the factors that encourage and discourage people to move
to another EU country (?gures 6 and 7).
1. Cities and Internationalisation
32
Figure 6: Factors that encourage people to move to another EU country (%)
Figure 7: Factors that deter people from moving to another EU country (%)
Some important themes arise when considering how and why EU cities attract im-
migrants and diverse populations. For the purposes of this project, we are referring
to the ability of cities to attract and retain immigrants and diverse populations as the
open-ness of the city. One implication of this assessment is that economic pull factors
are very strong indeed, but they appear to be reinforced by regulatory and cultural
factors that support quality of life.
Finally, a strong driving factor behind immigration is the economic conditions in both
the immigrant’s homeland and the country they are migrating to (the economic equa-
tion between ‘push’ and ‘pull’). Research shows that the average per-capita income of
the sending country is usually less than half that in the host country. The larger this gap,
the more of a draw there is to migrate.
Notes:Figures are for respondents from the EU 25 who intend moving to another country within the
next ?ve years
Better support from family or friends
Closer to family or friends
Meet new people
Higher household income
Better working conditions
Shorter commuting time
Better housing conditions
Better local environment
Discover new environment
Better weather
Better health care
Access to better schools
Better public transport
Social
network
Work and
income
Housing and
local
environment
Public
facilities
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0
Social
network
Work and
income
Housing and
local environment
Public
facilities
Other
Notes:Figures are for respondents from the EU 25 who do not intend moving
Source: Eurobarometer (2005)
Miss direct contact with family or friends
Miss support from family or friends
Working conditions
Losing job
Lower household income
Local environment
Housing conditions
Public transport, commuting
Different schooling system
Health care facilities
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 50
Having to learn a new language
33
Source: United Nations Population Division (2002) International Migration Report
How do migrants select where to live?
In principle, cities offer a more favourable setting for meeting economic and cultural
needs and for the resolution of social and environmental problems than rural areas and
smaller towns. Cities generate jobs and income. With good governance, they can deliver
education, health care and other services more ef?ciently than less densely settled areas
simply because of their advantages of scale, mass, connectivity, and proximity.
So, cities have natural advantages, but the competition between cities to attract the most
productive immigrants is now intense and highly established. It is through the implicit and
explicit attempts by cities to internationalise and to attract and retain skilled workers and
other knowledge assets that much of the competition is now being played out.
1.6. Strategies of cities to attract and retain international
populations
Harvard business professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter has framed the challenge of city
growth and competitive advantage as the need by cities to have both ‘magnets’ and
‘glue’. ‘Magnets’ are understood as the elements that attract not only investment but
also people (and in this case immigrants) to cities, and ‘glue’ as the social foundation
that fosters health and well-being, and which contributes to the bonds of community
(Torjman, 2002).
Figure 8: Foreign born stock by major national destination, 2000
0
United States
Russia
German
Urkraine
France
India
Canada
Saudi Arabia
Australia
Pasikstan
United Kingdom
Kazakhstan
Còte d’Ivoire
Iran
Israel
Poland
Jordan
United Arab Emirates
Switzerland
Italy
Number of migrant stock in 2000 (thousands)
5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000
1. Cities and Internationalisation
34
The Equation for city growth:
Attracting population + Retaining population = Thriving city
Attracting population: magnets
Immigrants want to settle ?rst where there is the greatest number of employment
opportunities – large urban centres with agglomeration advantages in terms of scale
and depth of labour markets, and with high degrees of talent mobility. They are not so
likely to go to smaller places without a job contract, because the opportunities there are
more limited. For highly skilled immigrants another important magnet is opportunities
for professional development and advancement, which again are more readily available
and known in the same larger urban centres.
There are other pull factors that in?uence the settlement location of individuals and
families. An important consideration in choosing where to settle is knowledge of a
city. Large cities like London, Miami or New York are known internationally. They are
perceived to be accessible because they are well known, and therefore they are less
risky places to which to migrate. Smaller cities do not have the same pro?le. If cities
are to become magnets that stimulate population growth, there is a critical need
for effective outreach and visibility. Cities need to market not only their economic
opportunities, but also their social and cultural attractions. This is why so many cities
now develop internationalisation strategies and why they see, for example, hoisting
global events (EXPOs, Olympics, Cultural Festivals, etc) and building a stronger visitor
economy, or international student base, as so important.
So there are cultural, risk, and economic factors at play here, that shape how open the
city is to immigrants.
Cultural factors have a signi?cant in?uence on the selection of settlement location.
For many immigrants the presence of a shared ethno-cultural community is of
paramount importance. Having a critical mass of people from the same ethno-
cultural background can not only make a city more attractive, but it can also facilitate
the delivery of settlement services. Establishing a critical mass is dif?cult, but it can
happen over time.
The most direct means of effecting this development are the family reuni?cation
programmes whereby permanent residents sponsor members of their family to
immigrate. Settlement programmes designed to foster ethno-cultural communities in
speci?c locations have been only partially successful. For example, the UK policy of
settling refugees from Vietnam in a ‘dispersed pattern’ around the UK, during the 80s
often led to the Vietnamese people re-concentrating themselves in a smaller number
of urban locations once they were able to.
35
So, these programmes do not ensure long-term settlement. A sustained critical mass
cannot be created in the short term, and certainly not through arti?cial means. It is a
process that takes time to seed and mature. The best way to accelerate this process
is by ensuring that immigrants are able to integrate quickly and effectively into the
economic and social life of a community, and to ensure this integration by increasing
the capacity of the community to provide appropriate settlement responses. Economic
factors can pull immigrants away from one location to another if there are not balancing
amenity and cultural factors to make them want to stay put.
Retaining populations: glue
The second part of the equation for a thriving city is the glue that provides a cohesive
bond for the community. If cities want to retain the immigrants who settle there as well
as existing populations, they need to pay attention to the quality of life they offer their
residents, and give them reasons to stay.
Aside from economic opportunities, when settling in a new city immigrants also seek:
affordable housing, educational opportunities for themselves and their children, and
a vibrant community with cultural activities and recreation. Immigrants in particular
seek welcoming communities, which have a positive attitude towards cultural diversity
and some familiarity in terms of their own cultural speci?city. Ultimately, for anyone to
plan their future in a community they must feel included, and this inclusion must be
economic, social and political. Communities need to be cognizant of the importance
of encouraging and supporting the civic participation of newcomers so that they too
have a vested interest in remaining there.
The most critical investment for retaining immigrants, however, is providing a system
that facilitates their economic integration -that is access to employment. Research
and experience have shown that labour market barriers for immigrants are systemic
in nature, and therefore require solutions that are systems-based. Cities in countries
with greater labour market ?exibility and fewer regulatory barriers tend to attract and
retain more immigrants. Cities in countries with reformed welfare systems that provide
a balance between rights and responsibilities and require active citizenship tend to
have fewer negative reactions to immigration than those whose welfare systems have
not been reformed.
Achieving this ‘city growth equation’ requires leadership and cooperation at all levels. At
the local level, cities need to be able to convene the relevant stakeholders, identify local
priorities, provide policy advice to all government levels, and enhance the coordination
and integration of programs and initiatives. Where cities are able to establish a multi-
stakeholder approach, they are more likely to be able to create the kinds of magnets
and glue that are needed to attract and retain immigrants. But cities need support from
and partnership with all level of governments to make this happen.
1. Cities and Internationalisation
36
Key Issues: Population Change
If we look at Europe the starting point is whether European cities are growing or declining
in absolute terms, and whether the balance between growth and decline has changed in
recent years. The suggestion that ‘cities are back’ (ODPM, 2004) could be interpreted as
implying that there are more growing than declining cities now than there were before.
Figure 9 shows the number of growing cities has in fact been falling steadily since the
1960s. Nearly three times as many cities were growing in the late-1960s compared with
the late-1990s.
There were more declining cities in Europe in the late-1990s than growing cities,
perhaps for the ?rst time in several centuries! This consistent negative trend belies any
suggestion of a general turnaround in the performance of European cities dating back
to the 1980s or 1990s. The only positive sign is the evidence of a slight recovery within
the last ?ve years in the number of growing cities. It is certainly too soon to suggest
that this is a signi?cant or sustained turnaround. There is a long way to go before the
number of growing cities is back even to the level of the 1980s.
Figure 9: The number of growing, declining and stable cities, 1960-2005
Europe: number of cities by population change direction
Growing
Stable
Declining
1960/65 1965/70 1970/75 1975/80 1980/85 1985/90 1990/95 1995/00 2000/05
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
n
º
o
f
c
i
t
i
e
s
The following map by the GaWC study group
iv
gives a snapshot of what are the growing
and declining cities in Europe
v
.
37
Map 3: European cities with over 200,000 population
Irrespective of demographic and population trends, cities are also indisputable engines of
economic growth. Bigger cities generally contribute more to the economy, but not all big
cities do. For cities with more than 1 million inhabitants, GDP ?gures are 25% higher than
in the EU as a whole and 40% higher than their national average. The contribution of cities
to GDP levels tends to level off with decreasing size. Smaller cities (up to 100 000) tend to
lag behind their nations, but display average economic growth rates.
So, this leads to important questions about what kinds of cities are growing and what kinds
declining. How does the nature of what goes on within the city impact on its population trends
and on its ability to achieve open-ness? We address these issues in the next section.
In this section we have noted the importance of economic, regulatory, internationalisation,
cultural and leadership factors in assessing how different cities become more open to
international populations.
1.7. City Types and Population Attraction
1.7.1. What kinds of cities does Europe have?
Building on a recently completed pan-European study
vi
, we now present a typology of
cities. It can provide an insight into urban growth and decline and serve as a basis for
city comparisons. The criteria for allocating Europe’s cities to these typologies are size,
economic structure, economic performance and drivers of urban competitiveness
vii
. The
study was carried out by ECOTEC Research and Consulting for the European Commission.
1. Cities and Internationalisation
38
From the EU State of the Cities report three broad groups of cities can be
distinguished:
International hubs,
Specialised poles, and
Regional poles.
Within these groups, 13 city-types are de?ned. The ?rst group - International Hubs - are
international centres with a pan-European or even global in?uence. They distinguish:
i. Knowledge hubs – key players in the global economy (many of them ‘world cities’),
positioned above their individual national urban hierarchy, and in the forefront of
international trade, industry, business and ?nancial services, based on high levels of talent,
extensive corporate investment, and excellent connections to the rest of the world;
ii. Established capitals – ?rmly positioned at the top of their national urban hierarchies
(many are indeed capital cities of nations) and with a diversi?ed economic base, major
corporate HQ and administrative functions, and concentrations of wealth;
iii. Re-invented capitals – cities with a prominent position in their national economies,
champions of transition to an open and modern economy, and engines of economic
activity for the New Member States.
A second broad group identi?ed by ECOTEC are the Specialised Poles. These play a
(potentially) important international role in at least some aspects of the urban economy:
iv. National service hubs play an essential role in the national urban hierarchy - they ful?l
key national functions and often some capital functions in the (public) services sector;
v. Transformation poles – with a strong industrial past, but well on their way to reinventing
themselves, managing change and developing new economic activities;
vi. Gateways – larger cities with dedicated (port) infrastructure, handling large ?ows of
international goods and passengers;
vii. Modern industrial centres – the platforms of multinational activities, as well as local
companies exporting abroad; high levels of technological innovation;
viii. Research centres – centres of research and higher education, including science and
technology related corporate activities; well connected to international networks;
ix. Visitor centres – handling large ?ows of people of national or international origin,
with a service sector geared towards tourism.
Thirdly, a large number of Regional Poles can be distinguished, which in many ways are
the nodes and pillars of today’s, yesterday’s or tomorrow’s European regional economies:
x. De-industrialised cities – having a strong (heavy) industrial base, which is in decline
or recession;
xi. Regional market centres – ful?lling a central role in their region, particularly in terms of
personal, business and ?nancial services, including hotels/trade/restaurants;
39
xii. Regional public service centres – ful?l a central role in their region, particularly in
administration, health and education;
xiii. Satellite towns – smaller towns that have carved out particular roles in larger
agglomerations.
Figure 9: City-types positioned
From an immigrant’s perspective, not all city-types will be equally attractive.
We expect investors to be interested in dynamic cities with some critical mass, a strong
economic performance in terms of GDP level and/or GDP growth, a thriving and evolving
economic structure, and strong underlying drivers of competitiveness (such as talent,
innovation, entrepreneurship and connectivity).
For immigrants we expect to see a pattern of interest based on:
Open-ness and depth of national and local economies (an opportunity driver).
A suitable regulatory environment for settlement of foreign born nationals (a
regulatory driver).
Connectivity and accessibility of transportation systems (connectivity and
accessibility drivers).
Affordability and availability of social provision (amenity, economic, and regulatory
drivers).
Figures 9 and 10, taken from the EU State of the Cities Report, ?rstly map the position of the
different city types to show the broad con?guration and then illustrate the groupings of the
city types by population and economic output.
Regional Poles
Specialised Poles
Population in core city
International
Hubs
100000 250000 350000 500000 1000000 2000000
175
150
125
100
80
G
D
P
p
e
r
c
a
p
i
t
a
-
c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d
t
o
c
o
u
n
t
r
y
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
=
1
0
0
Regional public
service centres
Regional market centres
De-industrialised
cities
Research centres
Modern industrial
centres
National service hubs
Transformation
poles
Visitor centres
Reinvented
capitals
Knowledge
hubs
Satellite towns
Gateways
Established
capitals
1. Cities and Internationalisation
40
Figure 10 The City Typology.
1.7.2. Exploring the city typologies
Knowledge hubs: top of the European league
In many ways, ‘the Knowledge Hubs’ top the European league. They include eight of the top
ten real estate markets in Europe (London, Stockholm, Munich, Lyon, Helsinki, Barcelona,
Hamburg and Edinburgh).
viii
41
Their GDP levels are 65% above the EU average, and almost 40% above the national aver-
age. Their annual growth rates have been high – which means that they continue to forge
ahead within their national contexts. Employment rates in knowledge hubs are high (68%),
elderly people tend to remain longer in employment than in virtually any other city-type.
Average unemployment rates are just 6.5%, and trending downward. The list of Knowledge
hubs includes national capitals, but only in those cases where their economic performance
is based on international market forces rather than on a purely national role. This is the
prime reason why London has been classi?ed as a Knowledge hub– even though it can be
considered a class on its own. After all, London’s recent economic development has been
primarily driven by the unprecedented growth of its ?nancial sector.
The key feature of this city-type lies in the fact that their development is primarily based
on the market sector. Their market services are more predominant within the economy
than in any other city-type- on average 28% of the workforce are engaged in ?nancial
or business services. In some cities this percentage is even higher, with 30% in London,
33% in Amsterdam and Stockholm and 40% in Milan. Some Knowledge hubs have a strong
manufacturing base (Barcelona, Lyon, Milan), that is often well-linked into the broader urban
economy. Although a number of these cities are national capitals as well (Dublin, London,
Stockholm, Helsinki, Copenhagen), the governmental sector in terms of employment share
is often less dominant than in other large metropolitan areas.
At the root of this strong economic performance lie powerful drivers of competitiveness.
The population is well-educated: on average 28% of the population has completed tertiary
education, but this rate is far higher in Helsinki (39%) and Edinburgh (42%). Many talented
workers have recently moved into these cities. Knowledge hubs have a relatively high
number of immigrants from other EU countries, with German cities leading the way. In Mu-
nich for example, 7.5% of the population is from other EU 15 countries.
Nevertheless Knowledge hubs are faced with a number of important challenges, particu-
larly those associated with rapid growth and economic expansion. Firstly, Knowledge hubs
are invariably very expensive cities to live in. Housing has for many become unaffordable,
as can be clearly seen in cities such as Dublin and Barcelona. This implies that overall
wealth, success and prosperity are not necessarily translated into quality of life for all resi-
dents and large numbers of people are forced, or prefer to live outside the core cities. This
is driving strong suburbanisation pressures, in turn contributing to increasing car usage,
road congestion and other transportation problems. Another common problem stemming
from increased economic activity is the growth in air traf?c with noise pollution impacting
on residential areas. One response has been to construct completely new airports (e.g. Mi-
lan Malpensa and Lyon St. Exupery) at a considerable distance from the cities but this often
generates even more road traf?c. Economic success has also attracted many migrants
– whether wanted or less wanted. In cities such as Milan and Barcelona, many national as
well as international migrants have moved in, putting the housing stock under a great deal
of pressure. Coping with all these challenges is complex and costly; it requires astute and
timely choices and unprecedented urban planning skills.
1. Cities and Internationalisation
42
Established capitals
Established capitals are at the top of Europe’s urban hierarchy. Madrid, Lisbon, Vienna,
Berlin, Paris, Athens and Rome are renowned the world over, built and rebuilt throughout
long and colourful histories. The cities belonging to this group are all located on the
European mainland and are typically large in size: on average almost 2 million people
in the core city and more than double that in the entire agglomeration. The core
population of established capitals is trending downwards whilst expansion is taking
place on the periphery. This is especially the case in Southern Europe where the larger
urban zones of capitals such as Lisbon and Athens are gaining population rapidly.
Established capitals are wealthy both by European and national standards. GDP levels
are on average 30% above the national and 40% above the EU average. All of them
ful?l crucial political and cultural roles; many ful?l a central economic role as well
(e.g. Paris, Vienna, Madrid, Lisbon). Yet, the economy of some Established capitals
is less dominant within a national framework, most notably Rome and Berlin. Overall,
Established capitals have witnessed good growth rates in recent years, maintaining
their already ?rmly established positions.
Through their size and wealth, Established capitals are in a relatively comfortable
position. Their economies are more diversi?ed than any other city-type. They combine
central governmental, higher education and health functions with leadership in ?nancial
and business services, trade/restaurants/hotels, transport and communication as
well as (advanced) manufacturing. This broad spread of economic activity ensures
a certain robustness and this translates into stable and solid property markets, that
are well trusted by foreign investors. This in?ow of capital and people is facilitated by
excellent multimodal accessibility. Established capitals all have international airports,
indeed often more than one, and are also strategically located at the heart of railway
and motorway networks.
Established capitals function as magnets which attract young people from the
countryside, professionals from across the EU and economic migrants from all over
the world. In Brussels and Berlin for example one out of eight inhabitants has moved
into the city in the 2 years prior to the date of measurement. In Paris this ?gure was as
high as one out of three inhabitants. Established capitals are home to large numbers
of foreign nationals. Many migrants initially come to study and subsequently stay to
develop their careers. Key to all this is the fact that Established capitals provide large
and diverse labour markets with a wide range of employment opportunities. But not
all fortune-seekers are successful in the labour market, as a signi?cant portion (12%) of
the workforce in Europe’s established capital cities is unemployed.
High unemployment in combination with average growth levels gives rise to important
questions. Will these Established capitals be able to generate more jobs to tackle
unemployment, or will this segment of the population remain excluded in the foreseeable
future, irrespective of economic and employment growth? And will these vulnerable
43
inhabitants have suf?cient access to healthcare and social services? Questions such
as these often remain unanswered.
Reinvented capitals
During the last 15 years, the capitals of the New Member States have gone through
drastic changes. Although they have faced as much restructuring and undergone as
many plant closures as many other cities in the region, Prague, Budapest, Warsaw or
Tallinn have all been able to take advantage of new opportunities as evidenced by
their impressive growth rates. Although GDP levels are still well below the EU average
(at 88% of it), they are catching up quite quickly. Between 1996 and 2001, the Re-
invented capitals achieved an average annual economic growth rate of more than 7%.
Warsaw, Bucarest, Vilnius and Tallinn were the front runners with burgeoning economic
activity. The Re-invented capitals are the unrivalled growth engines of their national
economies. Their GDP performance is 70% above the national levels and growth
rates have been 3% up on the respective national ?gures. These are unquestionably
the fastest growing cities of Europe and they are making a signi?cant contribution to
Europe’s overall competitiveness.
It may be surprising to observers to note that this economic growth has not gone hand
in hand with population growth. Virtually without exception both core cities and larger
urban zones have lost population during the period covered. An important underlying
reason for this decline is the housing market; the lack of adequate housing stock has
led to a sharp increase in housing prices, which makes living in the Re-invented capitals
an expensive matter. Suburbanisation – often beyond the boundaries of the Larger
Urban Zone – has become an important development. As a consequence, increasing
numbers of workers commute into the cities on a daily or weekly basis – with a rapid
increase in congestion as a consequence.
The spectacular economic growth of Re-invented capitals has coincided with a
complete overhaul of the economic structure as well as the physical appearance of
these cities. With the exception of Bucharest, the service sector has been expanding
rapidly. All cities are developing ?nancial and business services at a fast rate. The
Re-invented capitals of the former Soviet Union (Tallinn, Riga, Vilnius) have reassumed
their position as independent national capitals with much growth in employment in the
public sector as a result. And in cities such as Prague and Tallinn, tourism has also
grown at an impressive rate, with over 20% of employees working in trade, restaurants
and hotels. As traditionally has been the case in Central and Eastern Europe, many
of the workers have high educational levels. 31% of the workforce have completed
tertiary education, amongst the highest rates to be found in Europe’s cities.
On the downside, Re-invented capitals must deal with the problem of an old housing
stock that no longer meets the standards of its aspiring citizens. Strong suburbanisation
1. Cities and Internationalisation
44
pressures are resulting in population decline, increased traf?c and parking problems. This
is prompting of?ces and commercial centres to leave the core cities as well, adding to
the vicious cycle of car dependency and also the loss of vitality in city centres. In some
cases however this vacuum is being readily ?lled by tourists.
The impressive growth of the Re-invented capitals has led to debate over what national
economic strategy is appropriate to follow. Will these growth rates be maintained as these
transitional economies catch up with the rest of Europe? Or will growth slow down due to
shortages of labour, rising property prices and congestion? It is probable that the growth
rates of some of these cities will slow down as they enter the league of Europe’s established
capitals – with a predominantly national focus. Alternatively, some Re-invented capitals may
continue on their growth trajectories and eventually enter the league of Knowledge hubs. It
is too early to say which cities will go on to achieve this status but important prerequisites
include improved international accessibility, an increase in the levels of entrepreneurship
as well as the continued growth of business and ?nancial services.
Transformation poles
These are larger cities with a rich industrial past that have been forced into change by
great economic shifts which impacted heavily on their traditional economic base. This
process has certainly left its mark in the form of abandoned factories, deprived neigh-
bourhoods, limited appeal and modest visual attractiveness overall. However transforma-
tion poles have responded by seizing on new opportunities and implementing economic
strategies which have provided them with a positive way forward. The visible change is
often impressive. For example new city centres have been built, districts upgraded and
state of the art transportation systems put in place. Cities such as Leipzig, Turin, Birming-
ham and Glasgow are prime examples here, but there are many more examples. Lille,
Enschede, Cardiff and Oporto are also regarded as Transformation poles.
The assertiveness and aggressiveness with which Transformation poles have been
tackling challenges and pursuing new opportunities is the key. Typically large-scale
projects are implemented. Examples include the renovation of the former Fiat plant
in Turin into an impressive design and exhibition space, the city centre upgrade of
Glasgow including turning the banks of the Clyde river into a ‘hip’ artistic zone and the
new Bullring shopping centre in Birmingham which is attracting many visitors from far
a?eld. Leipzig and Dresden have invested massively in restoring their cultural herit-
age, while Heerlen has gone far in ‘greening’ the area’s former coal mines. Manchester
is now emerging as a well-connected and fashionable city in the UK, well-positioned
to be a viable alternative to London in areas of services, culture and arts. Key to this
transformation has been the renovation and improved connectedness of its city centre.
Lille has reshaped its own geographical position vis-à-vis London, Paris and Brussels by
exploiting its TGV-connection through the Euralille venture. Most cities have focused
their investments on city centres – where most citizens, workers and visitors convene
and where investment impulses tend to have the most spin off effects.
45
These transformation projects have not been equally successful everywhere and
in some cases expectations have not been met and disappointments are frequent.
Nevertheless, these new initiatives have gone some way to counteracting negative
trends by creating fresh opportunities. Indeed, GDP and growth levels in Transformation
poles tend to lie around the national average, and this can also be said of the economic
structure and unemployment levels. The manufacturing sector is not predominant
across the board although there remain strong differences between individual cities.
A main challenge for the Transformation poles is to build on the existing successes and
to provide a sustainable basis for creating future prosperity and well-being. In their
desire to move forward, Transformation poles sometimes tend to ignore their past, their
raison-d’être, their roots. As investment in modern transport, infrastructure and the
urban environment can be quite uniform, it remains an on-going challenge for these
cities to rede?ne their identity. Only longer-term and consistent urban development
strategies are likely to bring more durable, harmonious and high-quality development
that can win the con?dence of citizens and investors alike.
Gateways
Port cities often have a long history and their port function lies at the centre of their
identity. They base their very existence and wealth on the advantages afforded by a
natural harbour. These are the Gateway cities – all located near important waterways,
whether rivers or seas. They are the platforms for freight transport, distribution
and related industries and services – 11% of their workers are active in transport
and communication. In addition a wide variety of trade-related activities have been
developed – such as the diamond centre in Antwerp. Furthermore, some cities have
been successful in building (?nancial) services, such as the insurance industry in
Rotterdam. Some cities are also home to navy ?eets and have given rise to related
employment opportunities (Portsmouth, Naples).
On average Gateway cities have a little less than 400,000 inhabitants in the core city
and almost 800,000 in the larger urban zone. Despite all their achievements their
strong specialisation gives rise to a number of speci?c challenges. Their port activities
are becoming increasingly capital-intensive and automated, providing an ever narrower
employment basis. Gateways often appear to be highly industrialised due in particular
to concentrations of petro-chemical facilities (for example in Le Havre and Genoa)
and many of their industrial activities tend to be very capital-intensive and have been
shedding labour over recent years. This is re?ected in the lower employment rates
(94% of national average), but especially through higher unemployment rates – 14%
compared to 11% for all Urban Audit cities. Coming from a somewhat protected labour
market position, redundant port workers often ?nd it dif?cult to get other jobs and this
may lie behind the ?erce protests against any moves to liberalise the ports of Europe.
Employees in Gateways have lower levels of educational attainment – 18% completed
tertiary education against 23% for all Urban Audit cities.
1. Cities and Internationalisation
46
Gateways clearly face important economic challenges. Their origin is based on accessibility
by land and water, but nowadays the uniqueness of their position has been eroded by the
development of other modes of transport and the broadening of the scale of competition,
especially when air transport is taken into account. Unlike Transformation poles, Gateways
are still ?rmly locked into their traditional port functions – and this can hamper the pursuit
of new opportunities and diversi?cation initiatives. Furthermore a strong dependence
on freight handling generates large traf?c volumes causing pollution, congestion, and
the need for large-scale programmes of investment in transport infrastructure. Low or
unclear returns often make these investments dif?cult to justify. Due to their physical
appearance Gateway cities are often less attractive to tourists, investors and residents
alike. Some Mediterranean as well as Baltic Gateways have been quite successful in
exploiting cruiseship terminals – with ample spin-offs for local commerce and an added
impulse for inner city renewal (e.g. Genova). But not all Gateways have been successful
in generating large ?ows of tourists. Those Gateways that are seen as ‘Cities with a Port’
(e.g. Antwerp, Genova) are possibly less vulnerable than Gateways which can be viewed
as ‘Ports with a City’ (e.g. Rotterdam, Le Havre, Marseille).
Modern industrial centres
In many ways, Modern industrial centres are the powerhouses of international
production; the main production basis for multinationals – including key coordination
centres and manufacturing plants. Some of these cities owe a great deal to home-
grown multinational companies, such as Goteborg (Volvo), Clermont-Ferrand (Michelin),
Tampere (Nokia), and Zaragoza (Opel). Others are engaged in important niche activities
such as Aberdeen (off-shore drilling) and Besancon (time pieces). Other cities have
developed modern large-scale manufacturing sectors in more recent years, such as
Valladolid (Renault), Pamplona-Iruña (Volkswagen), Cork, Poznan and Arad. Still others
have a longer industrial past but have been successful in adjusting to new industrial
activities (e.g. Tilburg, Leicester).
The characteristics of Modern industrial centres clearly shine through: their GDP levels
are about 10% higher than the national average, and their growth rates are higher as
well. One out of three workers are employed in manufacturing and construction (one
out of four in all cities), but employment in trade, hotels and restaurants is fairly well
developed as well. The quali?cations of the workforce are in line with this; 22% of the
workforce has enjoyed higher education. Some cities have well-developed universities,
and attract high numbers of students (e.g. Graz, Tampere, Poznan and Wroclaw).
The challenges faced by Modern industrial centres are clearcut: strong competitive
pressures require multinationals to constantly re-assess their strategies. Production
plants are threatened by closure or reorganisation on a constant basis. Many of the
Modern industrial centres are heavily reliant on car manufacturing and this industry is a
highly competitive and volatile one with a seemingly unstoppable trend of relocation to
47
areas of the world where labour is cheap. Even Modern industrial cities in Central and
Eastern Europe (e.g. Poznan or Szczecin) are starting to ‘feel the heat’ in this regard. If
they want to remain ‘Modern’, these industrial centres will need to continue to adjust to
the changing requirements of international production.
In order to maintain its productive function, it is crucial to capture and hold onto
international companies by providing international business with an excellent
production climate. They need to address bottlenecks such as schooling, accessibility,
lack of space and levels of service. This strategy may be more feasible for capital-
intensive industries with much ‘sunk’ capital. Modern industrial centres with a strong
endogenous potential and those with a well developed entrepreneurial culture have a
clear advantage. However there are strong differences in this respect. Overall, German
cities (e.g. Augsburg, Wuppertal, Bielefeld) have high levels of self-employment when
compared to their national averages. So do cities such as Graz, Cremona and northern
Spanish cities including Vitoria-Gasteiz and Pamplona-Iruña. These cities are well-
placed to take advantage of large industry through spin-offs, whether in manufacturing
or in related business services, such as logistics, packaging, catering, hotels, trading,
etcetera. An alternative strategic choice is to promote continuous innovation, and
support technological excellence, building on the existing strengths.
Research centres
Although these cities have clear commonalities, each of them has emerged through unique
pathways and over long time periods. Some, such as Bologna, Göttingen or Coimbra owe
a great deal of their historic identity to their universities. Others have developed more
recently due to corporate business investment and now include large-scale privately-
funded research laboratories (e.g. Eindhoven). Other Research centres have emerged
following governmental decisions on the location of R&D facilities (Grenoble, Toulouse,
Oulu). Still others have found a fruitful mix of long-standing universities and a dynamic,
specialised local economy that takes advantage of this asset (Freiburg, Ghent, Karlsruhe).
Despite their modest size (about 200,000 inhabitants on average for the core city),
Research centres have high GDP levels – about 10% above their national average.
Older workers are much more engaged in the workforce than in any other city-type of
comparable size. This indicates that knowledge workers tend to work for longer than
others in the workforce.
Research centres successfully manage the integration and interaction between
the various economic sectors. Synergies are strong between public and corporate
research for instance, or between business services, trade and manufacturing. Multi-
modal accessibility is fairly high, certainly when the modest size of these cities is taken
into account. Many Research centres are in fact located close to international airports,
such as Cambridge (London Stansted), Darmstadt (Frankfurt am Main), Leuven (Brussels
Zaventem), and Leiden (Schiphol Airport).
1. Cities and Internationalisation
48
There are strong signals that many residents, including employees and especially students,
only live for short periods in Research centres: 15% of the population of these cities have
moved in during the last 2 years, a higher share than in any other city-category. Furthermore
many of these new residents have come from afar - from other EU countries or beyond.
The Research centres demonstrate that cities do not need to be excessively big in order
to be economically strong and wealthy. They have successfully built good reputations in
the specialist ?elds of science and technology and attract talented citizens from across
the globe. Some Research centres have centuries of tradition behind them. However
in order to stay ahead, Research centres must continue to invest in their academic
and skills base to maintain a leading position. They also need to maintain and where
possible improve the quality of life on offer as well as ensure good accessibility by air.
Many talented workers have very speci?c requirements which need to be met. Take for
instance the top sport facilities provided on the Hi-tech Campus in Eindhoven. Some
Research Cities bene?t from their proximity to attractive leisure possibilities nearby, as
is the case with Grenoble which is close to ski?elds. ‘Research centres’ are typically in
possession of other assets incuding education and cultural facilities, ?exible housing
arrangements, advanced telecommunications, a wide choice of international cuisine
and in many cases, a diverse multi-cultural local ?avour.
Visitor centres
Some Visitor centres are internationally recognised historic cities of culture (e.g. Bruges,
Florence, Venice, Krakow) whilst others are more recent tourist destinations (Nice, Valletta,
Malaga, Las Palmas) or have become important stop-overs and connection points (Funchal,
Irakleio, Reggio di Calabria). In any case, Visitor centres revolve around facilitating the long
or short-term stays of their guests. Many of them are located in Southern Europe, on
the Mediterranean or Atlantic coasts where a warm climate can be enjoyed. Their multi-
modal accessibility is on average rather low (90 points) yet the growth of low-cost airline
operations has and is continuing to bring about improvement in this regard. In fact ?ying to
a Visitor centre in Southern Europe from Northern Europe is often cheaper and easier than
travelling between destinations within Northern Europe.
The high dependence on the visitor economy is visible in several ways: one out of four
(26%) employees works in the hospitality sector (trade, hotels and restaurants) – more
than in any other city-type. But employment can also be high in the construction sector,
for instance along the Spanish coast where many hotels and second homes are being built.
The numbers of self-employed tend to be very high as well – with an index of 199 nearly
twice the national average. The visitor economy is clearly characterised by a large number
of small businesses and this is especially so in Italian cities such as Catanzaro, Florence,
Pescara and Reggio di Calabria.
But Visitor centres are not necessarily prosperous – on average their GDP per capita
equates to just 94% of the country average. Some are of course more prosperous (e.g.
Florence, Venice or Funchal), but that is not always entirely due to tourism. Visitor centres
49
are often characterised by high levels of unemployment (on average 13%), and part-time
work is more common than in any other city type. The challenge facing Visitor centres is
how to maximise and sustain the economic advantage accruing from their attractiveness
to tourists – and brace for strong cycles and ?uctuations in the property market.
The fact that Europe’s population is ageing offers an important opportunity for Visitor
centres, especially due to the numbers of senior citizens who are moving to Southern
Europe on retirement. According to some, this trend is likely to become even stronger
in the near future. For instance, the numbers of UK residents relocating to Southern
Europe is large and likely to increase. But what effect is this increasing trend likely to
have on destination cities? What are the precise needs of such residents? And what
related business opportunities will there be? Is this limited to catering, leisure, trade and
construction? Or does it extend to medical services, sports and adult education? Other
issues facing these cities concern strong suburbanisation pressures, the affordability
of housing for local residents, and the long term environmental sustainability of new
developments. For example what is the best policy to address water shortages which
may be caused by increasing numbers of private swimming pools and the irrigation of
golf courses? Should contingencies be made for the possibility of increases in the price
of air travel? Perhaps there is a case to be made for a strategy aimed at reducing ones
reliance on the vagaries of the international tourist trade and developing instead a more
rounded, robust and sustainable economy focussing on the strengths of the local area.
City Types and Internationalisation of Population.
In the next section we trace the links between different city types and the potential
bene?ts of population internationalisation and diversity. We argue that the diversity
dividend, or the return on openness, may be different for distinctive types of cities
based on this typology.
1.8. Competitive advantages of diversity to Cities, and their
nations
In principle, we know that population internationalisation and diversity are an advantage to
EU cities and indeed to cities around the world.
To put the role of population internationalisation and diversity, and the importance of open-
ness within cities, in their proper context we need to understand how can contribute
population internationalisation and diversity to city success. In essence this involves tracing
the links between international populations and other drivers of success within cities.
We know that leadership offers an important framework in which the city can view its
own relationship with populations, and can articulate its vision and values in relation to
diverse populations. Leadership of cities on these issues needs to articulate powerfully
the potential bene?ts to the city as a whole of having a diverse population base.
1. Cities and Internationalisation
50
We might observe eight such links that could be worthy of further assessment through
the OPENCities Project.
i. Internationalisation, and the resulting human diversity, promotes the
urban quality of life needed to attract and retain workers and ?rms in
the knowledge economy.
The idea here is that the skilled employees of the knowledge economy have
particular preferences in terms of local quality of life (eg neighbours, amenities, art,
shopping, cultural and food choices) that are enriched by immigration population
diversity. A ‘cosmopolitan’ perspective. This proposition is partially substantiated
by the work of Richard Florida in the USA who has traced correlations between
his melting-pot index, bohemia index, and diversity index in his comparison of US
cities. A good example of this aspect of diversity at work would be both Silicon
Valley and Boston: two of the most in?uential locations in the knowledge economy,
both offering a high degree of population diversity and the attendant quality of
life advantages. This is very much in accord with the work developed by Richard
Florida and others.
ii. Internationalisation and the resulting human diversity create a richer
visitor experience and fuels the visitor economy.
This proposition takes another implication of the city ‘cosmopolis’, recognising that
there is a growing market in city tourism, fuelled by changing tastes in holiday and
vacation experiences, but also recognising the growth in convention/conference
activity, major events, and the increased mobility of art collections and cultural
performances. The argument here is that cities with diverse populations can offer
a more appealing locus for a multiplicity of visitor experiences because they can
provide a richer range of choices for the visitor to enjoy, and because they can
appeal to a wider range of visitors as a consequence. The experience is qualitatively
better and quantitatively more appealing. This proposition is underpinned by a
wide range of evidence from destination marketing organisations. Examples here
would include Singapore, where a strong convention industry has been established
around Singapore and Malaysia’s diverse appeals.
iii. Internationalisation and human diversity is a spur to entrepreneurship
through the ambitious and tenacious characteristics of migrant populations.
There are many studies going back over several generations that demonstrate
high rates of entrepreneurship amongst immigrant and minority communities. These
highlight the tenacious and determined traits of many immigrants and also highlight
the fact that many people who want to run businesses do increasing chose to do so in
another country from their country of origin, especially if this is a developing country.
What is more contested is the extent to which these levels re?ect a response to
discrimination in the labour markets or an implicit drive for business development. A
related concern is the observation that minority led businesses may fail to achieve
51
the growth rates of companies led by members of indigenous communities.
However, more recent research in the UK and the USA shows that minority-led
businesses are now achieving growth rates equal to those of the wider cohorts in
which they are assessed (perhaps an additional feature of global and knowledge
based economic development?). Over time, this very success of minority led ?rms
ought to partially resolve concerns about entrepreneurship being a ‘second best’
for would-be employees who ?nd themselves facing discrimination in the labour
market, as the very success of minority entrepreneurs should itself reduce the
incidence of discrimination.
The Los Angeles region would be a supreme example of how a regional economy
has been re-shaped by successful minority entrepreneurs from many different
backgrounds.
iv. Internationalisation and diversity is a spur to creativity and innovation
through the interaction of different cultures, intellectual frameworks, and
customers.
This aspect of diversity may be especially important because it suggests the
potential to create wholly new products, experiences, and services out of the
interaction between different peoples, and it fosters innovation and creativity
which underpins the (near) universal drive for productivity led growth.
This proposition highlights the observation that immigration and diversity can
increase creativity and innovation through interaction between people of different
backgrounds. There are few studies that underpin this but there is extensive
anecdotal evidence that this kind of phenomenon is at work in narrative content
digital media and in advertising/marketing. This perspective emphasises the roles
of knowledge of different client bases, and the underlying myths and traditions of
different cultures, as well as the potential to create new iconography out of the
combined knowledge of different systems.
More broadly, notions of ‘fusion’ in music, food and fashion are now well accepted:
where distinctive traditions are brought together to create a new ‘fused’ whole.
A good example of this kind of value added might well be London. London’s
computer games industry is concerned highly creative and innovative, and
effective at building products for global markets. It includes very large numbers
of people from a wide range of backgrounds. Another good example would be
Hollywood/Los Angeles where digital animation offers products for most of the
world and draws in diverse expertise in order that it can design new cultural
content products with appeal in a wide array of markets.
v. Internationalisation fuels openness to wider markets, populations, and
customers and helps to grow markets for local businesses.
1. Cities and Internationalisation
52
This proposition implies, simply, that the presence of an immigrant labour force in
a city enables companies to serve wider markets from a single location. A good
example of this might be multi-lingual labour forces. It is clear that the ability to
provide services to a wide range of multi-lingual clients from a single location is
likely to increase the density of activity which a ?rm provides from that location
- as there will be commercial and organisational advantages to doing so - which
in turn will reduce costs and improve quality.
However, evidence of this is also largely anecdotal. The revolution in ICT that
spurred the provision of global services from single hubs has continued to the
point where the cost differences between single or multiple hubs may have
become marginal. The ubiquity of English usage in much B2B trading and service
provision perhaps also undermines this argument. However, it is clear that within
the call centre industry and within the visitor economy there are clear advantages
to multi-lingual labour forces that do help to increase market share.
A good example here would be Hong Kong, where multi-lingual staff in banking,
computing, retail, hospitality, insurance, shipping and trade all encourage signi?cant
market growth.
vi. Internationalisation and diverse local populations increase the propensity
to trade and undertake international joint ventures with third countries,
including those with diaspora communities in the cities involved.
This is also a simple argument, but not insigni?cant. The proposition runs that
the presence of diverse populations, especially with entrepreneurs amongst them,
is, other things being equal, much more likely to lead to their ?rms undertaking
international trade and joint ventures, and raising the general expectations and
ease with which international trade and joint ventures are carried out. This is
important because trading is generally a sign of a healthy economy, and because
many immigrants into world cities come from regions and countries that are
considered emerging or established important markets.
Good examples of this feature abound. The role of North African Entrepreneurs
in Paris, or Latino entrepreneurs in Miami are good examples, though Korean
entrepreneurs in Los Angeles, or Chinese and Indian entrepreneurs in Toronto
would also serve well.
vii. Internationalisation and diversity makes cities more attractive for hosting
international events and activities which need to play to a world audience.
The odd thing about this proposition is that it appears to be true and completely
untrue simultaneously. Countries and Cities that recently hosted the Olympic
Games are not especially diverse (Sydney, Athens, Beijing) although Sydney did
emphasise its diversity during the games and has achieved a ‘diversity brand’
somewhat in advance of the reality. However, the major contenders for the Olympics
53
in 2012 were all cities which emphasized their diversity (Paris, London, New York).
Equally, cities that have recently hosted the FIFA World Cup (Tokyo/Seoul, Berlin/
Hamburg/Munich) are not especially diverse, although when South Africa hosts in
2010 Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Durban will all host major activities, and are
all signi?cantly diverse cities.
This proposition may need more testing. It may be that a time lag is built in and
that we will see diversity of population becoming more apparent in the hosting
of future events which are being planned now. Equally, it may be simply be that
other factors dominate (eg continental ‘turns’ being taken) or that diversity matters
more to certain kinds of events than to others. For example, the hosting of major
diplomatic events such as the Earth Summit (Johannesburg 2002), The World
Urban Summit (Barcelona 2004 and Vancouver 2006), and the Summit of the
Americas (Miami 1994) are events that clearly call for a global (and therefore
diverse) stage.
viii. Internationalisation and diversity can provide ?rms with unique opportunities
for globally signi?cant corporate responsibility initiatives.
This proposition suggests that diverse cities provide ?rms with an opportunity to
take actions which will have global signi?cance in terms of their impact, because
of the presence of diverse population bases. It means that just as ?rms can see
their global reputations damaged by their actions in a single place (Barclays
Bank in Apartheid South Africa, Nike in Child Labour Indonesia) so too by acting
in a responsible way in certain places they can enhance their reputations and
global brands.
Evidence is hard to come by here. Coca Cola’s support of the Atlanta Olympics gave
them exceptional exposure. HSBC’s support of many local development initiatives
in London has played well in the press. Microsoft’s’ philanthropy has been more
global than simply focused on Seattle although good things have been done there
with schools, and the Ford Foundation (amongst many others) is clearly a global
enterprise.
So, it may well be the case that different approaches will suit different ?rms and
sectors at different times.
The competitive advantage of diversity and the typology of cities.
This quick review of the basic conceptual frameworks shows that there are several
distinctive approaches to how cities might value their population internationalisation
and diversity and build justi?cation to promote openness. In this context, it could be
observed that different city types might ?nd that diversity and immigration contribute
in distinctive ways.
1. Cities and Internationalisation
54
For example:
i. Knowledge hubs – human diversity provides the talent pool to serve and support
globally traded ?rm and HQ functions and niche sectors that require speci?c skills.
ii. Established capitals – human diversity provides a source of enlarged cultural en-
dowment and creative offering.
iii. Re-invented capitals – human diversity provides for new entrepreneurship and
sources of new jobs.
iv. National service hubs – human diversity provides opportunities for international
trade which have not previously existed.
v. Transformation poles – human diversity provides new urban pioneers for regen-
eration areas.
vi. Gateways – human diversity provides service support for active trade links and a
supply of mobile workers for trade routes.
vii. Modern industrial centres – human diversity provides technological know how that
can enhance the scope of the local labour force.
viii. Research centres – human diversity expresses the connections of research cen-
tres to a global talent pool of specialists and indicates the international standard
of the work being undertaken
ix. Visitor centres – human diversity provides a richer visitor experience and also
provides skilled multi-staff to support the visitor experience.
x. De-industrialised cities – human diversity provides new sources of population
growth following periods of decline.
xi. Regional market centres – human diversity can add to the range of locally traded
services and products adding scope and mass to local markets.
xii. Regional public service centres – human diversity can ful?l vital skills needs in
public services.
xiii. Satellite towns – human diversity can contribute to the appeal of smaller places by
giving them a distinctive character relative to other smaller towns.
This is by no means a full account of what increasing population internationalisation and
human diversity – the returns for openness – can bring to a full range of cities, but it does
indicate how different kinds of cities might bene?t from human diversity in different ways.
1.9. Factors of Openness in cities
What is an OPENCities?
We asserted earlier that openness for a city has not yet been fully de?ned but it might
include:
55
i. Economic factors: such as the availability of jobs and incomes and access to
affordable basic standards of living, and the comparable cost of living. Labour
market and housing market ?exibility and openness may be especially critical. Also
important may be the approach of ?rms to innovation and co-operation, and their
willingness to embrace diversity as a potential source of future innovation.
ii. Regulatory factors: such as the overall immigration and asylum policies of the
country, coupled with any speci?c labour market, welfare bene?ts, land/home
ownership, service access, and other local/national regulations that may apply
differentially to foreigners.
iii. Cultural factors: such as the level of enthusiasm for population diversity amongst
existing populations, and the extent to which local culture and entertainment is
attractive to diverse audiences, as well as the propensity of the local population to
respect, celebrate, and enjoy diversity of culture.
iv. Amenity factors: including generic amenities such as housing, schools, hospitals,
as well as more bespoke amenities such as places of worship, community
organisations, specialist support services, entertainment and leisure choices,
communities of interest, street signage, availability of interpretation/translation,
and other specialist services.
v. Connectivity and Accessibility factors: including how easy it is to get to the
city concerned and the potential it offers for connection to other places that are
important sources of opportunity or welfare.
According to the Globalisation and World Cities Study Group and Network , the
most connected cities are the most diverse ones. Hong Kong provides a good
example of this concept. Hong Kong has attracted large numbers of service
?rms because of its position. It is the prime location for ?rms to service clients
in the growing Chinese market. Thus for many a global strategy, Hong Kong is
a place where you have to be. Hong Kong is the node in the network where
specialist knowledge on abilities and possibilities in the Chinese market intersect
with global ?ows of information and ideas.
vi. Internationalisation factors: such as the level of internationalisation in other
areas of city life; including business, events, fairs & conferences, international
organisations, leisure and culture. Cities as locations for international investments,
visitor destinations, or cities functioning as centres for inter-governmental institutions,
are important factors to attract diverse populations.
vii. Risk factors: such as both the general perceptions of the stability of the local and
political environment, coupled with other factors such as the perceived incidence
of racial/ethnic persecution or discrimination, or more general concerns about
how likely foreigners are to ‘succeed’ in the city concerned. A key variable may
1. Cities and Internationalisation
56
be the extent to which there are active anti-discrimination policies which appear
effective in addressing many forms of disadvantage.
viii. Leadership factors: how proactive is the city in setting and pursuing an agenda
of openness, diversity, and tolerance? Does city leadership provide the basis for
belonging and inclusion and promoting the bene?ts of diversity to the city? This
includes not only long-standing issues of how to maintain civil order but also new
challenges — dealing with difference and different levels of wealth and opportunity,
and reaching out to speci?c populations in order to understand immigrants
perspectives, needs and interests as well as to engage their support for developing
the common good and shared urban spaces. It involves seeing openness as an
asset that enriches the local environment and makes a city more competitive on
the world stage. From a policy and program perspective, this view would have
municipal governments working with other governments and with the voluntary
and private sectors to remove barriers and take advantage of opportunities arising
from a city’s diverse character.
1.10. The role of social integration of migrants
This OPENCities project is not principally concerned with social integration of immigrants.
This is an important subject, but is already being addressed directly by other efforts
(such as the Integrating Cities and Inter-Cultural Cities projects).
However, an important focus for OPENCities must be what part integration plays in being
open to greater internationalisation, competitiveness, and population ?ows. For example:
Do integrated cities make better use of the human resources?
Do integrated cities appear more attractive for international populations?
Do integrated cities better retain international populations?
Managing openness and diversity in an urban setting is a complex task that involves all
sectors of society all levels of government. Increasingly, city governments are on the front
line, and so their approach is worthy of particular attention. Speci?c challenges lie ahead for
citiy governments as they continue to develop their approaches. These form an important
part of the context in which the quest for the OPENCities is being developed.
i. One key challenge may be how to deal with inter-ethnic and intra-ethnic tensions.
These are real and have a range of manifestations from competition for voice
and resources, to outright violence. Many EU cities have seen the spectre of this
challenge rise quite dramatically in the recent period. Addressing this effectively
with genuine leadership is central to building longer term tolerance and openness.
So in the UK and France there are major challenges that must be addressed.
57
ii. Then, a second challenge is related to the choice of some countries and cities to
be more open to high skill migrants than to low skills migrants, and more open to
temporary stays than to long term stays.
Germany, for example, has adopted a restrictive stance towards migration from the
new member states with the notable exception of seasonal farm workers. Those
policies have in effect attracted large numbers of low-skilled workers from the new
member states to irregular employment in Germany.
At the same time, higher skilled migrants looking for legal employment have
been diverted to Ireland and the UK. Of course, low-skilled and even irregular
migrants contribute to economic growth and ?ll important gaps in the low-wage
labour market, and especially in public services. But in certain areas they may
be competing directly with low-skilled locals who feel already threatened by
globalisation. This, combined with the often irregular work arrangements, has the
potential to seriously undermine the social acceptance of migration.
High-skilled migrants, by contrast, are more likely to ?nd jobs and create jobs for
low-skilled locals, they are more likely to be net ?nancial contributors to the public
?nance system and the welfare state, and often they ?nd it easier to integrate.
iii. A third challenge concerns the welfare state itself. In countries with a pervasive
programme of social bene?ts, such as welfare for the indigent, housing allowances,
free health care for the sick, and pensions for the elderly, accepted immigrants with the
lowest incomes are automatically eligible for these costly social bene?ts. In addition,
the welfare state results in much costly expenditure to produce services speci?cally
for recent immigrants. The lower taxes paid by a large number of immigrants and the
cost of the social bene?ts they consume represent a ?scal burden on indigenous
taxpayers and can lower overall their living standards. Such ‘calculations’, of course,
fail to recognise the positive contribution of all migrants to the national good.
As a result, there exists a perceived con?ict between liberal immigration policies
and the viability of the traditional welfare state. How the public sector redistributes
incomes between immigrants and natives is often a matter for political debate, and
public discourse. There is often a fear that the redistribution will reduce both the
disposable incomes and the opportunities of native born populations. Poor labour
market integration among immigrants and, thereby, negative effects on the public
budget may also lead to tensions between native born and immigrants, which can
have substantial implications for everyone.
During the OPENCities project we want to better explore how integration issues impact
on different international groups, and within different types of cities, and how they can
be addressed to make cities more open.
Many of these factors of open-ness are outside of the control of city governments and
therefore important ingredients of leadership and in?uence are essential, as cities have
1. Cities and Internationalisation
58
to get help from other tiers of government, and from other stakeholders. Cities alone
cannot address and resolve all of these issues, but without effective city leadership
there is little hope that these issues can be tackled effectively at all.
1.11. Recent Studies on Cultural Diversity in Cities
In this section we review some recent work by leading researchers and commentators
on the link between cities and open-ness.
i. Richard Florida’s ‘Boho’ Index
Richard Florida’s ‘Boho index’ forms a part of a study carried out in 2001 which examined
the relationship between measures of diversity and tolerance and high-technology
success in the 50 most populated metropolitan
areas in the United States. The report suggests that
since high human capital individuals or ‘talent’ are
the key to success in the current era of economic
growth, these individuals’ ideas and creativity are
the most important ingredients in the economic
success of a ?rm or region. It argues that,
‘a connection exists between a metropolitan area’s
level of tolerance for a range of people, its ethnic and
social diversity, and its success in attracting talented
people, including high-technology workers.’
Therefore cities and regions which possess diversity
of thought and open-mindedness exhibit low
barriers to entry for human capital. ‘Diverse, inclusive
communities that welcome gays, immigrants, artists,
and free thinking “bohemians” are ideal for nurturing
creativity and innovation, both keys to success in
the new technology.’
The report constructed four indices through which to examine the relationship between
diversity and technological performance:
the Gay Index measures the over—or under-representation of gay male couples in a
metropolitan area relative to the population;
the Foreign-Born Index examines the percentage of those within a metropolitan area who
were not born in the United States or one of its territories;
the Bohemian Index (upon which this note concentrates). This is calculated in the same
fashion as the gay index and measures the over- or under-representation of artists and
musicians in a metropolitan area. The index is based on the number of writers, designers,
Table 2:
Tech Ranking and Boho Index
Milken
Tech-Pole
Ranking
Metropolitan
area
Boho
Index
Ranking
1 San
Francisco
8
2 Boston 9
3 Seattle 1
4 Washington
D.C
6
5 Dallas 15
6 Los Angeles 2
7 Chicago 20
8 Atlanta 13
9 Phoenix 24
10 New York
11 Philadelphia 35
12 San Diego 18
13 Denver 14
14 Austin 10
15 Houston 30
Figure 3.6
59
musicians, actors and directors, painters and sculptors, photographers, and dancers.
Regions in which these ‘bohemians’ are over-represented favour openness to creativity
and artistic expression, and,
the Composite Diversity Index, which is a sum of the rankings of the three individual
diversity measures: the gay index, bohemian index, and foreign-born index.
Florida et al (2001) suggest that the Boho index:
‘offers considerable improvement over traditional measures of amenities (such as
restaurants, museums, symphonies and the like) in that it provides a direct measure of
the producers of those amenities. Metropolitan areas that are over-represented by these
“bohemians” are those with an appreciation of amenities that support and showcase
creativity and artistic expression.’
The diversity measures were compared to a measure of high-technology industry
concentration and growth developed by the Milken Institute.
Cities highlighted by the report
Seattle is ranked highest in the Boho Index, followed by Los Angeles and New York
(See Figure 3.6)
The report found a strong correlation between the Boho Index and the concentration
and strength of high-tech industry. Ten of the top 15 bohemian metropolitan areas also
number among the top 15 US high-technology areas, notably Seattle, Los Angeles, New
York, Washington D.C., San Francisco, and Boston (see Table 16.1). Similarly, 13 out of the
bottom 15 high-tech metropolitan areas failed to appear in the top 15 of the Boho Index.
However, the report does not identify why certain cities rank higher than others on
the Boho index.
ii. Boho Britain Creativity Index
A similar index to that outlined above has been produced for British cities. The think-
tank Demos produced the Boho Britain Creativity Index (2003). For the index, the
UK’s 40 largest cities were ranked using three of the creativity indicators identi?ed by
Richard Florida. The indicators used were ethnic diversity, proportion of gay residents,
and the number of patent applications per head. The UK index was carried out ahead
of the Boho Britain conference and aims to illustrate the link between creativity and
economic regeneration in UK cities.
The report makes a qualitative assessment of what makes a city successful in the
creativity index and suggests that,
1. Cities and Internationalisation
60
‘places where there is a mix of people and cultures are where new ideas will spring from
and be encouraged. Even with the internet, cities can still act as a production site for new
ideas, and are still the best way we have of moving people and new ideas around.’
Cities highlighted by the report
The table below illustrates the top 20 cities in the creativity index. Manchester tops the
Boho Britain index as a result of its mix of ethnic diversity, gay friendliness and techno-
logical innovation. Leicester and London share sec-
ond place, suggesting that the creative potential of
UK cities is not con?ned to national and regional
centres.
Manchester’s success is attributed to a number of
factors. The city has the vibrant Canal Street area,
a renowned gay area whilst UMIST, the renowned
science and technology institute contributes to its
high technological ranking. According to Patent Of-
?ce ?gures, Manchester comes top of the ranking
for patent applications, which is accounted partly
for by its concentration of higher education institu-
tions and technology companies.
However, it is important to note that the fact that the
report includes only the 40 largest cities produces
slightly inaccurate results. If Oxford, which is outside
the top 40 by population, had been included in the
list it would come second, ahead of London and
Leicester. Both Oxford and Cambridge score highly
because of their diverse student populations and
high concentration of technology research facilities
which generate numerous patent applications.
iii. Commedia: Unlocking the Cultural Diversity of Cities.
A recent completed pan-European study on cultural diversity
4
de?nes ‘openness’ as how
a city attracts people to it; how easy people feel it is to make connections in the city; how
diversity is experienced in every day life and in work; and how different people come to-
gether in the city. OPENCities recognise and respond to opportunities. They are also likely
to respect and value the diversity of their community as an asset in its own right.
The ingredient for cities to be successful are the openness of individuals, companies and
institutions. A city can be open when the main institutions and the prevailing culture allow
people to think, plan and act with imagination, courage and risk.
1 Manchester
2 Leicester and London
3 Leicester and London
4 Nottingham
5 Bristol
6 Brighton and Hove
7 Birmingham
8 Coventry
9 Cadiff
10 Edinburgh
11 Glasgow
12 Milton Keynes
13 Shef?eld
14 Aberdeen
15 Wolverham pton
16 Liverpool
17 Bradford
18 Derby
19 West Bromwich
20 Newcastle/Gateshead
4
Comedia, How can we unlock the potential of cultural diversity in cities? Joseph Rowntree Foundation
(2006)
61
For the city to become intercultural and socially creative, openness to ideas and
initiatives and interactivity with civil society need to become embedded in policy-
making. (Bloom?eld and Bianchini, 2004, 106)
In order to address the question “how open is a city?” the study team proposed a series of
indicators of openness and inter-culturalism.
For the Indicators of openness four key areas of openness that need considering have
been identi?ed.
These are:
Openness of the institutional framework: relates to the policy, regulatory and
legislative environment and might include both qualitative and quantitative assessments.
For example, it would be important to go beyond identifying the existence of policies
to also measure their implementation and effects. The research found that while
there are non-discriminatory policies in place for the customs service in reality there
was evidence of discrimination on the basis of colour with regard to searching and
questioning of entrants to the UK.
Openness of the business environment: relates to issues such as employment
opportunity, access to training and diversity of management. The means of measuring
this at a city level might be through the local chamber of commerce reviewing their
membership to establish the ethnic composition of staff and leadership positions and
cultural awareness training in a sample of the major and smaller companies in their
membership.
Openness of civil society: relates to cross-cultural economic, social, cultural and
civic networks which could possibly be measured from observation and interviews to
establish the level of ethnically and culturally mixed business associations, social clubs,
religious groups, political parties and movements. Positive cultural representations or
images of the ‘other’ in the media, the number of minority broadcast channels and
minority programmes within mainstream public service broadcasting can also be
indicators of openness. In addition, indicators could be established to measure the
education environment by collecting information on the inclusion of diversity in the
overall curriculum and how many school children are learning foreign languages or the
percentage of overseas or minority ethnic students in university.
And openness of public space: relates to the collecting of information on the
quantity of privatised, controlled or democratic public space. The indicators might
measure mixed housing and neighbourhoods; safety and mobility of ethnic minorities
in all areas of the city based on crime statistics; the level of open access to facilities such
as libraries and cultural venues in the city centre and feeling of cultural inclusiveness
in public space; and an assessment of perceptions of the city centre, such as which
institutions are welcoming and which forbidding.
1. Cities and Internationalisation
62
These formulations (Florida and Comedia) offer important insights into the open-ness of
cities based on considered work and detailed case studies. But we must ask whether this
is enough? Does it fully explain the factors of open-ness in a city?
Firstly, to what extent does they help to explain the pull factors that may make a
city open: the city’s population needs, it’s economic and welfare opportunities, it’s
connectivity and accessibility, and the wider regulatory environment (especially
labour market ?exibility) that conditions it’s legal and regulatory open-ness?
Secondly, do these approach these take full account of the many different kinds
of cities? For example city size, location, and functions clearly play an important
role in explaining how cities perform economically and environmentally. Don’t
they also help to explain the different ways in which cities become more open to
international population ?ows? Equally, city governance models vary substantially
from one constitutional setting to another. These impact upon how far the balance
between city openness and national openness, for example, will condition the
population mix in any city.
Thirdly, to what extent do they include crime and safety dimensions, and the
broader quality of urban life?
Lastly, do these notions take full account of the issues of belonging, leadership,
identity, and public discourse; the means through which a sense of open-ness
might be conveyed and communicated.
Together with these wider factors, the insights of Florida and the Comedia team provide
a city with a basis for beginning to assess its openness. We will seek to develop a
diagnostic tool for this during the OPENCities Project.
1.12. Principles for OPENCities leadership
What are the key principles for making cities more open? 10 principles
The overview of drivers of internationalisation of population, advantages of human
diversity, openness factors for cities, city types, and insights from recent research point
to an enormous variety across Europe’s cities, and the cities of the world.
There is a fundamental need to better understand and articulate the different and
distinctive ways in which EU cities might be open to immigration and diversity. The
unique national and local contexts and their attendant histories are important variables
that emerge in the typologies. This is what the OPENCities project will focus upon.
There are also useful preliminary insights from the work so far that we can articulate to
develop the discussion.
We recognise from the outset that cities that want to become more open must have
some level of active local consent. Cities do not become more open against the l of
63
he people who already live there, though they may be surprised by how much they
bene?t and enjoy it.
Active city leadership will be an essential ingredient to achieve this consent and to
build a co-ordinated plan of action.
Initial ideas on the roles of city leaders are set out as ten principles below:
For cities that want to be open to diverse populations, it is important to:
i. Recognise that diverse types of cities will have distinctive approaches to openness.
Cities can be open or closed in different ways. Understand your own history and
context fully and assess what makes your city more or less open. The journey to
openness and to internationalisation are inseparable. Not all cities will be like Los
Angeles or Singapore, there is no simple model for becoming an OPENCities.
ii. Recognise, understand, and articulate the importance of immigration and diversity
to the future of your city. It is important to place this discussion in a far reaching
framework of what the city needs for the long term in order to support all of its
citizens and to succeed internationally. The case for OPENCities has to be made
actively.
iii. Recognise that openness requires co-ordinated multi-dimensional thinking and
action. In this review we have identi?ed 8 factors that are generally key to openness
in cities:
Economic factors
Regulatory factors
Cultural factors
Amenity factors
Connectivity and Accessibility factors
Internationalisation factors
Risk factors
Leadership factors
These provide an initial framework for re?ecting upon openness, and for planning.
Openness will come from getting these things to work together.
iv. Diagnose openness systematically and set targets to make progress against
objective measures of progress. Use external reference points, such as kitemarks,
indexes, surveys, and other indicators, to mark progress.
v. Place dialogue with international populations and their employers and supporters
at the heart of how the city develops its approach, and assesses its progress. A
cross Institutional approach will be necessary.
1. Cities and Internationalisation
64
vi. Organise to in?uence the national and supra-national spheres. Many of the factors
of city openness are beyond the direct control of city governments so in?uence
becomes very important. Cities need to work together to achieve this, and to ?nd
alliances with other lobbies (business, NGOs, Trade Unions, media, etc).
vii. Provide leadership which challenges barriers to openness, promotes an inclusive city
identity, articulates the bene?ts of diversity, and creates a broad sense of belonging
for all people.
viii. Promote visible initiatives and interventions which can be recognised by citizens as a
positive approach to the agenda.
ix. Do not take initiatives that will not be sustained until they have succeeded. This is a
long term agenda and there are cyclical dimensions to some of the challenges that will
be faced. It is important to persevere.
x. Remember the future. Cities have succeeded over the long sweep of time by attracting
new populations. There is no reason to think that the future will be any different.
i
Note: Foreign Labour in the United Kingdom: current patterns and trends. The data for the United
Kingdom are based on work permits and are not strictly comparable to the survey data from the United
States but they clearly show the difference in immigration policies.
ii
The tool has been realised by the George Washington Center for the Study of Globalization working
group.
iii
International migration trends Gildas Simon (2002) Migrinter Laboratory (University of Poitiers)
iv
Turok, I. & Mykhnenko, V. (2006) Resurgent European Cities?, CPPR Working Paper 2
v
The analysis takes a longer-term perspective than previous studies and is based on data between
1960 and the most recent available information, usually 2005. It is also more comprehensive in covering
all 310 cities (in 36 countries) with a population of over 200,000. These cities account for 36.5% of
the total population of the 36 countries. The cities in the West account for 42.3% of the population of
Western Europe and the cities in the East account for 29.7% of the population of Eastern Europe.
vi
European Commission DG REGIO (2007) “State of the European Cities Report” , prepared by ECOTEC/
ECORYS/Nordregio/Eurofutures. The report is currently still under embargo.
vii
Despite its advantages, the typology has some limitations too. The typologies should therefore be
used as a complimentary tool for a better understanding urban dynamics.
viii
ULI/PWC (2007) Emerging Trends in Real Estate - Europe.
ix
Diversity and Power in the World City Network, P.J. Taylor, D.R.F. Walker, G. Catalano and M. Hoyler
65
Section Two:
Population Change
in European Cities
66
Population Change
in European Cities
in European Cities
Population Change in European Cities
In this section of the report we review recent trends in population changes and interna-
tionalisation of European Cities, based on the work of the EU State of the Cities Report,
published by the EU Commission in 2007.
2.1. Population Change in Cities
The basic starting point of this section is that healthy cities grow – they attract people
and that less healthy cities stagnate or even shrink – they lose population, a symptom
that might call for remedial actions.
What emerges from this section of the Report is that, across Europe, some cities are
thriving as they have a growing and young population, while attracting even more
from outside. But many other cities face different developments; they witness a natural
loss of population, due to falling birth rates, and a rapidly ageing population. From a
numerical point of view, the main challenge lies in the ability of cities to attract migrants
who can keep up the numbers. But as a consequence, the face of Europe’s cities is
changing rapidly.
The pace of change differs enormously amongst Europe’s cities. Some cities have
witnessed a population decline for several decades already, some have gone through
major crisis but have become known to us as models of growth and success. These
changes tend to be cyclical: during a period stretching from roughly the mid-1950s up
till the 1970s the urban core of North Western Europe saw a process of rapid urban
growth, followed by decentralisation and suburbanisation, to be followed by a partial
de-urbanisation. Thus, during the 1970s most metropolitan cores in the UK, and by the
late 1970s also in France, Germany and Italy, were in a process of rapid decline. This also
concerned many larger cities of Fennoscandia. At the same time virtually all metropolitan
areas in Eastern Europe were growing very rapidly. Now, the opposite situation partly
prevails, where cities in Eastern Europe shrink while most Western European cities grow.
2. Population Change in European Cities
68
2.2. Apparent Trends in Population Change
Urban Areas grow faster than non urban areas:
When looking at European urban areas as a whole (so-called Larger Urban Zone or
LUZ), the population has been growing at a rate of 0.35% per year - over a ?ve year
period. For Europe as a whole, this growth rate has been about twice the national
growth rate (0.2% per year). Thus, urban areas have been growing clearly faster than
non-urban areas.
The strongest urban growth can be recorded in Spain, where some urban areas have
seen an annual growth of 3%. Overall, urban areas have also been growing fast in
Ireland, Finland, Greece and Cyprus. To the contrary, in some other countries, urban
areas have witnessed an overall population decline, notably in Romania and Italy.
In many other countries, growth and stagnation occur at the same time. In the UK,
the Southern English cities have been growing steadily, with Exeter or Bristol in the
Southwest as examples. Urban areas in Northern England, such as Newcastle upon
Tyne have lost population. In Germany, some urban areas have lost signi?cant numbers
of people, with those in Eastern German such as Frankfurt an der Oder or Halle a/d
Saale as examples, while more prosperous urban areas (Regensburg, Bonn) have been
gaining in population size.
The regional context of cities is crucial in explaining urban performance:
Across Europe, urban areas in fast growing regions are expanding much faster than
urban areas situated in declining regions. This pattern is most visible in countries like
Germany and the UK where regional differences have been strong in recent years.
Urban areas in the North of England or in Eastern Germany have had great problems to
retain population, while urban areas in more prosperous and growing areas have been
able to gain inhabitants. The only major exceptions to this pattern can be grouped
into two categories. On the one hand typical regional urban growth engines located
in more peripheral areas of e.g. Greece, Spain, Ireland or northern Fennoscandia do
attract population at a much faster rate than their – in relative – terms lagging regions
are able to. On the other hand there is a smaller group of lagging cities that are in this
respect performing even worse than their surroundings. The most prominent examples
of cities of the latter type can be found in Romania.
Core cities are no longer growing in about half the European Union:
Core cities are obviously part of their larger urban zones and the link between their
developments is strong. The faster the core city grows, the more likely is a growth of
the whole agglomeration. But the agglomeration grows faster than the core city in
about 2/3 of the cities. Faster growth of the core cities than in the agglomerations is
also recorded, but is less common.
69
Larger urban areas tend to in?uence their hinterlands more so than smaller
cities:
In general, larger urban areas in Europe are relatively speaking more successful in
growing – their population growth rates tend to be higher than those for smaller cities.
This is the case in most countries, especially so in the Netherlands, the western parts
of Germany, the Nordic countries, Greece, Spain and Slovenia.
Even though urban areas are growing faster than their nations as a whole, there is no
unique pattern – and variation across Europe’s cities is strong. Urban areas tend to
grow more when they are located in a favourable national and regional context, while
growth is more prevalent in the agglomerations than in their core. It is much harder to grow
for cities where the overall national population is stagnating or shrinking, especially when
looking at the level of core cities.
Broadly speaking, four different types of development can be distinguished: urbanisation,
reurbanisation, urban decline and suburbanisation.
i. Urbanisation implies that both the agglomeration and the core cities grow. This phe-
nomenon can be noticed in large and dynamic cities in Spain (Madrid, Seville, Zarago-
za), Greece (Athens, Thessaloniki), and the Benelux (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Brussels).
In the Nordic countries second-tier cities such as Turku or Odense also display this
pattern, which also includes several dynamic German centres.
ii. Re-urbanisation suggests that both the core city and the agglomeration as a
whole experience growth but the core city expands faster than its surroundings.
Re-urbanisation is not very frequent and characteristic only for some smaller Euro-
pean cities and towns . In many of these cases, suburbanisation cannot be accom-
modated due to a lack of land. Most of these cities can be found in Spain, Greece,
Denmark or Finland. In some cases, urbanisation in general often takes place at
the cost of the more rural areas.
iii. Suburbanisation means that growth in the agglomeration takes place at the expense
of the core city. Suburbanisation is primarily taking place on the Iberian Peninsula
(including Portugal) and in Poland. Other scattered cases can be found mainly in Italy
and the UK. Notably larger cities where suburbanisation is strong include Barcelona,
Vienna, Warsaw and Berlin – for which suburbanisation is a new phenomenon after the
recent geopolitical changes.
iv. Overall urban decline can be noticed in a large number (80) of Urban Audit cities
- the decline in the core city coincides here with a decrease in the population of the
wider agglomeration. Such decline can be primarily found in East Germany and in all
Eastern European countries apart from Bulgaria. Also the Ruhr area and many Italian
cities belong to this group. Commonly, the core city is experiencing a faster decline
than its surroundings. In certain cases, this development is not always as negative as
2. Population Change in European Cities
70
it seems. For instance in Italian cities (including Milan and Rome), suburbanisation is
taking place outside the borders of the agglomeration. A similar development can
be noticed in north-eastern Romania around the cities of Bacau and Piatra Neamt or
around Budapest in Hungary.
Population change is due to 2 main drivers:
The role of ageing
The role of migration
Ageing
The overall numbers of elderly persons have increased in a large number of cities. For the
cities of Spain, Italy or Germany this development is striking as in these countries the share
of elderly is already amongst the highest in all EU27. Cities with a larger share of senior citi-
zens tend to have lower growth rates in the Nordic countries especially. Put differently, the
faster the city grows the lower is its share of elderly persons and, correspond-
ingly, the higher the share of children. A similar relationship, albeit not as clear-cut,
exists for the cities of Central and North-western Europe as well as for Southern Europe
– where most cities with a large senior population can be found. For Central and Eastern
European cities, such a pattern is however far from clear. In these New Member States,
there is no clear relation between population growth and age structure.
Migration
Measuring migration is far from easy, as a range of variables are at play. One indicator is the
share of newcomers to Urban Audit cities, which varies widely across Europe
(?gure 2.8). In Ireland, France, Denmark and the southern half of Germany substantial por-
tions of the urban population have only recently moved into their cities. In most of these
cases the turnover of urban population is rapid as more than 5% of the city dwellers have
located in the city less than two years ago. In Paris the share exceeded 11% and in Dublin it
was nearly 13%. The single highest rate is also in Ireland, namely Galway, where more than
a ?fth of its total population (21%) has migrated into the city in the last two years. In abso-
lute terms Berlin and Paris are the primary destinations for urban in-migration in Europe.
Roughly a quarter of a million persons have (in 2001) migrated to these cities less than two
years earlier (Figure 2.9). Also many other French cities (e.g. Lyon or all cities along the
Mediterranean/Atlantic coast), Madrid, Dublin, Vienna, Copenhagen and Budapest have
much in-migration. Apart from Berlin, Munich in Germany as well as the Rhineland are the
primary magnets for recent migrants. Also in Cayenne in French Guyana the rate of new-
comers was above 13%.
71
Figure 2.8: Share of newcomers to Urban Audit cities
2. Population Change in European Cities
72
A striking point that emerges is the fact that a large number of cities are not strongly
affected by immigration. Especially in the Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltic
States, but also in Italy and in smaller cities on the Iberian Peninsula, many cities attract only
a limited number of citizens.
Despite these extreme differences across the European territory, a general pattern is that
large cities tend to have a high in?ow of migrants whereas smaller ones tend
to have much lower shares of in-migrants. Besides, it is important to recognise that
smaller cities attract new citizens from nearby – often from the surrounding region. Their
magnet function is simply not as strong as that for larger cities.
An important hypothesis is that successful cities tend to attract more migrants than
less successful cities. After all, many migrants look for opportunities and are driven to
those cities where they consider their own chances of success on the labour market
to be the largest. Modern communication tools allow migrants to be better informed
about such opportunities, while relatives and friends already moved earlier are likely to be
at least as important. The strong in?ow of migrants into cities such as London and Madrid
(more so than Rome or Berlin) illustrates this pattern.
Despite images and impressions, the facts show that the majority of migrants
to Europe’s cities are national residents. In most cases the share of nationals
exceeds three quarters and in Central and Eastern Europe migrants are nearly
exclusively nationals.
Some cities receive large numbers of migrants from outside the EU. In western Eu-
rope, Spain and the Netherlands and to a lesser extent Austria are striking as the countries
where the origin of migrants lies often outside the EU, in the Italian case nearly exclusively.
Munich and Cologne are the primary magnets for EU migrants, these cities having the
largest relative shares of migrating nationals from other EU countries. The largest cohorts
of other EU nationals in 2001 can be found within the northern parts of the Pentagon, in
Scandinavia as well as in Ireland. Also Vienna, the aforementioned Munich or Palma de Mal-
lorca have large shares of residents coming from other EU countries. The relative share of
EU citizens in cities within the Pentagon is decreasing though. On the whole, migrants to
capitals or other large cities tend to come from further away whereas smaller cities tend to
have more in-migration from their respective countries alone.
As a consequence of these migratory movements, most European cities are
becoming increasingly international. However small the share of non-nationals
in Urban Audit cities is, it is growing constantly as European and global integration
proceeds. In 1981 the average share of non-nationals in UA cities was 7.8%. By 1996
it had increased to 10.4%. The largest increase was in the share of non-EU nationals.
Cities in Spain, Greece and northern Italyand to a slightly lesser extent in Ireland
and Portugal are the ones experiencing the most rapid shifts. The top ten in
this respect are “internationalising” cities such as Athens, Nicosia and Thessaloniki in
Greece, Dublin in Ireland, Madrid, Palma de Mallorca, Barcelona and Pamplona/Iruña in
Spain, Ljubljana in Slovenia as well as Luxembourg.
73
Anyway, it should be said that migration remains a relatively modest phenomenon
for a broad range of – mostly smaller – cities. In case of limited in?ow of new citizens
(less than 5% of the population in the last 2 years), there is hardly any link with population
growth or decline. This link could be somewhat stronger for cities where larger numbers of
new residents ?ock in, as these cities tend to have higher population growth rates as well.
Figure 2.9: Number and origin of newcomers to UA cities 2001
2. Population Change in European Cities
74
What emerges is that, across Europe, some cities are thriving as they have a growing
and young population, while attracting even more from outside. But many other cities
face different developments; they witness a natural loss of population, due to falling
birth rates, and a rapidly ageing population. From a numerical point of view, the main
challenge lies in the ability of cities to attract migrants who can keep up the numbers.
But as a consequence, the face of Europe’s cities is changing rapidly. As there is so
much diversity across Europe, we will now look more speci?cally at developments in
Northern, Northwestern, Central & Eastern and Southern Europe respectively.
2.3. Where do Europe’s cities grow or stagnate?
On a diverse continent as today’s Europe, there are limits to generalisations. Patterns
of urban developments in Northern Europe are quite different from those in Central,
Southern or North-western Europe.
Figure 2.10: Population change in Nordic cities (1996-2001) 28
Figure 2.11: Population Change in Central and Northwest European cities (1996-2001) 30
75
Figure 2.12: Population change in Central & Eastern European cities (1996-2001) 33
Figure 2.13: Population change in Southern European cities (1996-2001)
Overall, urban development in the Nordics has been positive – where cities have
grown substantially faster than their respective countries on the whole.
In many ways, the urban patterns of North-western Europe are complex and diverse.
Growth, stagnation and decline all seem to coincide in these countries – albeit
not to the same extent in all places. The changing economic and social context has also
had a strong impact on urban development across Central and Eastern Europe. An
overall trend is that many cities in the region face population loss. In recent years, many of
the Southern European cities have been growing, but this has created a number of pres-
sures and challenges.
2. Population Change in European Cities
76
2.4. Challenges for Cities with Population Changes
All cities, whether growing or shrinking appear to face particular challenges and problems
to be analysed, to be addressed and taken forward. At this stage, we can distinguish three
main challenges for European cities:
Pains of Growing Cities
Symptoms of Stagnating or Falling Cities
Issues concerning Social Exclusion
Table 2.1: Overview of urban development issues across the EU 27
Type of
challenge
Region
Pains of Growing
Cities
Symptoms of
Stagnating or Falling
Cities
Issues concerning
Social Exclusion
Northern
Europe
(Denmark,
Finland,
Sweden)
Lack of affordable
housing due to growth
and/or rolling back of
council housing and
reluctance of private
sector to ?ll this part
of market Lack of land
for construction
Lack of development
opportunities in
smaller and more
peripheral towns
(Denmark, Finland,
Sweden)
Social and ethnic
segregation,
integration of
immigrant
communities (Danish
and Swedish cities)
The (re)integration of
Immigrant populations
and those made
unemployed through
industrial restructuring
(Sweden).
Northwestern
Europe
(UK, Ireland,
France,
Netherlands,
Belgium,
Luxembourg)
Overheating of the
main urban centres,
with rapid increases
of housing prices and
traf?c congestion
(Ireland, S.E.
England,
Luxembourg)
Low demand for housing, as
a result of limited economic
opportunities and low quality
of place (North of England,
Wales, Southern Belgium)
Deteriorating urban living
conditions in some core
cities, as an outcome of urban
decline (Belgium)
‘Ghetto’ formation
in suburbs of larger
cities and towns,
social exclusion and
segregation (France)
Social segregation,
anti-social behaviour,
perceptions of insecurity
and limited integration of
immigrant communities
77
Central & E.
Europe
(Germany,
Austria, New
Member
States)
Shortage of affordable
housing and rapid
increases in housing
costs
Rapid changes in
household structure,
with housing stock
not adjusting (Czech
Republic, Poland)
Low quality of the
post WW II housing
stock (All C& E.
Europe)
Financial problems
of new owners of
large housing estates,
following privatisation
(Hungary)
High unemployment
and poverty in areas
of industrial decline
(Eastern parts of
Germany, Poland,
Czech Republic,
Hungary)
Population loss in cities,
due to limited economic
opportunities and related
emigration – with ageing
population and strains on
local ?nance (former Eastern
Germany, some W. German
cities)
General decline of
(urban) population due
to demographics and
(out)migration (Czech
Republic, Poland)
Population decline and
abandoned housing estates
due to outmigration of non-
nationals (Estonia, Latvia)
Limited ?nancial capabilities of
local governments
Social exclusion
issues around the
Roma population
(Hungary, Slovakia,
Czech Republic)
Social exclusion of non-
nationals (Baltics)
Southern
Europe
Concentration of
population and
associated pressures
Pressures on urban
infrastructure,
including transport,
land and water
Lack of
affordablehousing
in larger cities
Urban sprawl
and uncontrolled
(sometimes illegal)
development
Ageing population
and stagnation (Italy,
smaller towns elsewhere)
Limited integration of
new immigrants and
access to housing
(Northern Italy)
Disproportionate
concentration of
immigrant communities
in the suburbs and
certain sections of inner
city Lisbon and Porto
(Portugal)
Urban insecurity and
crime levels in larger
cities (Portugal)
2. Population Change in European Cities
78
2.5. Population Change and Openness
Overall, mobility of citizens has been increasing across Europe and immigration has there-
fore become a key trend that is still poorly understood. Statements regarding immigration
are not always balanced and they tend to emphasise either its advantages or its disadvan-
tages. On the one hand, as Europe continues to integrate, the in-migration of non-na-
tionals can be seen as an indicator for attractiveness. People moving to cities are
often young, as they are wish to study at centrally-located and prestigious universi-
ties or because the economic opportunities are better in the cities than elsewhere. On
the other hand, immigration represents a social challenge in many cities. As the diversity
and the number of immigrants increase, there is also a risk for segregation and social exclu-
sion, especially if these coincide with signi?cant unemployment, poverty and exclusion.
The share of non-nationals in core UA cities is rather modest in most cases, and the number
of cities where their share is higher than 10% is primarily found in Northwestern Europe.
By far highest level of non-nationals is recorded in Luxembourg where in 2001 54% of the
citizens held a foreign passport. The obvious explanation for this lies in the limited number
of nationals, the presence of European institutions as well as international banks.
Other cities with a high number of non-nationals are Bruxelles and Liège in Belgium, the
German cities of Hamburg, München, Köln, Frankfurt am Main, Düsseldorf, Hannover, Nürn-
berg, Wuppertal, Wiesbaden, Augsburg, Bonn and Mainz, together with Paris in France and
Athens in Greece. But the origin and background of non-nationals is different from
city to city. For instance in Tallinn (Estonia), 28% of the citizens are considered non-na-
tionals, as they lack an Estonian passport. Their background is predominantly Russian and
many of them have been living in Tallinn for a long period of time and are often born there.
With the exception of the three Baltic States, numbers of non-nationals tend to be low in
the New Member States.
The Urban Audit cities tend to host a large share of these non-EU citizens – much high-
er than their countries overall (Figure 2.14). Cities which host relatively large numbers of
non-EU citizens overall can be found in France, Belgium, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Latvia,
and Slovakia. Larger numbers of non-EU citizens can also be found in cities outside these
countries, but these cities are not always the rule and sometimes more the exception (e.g.
Madrid and Barcelona in Spain).
Yet, the foreign population tends to have a general preference to live in the core
city rather than in the larger urban zone (or LUZ). This locational preference can be
recorded in almost all UA cities, independent of the size and composition of the foreign
population. However, when the numbers of foreign residents increase in the urban area
overall, the dominance of the core city as the preferred place of residence tends to in-
crease (Figure 2.15). (UA cities where the share of foreigners is higher in the core city than
in the LUZ are plotted below the diagonal line).
79
Without aiming to be complete, several explanations for this pattern could be provided.
First of all, immigrants of all nature are likely to take the core city as their starting point
of their housing career, as these areas are more easily to be explored and discovered.
Secondly, immigrants with limited ?nancial possibilities are more likely to gravitate to those
areas where housing is more affordable – which is often the case in the core city rather
than the surrounding suburbs. Newly arrived are also more likely to join others who have
migrated before them. Thirdly, core cities also tend to cater to the expatriate communties,
where the offer of (temporary) rental housing is often larger than in surrounding areas,
and where cultural amenities are concentrated. Fourthly, core cities tend to have a more
diverse social composition and tend to provide an atmosphere which is more receptive
towards newcomers than other parts of the agglomeration.
Figure 2.14: Share of non-EU citizens, national average and core cities, 2001
2. Population Change in European Cities
80
Figure 2.15: Share of non-nationals in the core city and the LUZ
81
Section Three:
Indexes
or Kitemarks of City
Openness?
82
Indexes
or Kitemarks of City
Openness?
This section reviews existing city indexes and re?ects about the need of creating an
index about the openness of cities, a new concept which is, nevertheless key to cities’
success.
3.1. Introduction
The OPENCities Project has set an objective to develop practical guidance for cities on
how they can become successful at attracting and retaining international populations
as part of their efforts for internationalisation.
The project includes core elements such as:
De?ning and diagnosing Open-ness in Cities.
Developing Local Open-ness Action Plans
Peer Reviews by Other Cities.
Detailed guidance for city leaders.
Promotion of the voice of migrants in cities.
Building an International OPENCities Index or Kite Mark.
This paper is concerned with ?nal item, building and OPENCities Index.
An OPENCities Index would be potentially of great interest because it would be a unique
index that benchmarks and indexes cities on their attractive to foreign populations
during an era of exceptional human mobility. The index would also drive debate about
what some cities are more open than others and how cities can become ‘more open’,
and it would stimulate and focus discussions and debate about the value of migration
to host cities and the de?nition of open-ness itself.
3. Indexes or Kitemarks of City Openness?
84
An OPENCities Index would also be a highly branded product that would attract media
attention and offer many spin off activities for the British council and it’s partners.
There are more than 30 international city indexes but none of them are concerned with
OPENCities.
3.2. Key Ingredients
This proposal is based on a global review of city indexes and benchmarks that illustrates
how such indexes work and what they can achieve.
For an international index to be useful if must include a number of key ingredients.
Enough cities must participate in the index to make its conclusions meaningful.
The methodology for assessing each city must be transparent and robust, and
based on a clear conceptual framework.
Any data used must be internationally available.
There should be a diagnostic element as well as a comparative element.
It should make sense to readers as a meaningful thing to produce measures on.
It should include both hard and soft measure where available.
It should be sensitive to different kinds of cities and not simply measure all against all.
The regular production of the index should be accompanied by a commentary and
explanations of changing positions.
It should be re?ned regularly to adjust for changes and for greater clarity about
what is being measured.
3.3. Ingredients for an OPENCities Index
Much work needs to be done to develop the OPENCities Index or Kitemark. T is hoped
this would be taken forwards in the ?rst full phase of the project. Key issues will be:
Will it be better to have an Index (ranking) or a kitemark (quality standard)?
What are the factors, measures, and indicators that we can use that are internationally
comparable?
What weighting would we give to each measure?
What balance between perception measures, eg from within the city population
or from outside the city, versus performance measures to use, and in what
combination?
85
What groupings or segmentations to apply? Are we comparing all cities against
each other or undertaking comparisons of cities within groups or typologies?
Are we measuring outcomes only or progress?
What is a minimum number of cities for an Index or a kitemark?
3.4. Learning from existing indexes: Measuring City
Performance
A number of institutions, companies and research bodies produce reports, benchmarks
or indexes of cities across the UK, Europe and the rest of the world. These offer an insight
into how various communities – business, political, cultural and academic – view cities
in a globalising world, and serve as invaluable sources to a range of organisations. The
indexes and benchmarks summarised here cover everything from cost of of?ce space
to quality of life to the number of car thefts per 1,000 people, to the depth and reach
of ‘city brands’. Environmental, social and economic indicators are all given coverage
across the various indexes. However, each by itself offers only a partial view of the city,
dictated by the information that it details. In synthesis, it is possible, however, to get a
more holistic picture of cities; this is the main value of the indexes.
Why are Indexes and Benchmarks used?
As globalisation continues apace, cities and regions are becoming increasingly
important actors within the world economy. Cities are no longer bounded within ‘nation
state’ regional systems and urban hierarchies, and increasingly have to compete on
an international scale. Cities are inevitably coping differently with these changes, and
some are performing better than others. Benchmarks, reports and indexes provide
particularly useful tools in today’s globalised economy for a number of reasons:
Diagnostic/prior assessment: Making judgemen about progress made by cities as a
preliminary to developing new action plans, strategies, or investment decisions.
Comparative ‘pegging’: Reports, benchmarks and indexes usually compare cities
against one another, and as such can be used to evaluate the relative strengths
and weaknesses of different cities. This is useful not only for outside observers, but
for the cities themselves who can accordingly develop strategies which focus on
their weakest competitive areas.
Pedagogy: Reports, benchmarks and indexes are essentially educative tools. By
uncovering trends and examining the reasons behind city’s successes and failures
they can prove instructive both for cities themselves and for other interested
parties.
Leveraging/persuading: Cities which are performing well can use these benchamarks,
reports and indexes as “evidence” to demonstrate their strengths to prospective
investors, inhabitants or workers. For example, Zurich and Geneva have used their
3. Indexes or Kitemarks of City Openness?
86
high rankings in quality of life benchmarks to encourage investment from a wide
range of ?rms. Where cities are very close rivals, benchmarks, reports and indices
can be used to gain leverage over direct competitors.
Evaluation / review: Reports, benchmarks and indexes are often produced on an
annual basis, or at least at regular intervals, using the same criteria and methods
for comparison of cities from year to year. This allows cities to review their recent
performance relative to their competitors. Benchmarks thus also prove useful if a
city has implemented a major change e.g. introduced tax incentives or launched
a new development strategy, as the results of such a change may be assessed by
comparing past and present city rankings.
‘Home truths’: Reports, benchmarks and indexes can illustrate “home truths” to cities
which may not have been apparent to them before, highlighting problem areas or
underlining particularly successes.
How are Benchmarks Used?
There are a variety of different ways of using benchmarks, including:
Comparative analysis of data. e.g. EU State of Cities Report
Diagnostic analysis.
Case study approach: e.g. Siemens Megacities Report
Networking. e.g. URBACT
Surveys e.g. ULI Emerging Trends in Real Estate Report
Indexes e.g. Anholt City Brands Index
Benchmarking clubs. e.g. Richard Florida’s Boho Indexes
Peer review and assessment e.g. OECD
3.5. Issues associated with Benchmarks, Reports and Indexes
The advantages to using these comparative tools are extremely apparent (as outlined
in the “why are benchmarks used?” section). However, although useful, benchmarks
reports and indexes are tools which must be employed with caution. There are a number
of ways in which error or bias may be incorporated into these comparative tools. The
more information the user has about the background to the benchmark, report or index
the more objectively they may be used. Possible issues include:
Quality of data: sometie the data is just not reliable enough because the sample is too
small, the induicators used are not reliable measures, or there is ‘contamination’ in
the data by ogther factors.
87
Comparability of data: Different indexes are not always directly comparable due to
differing parameters used in their construction (in terms of both space and time).
e.g. “London” may refer to Central London, Greater London or even the City of
London (a single smal municipality).
Geographical scale at which data collected: Data collected at too large a scale may
overlook smaller scale intricacies, e.g. unemployment rates are highly divergent in
different boroughs of London. In addition as indices, benchmarks and reports are
compiled from data collected at different scales, this in turn affects comparability
of data
Perception data versus performance data: Where data used in the formation of benchmarks
or indices is qualitative rather than quantitative, issues of objectivity may arise. For
example, ranking the quality of life in different cities around the world is inherently
a subjective exercise – what one researcher perceives as contributing positively to
quality of life e.g. presence of wireless internet, another may see as irrelevant or even
a negative. Equally some indices are solely based on perceptions, e.g. the Anholt
Brand Index quanti?es people’s perceptions of different city brands, and are therefore
necessarily more subjective than indices based on performance data
Independence of assessment: Assessment of indices etc is made by people, and as
such is subject to signi?cant subjectivities
Who produces? Who buys?: Many benchmarks, reports or indexes are made with a
particular purpose or particular audience in mind – in this sense they are a form
of policy driven research. Neutrality of ?ndings and recommendations is therefore
not always assured as inputs may be doctored to ensure the outcomes best suit
the needs of interested parties.
Multiple or singular data sources?: Those benchmarks, reports and indices which are
compiled from a singular data source are necessarily more prone to inaccuracies
and subjectivities than those which are compiled from a wider range of sources.
Bearing in mind these possible areas for error then, it is clear that the real value of
benchmarks, reports and indexes is the potential that they offer to use and compare
several at a time. It is only in doing so that their limits of accuracy will be overcome.
3.6. Reports, Benchmarks and Indexes
Twenty ?ve reports, composite benchmarks and more narrowly-de?ned indexes
have been investigated. They range from extensive reviews of cities in the global and
European economies, through to benchmarks comprised of analyses of multiple urban
factors and ?nally indexes constructed from analyses of singular urban variables. The
indexes and itemarks analysed include:
3. Indexes or Kitemarks of City Openness?
88
1. Reports on cities in the global and European economies
i. OECD: Competitive Cities in the Global Economy
ii. BAK Basel: International Benchmarking (2006)
iii. UN-Habitat’s ‘State of the World’s Cities’
iv. PricewaterhouseCoopers City Leadership
v. PricewaterhouseCoopers: UK Economic Outlook Report (2007)
vi. Siemen’s Megacities Report
2. Composite city-regional benchmarks
vii. Globalisation and World Cities Group (GAWC)
viii. Jones Lang LaSalle World Winning Cities
ix. Jones Lang LaSalle ‘World Winning Cities: Deciding Where to Offshore’
x. The Climate Group: ‘Low Carbon Leader: Cities’ Report
xi. Mastercard: Worldwide Centres of Commerce Index
xii. The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Business Trip Index
xiii. Economist Intelligence Unit – Liveability Ranking
3. Singular city indexes
xiv. Standard & Poor’s
xv. Anholt GMI City Brands Index
xvi. Mercer Human Resources ‘Quality of Living’ Index
xvii. Mercer Human Resources Cost of Living Survey
xviii. Robert Huggins Associates ‘World Knowledge Competitiveness Index’
xix. Shanghai Jiao Tong University’s ‘Academic ranking of world universities’
xx. Urban Land Institute (ULI): Emerging Trends in Real Estate
xxi. HotelBenchmark™ Survey by Deloitte (2006)
xxii. How Worldly Are World Cities?: From Concept to Measurement Kim Hunmin
xxiii. GaWC Assessment of Centrality
xxiv. International Congress and Convention Association Rankings (2006)
xxv. Cushman & Wake?eld Healey & Baker ‘Main Streets Across the World’
89
3.7. Examples of City Indexes
Some city indexes relevant for considering how an OPENCities could work are
highlighted below.
i. OECD: Competitive Cities in the Global Economy
The OECD’s report Competitive Cities in the Global Economy (2006) provides a valuable
introduction to the state of metropolitan regions in the twenty-?rst century. It presents
a more holistic view of city environments than that offered by many of the indexes
examined in this report, thereby allowing the indexes to be placed in a wider socio-
economic context. The report does not produce a single index or ranking of cities
but instead discusses and analyses a wide range of indicators regarding a number
of metropolitan-regions, whilst particularly focusing upon city competitiveness. The
factors examined range from GDP per capita to higher education, levels of innovation,
metropolitan governance strategies and ideas for policy reform.
Statements on Success and Failure
The report combines a quantitative analysis of key data, whilst simultaneously providing
qualitative assessments of the ?ndings. At the highest level, the report suggests that metro-
regions often succeed in generating higher output per capita and productivity since:
Agglomeration economies allow large metro-regions to attract global or regional
corporate headquarters. They offer a wide range of choice in resources and a
concentration of more specialised business services and infrastructure
Metro-regions typically provide contrasting advantages of specialisation and diversity
The more favourable pattern of metro-regions’ industrial mix is closely linked with
their capacity to concentrate R&D activities and generate innovation
Metro-regions tend to have greater endowments of human capital and a higher
stock of physical capital, measured by the equipment of ?rms and the stock of
buildings and infrastructure facilities
However, the report does also identify why metro-regions can fail. This may be due to,
Diseconomies of agglomeration in mega-cities (e.g. Seoul, Mexico City, Istanbul,
and probably Tokyo)
Metro-regions tend to be home to large and persistent pockets of unemployment,
exclusion, poverty and socio-economic inequalities
Metro-regions surprisingly feature lower activity rates than other types of regions
(44.3% against 49.7% and 44.5% in intermediate and rural regions respectively
in 2003). Large cities tend to contain disproportionate numbers of people who
3. Indexes or Kitemarks of City Openness?
90
are or inactive, or who work in the informal economy. This is often due to a larger
proportion of immigrants who typically tend to concentrate in large cities.
Cities highlighted by the report
Different cities are highlighted by different sections of the report, depending upon
which indicators are examined. There is no de?nitive successful metro-region identi?ed;
different regions are identi?ed as succeeding in different areas.
For instance, the cities demonstrated to have the highest levels of GDP per capita (See
Figure 1.1) are different to those identi?ed as those with rapid rates of employment
growth (See Figure 1.2). The highest ranking cities in terms of GDP per capita are San
Francisco, Washington and Boston, whilst Madrid, Valencia and Istanbul top the list for
metro-region employment growth.
Figure 1.1.
Rank Metropolitan Region Country Population (millions) GDP pc in PPPs (thousand USD)
1 San Francisco USA 4.2 62.3
2 Washington USA 5.1 61.6
3 Boston USA 4.4 58.0
4 Seattle USA 3.2 54.4
5 Minneapolis USA 3.1 53.0
6 New York USA 18.7 52.8
7 Denver USA 2.3 50.8
8 Philadelphia USA 5.8 50.5
9 Dallas USA 5.7 50.1
10 Atlanta USA 4.7 47.8
11 Houston USA 5.2 47.4
12 San Diego USA 2.9 46.8
13 London UK 7.4 46.2
14 Chicago USA 9.4 45.6
15 Los Angeles USA 12.9 45.3
16 Detroit USA 4.5 44.0
17 Baltimore USA 2.6 43.3
18 Paris France 11.2 42.7
19 Cleveland USA 2.1 42.2
20 Portland USA 2.1 41.8
Figure 1.2
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
-1%
-2%
-3%
M
a
d
r
i
d
V
a
l
e
n
c
i
a
I
s
t
a
m
b
u
l
S
t
o
c
c
k
h
o
l
m
S
e
o
u
l
A
n
k
a
r
a
D
u
b
l
i
n
D
a
o
g
u
L
i
l
e
A
t
h
e
n
a
I
z
m
r
R
a
n
d
s
t
a
d
-
H
o
l
a
n
d
B
a
r
c
e
l
o
n
a
L
y
o
n
R
o
m
e
N
a
p
l
e
s
B
u
s
a
n
M
u
n
i
c
h
H
e
l
a
n
k
F
r
a
n
k
f
u
r
t
R
h
i
n
e
-
R
u
h
r
M
i
l
a
n
P
a
r
i
s
S
t
u
t
t
g
a
r
t
T
u
r
i
n
H
a
m
b
u
r
g
C
o
p
e
n
h
e
g
u
e
n
O
s
l
o
B
u
d
a
p
e
s
t
B
r
u
s
s
e
l
s
P
r
a
g
u
e
F
u
k
u
o
k
a
B
e
r
l
i
n
A
i
c
h
i
T
o
k
y
o
V
i
e
n
n
a
O
s
a
k
a
K
r
a
k
o
w
Metro-region
Employment
Growth
Country
Employment
Growth
91
Cities making progress
Since the report does not produce a single index or ranking, it is not immediately
obvious which cities are identi?ed as making signi?cant overall progress. Indeed, due
to the wide range of indicators examined it would in fact be very dif?cult to identify any
single city as making particular overall progress. Instead the aspect of metro-regions in
which the reader is interested should be examined and then any cities highlighted here
as making progress drawn out.
ii. BAK Basel Economics: International Benchmarking 2006
The BAK Basel International Benchmarking (2006) series of reports provides a
comprehensive analysis of global regional performance. In total, 512 regions were
covered by BAK’s International Benchmarking Report 2006, encompassing the
geographical area illustrated to the left. However, there does seem to be a strong focus
on Europe in many sections of the overall report which explains the arguable European
bias in the subsequent discussion.
Statements of Success and Failure
The report suggests that the following factors are important when assessing regional
performance and can explain why cities and metropolitan regions succeed or fail:
i. Innovation resources
Availability of human capital
Quantity of quality of university research
Expenditure on research and development
3. Indexes or Kitemarks of City Openness?
92
ii. Regulation of markets
Product markets
Labour markets
iii. Taxation
Company taxation
Taxation of highly quali?ed manpower
iv. Connectivity
Global accessibility
Cities highlighted by the Report
As with various reports outlined in this note, different aspects of the report highlight
different cities and metropolitan regions. Figure 1.3 provides an illustration of the
differential performance of regions according to different variables.
For instance, rapid GDP growth has been seen in Cork (c.9.2%), Waterford (c.7.9%)
and Athens (c.4.6%) whilst R&D spending is highest in Basel, followed by Boston
and Turku. Again, regional accessibility highlights three other city-regions, namely
Amsterdam, London and Oresund.
Figure 1.3
Crowht of real DGP
p.a. (based on 2000
prices and 1997 PPP)
Global accessibility (2004)
Company taxation
(effective annual tax rate
2005)
1 Cork Paris Boston
2 Waterford Cambridge Munich
3 Slovakia Zurich Barcelona
4 Athens Cologne Milan
5 Tampere Karisruhe Oslo
6 Cambridge Dublin Helsinki
7 Czech Republic Oresund Czech Republic
8 Slovenia Madrid Zurich
9 Luxembourg Stockholm Slovakia
10 Eastern Europe Zug Dublin
93
Cities making Progress
Progress is analysed for some indicators, but by no means all. For instance, in terms
of GDP growth 2000-2005, Athens, Tampere and Dublin exhibit rapid growth, whilst
changes in employment growth are highest in Rome (2.5%), Vorarlberg (c.1.2%) and
Gothenberg (c1.0%).
In a wider sense, BAK suggest that the following sectors are important for regional develop-
ment (see ?gure 1.4), which may explain the varying rates of progress seen in regions.
Figure 1.4
iii. UN Habitat’s ‘State of the World’s Cities’
UN-Habitat, the UN agency concerned with urbanisation, urban poverty and other ur-
ban issues that affect development and quality of life in the world’s cities, produce this
report to assess urban development across the world.
‘Urban-based economic activities account for more than 50 per cent of GDP in all countries and up
to 80 per cent in more urbanised countries in Latin America, or more in Europe. For example, the ten
largest metropolitan areas in Mexico, accounting for one third of the country’s population, generate
62 per cent of national value added. This disproportionate economic contribution of cities - indeed,
their importance to the economy as a whole - is normally ignored or overlooked. This neglect is dan-
gerous because, cities and towns are not only the loci of production, but they are also the loci of the
most important impacts of globalisation and, hence, the places of change and expectations for the
future. Undervaluing urban areas can unwittingly place the economic and social futures of countries
at risk.’
The “New Economy” Sector
• Computers and of?ce quipment
• Telecommunication equipment (incl.electrical
engineering)
• Telecommnication services
• IT-Services
The High Value Added “Old Economy” Sector
• Chemicals and pharmaceuticals
• Precision and optical equipment, wathes
• Manufacture of vehicles
The Political “Sector”
• Primary Sector
• Energy and water supply
• Researcha and development
• Public administration etc.
• Education
• Health and social services
• Sewage treatment, refuse disposal
The Urban Sector
• Trade and repair of automobiles and consumer
durables
• Hotels and restaurants
• Transport
• Financial services
• Real estate
• Leasing of movables without operating personnel.
• Provision of services to companies
• Interest groups and other associations
• Entertainment, culture and sport
• Personal services
• Private household’s
The Traditional Sector
• Food, beverage, tobacco products
• Textiles, garments, furs, leather products and shoes
• Processing of wood
• Paper-and boardmaking/ Printing and publishing
• Coke, re?ned petroleum products
• Rubber and plasctic products
• Other products form non-metallic minerals
• Metals and metal products/Mechanical engineering
• Manufacturing not elsewhere classi?ed
• Construction
3. Indexes or Kitemarks of City Openness?
94
It is this understanding of cities that underpins the making of the cities report. Con-
cerns of urban poverty, deskilling of the workforce and the unequal distribution of the
fruits of globalisation processes are other concerns of the UN report.
Statements of Success and Failure
There are no statements in the report as to what makes a successful or failed city. How-
ever, there are issues raised as to the problems in cities such as the micro-politics of social
integration. The report notes that whilst migration has become easier and greater in scale
than at anytime before, the politics of integrating diverse people into new urban areas is
complicated, leading to the increased formation of ghettos, both rich and poor. This is as-
sociated with the increased standardisation of urban culture which leads to more adverse
effects for marginalised communities. The report suggests that there is an institutional bias
against (poor) migrant communities that means provision for them is limited. It calls for
more training of public sector personnel, including the police, to deal with a new politics
of difference effectively. The report also highlights that cities are concentrations of crime
and suffering. Cities are identi?ed as sites of physical and sexual abuse, particularly towards
women and children, and as the ports of entry for illegal weapons. Cities are also the places
of government corruption and civil war. Environmental degradation and pollution continue
to constrain development and growth of cities. Ill health and premature death not only
cause pain and suffering, they also impose heavy costs on the economy.
However, the report does make reference to the ability of governments to guide
development and planning in cities. It argues that the privatisation of public utilities has
made it dif?cult for governments to be effective. For example, it notes that 11.5% of
the population of Buenos Aires received 68% of urban investment between 1991 and
1997, demonstrating the massive inequalities that cities contain beyond the veneer
promoted by city managers. They conclude that:
‘It should not be surprising that privatised companies do not want to invest their prof-
its in extending services to unserved slum or squatter areas in Latin American cities.
They would rather send the pro?ts back to their stockholders in Spain or France.’
More than one billion of the world’s urban residents live in inadequate housing, mostly
in the sprawling slums and squatter settlements in developing countries. The right to
adequate housing is recognised by more than 70% of the world’s countries. Almost all
countries in the Asia-Paci?c region promote housing rights in their legislation and the
Arab States provide the greatest protection against eviction. Extending urban citizenship
to the poor, through the granting of secure tenure, for example, is one of the most far-
reaching decisions that can be taken in promoting a sustainable shelter strategy.
Exclusion, as a result of physical, social or economic barriers, prevents many groups from
participating fully in urban life and services. Failure of local authorities to integrate such
groups in their decision-making is often a function of inertia, along with bureaucratic and
unresponsive forms of governance. Participatory governance is a prerequisite to social
95
cohesion and inclusion. It involves supporting local populations to engage in, and bene?t
from, opportunities offered by urban-scale activities, all of which devolved to the local
level, while simultaneously offering opportunities for strengthening civil society.
Cities highlighted by the Report
The report does not highlight any cities speci?cally. Figure 1.5 shows a selection of
measures of the City Development Index (CDI), similar to the Human Development
Index (HDI) used by UNDP for nation states.
Figure 1.5
Region CDI
City
Products
Infre-
structure
Waste Health Education
Sockholm 97.4 93.6 99.5 100.0 94.0 99.8
Melbourne 95.5 90.0 99.8 100.0 93.7 94.1
Singapore 94.5 91.6 99.5 100.0 92.7 88.6
Hong Kong 92.0 89.4 99.3 99.0 90.9 81.3
Moscow 89.9 81.0 98.7 86.8 83.8 99.3
Seoul 86.0 66.3 98.4 100.0 88.7 77.7
Rio de
Janeiro
79.4 82.3 86.2 62.6 81.9 84.3
So?a 79.1 70.9 93.7 58.5 86.2 86.3
Hanoi 74.2 59.6 72.0 90.0 80.6 69.0
Havana 71.0 65.0 74.8 50.0 80.7 84.7
Lakarta 69.2 66.2 57.3 46.7 80.2 95.7
Utaanbaatar 68.4 53.7 59.0 90.0 72.5 66.7
Lahore 61.1 71.1 78.5 50.0 64.9 40.8
Colombo 58.4 46.9 68.6 45.0 86.2 45.3
Bangalore 58.0 51.1 82.7 31.3 76.5 48.5
Dhaka 48.4 55.6 45.3 27.5 64.6 48.7
Vientiane 47.1 44.0 58.0 0.0 62.3 71.3
Acora 46.6 49.4 50.0 0.0 71.4 62.0
Phnom Penh 43.5 40.2 33.0 27.0 47.2 69.9
Port Moresby 39.3 69.0 18.1 10.0 59.1 40.2
Lagos 29.3 42.1 29.5 2.0 44.0 29.1
Niamey 21.7 40.0 22.0 0.0 78.3 14.9
1998 data
Cities making Progress
Some general considerations as to how cities can make progress on addressing the
issues outlined in the report are presented. Economic constraints are seen as the major
cause of inequalities, and as the basis of social and cultural fracturing. Strategies to
combat these constraints include:
Strengthening the management of urban infrastructure by improving the level and
composition of investment, reinforcing institutional capacity for operation and
maintenance, and seeking opportunities for greater private sector involvement
3. Indexes or Kitemarks of City Openness?
96
Improving city-wide regulatory frameworks to increase land and housing market
ef?ciency and to enhance private sector provision of shelter and infrastructure
Improving the technical and ?nancial capacity of municipal institutions through
more effective application of resources and division of responsibility between cen-
tral and local governments, and,
Strengthening ?nancial services for urban development, ranging from micro-credit
systems to municipal bond markets.
Urban economies in the developing world are largely driven by the informal sector. In-
formal sector employment makes up 37% of the total employment in developing coun-
tries as a whole, and is as high as 45% in Africa. Cities can support the informal sector
through the provision and maintenance of infrastructure, including adequate supply of
electricity, water, transport and telecommunications networks. By relaxing rules and
regulations, the informal sector can be expected to contribute further to the creation
of jobs and, perhaps, eventually be integrated into the formal economy.
The ‘key ?nding’ of the report is that the national success of the country rests on local
shoulders, with cities in the Global South in particular having a massive impact on the
national economy (38% of Thailand’s GDP comes from Bangkok; Budapest represents
25% of Hungary’s GDP). In the developed world it is less; London at 7.2% of the UK’s
economy is particularly high, but then is a particularly unique city. Measures to address
city inequalities and issues would serve to help the State as a whole, and this is the
main emphasis of the UN-Habitat report.
iv. The Climate Group: ‘Low Carbon Leader: Cities’ Report
As part of C20:The World Cities Leadership Summit in 2005, The Climate Group produced
a report examining ?fteen major cities that have taken an active role in reducing their
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The report covers Barcelona, Beijing, Berlin, Cape
Town, Chicago, Copenhagen, London, Melbourne, Paris, Mexico City, New York, San
Francisco, Seattle, Tokyo, and Toronto and spans cities in both the developed and
developing world. It examines the cities’ current GHG emissions, their targets for future
emissions’ reductions and discusses how the cities are delivering on these targets. The
total carbon footprint for the cities included in the report is 483 million tonnes CO2e
(carbon dioxide equivalent) per year, which equates to about 1.8% of the global total.
Statements of Success and Failure
The report identi?es those cities which have taken active measures to reduce green-
house gas emissions. It outlines the measures taken by each city thus far, the effect
these measures have had on reducing emissions and any future targets the cities have
set. The report makes qualitative assessments of each city’s experience and states
whether targets have been met. For instance, it suggests that,
97
‘Toronto was one of the ?rst municipal governments in the world to set a GHG emis-
sions target, pledging in 1990 to reduce its city-wide emissions 20% by 2005. In
2003, Toronto had far exceeded this goal in its own corporate facilities and opera-
tions, reducing emissions 42% below 1990 levels.’
However, statements of success and failure are only made on a case-by-case basis;
there is no overall assessment of the different methods cities have utilised.
Cities highlighted by the report
Figure 2.11 illustrates the total carbon footprint of each city discussed in the report.
Figure 2.11
Whilst no city is given more prominence
than any other within the report, it is noted
in press releases accompanying the report
that the highest reduction in emissions has
been achieved by Seattle. By 2000, the city
had reduced emissions from its operations
by 48% on 1990 levels. Similarly, the city
which has made the highest cost savings
is identi?ed as Toronto. In total the city has
saved US$102 million in energy cost sav-
ings through building retro?ts.
Cities making progress
The report does not make an assessment
of cities faring better or worse over time, it
merely documents their attempts to man-
age and curb greenhouse gas emissions.
However, the reader can ascertain that
those cities which have stringent targets
for future reductions are likely to make the
most rapid progress.
v. Anholt GMI City Brands Index
The Anholt City Brands Index, an annual ranking of cities around the globe, is com-
piled from the results of a survey conducted online among 17,502 men and women
aged 18-64 in 18 countries. The 30 cities whose brand was measured are illustrated
in Figure 3.2.
City Carbon
Population/
m
Seattle 0.6 0.6
Copenhagen 2.5 0.5
Barcelona 4.8 1.4
San Francisco 9.7 0.8
Paris 13.0 2.2
Cape Town 21.0
1
3.2
2
Berlin 25.3
3
3.4
Chicago 28.4 2.9
Mexico City 33.5 8.2
Toronto 40.2 2.5
London 41.9 7.4
Melbourne 59.6 3.6
Beijing 62.4 7.4
Tokyo 69.0 12.5
New York 72.0 8.1
1
Figure for 2003
2
Figure for 2005
3
Figure for 2002
3. Indexes or Kitemarks of City Openness?
98
Figure 3.2
Amsterdam, Barcelona, Beijing, Berlin, Brussels, Cairo, Edinburgh, Geneva, Hong
Kong, Johannesburg, Lagos, London, Los Angeles, Madrid, Mexico City, Milan,
Moscow, Mumbai, New York, Paris, Prague, Rio de Janeiro, Rome, San Francisco,
Singapore, Stockholm, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto, and Washington DC
The six components of the ‘City Brand Hexagon’ are:
Presence: the city’s international status and standing
Place: people’s perceptions about the physical aspect of each city
Potential: the economic and educational opportunities that each city is believed
to offer visitors, businesses and immigrants
Pulse: the appeal of a vibrant urban lifestyle); People (respondents’ impressions of
the inhabitants, community, and safety, and,
Prerequisites: people’s perceptions of the basic qualities of the city
Please note, due to the cost of this report, this analysis has
been compiled from press releases and other reports.
Statements of Success and Failure
From the press releases examined, brief reasons as to
why cities are successful brands appear to be highlighted
by the report (see below).
Cities highlighted by the report
As illustrated by Figure 3.3, London is the world’s favourite
city brand according to the Anholt Index. Second place
in the survey goes to Paris and 3rd place to Sydney. The
highest American entry is New York in 7
th
place behind
Rome (4
th
), Barcelona (5
th
) and Amsterdam (6
th
).
Most panellists feel they know more about London than
any of the other cities by a wide margin. It is the second
most visited city, coming in a fraction behind Paris: 30%
of people have visited on holiday and 10% have been on
business. London is ranked top for ease of ?nding a job,
for doing business in, for obtaining a valuable educational
quali?cation and for ease of ?nding a community where
Figure 3.3
Overall
Rankings
Rank
London
Paris
Sidney
Rome
Barcelona
Amsterdam
New York
Los Ángeles
Madrid
Berlin
San Francisco
Toronto
Geneva
Washington
Brussels
Milan
Stockholm
Edinburgh
Tokyo
Prague
Hong Kong
Singapore
Rio de Janeiro
Beijing
Mexico City
Moscow
Johannesburg
Cairo
Mumbai
Lagos
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
99
one can ?t in. The city is only second to Geneva for the general standard of public
amenities, such as schools, hospitals and public transport, and is second after Paris
for overall lifestyle. The Index also shows that the strength of a city’s brand can also
lead to false perceptions. Perceptions of London are so positive that people imagine
it to be cleaner than it is: it came 13
th
in the cleanliness poll, but was in fact ranked
only 102
nd
out of 215 cities for actual cleanliness in a global survey of cities carried
out by Mercer.
American cities fared the worst when panels were asked, “How safe would you feel
in this city?” San Francisco is the highest at 18th; Washington D.C. following closely
behind at 19th, and Los Angeles at 22
nd
. However, this fact, coupled with the perceived
unwelcoming aspect of U.S. cities, has not dampened the global desire to visit the U.S.
When asked where they would want to spend a week of free time, respondents rank
New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco in the top ten cities. The popularity may be
due to the fact that New York won third place for offering exciting and fun things to do,
while Los Angeles ranked ?fth place, and San Francisco seventh.
Overall, Toronto ranks second only to Sydney in the “Prerequisites” category, 3rd for
“People,” and 5th in the area of “Potential.” In the Prerequisites category, when asked,
“What do you think the general standard of public amenities – schools, hospitals, public
transport, sports facilities - is like,” respondents placed Toronto ?fth behind Geneva,
London, Sydney, and Stockholm. In the same category, panellists found it easy to seek
satisfactory, affordable accommodation, ranking it sixth overall. Worldwide, people feel
safe in Toronto, giving the city ?fth-place in the People category. In the same area,
Toronto receives high marks not only for having the warmest and friendliest people,
but also for making people feel as though they would easily ?t in with their language
and culture (seventh overall for both). In the Potential category, Toronto beats 26 other
cities for being able to ?nd a job easily, weighing in at 4th place. Many respondents
also consider Toronto to be a superior city in which to do business as well as to go to
school for a higher-education degree.
Cities making Progress
The 2005 report is the ?rst issue of this index and hence there is no data or analysis
with which to assess progress in cities.
vi. Mercer Human Resources ‘Quality of Living’ Index
Mercer Human Resources Consulting produce an annual ‘Quality of Living’ index which
analyses the quality of living in over 350 cities around the world. The aim of the index
is to give companies information upon which to base hardship pay for expatriate
employment. New York is given a baseline score of 100 and 39 measures are then used
3. Indexes or Kitemarks of City Openness?
100
to assess the quality of living in each city surveyed. These include personal safety and
security, health issues, cleanliness and pollution and transportation.
Statements of Success and Failure
Mercer makes its rankings based on the following information:
Political and social environment: (political stability, crime, law enforcement, etc.)
Economic environment: (currency exchange regulations, banking services, etc.)
Socio-cultural environment: (censorship, limitations on personal freedom, etc.)
Medical and health considerations: (medical supplies and services, infectious
diseases, sewage, waste disposal, air pollution, etc.)
Schools and education: (standard and availability of schools, etc.)
Public services and transportation: (electricity, water, public transport, traf?c
congestion, etc.)
Recreation: (restaurants, theatres, cinemas, sports and leisure, etc.)
Consumer goods: (availability of food/daily consumption items, cars, etc.)
Housing: (housing, household appliances, furniture, maintenance services, etc.)
Natural environment: (climate, record of natural disasters)
Mercer asserts that quality of life and quality of living are different:
‘A city with a high Quality of Living index is a safe and stable one, but it may be lacking
the dynamic je ne sais quoi that makes people want to live in world-renowned cities
such as Paris, Tokyo, London or New York. Sometimes you need a little spice to make
a city exciting. But that “spice” may also give a city a lower ranking. What makes one
person’s quality of life better or worse cannot be quanti?ed in an objective index.
Therefore, Mercer’s Quality of Living report re?ects only the tangible aspects of living
in a city on expatriate assignments, and leaves the question of the quality of one’s life
to those living it!’
The element of danger noted by Quilley (1999) as an integral part of the image of the
world city is hinted at here – certainly Paris, London and New York have their danger-
ous but exciting underworlds.
101
Cities highlighted by the report
Figure 3.4
Rank
2006
Rank
2005
City Country
Index
2006
Index
2005
1 1 ZURICH Switzerland 108.2 108.0
2 2 GENEVA Switzerland 108.1 107.9
3 3 VANCOUVER Canada 107.7 107.4
4 3 VIENA Austria 107.5 107.4
5 8 AUCKLAND New Zealand 107.3 106.5
6 5 DUSSELDORF Germany 107.2 107.0
7 6 FRANKFURT Germany 107.0 106.8
8 7 MUNICH Germany 106.8 106.7
9 9 BERN Switzerland 106.5 106.4
9 9 SYDNEY Australia 106.5 106.4
Zurich ranks as the world’s top city for quality of living. The city has an index score of
108.2 and is only marginally ahead of Geneva, which scores 108.1, while Vancouver fol-
lows in third place with a score of 107.7. Almost half of the top 30 scoring cities are in
Western Europe. In this region, Vienna follows Zurich and Geneva in 4th position with a
score of 107.5. Other highly rated cities include Düsseldorf (107.2), Frankfurt (107.0) and
Munich (106.8) in positions 6, 7 and 8 respectively. Athens remains the lowest scoring
city in Western Europe, scoring 86.8 at position 79. London is the UK’s highest ranking
city at position 39 (score 101.2). The two other UK cities covered in the survey are Bir-
mingham and Glasgow, which both score 98.3, in joint 55
th
position. Dublin has dropped
two places to 24
th
position, scoring 103.8, mainly due to increased traf?c congestion.
Honolulu, the highest ranking city in the U.S., is 27
th
city with a score of 103.3. San
Francisco is at 28
th
position and scores 103.2 whilst Boston, Washington, Chicago and
Portland follow in positions 36, 41, 41 and 43. Houston remains the lowest ranking city
in the U.S. in 68
th
position. Overall, U.S. cities show falling trends in the rankings, except
Chicago, which has moved up 11 places due to decreased crime rates.
Auckland and Wellington have both moved up the rankings in 2005 from 8th to 5th,and
14
th
to 12
th
places respectively, mainly due to strong internal stability relative to other cit-
ies. Sydney remains in 9th position with a score of 106.5. Out of the Asian cities, Singapore
ranks 34th, followed by Tokyo, Japan’s highest scoring city, at position 35. Hong Kong’s
modern and ef?cient infrastructure, including its airport (which is considered one of best in
the world), has led to the city rising up in the rankings over the last few years from 70
th
to
68
th
position. The top-ranking city in China is Shanghai in 103rd place (score 80.1).
Cairo has fallen nine places to position 131 largely due to the political turmoil and ter-
rorist attacks in the city and surrounding area. Baghdad ranks as the least attractive
city for expatriates for a third consecutive year, with a score of 14.5.
3. Indexes or Kitemarks of City Openness?
102
Cities making Progress
A number of cities are identi?ed as making progress. The report notes that the quality of
living in Mumbai and Bangalore is slowly increasing due to improved political relation-
ships between India and other countries. Increased investment from multinationals is
seen as a spark for further improvements in the quality of living, driven by local authori-
ties. International foreign direct investment to China is leading to Beijing and Shanghai
climbing up the index, and rapid change is anticipated by Mercer as this foreign invest-
ment accelerates. Argentinean cities are starting to improve as the economy recovers
from the recent currency crisis whilst Dubai is doing particularly well due to massive
investment in the sorts of facilities demanded by expatriates, including good airport
connections and better recreation facilities than many (East) European cities.
In contrast, cities in Eastern Europe, whilst seeing a gradual improvement due to invest-
ment from the EU15, still lack a number of key facilities that expatriate workers require
for a high quality of living. In the developed world, increasing crime rates, traf?c con-
gestion, pollution and terrorist incidents (real and imagined) are affecting the quality of
living in these cities, and leading to their drop in the rankings. Unusual events such as
Hurricane Katrina also have an impact on these cities. Finally, places such as Baghdad,
Cairo, Johannesburg and other cities in war zones, tense geopolitical regions, places of
extreme social inequality and very ‘non-western’ religious and cultural milieus are also
failing on this index. Often, of course, this is not due to the active neglect of the city
management, but to uncontrollable external events.
vii. Mercer Human Resources Cost of Living Survey
Mercer’s Cost of Living Survey is produced annually and aims to help multinational com-
panies and governments determine compensation allowances for their expatriate em-
ployees. The survey covers 144 cities across six continents and measures the compara-
tive cost of over 200 items in each location. These items fall within the categories of:
Alcohol and tobacco
Clothing and footwear
Domestic services
Food at home
Food away from home
Health and personal care
Household supplies
Sports and leisure
Transportation
Utilities
103
The different categories are then weighted according to the research ?ndings. New
York is used as the base city scoring 100 points from which other cities are then com-
pared.
Statements of Success and Failure
The Cost of Living Survey does suggest why cities exhibit particular rankings in terms
of what indicators drive the high or low cost of living. Furthermore, in the 2006 edition
of the survey it is noted that ‘there have been some signi?cant changes in the rank-
ings this year which are primarily due to exchange rate ?uctuations, in particular the
strengthening of the US dollar.’ This helps to place the differential performance of cities
within the wider socio-economic context.
Cities highlighted by the report
In 2006, Moscow is the most expensive city in the world, with a score of 123.9. Anna
Krotova, Senior Researcher at Mercer, suggests that ‘steep accommodation costs have
contributed to the city’s high ranking, as the recent property boom has driven up rental
prices for expatriates.’ Moscow is followed closely by Seoul (121.7) and Tokyo (119.1).
(See Figure 3.5). Asuncion in Paraguay remains the least expensive city globally, in
144
th
position with a score of 43.5.
Figure 3.5
Mercer Human Resource Consulting Cost of Living Survey-Worldwide Rankings 2006
Rankings COL Index
March 2006 City Country March 2006 March 2005
1 4 MOSCOW Russia 123.9 119
2 5 SEOUL South Korea 121.7 115.4
3 1 TOKYO Japan 119.1 134.7
4 9 HONG KONG Hong Kong 118.3 109.5
6 3 LONDON United Kingdom 110.8 120.3
6 2 OSAKA Japan 108.3 121.8
7 6 GENEVA Switzerland 103 113.5
8 8 COPENHAGEN Dermark 101.1 110
8 7 ZURICH Switzerland 100.8 112.1
10 10 OSLO Normay 100 105.3
10 13 NEW YORK CITY United States 100 100
12 15 ST.PETERSBURG Russia 99.7 99.5
Cont.
3. Indexes or Kitemarks of City Openness?
104
London is the second most expensive city in Europe and ranks 5
th
overall, with a score
of 110.6. The report suggests that this is because, ‘while prices have actually increased
slightly over the last year, the strengthening of the dollar against the pound means
London has dropped two places since last year.’ Other costly European cities include
Geneva in 7
th
place (103), Copenhagen in 8
th
(101.1) and Zurich in 9
th
(100.8).
New York remains the most expensive city in North America and climbed three places
to 10
th
position (score 100). Currency appreciation is the main reason for this, although
price increases in fuel and certain consumer goods also contributed to New York’s rise
in the rankings.
Cities making progress
The de?nition of progress here is dif?cult, as this depends on whether climbing up the index
due to a higher cost of living constitutes ‘progress.’ Similarly, many of the changes within the
rankings have been due to currency changes. For instance, strong growth in the Brazilian
Real against the US Dollar pushed Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro well up in the rankings as a
result of good economic growth and foreign investment, suggesting that economic devel-
opment and socio-economic ‘progress’ may lead to a higher cost of living.
Mercer Human Resource Consulting Cost of Living Survey-Worldwide Rankings 2006
Rankings COL Index
March 2006 City Country March 2006 March 2005
13 11 MILAN Italy 99.9 104.9
14 19 BEIJING China 94.9 95.6
15 22 ISTANBUL Turkey 93.1 93.8
16 12 PARIS France 93.1 102.2
17 34 SINGAPORE Singapore 92 88
18 13 DUBLIN Ireland 91.8 100
18 20 SYDNEY Australia 91.3 99.2
20 30 SHANGHAI China 91.2 90.4
21 17 ROME Italy 89.8 97.3
21 54 KIEV Ukraine 89.8 84.5
21 16 VIENNA Austria 89.8 97.8
24 39 TELAVIV Israel 89.7 87.6
25 20 HELSINKI Finland 87.8 95.2
105
Section Four:
Local Leadership and
Local Planning for
OPENCities
Local Action Plans, Internationalization of cities, and how
to take forwards the OPENCities project
106
Local Leadership
and Local Planning
for OPENCities
European Cities
Local Action Plans, Internationalization of cities, and how to take forwards the
OPENCities project
Introduction
As we move towards de?ning what OPENCities are and how they can encourage
openness we remember some important factors that were outlined in Section One of
this publication:
Different cities operating within the same national systems, appear to be
differently attractive to international populations and there are clearly some
local factors at play.
City Governments do no control many of the preliminary factors of Openness that we
have identi?ed, and they have different pattern of authority in each EU country.
We do not yet fully understand whether a city can take de?ned local actions to
become more open to international populations.
Cities cannot easily become more Open without a high degree of local consent.
The Internationalisation and Openness of cities should the subject of locally led
action plans and leadership lodged appropriately within wider regional and national
frameworks.
All of these point to the key role for Local Leaders in the process of becoming more
and we outlined some preliminary points in the ?rst section of the report.
4.1. Towards Leadership of OPENCities
For cities that want to be open to diverse populations, it is important to:
i. Recognise that diverse types of cities will have distinctive approaches to openness.
Cities can be open or closed in different ways. Understand your own history and
4. Local Leadership and Local Planning for OPENCities
108
context fully and assess what makes your city more or less open. The journeys to
openness and to internationalisation are inseparable. Not all cities will be like Los
Angeles or Singapore, there is no simple model for becoming an OPENCities.
ii. Recognise, understand, and articulate the importance of immigration and diversity
to the future of your city. It is important to place this discussion in a far reaching
framework of what the city needs for the long term in order to support all of its
citizens and to succeed internationally. The case for OPENCities has to be made
actively.
iii. Recognise that openness requires co-ordinated multi-dimensional thinking and
action. In this review we have identi?ed 8 factors that are generally key to openness
in cities:
Economic factors
Regulatory factors
Cultural factors
Amenity factors
Connectivity and Accessibility factors
Internationalisation factors
Risk factors
Leadership factors
These provide an initial framework for re?ecting upon openness, and for planning.
Openness will come from getting these things to work together.
iv. Diagnose openness systematically and set targets to make progress against
objective measures of progress. Use external reference points, such as kitemarks,
indexes, surveys, and other indicators, to mark progress.
v. Place dialogue with international populations and their employers and supporters
at the heart of how the city develops its approach, and assesses its progress. A
cross Institutional approach will be necessary.
vi. Organise to in?uence the national and supra-national spheres. Many of the factors
of city openness are beyond the direct control of city governments so in?uence
becomes very important. Cities need to work together to achieve this, and to ?nd
alliances with other lobbies (business, NGOs, Trade Unions, media, etc).
vii. Provide leadership which challenges barriers to openness, promotes an inclusive
city identity, articulates the bene?ts of diversity, and creates a broad sense of
belonging for all people.
viii. Promote visible initiatives and interventions which can be recognised by citizens
as a positive approach to the agenda.
109
ix. Do not take initiatives that will not be sustained until they have succeeded. This is
a long term agenda and there are cyclical dimensions to some of the challenges
that will be faced. It is important to persevere.
x. Remember the future. Cities have succeeded over the long sweep of time by
attracting new populations. There is no reason to think that the future will be any
different.
4.2. Local Strategies and Plans
We want to explore the potential for cities to develop local actions and strategies focussed
upon becoming more open. Few cities have such a plan at present. Those that have active
strategies to attract international population generally have it as part of a wider strategy
for internationalisation of the city. So a useful pace to start maybe an assessment of what
we might learn from the Internationalisation strategies of cities so far.
4.2.1. Internationalising Cities
We have reviewed the internationalisation strategies and efforts of a range of cities in
order to provide a comparative analysis of the ways in which cities are responding to
the new opportunities and challenges of the changing global economy.
In order to allow for some sort of sensible analysis, the cities covered have been
classi?ed into ?ve different categories, outlined below.
Established World Cities: Hong Kong; London; New York; Paris; Singapore;
Tokyo
Emerging World Cities: Berlin; Dubai; Frankfurt; Johannesburg; Madrid; Miami;
Milan; San Francisco; Seattle; Sydney; Toronto
Megacities: Buenos Aires; Cairo; Istanbul; Mexico City; Moscow; Mumbai; Sao
Paulo; Seoul; Shanghai
National Stars: Auckland; Brisbane; Cape Town; Dublin; Glasgow; Helsinki; Lyon;
Manchester; Prague; Stuttgart; Turin; Valencia
Cities in Transformation: Baltimore; Bilbao; Busan; Halifax, Nova Scotia;
Kitakyushu, Japan; Leeds; Leipzig; Oakland, California; Pittsburgh; Riga; Rotterdam;
Shef?eld
4. Local Leadership and Local Planning for OPENCities
110
These categories may be understood as:
i. Established world cities
- well recognised cities which are key sites in the global economy
ii. Emerging world cities
-
cities which are becoming increasingly recognised as new competitors to the
established world cities
iii. Megacities
-
urban areas of enormous population
iv. National stars
-
cities which perform well at the national scale
v. Cities in transformation
-
including cities which were key sites in the industrial economy and are now
undergoing restructuring and change and also cities which are new contenders
for global recognition
It is important to note at this point however that the intention in carrying out this
classi?cation is not to ‘brand’ or ‘?x’ a city into a particular category and use this as
a fundamental assertion about its development status. There are several reasons
for this.
The boundaries between categories are somewhat imprecise and they are certainly
not always mutually exclusive. For instance, Tokyo, classi?ed as an ‘established
world city’, is de?nitely also a ‘megacity’. Some might say that Dublin, classed here
as a ‘national star’ is actually closer to an ‘emerging world city’. There are numerous
of these examples so it is accepted outright that this classi?cation is neither infallible
nor permanent; it is simply designed to impose some sort of order on analysis.
Fixed categories imply a ?xed status and this, too, is inaccurate. All cities are
known to be on different development trajectories but this resolution of analysis
is not captured by this classi?cation. This more nuanced approach is borne out in
subsequent analysis.
There is arguably an implicit hierarchy built into the classi?cation used here but
this is unintentional. This study has no motive for classing one city as more or less
important or signi?cant as another. In fact, seeing as the focus is on exploring what
cities are doing to respond to globalisation, there are lessons to be learned from all
cities, of all shapes and sizes. In this sense, all cases are completely equal from the
perspective of this paper.
With these provisos in mind, we now explore in more detail how these ?ve analytical
categories were de?ned in order to justify their continued use.
111
Established World Cities
Hong Kong, London, New York, Paris, Singapore and Tokyo have long been recognised
as major international cities. All are recognised as ‘alpha world cities’ by the Globalisation
and World Cities Group (see above) due to the level of their advanced producer
services and the PWC UK Economic Outlook Report for March 2007 ranked each of
their economies as amongst the biggest 15 city economies in the world (by estimated
2005 GDP at PPPs), except Singpore, which was ranked 36th. As such, they are not only
present, but perform strongly, on a wide range of international benchmarks spanning
the economic, social and environmental realms. The Anholt City Brands Index 2006, for
instance, ranked all of these cities in the top 50 brands in the world and London, New
York and Paris were all in the top 5. Furthermore, all of the cities were ranked in the top
eight of the Mastercard Worldwide Centres of Commerce Index (2007). The challenge
for these cities is to maintain their established positions.
Interestingly however, only London has a clearly apparent explicit internationalisation
strategy. This goes beyond a simplistic economic development strategy and provides
for all aspects of internationalisation. London’s Internationalisation Strategy
i
envisages
‘a sustainable world city with strong long-term economic growth, social inclusion and
environmental improvement.’ In contrast, the other cities tend to discuss internationalisation
as part of broader (economic) development strategies. Both Hong Kong and Singapore
are clearly aiming to become key nodes in the global economy through the attraction of
international businesses, international FDI and becoming regional and global hubs for the
light manufacturing and service sectors. However, these aims are not presented in (easily
accessible) single documents concerning internationalisation. Whilst this may initially
seem surprising, deeper consideration would suggest this is not so. These cities have long
been recognised as major world cities and, as such, arguably do not need to make such
focused efforts towards internationalisation. However, when the aggressive of strategies
of some of the ‘emerging world cities,’ ‘national stars’ and ‘cities in transformation’ are
taken into consideration, it is clear that more coherent and comprehensive efforts may
be required from these world cities if they are to retain their positions.
A. ALPHA WORLD CITIES
12: London, Paris, New York, Tokyo
10: Chicago, Frankfurt, Hong Kong Kong, Los Angeles, Milan, Singapore
B. BETA WORLD CITIES
9: San Francisco, Sydney, Toronto, Zurich
8: Brussels, Madrid, Mexico City, Sao Paulo
7: Moscow, Seoul
C. GAMMA WORLD CITIES
6: Amsterdam, Boston, Caracas, Dallas, Dusseldorf, Geneva, Houston, Jakarta, Johannesburg, Melbourne,
Osaka, Prague, Santiago, Taipei, Washington,
5: Bangkok, Beijing, Rome, Stockholm, warsaw
4: Atlanta, Barcelona, Berlin, Buenos Aires, Budapest, Copenhagen, Hamburg, Istanbul, Kuala Lumpur,
Manila, Miami, Minneapolis, Montreal, Munich, Shanghai
4. Local Leadership and Local Planning for OPENCities
112
It seems that part of the way in which these cities retain their positions in the world
economy is through strong, collaborative international efforts. These include, Singapore’s
‘Growth Triangle’ with Malaysia and Indonesia, and Hong Kong’s links with Mainland
China through the Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (CEPA) and the recent
establishment of the Greater Peal River Delta (GPRD). Such regional collaborative efforts
are likely to become increasingly important going forward as regional economic strength
becomes ever more vital for worldwide recognition and success.
Emerging World Cities
These cities are increasingly becoming global cities and are currently categorised by the
GaWC as: Berlin (gamma), Frankfurt (alpha), Johannesburg (gamma), Madrid (beta), Miami
(gamma), San Francisco (beta), Sydney (beta), Toronto (beta) and Dubai and Seattle as
‘some evidence of world city formation’. PWC’s (2007) UK Economic Outlook Report
classes all of the cities as amongst the top 40 biggest city economies in the world (by
estimated 2005 GDP at PPPs), except for Johannesburg and Berlin, which are both in
the 60s, and Dubai and Frankfurt, which do not feature. The vast majority feature in the
top 50 of the Anholt City Brands Index (2006) and all are in the top 50 of the Mastercard
Worldwide Centres of Commerce Index (2007), with Frankfurt coming in at 7
th
.
In contrast to the ‘established world cities,’ the vast majority of the ‘emerging world
cities’ have developed comprehensive and coherent internationalisation strategies.
Madrid, Toronto, Sydney and Johannesburg have all developed such strategies,
whilst Seattle’s and Miami’s internationalisation efforts are achieved more through
the efforts of Chambers of Commerce and inward investment attraction agencies.
Indeed, it is arguable to what extent Miami has made any signi?cant efforts towards
internationalisation rather than become a key global city – the ‘Gateway to the Americas’
- through geographical advantages.
These internationalisation strategies, in particular those of Madrid and Toronto, are
some of the most comprehensive carried out by the any of the cities covered by this
report, involving extensive SWOT analyses, benchmarking and analysis of the changing
global situation and the cities position within it. Since these cities are in the early to
mid-stages of development within the global economy, infrastructure provision is
often seen to be a fundamental step in providing for global investors and visitors.
Attracting international ?rms is also important to all of the cities, with every city having
implemented initiatives or incentives to attract such ?rms. These include extensive
Enterprise Zone development (Miami) and tax exemptions (Toronto) amongst others.
Achieving a greater global presence is also seen as prerequisite for these cities. With
the exception of Miami, every emerging world city has undertaken a comprehensive
(re)branding strategy. Since these cities are not as well-known as the established world
cities, achieving greater recognition within the global consciousness is arguably a key
113
step forwards in directing future developments. If the world does not know about the
city, no amount of development within the city will achieve results.
Megacities
Whilst these cities are vast in terms of population, they do not perform as highly in
terms of many international benchmarks. In the GaWC’s analysis, the cities are rated
as - Buenos Aires (gamma), Istanbul (gamma), Mexico City (beta), Moscow (beta), Sao
Paulo (beta), Seoul (beta) and Shanghai (gamma). Cairo and Mumbai are both classed
as showing ‘evidence of world city formation’. In PWC’s (2007) UK Economic Outlook
Report, all of these cities are ranked as somewhere between the 15th and 45
th
biggest
city economy in the world (by estimated 2005 GDP at PPPs), while just over half feature
in the Mastercard Worldwide Centres of Commerce Index (2007), generally ranking
around 50
th
. Seoul is an exception here, coming in 9th. Finally, in the Anholt City Brands
Index (2006), most of these cities are ranked as having between the 40
th
and 60
th
best
brands in the world, except Istanbul and Sao Paulo, which do not feature.
Only Mumbai, Seoul and Sao Paulo appear to have explicit internationalisation
strategies. However, whilst research into many of these cities was hampered by
language dif?culties, even if strategies do exist, the very fact that such strategies
are not available published in English speaks volumes. But this is not to say that
the cities are inactive with regards to creating urban spaces for globalisation. Major
investment in infrastructure and large urban development projects are important in
these cities – Moscow’s International Business Centre, Federation Tower and new
railway development, Mumbai’s Urban Infrastructure Project (UIP) and Mexico’s
Santa Fe development are prime examples. Interestingly only Seoul appears to have
undertaken a coherent city branding strategy – it may be that the vast size of these
cities has prevented more general efforts in this arena.
National Stars
‘National stars’ may largely be categorised as cities which are important in the domestic
economy, but have less of a standing on the global stage. None of these cities are
recognised as alpha, beta or gamma world cities by the GaWC but all, except Prague
and Valencia, were recognised in a fourth category of showing differing degrees of
world city formation. This suggests that at the time of the analysis, any efforts towards
internationalisation had achieved few measurable results. All of the cities were ranked
by PWC’s (2007) UK Economic Outlook Report has having city economies that were
no bigger than 68th in the world (by estimated 2005 GDP at PPPs). Brisbane, Glasgow,
Stuttgart and Valencia did not feature at all in the top 150. None of these cities made a
particular mark in the Mastercard Worldwide Centres of Commerce Index (2007) or the
Anholt City Brands Index (2006).
4. Local Leadership and Local Planning for OPENCities
114
All of these cities, however, with the exception of Dublin and Stuttgart have developed
explicit internationalisation strategies and even these two have undertaken speci?c
efforts to become increasingly international with the development of an International
Financial Services Centre (IFSC) in Dublin and industrial cluster development in Stuttgart.
These cities are often forced to develop more speci?c internationalisation trajectories
because there is another dominant, world city in the country which overshadows the
‘national star.’ For instance, Glasgow and Manchester are overshadowed by London,
Brisbane is dominated by Sydney and Lyon is a secondary city to Paris.
Therefore these cities are often trying to reposition themselves in more niche sectors.
For instance Glasgow is capitalising upon its retail and cultural sectors, Stuttgart has
chosen a small sub-sector of high technology industry to exploit and Auckland is
arguably promoting its high quality of life. This suggests that one route cities may be
able to successfully follow is not to compete with another key domestic city, but use
differentiation to achieve global recognition.
Cities in Transformation
‘Cities in transformation’ may largely be categorised as cities which were important
in the industrial economy up until the mid-twentieth century, but have suffered from
signi?cant decline from this period onwards. Other cities within this category such as
Busan and Kitakyushu represent wholly new cities to the global arena. None of the
cities are recognised by the GaWC research group, except for Baltimore, Leeds and
Rotterdam which are thought to show a little evidence of world city formation. The PWC
(2007) UK Economic Outlook Report shows that most of the cities do not feature in
the top 150 city economies (by estimated 2005 GDP at PPPs) – although Leeds (88th),
Pittsburgh (61st) and Rotterdam (99th) are exceptions. None of these cities made a
particular mark in the Mastercard Worldwide Centres of Commerce Index (2007) or the
Anholt City Brands Index (2006).
Those cities which did suffer a period of industrial decline are often now aiming to
reposition themselves and revitalise their communities in order to respond to the new
forms of inter-city competition. Many are building upon their industrial heritage or
attempting to become important hub cities, for instance Rotterdam and Halifax. Others,
such as Bilbao, are pursuing large scale cultural and iconic redevelopments to escape
from their past.
However, when compared to the other categories there is little similarity across the
cities, which renders a cross-cutting analysis not only dif?cult, but liable to the pitfalls
of over-generalisation.
115
Assessment
It would seem that even analysing cities within such categories is not suf?cient. There
is signi?cant differentiation amongst categories with regards to the ways in which cities
are internationalising and responding to global forces. It is arguably more appropriate
to examine cities in light of the type of internationalisation strategy they are pursuing.
For instance, social equity is important to cities such as Cape Town and Johannesburg,
whilst environmental and sustainable development is important to London and Auckland,
whilst culture has been seen as vital in Glasgow and Bilbao. It is also interesting to note
the different time scales upon which these internationalisation strategies are articulated
– for instance Madrid’s strategy is concerned with the period 2005-2007
ii
whilst others
look far further into the future, for instance Johannesburg’s 2030 plan. Nevertheless,
with these points in mind, we must, of course, settle on one form of categorisation for
practicality’s sake.
Arguably too many cities are using ‘internationalisation’ as the current buzzword
but are not carrying out the extensive research necessary to develop an effective
internationalisation strategy. Cities must decide how they wish to position themselves
and then follow speci?c actions to implement this strategy.
It remains to be seen how the current implementation of such internationalisation
strategies will in?uence future development in the world’s cities.
4.2.2. The factors of Internationalisation
We have undertaken a preliminary qualitative review of how 50 cities are doing on 9
different indicators of internationalisation. The factors are:
i. Presence in International benchmarking and analysis
ii. Presence of Internationalisation strategies/strategies for the global economy
iii. Success in International events’ attraction
iv. Success in International population attraction
v. Success in International institutions’ attraction
vi. Success in International ?rms’ attraction
vii. Success in International positioning and branding/marketing
viii. Effective International relationships and collaboration
ix. Effective engagement with growing/emerging international markets.
4. Local Leadership and Local Planning for OPENCities
116
The attraction of international population is identi?ed as one of the 9 factors. We have
begun to present the internationalisation of the cities using a radargram.
A fuller report that examines the 50 cities in detail will be published in due course.
However, some preliminary observations can be made from the initial review.
4.3. Does a city need an internationalisation strategy?
Nearly all cities are now engaging with the challenges of the various ‘open systems’
that characterise the global age and we present here a strong argument for cities
developing an internationalisation strategy as a result, but it is accepted that this must
?rst be justi?ed. The fundamental question that must be answered therefore is ‘what
does an internationalisation strategy actually do for a city?’ This can be answered in
several ways. An internationalisation strategy:
i. orientates a city’s development efforts towards a globalised world
ii. formalises the city’s response to the challenges of globalisation
iii. prevents ad hoc and disorganised policies from proliferating
iv. ensures a holistic approach is taken so that all inter-related aspects of the city
(such as economic development and labour force policy) are working towards the
same goals
v. co-ordinates different policy makers and departments
vi. sets common goals for all city stake-holders
vii. makes the best use of limited or shared resources
viii. prioritises city-wide goals so that the city bene?ts the most
ix. provides a basis for city-wide monitoring and evaluation for ongoing improvement
International Recognition
Internationalisation
International Events
International Populations
International Institutions International Firms
International Branding
International Relationships
Emerging Markets
Example
Explicit strategy
Achievement
117
Many cities reviewed do indeed show signs of developing an internationalisation
strategy and often this is directly correlated with those cities that are most successful.
The ?rst point to note is that there are different types of internationalisation strategy.
Some cities have developed explicit, dedicated policies whose sole function is to outline
the policy that the city will take in order to become more internationalised. Where this
is the case, the strategies are almost always holistic in nature; they encompass most, if
not all, of the categories for analysis presented here. Furthermore, this type of strategy
serves as a policy-guidance document – a point of reference – for subsequent, more
speci?c policy. It sets out the city’s overall stance and de?nes the manner in which
all city development policy areas will be approached. Explicit internationalisation
strategies are almost always well-publicised, accessible and clear as a result of the
speci?c motive for their creation.
Although it is not strictly accurate to talk of two distinct types of internationalisation
strategy, for often there is more of a continuum between two extremes, what might
be considered to be at the other end of the ‘spectrum’ is an economic development
policy with consideration for international perspectives. This is what might be termed
an implicit internationalisation strategy, because it does not necessarily refer to
‘internationalisation’ directly nor cite it as a particular goal. Nonetheless, through the
research carried out for this study, it has become clear that this type of policy does
constitute a form of internationalisation strategy and has been included as such. Most
city administrations formulate some sort of policy to guide the economic development
of their city and those that do not draw up an explicit internationalisation strategy will,
due to the various links between their city economy and the rest of the world, naturally
build in elements of an international focus. This type of policy is often more dif?cult to
locate and is altogether less accessible than the explicit version.
Comparative analysis between cities should be approached tentatively because there
are a number of different factors that can contribute to a city’s ‘explicit strategy’
rating, or indeed its ‘achievement’ rating. For instance, highly centralised states often
do not devolve enough power to city-level government for the city administration to
reasonably be expected to formulate an internationalisation plan.
What are the likely bene?ts for cities of formulating an internationalisation strategy?
Why, fundamentally, should cities consider drawing up an internationalisation strategy
of some sort if they have not already? For simplicity, let us assume that an explicit
internationalisation strategy is the better of the two options available.
An explicit internationalisation strategy,
i. Creates a single, coherent framework within which all other development policy
can be set.
ii. Sends a clear message to local, national and international stakeholders about what
the underlying philosophy of the city administration is in relation to the mega-
trends associated with globalisation.
4. Local Leadership and Local Planning for OPENCities
118
iii. Creates an environment of con?dence and stability whereby stakeholders can act
according to well-de?ned long-term goals and pathways.
iv. Ensures that all aspects of the city administration are working towards the same
long-term targets.
v. Helps the city to achieve its full potential and enjoy the maximum bene?ts from a
globalising world.
What lessons can be taken from examples of best practice so as to ensure that a city
goes about formulating an internationalisation strategy in the best possible way?
Lessons that relate speci?cally to the formulation of an internationalisation strategy:
i. The internationalisation strategy should be explicit. In order to go about
formulating an internationalisation strategy in the best possible way, the ?rst
point is almost as simple as that; given the choice between an explicit strategy or
implicit elements of lots of other strategies, a city should aim to produce a single,
dedicated strategy whose sole aim is to establish the city’s internationalisation
pathway. This will make all of the lessons below signi?cantly more achievable.
Madrid is the clearest and best example of this, but Toronto is also a very good
case in point.
ii. An internationalisation strategy should aim to be as holistic as possible.
To be fully successful, orientating a city towards the international arena requires
focussing on more than just one or two aspects of city life like its economy or
value as a tourist destination. Population, international relations, emerging
markets, city image, international institutions and global events are all important
elements of what is required to be a successful international city. Each city will, of
course, emphasise different strengths amongst these categories, but attempting
to consider all of them in some shape or form is an important prerequisite for
drawing up a very successful internationalisation strategy. Singapore is a useful
example for showing how many different policy areas can be tackled by the same,
broad strategy document.
iii. Clear targets should structure the strategy. With holism being a key aim,
there is a lot to consider here. As such, clear targets help to structure and ground
what might otherwise be a less-than-constructive, abstract strategy. Targets do
not necessarily have to be quantitative to be useful. The San Francisco case study
demonstrates this point excellently.
iv. The city administration should move quickly and signi?cantly beyond
rhetoric. ‘Internationalisation’ is quickly becoming the new, fashionable buzzword
for cities and many are therefore using it to describe policy documents or strategies
that simply do not compare to true, dedicated internationalisation strategies.
There is also a danger that talking of mega-trends to do with globalisation can
lead to the abstract, since concepts can be ‘big’ and unfamiliar. In light of this, city
administrations should aim to achieve tangible results as soon as possible. At the
119
very least, this provides a platform from which a process of ‘trial and improvement’
(in terms of what is best for the city in question) might be adopted.
v. The formulation of the strategy should be based on research and analysis.
The most successful strategies work to the city’s strengths and weaknesses but these
may well not be adequately understood without extensive research being done
beforehand. Many cities looking to make the most from an internationalisation strategy
carry out SWOT analysis as a means by which to structure their policy and this certainly
focuses all involved on pre-de?ned areas to target. We return to Madrid here as the
best example of thorough research underpinning an internationalisation strategy.
vi. An underlying theme of an internationalisation strategy should be ‘pro-
activeness’. There is too much competition in a globalised world for a city to
passively internationalise itself and expect the world to respond in the way that it
anticipated. The best results are secured through pro-active strategies that seek
out stakeholders that are likely to be most bene?cial to the city in question. This
may mean physically travelling to meet target groups, or designing strategies that
speci?cally appeal to them. Either way, the onus is on the city administration to
make the ?rst move.
vii. Policy-makers should refrain from over-complicating what could be
a clear, simple strategy. Such a signi?cant, holistic document has potential
to become burdensome and unwieldy. Even if information is made readily
available to stakeholders, if it is not comprehensible and clearly laid-out, it will
not serve as a source of inspiration. Despite the complex nature of the project,
an internationalisation strategy should retain the qualities of any good policy
document: clarity, succinctness and focus.
viii. Internationalisation strategies should be ambitious. One of the key roles
of this strategy is to differentiate a city from its competition around the world and
make it more competitive in an international context. This is much more likely
to be achieved through the construction of a bold strategy that actually makes
a difference to city life. Despite the need for clarity, policy-makers should aim
to achieve ambitious, yet attainable, goals. London, for instance, aims to be a
‘sustainable world city’, which, if taken at its word, is a highly impressive target.
Lessons which are equally as important, but serve to facilitate the implementation of an
internationalisation strategy:
i. Use an internationalisation strategy to promote the city’s unique assets.
Internationalisation is not about standardisation, nor should it be. In fact, a city
will only be successful amidst the plethora of competitor cities in the world if it
is different and offers unique assets in an attractive combination. SWOT analysis
will have offered the city’s main strengths and these can be used as a basis for
establishing a city’s niche. Toronto is very good at this, setting out in its strategic
document the 5 ‘Ps’ – People, Place, Prosperity, Positioning and Partnership.
4. Local Leadership and Local Planning for OPENCities
120
ii. Allay fears that internationalisation means standardisation. Local
resistance to internationalisation strategies is often formed on the basis of
fears that internationalisation, or opening up to the global economy, will involve
becoming like any other successful city in the world – the city is bound to lose its
individual characteristics and uniqueness. As outlined above, such fears must be
unfounded if the path the city takes is to lead to its successful internationalisation.
Communicating this fact to the local community is important if there is any chance
that local resistance will be a problem. Having local support is vital to securing
success in any development strategy.
iii. Stakeholder partnerships are a key element to success. Whether it be
public-private partnerships or public-community based interactions, a city’s
internationalisation is best achieved through joint action whereby resources can
be pooled and a wider support base generated. New York’s ‘Partnership for New
York City’ is actually a good example of this process in action.
iv. All efforts to internationalise should be well publicised. Research for this
study has included some cities that are very good at communicating their policies,
actions and successes and others that make it very dif?cult for anybody to learn
about what might be going on, let alone be informed when they were not looking for
the information in the ?rst place. In line with creating an explicit strategy, with clear
targets that inspire con?dence and allays fears of standardisation, it is crucial that
information is easily accessible and, better still, made available to the city community
and those abroad even if they did not know they needed to know. Having a well
publicised internationalisation strategy is a key step in ensuring the very success of
the policy and Madrid is an excellent example of how this might work.
v. The need for monitoring and evaluation is paramount. Ongoing assessment,
at regular intervals, is necessary to ensure that the city and its internationalisation
strategy are performing to the best level possible. For one thing, the characteristics
of the globalised world are never the same from one year to another, so it is
highly likely that policies will need to be adapted. Once an internationalisation
strategy has been formulated and implemented, there is still work to do to ensure
its success and monitoring and evaluation forms an essential part of this. Riga
is a city that leads the ?eld in this respect, since it assesses and re-evaluates its
Business Environment Action Plan every single year.
vi. City leadership must be strong, dedicated and consolidated. The lesson
that could have come at the beginning or the end of the list pertains to leadership.
Managing all of the lessons learned here requires a strong leadership team within
the city that can see the project through from start to ?nish with an appropriately
high level of commitment. This often requires a dedicated team within a city
administration because the demands of the job can be so high. What is also a
distinguishing feature is how consolidated this team is – there are often examples
of cities where internationalisation policies are emanating from several different
sources and there is no clear central node. This can create a confusing environment
that lacks full drive and clarity and often does not achieve the same level of success
121
that more easily identi?able city units can. The London Development Agency, Paris
Development and the New York City Economic Development Corporation are all
?rst-class examples here.
4.4. Ten principles for city internationalisation
The following are ten broad, basic principles which can be taken from this paper as
general lessons learned that are most applicable to city leadership. What are the
ten most important things to bear in mind when developing your internationalisation
strategy to respond to the challenges of globalisation?
i. Internationalisation strategies should be based on thorough prior
research. It is clearly quite an undertaking for a city to develop an explicit
internationalisation strategy for the ?rst time. For this reason, research should not
only involve looking at what other cities are doing, but should also focus on your
own city so as to establish an as-comprehensive-as-possible review of all policy
areas. This will allow the strategy to be tailored to the exact needs of the city and
will also provide a basis from which future assessments can measure progress.
ii. Identify and foster a niche specialisation in your city. There are too many
cities in the world, all vying for international attention, for an internationalisation
strategy to be successful if it fails to differentiate its city. Look at what the comparative
advantages of your city are and build a strategy that uses these as its key drivers.
If a city can become known as being an international city that is a world leader for
something, it is much more likely to be successful in the long term.
iii. Build a strong, stable business environment. Regardless of the city’s niche
specialisation, all internationalised cities need a business environment that can
accommodate international ?rms, institutions and events successfully. If a city
cannot support these elements of the global age, it does not have a solid base
from which to be competitive. This means investing in infrastructure and people,
science and business, government structures and private enterprise.
iv. Always make sure the internationalisation plan is holistic in nature. The
most successful internationalised cities are high achievers in all of the analytical
categories that have been presented in this paper and this is no accident. To class
amongst the best in the long term, cities must attract international events, ?rms,
institutions and populations, manage strong international relationships and brands
and engage with emerging markets. While these do not all need to be achieved at
once, a holistic plan that takes them all into account is an ideal ?rst step.
v. Engage local stakeholders. Creating an internationalised city does not have
to be just the city administration’s burden – in fact, it cannot be, the job is simply
too onerous. All interest groups, from businesses to events’ organisers, can and
should contribute to an international orientation. Public-private partnerships are
a good way of formalising such relationships, but public consultations are equally as
important. This really is a case where the sum of the parts is greater than the whole.
4. Local Leadership and Local Planning for OPENCities
122
vi. Ensure that interaction with international actors is mutually bene?cial.
City administrations can play an active role in the relationships developed between
the city and international ‘actors’ like foreign-owned businesses, institutions and
even populations. Use this role to formally ensure that the interaction is mutually
bene?cial – i.e. that maximum bene?ts are leveraged for the city as well as for the
‘actor’. This might take the form of ?nancial incentives to business that come in
the form of residents’ training grants, immigration policies that target speci?cally-
needed demographic or skill groups and so on.
vii. Advertise the bene?ts of all of this work to the city’s people. A city needs
the support of its people to undertake all of the changes that are associated with
internationalisation and this can only happen if they are well-informed about why the
changes that are occurring are of direct bene?t to them. Too often, poor communication
can allow local residence to develop where more accessible information would
have quickly informed people of the expected bene?ts of a particular scheme.
Internationalisation is supposed to bene?t the city’s people as much as anyone, so to
neglect securing their support is to fundamentally misunderstand the project.
viii. Coordinate the city administration so that there is a single, clear
source of information. Many, if not all, different city government of?ces and
departments should be involved in a city’s internationalisation strategy making
and implementation. However, it is nonsensical for all of these different actors
to attempt to communicate their activities individually and without interaction to
the public, potential investors or other interested parties. All too often, a city’s
efforts become diluted through poor accessibility to information which comes
about because there are simply too many sources. This leads to a confusing and
unproductive environment for those seeking information. Construct a central
communication node that can serve as the main portal to information. This may
simply re-direct enquiries to the relevant department but it nonetheless plays a
vital role in presenting a coherent and effective city strategy.
ix. Plan for the long term. The process of internationalisation is clearly one that
will take many years and aims for the bene?ts to be enjoyed for even longer. This
will not be achieved unless the internationalisation strategy builds plans over the
appropriate time-frame. It may be more practical to work in smaller time-frames
of, for example, ?ve years, but this must be under-taken with the understanding
that it is a rolling process that will continue for many more years to come.
x. Monitor, evaluate and improve the plan at regular intervals. Just as there
is no ?xed or set internationalisation strategy for every city, it is highly unlikely
that there will not be room for improvement in a city’s internationalisation strategy.
A regular monitoring and evaluation process should not be seen as identifying
failure as such but as striving to achieve the very best outcome possible for the
city and its people. Moreover, it can help to convert the effort input to strategy-
making into actual achievement during this highly complex process.
123
4.5. Implications for Local Leadership and Strategies of
OPENCities
As we begin to develop ideas about how cities become more open to international
populations we can learn the analysis of city internationalisation directly.
4.5.1. Developing indicators of OPENCities
The 8 possible factors and 40 measures of openness as already identi?ed and we want
to develop our understanding and assessment of them further.
Economic factors: Population, Employment, Enterprise, Skills & Quali?cations.
Regulatory factors: Citizenship, Welfare, Health, Housing, social inclusion.
Connectivity/Accessibility factors: Ports and Gateways, digital access, public
transport, city centres.
Risk factors: Crime, security, disasters, deportation, racism and xenophobia.
Amenity factors: Signage/information, language, education, retail, and
neighbourhood mixity.
Cultural factors: Civic organisations, mixed marriages, creative expressions,
media, food.
Internationalisation factors: International populations, business, events,
institutions, visitors and students.
Leadership factors: Diversity strategy, brand and belonging, voting and
representation, active projects.
Visualising City Open-ness
Each of the eight factors is further broken down into 5 measures, providing 40
measures in all. When aggregated, these forty measures might give us a good picture
of the open-ness of any city which can be modelled, illustrated, and interrogated. The
example below uses a ‘radar gram’ to do this:
Maximum
Open-ness
Diagnosis
Leadership
Risk
Internationalisation
Connectivity
Amenity
Cultural
Regulation
Economic Explicit strategy
Achievement
4. Local Leadership and Local Planning for OPENCities
124
This approach will be explored further in the OPENCities Project.
As the OPENCities project develops we plan therefore to develop practical lessons on
4 key questions:
i. What are the best ways to de?ne and manage Openness in Cities?
ii. What are the best ways to de?ne and manage Openness in Cities?
iii. How can a city become open?
iv. What part can local action and local plans play?
v. What is the role of city leaders?
We look forwards to exploring these questions as the OPENCities project develops.
i
The London Plan (2004) produced by the Mayor of London and the London Development Agency
ii
Madrid City Council ‘Plan for the Internationalisation of the City of Madrid 2005-2007’
125
Annex I:
Collaborating
European Cities
126
Summary information on the cities interested in OPENCities
1. Intro to case studies methodology
These initial case studies provide an introduction to some of the cities that will be
part of the ?rst phase of the OPENCities project along with cases of cities not yet
involved in the project that have achieved some success in being open to international
immigration. They are offered here as initial preparatory work for discussion.
In this initial phase, the case studies on cities participating to the OPENCities project aim:
1. To assess their current situation in terms of demographic status and migrants
presence in order to build a basis for comparisons across cities.
2. To examine the links between different city types as stated in the EU state of Cities
Report and the potential bene?ts of immigration and diverse populations.
3. To examine the national framework for migration and integration issues and the
role that Cities can assume within this context .
4. To test the feasibility of the 8 factors of openness, in view of the Openness Index
de?nition.
The project has gathered data from the most reliable sources including Urban Audit,
Eurostat, OECD, National and City Statistics Of?ces, City’s pro?le prepared by the
participating Cities of?cers.
In assessing the Regulatory Factors, which are a matter of National Policy, we have
used the results of the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX)
1
, an index produced
bi-annually by a network of over 20 organisations, lead by British Council and Migration
Policy Group, with the aim of providing a quick-reference guide to Migrant Integration
Policies in the EU countries. Using over 140 policy indicators it scores countries on the
following six key dimensions of integration policy:
Collaborating
European Cities
1http://www.integrationindex.eu
Annex I. Collaborating European Cities
128
Labour Market Access
Family Reunion
Long Term Residence
Naturalisation
Anti-Discrimination
Political Participation.
Results are converted into a 0-100 scale
for dimensions and strands, where 100% is
best practice. The table on the left presents
the overall ?ndings, showing as the EU-25’s
policies on integration score only halfway to
best practice. The report also highlights that:
Only Sweden’s policies scored high enough
overall to be considered ‘favourable’ for
promoting integration.
Of the 28 countries surveyed in MIPEX, nine
countries have policies that were overall
partially favourable. They were located
in the Nordic countries, the Western
Mediterranean, the BENELUX countries,
Canada and the UK.
Five countries have integration policies
that, overall, are at least partially
unfavourable (Latvia, Cyprus, Greece,
Slovakia, Austria).
The countries with the ten lowest scores
are the Baltic Republics, the countries of
the Eastern Mediterranean and Central
Europe, and Denmark.
This approach is useful to offer a quick and
visual picture of the national context and
will be helpful in understanding the conditions under which cities attract, retain and
integrate migrants.
For each city, we have particularly focused on one or two of the Openness Factors,
providing statistical information, and/or reporting on the existence of initiatives, policies
or programs.
1 Sweden 88
2 Portugal 79
3 Belgium 69
4 Netherlands 68
5= Finland 67
Canada 67
7 Italy 65
8 Norway 64
9 United Kingdom 63
10 Spain 61
11= Slovenia 55
France 55
Luxembourg 55
14= Germany 53
Ireland 53
16 Switzerland 50
17= Hungary 48
Czech Republic 48
19 Estonia 46
20 Lithuania 45
21= Poland 44
Denmark 44
23 Malta 41
24= Slovakia 40
Greece 40
26= Austria 39
Cyprus 39
28 Latvia 30
Final ranking across 6 strands
129
2. Participating Cities Case Studies
2.1. Belfast
EU SOCR: transformation centre
As the capital of Northern Ireland, Belfast is the economic, transport and political
centre of the country. It is the largest port in Ireland with two airports, an advanced ICT
infrastructure and two major universities. While not as cosmopolitan as many UK cities,
as a capital city and headquarters of many regional bodies, Belfast is attracting more
resident minority ethnic groups than other local authorities in Northern Ireland. Census
?gures for 2001 show that Belfast is home to almost one-third of the total Chinese
community of Northern Ireland, almost 30% of the Indian community, and 25% of the
Pakistani community.
Despite this, the share of foreigners found in Belfast is one of the lowest among the
Cities participating to the OPENCities project. In 2001 it was just 1.37% of the total
population. However, since the enlargement of the European Union in 2004, there
has been signi?cant migration to Northern Ireland from new member States. Statistical
data on the New Migrants arriving to the city shows the large presence in the City of
Poles, Slovaks, Filipinos, Indians and Czechs. Other data on the city’s economy, shows
that the construction industry and health sector are the sectors where migrants mostly
work, and where Polish followed by Lithuanians and Czechs represent the largest part.
Overall, migration has contributed to ‘rejuvenating’ the city’s population.
Population
With a population of approximately 270,000 rising to some 700,000 in the wider
metropolitan area, Belfast has in facts a high percentage of young people (46% of the
population is under 30), but also a high proportion of elderly people compared with
national averages. Current projections suggest further decline in the city’s population
to 260,000 by 2015 (a decline of 3.7%).
Over the past decade, there have been many profound political, social, legislative and
policy changes across Northern Ireland. Particularly signi?cant are:
The peace process, political developments and the Belfast Agreement (1998).
The devolution of government in Northern Ireland and the establishment of the
Assembly (1998).
The State of European Cities identi?ed the Belfast’s position in the Transformation pole
typology. This is explained by the City’s transition from an industrial economy to one
based on services.
Annex I. Collaborating European Cities
130
The combination of the peace process, European funding support and strategic planning
have contributed to the city regeneration (the redevelopment of the city’s river front
and of city centre) and also to attract foreign direct investment and tourists.
In the paper Where is Belfast Going
2
(2007), professor Michael Parkinson has illustrated
some progress the city has made since 2003, when he prepared the “Belfast
Benchmarking a Competitive European City Report” for the City Council. He found early
evidence that Belfast has improved its performance on a whole range of indicators of
economic competitiveness including:
Population decline has slowed. After a sustained period of population loss,
Belfast’s population has begun to stabilise. As with all large UK cities the population
of Belfast fell substantially between 1981 and 2001, down by 12.4%. Since 2000
population loss from the Belfast City Council area has slowed down. It fell 1.3%
between 2000 and 2001 and just 0.36% between 2004 and 2005.
Employment and unemployment levels are improving. Ten years ago the
rate was 9.3%. Today it is 3.9%. Employment has grown during the ?rst half of this
decade by 5.4%.
There is growth in some of the most dynamic sectors of the economy.
Despite the public sector plays a huge role in Belfast’s economy with almost two
out of every ?ve jobs e in public administration, education and health sector, many
of Belfast’s industrial sectors have experienced strong employment growth over
the last ?ve years. Most important, the biggest increase in recent years has been
in the sectors where the city has traditionally done least well
Connectivity nationally and internationally is much better. In terms of
connectivity, there have been some improvements in recent years. In
2006 its two airports handled 7.1 million passengers. This is an increase of 61%
since 2000. Belfast is increasingly well connected to both UK and European cities.
In 2006 Belfast had links to 17 UK cities. International scheduled ?ights have also
substantially increased and in 2006 these ?ights carried 882,000 passengers.
Other important indicators include:
Educational achievement in schools is good.
Productivity is high and continues growing.
Overall competitiveness levels are up.
Retail rentals are up.
House prices are dramatically up.
Investment in physical development is booming.
2
European Institute for Urban Affairs Liverpool John Moores University (2007)
131
Leadership
In January 2001, in an attempt to demonstrate its commitment to improving the quality
of life of people in the City, the Belfast City Council adopted “Promoting Good Relations”,
a strategy aimed at improving integration, equality, community relations and cultural
diversity within the Council.
In 2004 a new Good Relations Strategy, “Building our Future Together” followed, setting
out the Vision for “a stable, tolerant, fair and pluralist City, where individuality is respected
and diversity is celebrated, in an inclusive manner”. The four themes of the strategy are:
Promoting Community Relations
Celebrating Cultural Diversity
Promoting Equality through Service Delivery
Promoting Equality through a Representative Workforce.
2.2. Bilbao:
EU SOCR: transformation pole
Bilbao constitutes an impressive example of city where seizing on new opportunities
and implementing economic strategies have provided a very positive way forward.
Basically the city has shaped its image of old industrial city, with job losses estimated
at 10,000 in shipbuilding alone (Campbell 2006), into an attractive international city.
The Guggenheim Museum is the symbol of this urban and economic regeneration, and
has been a fundamental asset to put the city on the global map.
For Bilbao, we have chosen to assess the elements of its internationalisation reviewing
some key initiatives and programs in order to understand how they have impacted on
city’s population and foreign population’s attraction.
Internationalisation Factors
Bilbao’s internationalisation has been achieved through emblematic projects, large
scale initiatives, prestigious architecture that features exquisite urban design (Kerexeta
and Ibarzabal, 2003).
Apart the Guggenheim Museum, become the symbol of the “new city” over the world,
thanks to architect Frank O. Gehry’s innovative design, a dozen other major projects
were planned around it, including a convention centre, a concert hall, a new airport, a
regional transportation system, and improvements for universities and other educational
institutions (Campbell, 2006).
Annex I. Collaborating European Cities
132
Strategic planning and public/private partnerships
Strategic planning and public/private collaboration have been recognised as the main
factors of the city’s revitalisation.
The ?rst Strategic Plan (1991-2000) was in facts promoted by the City of Bilbao and
the Provincial Council of Bizkaia, with the participation of all the national and regional
institutions, and together with the 35 municipalities making up the metropolitan area.
Also major ?rms were part of the collaboration. In this phase, the Plan was centred
around the followings elements:
i. External accessibility to the metropolis, internal mobility.
ii. Urban and environmental renewal.
iii. Investment in human resources and technological overhaul.
iv. Cultural centrality as an element of internal vitalization and external promotion.
In 2001 the general view was that the previous period had been successfully completed.
Bilbao Metropoli-30 identi?ed ?ve strategic keys for the future to achieve new success
in the following decade and overcome growing international competition:
i. Active, committed leadership.
ii. People and values.
iii. Knowledge and innovation.
iv. Networking or the capacity to participate in the world’s most advanced networks;
v. and quality of life (Bilbao Metropoli-30, 2001).
As we can observe, it is an in depth approach to the same competitive internationalising
strategy that was being encouraged up to that moment. In this context, the advisability
of generating social capital is highlighted as one of the keys to successfully formulating
this vision of the Bilbao of the future (Bilbao Metropoli-30, 2001). Furthermore, it is
necessary to indicate that, in the last phase of the planning a set of core values has
been recognised as essential for the competitive and sustainable development of a
medium-sized city such as Metropolitan Bilbao. Openness de?ned as “a favourable
attitude towards other ideas and cultures, different forms of being and of doing things,
to foster creativity and cultural diversity” is one of them. Others include innovation,
professionalism, identity, community.
This long term strategic approach has produced large positive outcomes. In ten years
(1997-2007), the Museum has attracted nearly ten million visitors, roughly ?ve and a
half million of them from abroad (Guggenheim Dossier X Anniversary, 2007). Airline
passenger traf?c has tripled since 1994.
Other elements found on the degree of the city’s internationalism include:
133
Bilbao is home of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, set up 1996.
The European Software Institute is hosted in the Bizkaia Technology Park.
Bilbao’s City Council has been recently awarded two important prizes for its work
in the renovation of the city. One was awarded in Prague under the category of
“Local Plans Development” and the other in Venice, Italy, for the regeneration of
Bilbao’s river banks.
Population
Bilbao’s population stand at 353,938 (2006). The migrants presence in the city has
signi?cantly raised in the last 5 years, passing from 2,9% in 2002 to 6,2% in 2007. Most
of the migrants are from Latino America countries (?gure 1) and with a higher level of
education (76%) .
Figure 1: Bilbao Foreign Born, 2006
Source: Bilbao City Council
Box 1: Spain Integration Index
Acess to Nationality
Long-term residence
Family Reunion
Labour Market Access
Anti Discrimination
Political participation
41
70
66
90
50
50
Others 35%
Paraguay 3%
Portugal 2%
Colombia
17%
Bolivia 11%
Ecuador 8%
Marocco
6%
Romania
7%
China
4%
Brazil
5%
Argentina
2%
Annex I. Collaborating European Cities
134
The ?gure on the left shows the overall national attitude towards migrants in terms of
regulatory factors. What emerges from the MIPEX index is that Spain ranks very well
(2
nd
out of the 28 MIPEX countries) on labour market access but has less favourable
conditions for family reunion and long-term residence policies. The weakest policy
areas are political participation and access to nationality, where it ranks 14
th
, and anti-
discrimination, where it ranks 17
th
.
At local level, the City Council is working to address the new challenges brought by the
recent in?ow of migrants, with a wide programme aimed to their social, economic and
cultural integration in the Community. Future objectives include, among others, the
creation of an intercultural forum involving the local government and associations and
the de?nition of an immigration plan.
2.3. Cardiff
EU SOCR: Gateway
The once world’s largest coal exporting port, Cardiff is de?ned by the EU State of the
Cities report as a Gateway city. It experienced major economic, social, physical and
political changes which have transformed it. Cardiff grew on coal but survived the
decline of the coal industry in the 1980s to reinvent itself as service sector city. During
this transition to a service sector economy, public sector functions, devolution and
the creation of the National Assembly for Wales in Cardiff in 1999 played a major part
(Cardiff, A competitive European city Report)
3
.
In reshaping the Cardiff’s economy contributed the city’s regeneration began in the
mid 1980’s when plans to transform Cardiff Docks into Cardiff Bay were drawn up.
In 1987 the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation was formed as part of the British
Government’s urban development programme to regenerate particularly deprived and
run-down areas of British inner cities.
The Corporation’s primary target was: “To put the capital on the international map as a
superlative maritime city”. The Development Corporation spearheaded the regeneration
of 1,100 hectares of South Cardiff and Penarth - the old docklands area of the city.
Population
Cardiff is relatively small if compared to other European cities, but its population is
growing. Between 1991 and 2001 it experienced an increase in population of +2.8%
(Urban Audit 2001). Today the city stands at some 320,000 inhabitants. Foreign
population, as said above, is almost 10% of the total one. Although Cardiff has long
been a multi cultural city, and home to numerous long established multi-ethnic groups,
recent trends suggest that there has been an increase in the number of migrants from
3
Michael Parkinson and Jay Karecha, European Institute for Urban Affairs, July 2006
135
the new EU member states, mainly from Poland and Slovakia, according to worker
registration scheme approved data (Home Of?ce Statistics).
Cardiff GDP per capita is 26,859 € (Urban Audit & Eurostat for UK cities). The overall
unemployment rate is low – at just 4.9% (Urban Audit). Migrants seem to perform well
also in terms of entrepreneurship. The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2006 Wales
Executive Summary Report revealed that white migrants are the most entrepreneurial
group in Wales, with around 7% of the population within this group undertaking early
stage entrepreneurial activity.
Figure 2: Cardiff Foreign Born, 2006
Source: Cardiff City Council
Box 2: United Kingdom Integration Index
According to MIPEX, migrants in the UK bene?t from slightly favourable labour market
access, long-term residence, family reunion, and access to nationality policies. Political
participation policies score around halfway to best practice. Anti-discrimination laws
and policies are particularly strong and have improved since 2004.
Cardiff’s long term experience as multicultural city implies the presence of numerous
support organisations and initiatives aimed to migrants. We have reviewed some points
related to the amenity and cultural factors.
Acess to Nationality
Long-term residence
Family Reunion
Labour Market Access
Anti Discrimination
Political participation
62
67
60
81
46
Oceania 2%
South America 1%
North America 6%
Other 1%
Europe-Non EU
Countries 5%
África 15%
EU Countries 27%
Asia 43%
Annex I. Collaborating European Cities
136
Amenity and Cultural Factors
International Students
Cardiff, which is one the lowest cost of living of any university city in UK (Virgin Guide to
Universities, 2003), is home to some 30,000 students enrolled at the Cardiff University,
10% of whom are international students. Around 10,000 students are enrolled at the
University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, of which over 800 are international students.
Voluntary Organizations
Race Equality First, which is part funded by Cardiff Council, have employed an
Outreach Of?cer for economic migrants, and are leading a project that identi?es the
needs economic migrants in the Cardiff area. There are numerous voluntary support
organisations in Cardiff that support economic migrants, but many concentrate on
addressing the needs of ethnic groups rather than speci?cally economic migrants.
Diversity Celebration
In terms of diversity’s celebration, two events highlight Cardiff’s history of migration
and diversity of population, Cardiff MAS Carnival, a costumed MASquerade of the historic
resistance to Slavery, held in 2007; and Roots to Cardiff, an exhibition undertaken in
Cardiff’s Old Library on the story of the migrants that have made their home in Cardiff
over many centuries.
Communication to foreign populations
A Welcome to Wales Pack for Migrant Workers in 18 languages was produced by the Welsh
Assembly Government. The aim is to ensure that migrant workers are fully aware of
their rights and responsibilities, and to help them ?t in with the local community.
Language courses for non native speakers
The Parade ESOL in Cardiff service is the largest ESOL provider in Wales. There are
also 24 Outreach centres in Cardiff of which ten are within Primary Schools, which
has proved an effective way of engaging with the local people and community. A
programme to provide ESOL in classes in the workplace throughout Cardiff is also in
place, funded by Basic Skills Cymru.
These initiatives suggest that the City is not new in working with migrants but that
the recent change in the migration patterns, with most people arriving from New EU
137
Member States, is posing new challenges in need to be addressed. The above mentioned
Cardiff, A competitive European city Report, commissioned by the Economic Scrutiny
Committee of Cardiff Council to locate Cardiff in its UK and European context, found
that attracting and retaining a potentially mobile highly skilled workforce is considered
as an important feature for the city’s competitiveness. Stakeholders argued that Cardiff
has a number of advantages that make it attractive to employers and employees making
location choices. It is a compact city, has some good housing, an attractive waterfront,
many cultural facilities and is in an attractive regional location.
Internationalisation Factors:
In line with its ambition of being a major European capital city, the City Council has
recently launched two strategic programmes:
1. A Competitive Capital 2007-12, the economic strategy, developed around the “drivers
of urban competitiveness” as identi?ed by the European Institute of Urban Affairs.
The strategy aims, as stated in its vision, to ensure that Cardiff, as an International
Capital City, is an inclusive, vibrant and thriving city in which to live and work, with a
skilled, creative workforce and a buoyant business environment.
2. The Proud Capital Community Strategy 2007-2017, structured on three levels
which involve local strategic partnership of public, private and voluntary sector
with four identi?ed projects (Integrating Social Care & Health to look at long term
care; Neighbourhood Transformation; ‘Ask Cardiff’ citizen consultation project
which will improve consultation across partnerships and organisations and
LSB Scrutiny & Performance to consider joint scrutiny arrangements between
partners). A website www.cardiffproudcapital.co.uk has been established promote
the activities of the Strategy.
Furthermore, Cardiff is working to host international events. The city has already hosted
some mayor events, including the 1999 Rugby World Cup, the FA Cup Final and the Rugby
Union’s European Cup Final which attracted large numbers of visitors and, critically,
have provided a focus for global media coverage. Cardiff is due to play its own part in
the London 2012 Olympic Games as one of six UK cities that have been designated as
hosts for Olympic football matches. The City should so bene?t from signi?cant sporting,
cultural and economic regeneration opportunities before, during and after the Games.
Other future events include the 2009 Ashes cricket tournament and the 2010 Ryder
Cup in Newport. Cardiff is the host of a number of major international cultural events,
including Cardiff Singer of the World, which considered one of the opera world’s most
prestigious competitions.
These recent developments, combined with the concrete evidence of the improvement
in the past, shows there is plenty of capacity in the city to tackle its challenges. There
is clearly recognition within Cardiff of what needs to be done next.
Annex I. Collaborating European Cities
138
2.4. Dublin
EU SOCR: Knowledge Hub
Knowledge Hub ful?lling the role of national capital as well, Dublin has registered over
the last years one of the highest share of newcomers in Europe. This is due to the
country’s rapid economic growth which has fuelled the continued expansion of Dublin
and the increasing dominance of the capital in terms of population, economic activity
and the urban system (EU State of Cities Report).
This explosion in growth could hardly have been predicted back in the 1980’s when
Ireland and Dublin were experiencing tough economic conditions and population
decline. The emergence of the ‘Celtic Tiger’ economy in the 1990’s has transformed the
country and in particular the city. The city region has become a magnet for attracting
new international populations and foreign investment. A positive climate for business
investment, an internationally recognised educational system and a well-developed
tourist industry have all contributed to this growth.
In few years the Dublin City Region has become home to a range of world-class
companies including IBM, Intel, Google, E-bay, Wyeth and Microsoft. The advent of
a globalised economy alongside the availability of cheap air fares and freedom of
movement in the EU has radically changed the ?ows and patterns of migration into
Ireland. The city economy continues to grow and high levels of inward net migration
continue to support this growth. Migrant workers have played a key role in supporting
and maintaining this growth. As a result of these migrant ?ows signi?cant cultural
changes have taken place within the country that was until very recently predominantly
over 95% Irish, white and Catholic. International populations are making an important
contribution to the City that extends well beyond economic considerations. At a more
tangible level the streets of Dublin City now play host to a range of ethnically diverse
food stores, restaurants, bars and cultural clubs.
Population
With a population of 505,739 rising to more than 1,6 million considering the Greater
Dublin Area, the City of Dublin has experienced a population growth of almost 18%
since 1996
4
. Over 60% of this population increase since 2002 can be attributed to the
arrival of migrants into the city, of these over 50% were in the 25 to 44 age category
5
.
Forecasts are for continue population growth suggesting that the city region will reach
2 million by 2021.
Migrants represent 12% of the city population (15% in the core city area). The largest
group in 2006 was from the UK, followed by Poland, and Lithuanians
6
.
4
Source: Central Statistics Of?ce www.cso.ie.
5
NCB – economics weekly Jan 2008 www.ncb.ie
6
Ethnicity was recoded for the ?rst time in the Census of 2006.
139
Figure 4: Dublin City Region Foreign Born, 2006
Source: Census 2006
While the initial attractors to the city region have been very much based on economic and
monetary factors it will be increasingly important that the city leads in the co-ordination
and development of future strategies ensuring that the city continues to hold onto these
international populations. This needs to be set in the context of the growing importance
of city regions competing for international mobile talent, tourism and students.
Cultural and Internationalisation Factors
International Students
The city region has seen sustained growth also in the numbers of international students
with over 15,600 students
7
registered in higher-level institutions in the city region in
2006/07 (accounting for 57% of the national total). This has contributed approximately
€213m to the city in 2006/07. International students account for about 10% of the total
student population.
Tourism
Tourism represents another critically important sector to the national and city economy.
This can be evidenced through the 4.3 million overseas tourists that visited Dublin in
2006
8
(representing a 30% increase from 2002). The growth in short city breaks and
the rise in the international population in the city has helped drive this growth. The
7
International Education Board Ireland (IEBI).
8
Regions 2006 – Dublin Tourism and Faille Ireland.
UK
Poland
Lithuania
Nigeria
China
Philippines
Romania
India
Latvia
France
USA
0 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000
Annex I. Collaborating European Cities
140
bene?t to the city economy is estimated at €1.374 billion (2006). In 2004, Dublin was
ranked as the third most popular destination in Europe, with over 20 million bed nights
recorded
9
.
High Skilled
Attracting migration is now felt as a fundamental resource for ensuring the country’s
growth. As stated in the National Competitiveness Council Annual Competitiveness
Report 2006, participation, training and attracting skills from abroad
10
are the top three
priority policy areas which need to be addressed over the next years.
Box 4: Ireland Integration Index
Acess to Nationality
Long-term residence
Family Reunion
Labour Market Access
Anti Discrimination
Political participation
62
39
50
58
59
50
The MIPEX index found that access to nationality policies are among the strongest,
ranking fourth in the EU-25, tied with the UK. Anti-discrimination, family reunion, labour
market access, and political participation score around halfway to best practice. Ireland’s
long-term residence policies received the worst score of all 28 MIPEX countries.
In order to attract and retain high skilled migrants, since January 2007, the Employment
Permit Act facilitated skilled labour migration from outside the EU. Highly skilled workers
from outside the EU/EEA receive ‘Green Cards’, which give them different eligibility,
conditions, and rights to those of regular workers for many of the MIPEX strands.
Leadership Factors
For a country whose history has been dominated by mass emigration, inward migration
has brought signi?cant challenges for government agencies and policy makers alike
both at national and local level.
At city level, the Dublin City Development Board has set out ‘New Migrant Communities’
as a key strategic priority for the period 2006-2008. The main objective within this
priority is to develop a strategic anti-racism, diversity and integration framework
9
Tourism Marketing Information System (TourMIS), Statistics of European cities´ Tourism (2004).
10
National policy and advisory board for enterprise, trade, science, technology and innovation,http://www.
forfas.ie/ncc/reports/ncc_challenge_06/webopt/ncc070207_acr_challenge_2006_webopt.pdf
141
plan for the city. The framework plan currently being developed, will map the policy
development, strategic direction and actions of public service agencies and other
stakeholders, including the local development sector, and to capture the input of the
social partners of business, trade unions and community interest groups (including
migrant and ethnic minority communities) in addressing these issues.
Two dedicated units, the Intercultural Relations Unit and Social Inclusion Unit work
to address the policy needs of Dublin’s new communities, to combat discrimination
and promote social inclusion. The Intercultural Relations Unit was set up in 2006 to
facilitate and encourage mutual understanding through dialogue, education, creation/
assistance of cultural events and celebrations by assisting migrant and cultural groups
with community based projects.
The Social Inclusion Unit which was set up in 2000 works towards the inclusion of all
members of society both within the structures and departments of Dublin City Council
itself and within community groups and projects throughout the city. Project carried
out by this unit include:
A Social Exclusion Strategy 2007-2009.
A Social Inclusion Handbook for Staff (best practice; impact assessment; language).
Inclusive projects across the city.
Close liaison internally and with other agencies.
Quarterly newsletter – ‘All In’.
Furthermore, in order to develop and manage initiatives and projects of international
scope, the International Relations, Research & Special Projects Department was
established as a Corporate Service in April 2007.
2.5. Düsseldorf
EU SOCR: knowledge hub
Capital of the federal state of North-Rhine Westphalia, Dusseldorf has all the main
characteristics of a knowledge hub, as identi?ed by the EU State of Cities Report:
signi?cant GDP level, good economic growth; high levels of employment and
participation-including younger and older population members; a large share of the
private sector as part of the economy; strong innovation and entrepreneurship; a high
share of the population with a university education; high commercial and residential
property prices; and excellent accessibility via a range of transport methods.
Not surprisingly the city has a large presence of foreigners, 17,2% of the total population
which stands at some 585,000 inhabitants (2006). The largest minority ethnic groups
Annex I. Collaborating European Cities
142
are Turkish, Greek, and Italian. Düsseldorf has the third largest Japanese community in
Europe and the largest in Germany (about 11,000).
Figure 5: Düsseldorf Foreign Born, 2006
Source: Dusseldorf City Council
Location and Accessibility
Düsseldorf is part of the Rhine Ruhr region
11
which is one of the largest metropolitan
areas in the world, estimated as being home to some 10,2 million people. Its location,
at the centre of Europe, has made the city very attractive to international companies.
Within less than 500 km/310 miles away from Düsseldorf live 35% of the EU total
population (i.e. 55 % of EU purchasing power). The region is easily accessible, thanks
to 172 international air connections, a dense network of motorways and highways, and
numerous rail lines.
As a major regional centre it has a wide variety of businesses and industries which
include telecommunications, media, fashion, advertising and trade fairs. With 42
universities, technical colleges, and administration academies, the region is also a
mayor centre for higher education and research.
Furthermore, the 2007 Mercer HR Consulting survey ranks Düsseldorf on place 5 of
the cities with highest quality of life worldwide and number 1 in Germany.
11
The Rhine Ruhr region is neither politically nor statistically de?ned. As such, it has no de?nite boundaries
and there are It is generally accepted that the region spreads from the Ruhr area megalopolis in the north
to the cities of Düsseldorf, Wuppertal, and Cologne in the south. Certainly the region comprises 20 cities
with a population of more than 100,000 people and 11 counties with a population of over 250,000 and
is a classic example of polycentricism. Although it contains several large cities such as Cologne, Essen,
Duisburd, Dortmund and Dusseldorf, no clear hierarchy of cities exists.
Turkish 14%
Other European 22%
Macedonian 3%
Ukrainan 3%
Croatian 3%
Russian 3%
Poles 5%
Sebia Montenegro 6%
Italian 6%
Greek 10%
Morocco 5%
US 1%
Other Asian 9%
Japanese 5%
Other African 3%
Other American 2%
143
Box 6: Germany Integration Index
With a consistently average performance, Germany’s six areas of integration policy
score either slightly favourably (family reunion and political participation) or around
halfway to best practice (labour market access, anti-discrimination, access to nationality
and long-term residence).
38
53
61
50
66
50
Acess to Nationality
Long-term residence
Family Reunion
Labour Market Access
Anti Discrimination
Political participation
Internationalisation Factors
International companies and trade fairs
Düsseldorf is home to almost 40,000 companies. More than 5,000 are branches of
international companies (?gure 6). It is one of the most important trade-fair venues in the
world, hosting 43 international trade fairs which attract some 1,5 million visitors annually.
Düsseldorf has also assumed a leading role as a ?nance centre with 170 national and
50 international banks and the Rheinisch-Westfälische Stock Exchange, which is the
second largest in Germany. Furthermore, the presence of other international institutions,
including 30 foreign Chambers of Commerce and Trade, and international schools and
clubs, facilitate the climate for international businesses and foreign investments.
Figure 6: International companies represented in the region
Approx. 5,000 foreign company
branches, there of from:
Source: Of?ces of Economic Promotion, Chambers of Industry and Commerce, City Council.
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
J
a
p
a
n
450
750
520
350
250
200
90
40
U
S
A
G
r
e
a
t
B
r
i
t
a
i
n
F
r
a
n
c
e
C
h
i
n
a
T
a
i
w
a
n
K
o
r
e
a
Annex I. Collaborating European Cities
144
Düsseldorf describes itself as “Nippon’s Capital on the Rhine.” Since the end of World
War II, Japanese companies have set up in the City. Among Japanese companies with
German headquarters in Düsseldorf is Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, a unit of Mitsubishi
UFJ Financial, the biggest Japanese bank. Its of?ces are on the Immermannstrasse,
called “Little Tokyo” by locals, which abuts the banking district. In 2006 ten Japanese
companies moved to Düsseldorf
12
.
The City is now looking to attract Chinese businesses. Different activities have been
undertaken by the City since 2004 in close collaboration with Messe Düsseldorf and
the Düsseldorf Chamber of Industry and Commerce, under the slogan “China goes
Düsseldorf - Düsseldorf goes China”. These initiatives are aimed at assisting local companies
in establishing and expanding business contacts with China while helping Chinese
companies with their investment and location projects in Düsseldorf. The Düsseldorf
China Competence Center (China Kompetenzzentrum Düsseldorf) was founded in
January 2005 and has been located at the Of?ce of Economic Development. According
to NRW.INVEST in three years (2003-2006) the number of Chinese companies has
tripled with over 400 ?rms now based in the North-Rhine Westphalia which employ
approximately 2,400 people in total
13
.
2.6. Gdansk
EU SOCR: Gateway
With some 456,000 inhabitants, Gdansk is the 6th most populated city in Poland. Its
population is very young (some 20% are under 17) and well educated but declining,
showing both negative birth rate and negative migration. Statistical forecasts also
suggest for continuing population decline.
Being part of a country of rich migration history, with a great propensity of its residents
to migrate, there are few data available on immigration. At national level, a recent
study (Agnieszka Fihel, 2006) found that as of 01.09.04, the number of foreigners
living in Poland was 84,729, among whom 37.8% held permission for settlement. The
most numerous national groups include: Ukrainians, Russians and Belarusians. Also
Vietnamese and citizens of Western Europe constitute the big groups of foreigners
resident in Poland. Currently, there are no data available on migrants living in Gdansk.
Box 5: Poland Integration Index
Poland’s integration policies perform rather unevenly on the MIPEX indicators. Policies
are slightly favourable on long-term residence, which are the best in the EU-10, and on
family reunion, which are the third best after Slovenia and Lithuania. Access to nationality
is also third best in the EU-10, although just below halfway to best practice, similar to
12
International Herald Tribune August 16, 2007
13http://www.nrwinvest.com/nrwinvest/nrwinvest.nsf/contentByKey/BSEE-6YCARN-EN-p
145
45
67
66
42
14
45
Acess to Nationality
Long-term residence
Family Reunion
Labour Market Access
Anti Discrimination
Political participation
anti-discrimination. Political participation and access to the labour market policies are
unfavourable to integration being respectively the third worst in the 28 MIPEX countries,
after Latvia and Lithuania and the second worst in the 28, after Latvia.
For its location and maritime tradition, Gdansk is included by the EU State of Cities
report among the Gateway cities. The city is in facts one of the main Polish ports and
bene?ts from its strategic location on Scandinavian and Western, Easter and Central
European routes. The city represents a regional transportation hub with rail and road
connections to the central parts of Central and Eastern Europe. Furthermore, the newly
renovated airport is one of the three international airports in Poland.
Gdansk is one of the main educational centres in the country, with almost 20% of
the working age population consisting of students. It is home to six universities and
four colleges. As said above the population is well educated, with some 13% having
completed higher education studies (the national average is 7%).
EU membership since 2004 and low-cost airlines are rapidly changing Gdansk into a
tourist destination and business location. The Gdansk’s region, Pomerania, is in facts
of one of the 14 Special Economic Zones created in Poland. The Pomeranian Special
Economic Zone (PSSE) was established in 2001 and will be in operation until 2017.
Gdanski Park Naukowo-Technologiczny is also associated with the PSSE.
The park is also part of the ScanBalt BioRegion, a transnational networks involving
universities, biotech/life science industry, hospitals and other important actors in the
biotech/life science arena from 11 countries set up with the aim of ensuring that
North European Life Science and Biotechnology realises its potential for global
competitiveness.
2.7. Madrid
EU SOCR: Established Capital
Madrid is the third largest city in Europe, and together with London and Dublin offers
an example of fast growing and young city. Madrid has in facts one of the highest
Annex I. Collaborating European Cities
146
share of newcomers in Europe (Urban Audit). Its role of established capital, as de?ned
in the State of European Cities, implies a diversi?ed economic base, the presence of
major corporate HQ and administrative functions, a good accessibility, a central role
in culture and education, and concentrations of wealth. These are all aspects that can
act as magnets for different types of migrants.
Population
According to Madrid City Council the signi?cant number of foreign migrants settling in
the city in recent years has raised their number to 16.6% of the total population (around
537,000), as opposed to 2.8% of just seven years ago, taking the city’s population past
3.2 million in 2006. Considering the metropolitan area, the population raises to more
than 6 million inhabitants.
Re?ecting former colonial ties, the largest migrant group consists of people from
Central and South America (62.4%), and then from European countries (19.5%), from
Africa (8.3%), Asia (7.4%) and North America (2%). In terms of single nationalities, the
most numerous groups are the Ecuadorians (29.7%), Colombians (9.3%), Romanians
(6.5%), Peruvians (6.1%) and Moroccans (5.3%) (Dirección General de Estadística,
2005). Furthermore, more than 50,000 foreign nationals now choose Madrid as their
new home each year, and this trend, though slackening slightly, remains strong.
In reviewing the openness factors, we have focused on Internationalisation and
Leadership Factors.
Internationalisation Factors
Long term planning and Branding
Over the last decades, Madrid has undertaken a wide process of internationalisation
based on the development of comprehensive and coherent strategies which have
brought the city to rise on the international panorama. Its positive performance across
numerous international and European benchmarks and indexes con?rm the city’s
success. Just to name a few:
Madrid places highly on the Lisbon Benchmark (a comprehensive measure of
economic performance).
In the European Cities Monitor (2005) the city is 7
th
for overall performance as a
business location and is one of the top cities in terms of self-improvement as a
business location. It also made signi?cant improvement on a variety of measures
between 2004 and 2005; 11
th
to 5
th
place in terms of access to markets, 9th to 6
th
in external transport links and 3
rd
to 2
nd
in the availability of of?ce space.
It is ranked as the 9
th
strongest city brand in the world according to the Anholt GMI
City Brands Index (2005)
147
14http://www.pwc.com/extweb/pwcpublications.nsf/docid/940ABE55AB5865A6852570F400722582/
$FILE/cities-?nal.pdf
15
The Plan Madrid is coordinated by the city’s General-Directorate for Immigration, Cooperation for
Development and Community Service, af?liated to the Agency for Employment and Citizen Services
(Dirección General de Inmigración, Cooperación al Desarrollo y Voluntariado del Area de Gobierno de
Empleo y Servicios a la Ciudadanía), which controls a budget of € 41.6 million till 2007 (Observatorio de
las Migraciones y de la Convivencia Intercultural, 2005, p. 3).
Madrid’s long term internationalisation strategy includes sections dedicated speci?cally
to brand management, so that the city’s international positioning is something that
will receive attention for years to come. In line with this approach is the ¡Madrid!, a
“focused passion” branding campaign, the “esmadrid.com” website to promote tourism,
culture, business and leisure, the Madrid 2016 candidature for the Olympic Games.
In a recent interview
14
Ignacio Niño, the General Co-ordinator of Economics at
Madrid City Council about future challenges and their consequences for the Spanish
capital, identi?ed the increase in land prices as a critical factor in absorbing, attracting
and retaining economic activity and population. In addition, he de?ned the integration of
migrants as critical for preserving the quality of urban life and harmonious coexistence
between different groups in all districts of the city. The ageing of the local population is felt
as another critical factor, determining business activity and future investments in the city.
In order to attract investment and people to Madrid, issues/factors of congestion such
as environmental quality, traf?c problems, housing and business land prices have been
identi?ed as factors to be addressed by investing in infrastructure and urban technology.
No less important also is the need for companies based in Madrid to evolve towards
quality, innovation and the appreciation of investment and R&D in order to preserve a
leading position for Madrid’s economy.
Leadership Factors
Despite Madrid has become a receiving migrants destination lately, the city has soon
recognised the importance of international populations and has looked for local
initiatives to address the large arrival of migrants in a such short period.
In March 2005 the City Council launched a strategic plan to elaborate a ‘City for Everybody’,
a ‘City of Neighbours’ appointing mutual responsibilities for both migrants and natives
named the Plan Madrid de Convivencia Social e Intercultural (Madrid Plan for Social and
Intercultural Coexistence) (Ayuntamiento de Madrid, 2005, p. 21). The Plan constitutes
the practical outcome of a debate on migration matters between governmental and non-
governmental participants convened within the Foro Social, a social forum established
in October 2003. The overall objectives are de?ned a fostering the institutional progress
of immigrant reception at the municipal level, to provide better access to civil rights and
resources for immigrants, as well as to improve coexistence between Spaniards and
foreigners in order to create dynamic and harmonious neighbourhoods
15
.
Since Plan Madrid was adopted, the city has established an information centre for
the integration of immigrants (O?cina Municipal de Información y Orientación para la
Annex I. Collaborating European Cities
148
Integración) and also founded a centre to facilitate immigrants’ access to the local
housing market called Agencia de Alquiler del Área de Gobierno de Urbanismo y
Vivienda e Infraestructuras del Ayuntamiento (Accomodation Bureau of the Municipal
Of?ce for Urban Housing and Infrastructure). The housing agency collaborates closely
with the intercultural mediation services of the city.
IMMIGRAMADRID a web portal aimed to help immigrants integration into the City was
launched by the Immigration Department (Consejería de Inmigración). The website
provides information on the most concerned subjects: employment, housing, health,
education. Furthermore, the Community of Madrid has published an information booklet
in Spanish, French, English, Arabic, Rumanian and Chinese to answer foreigners’ most
frequently asked questions when they arrive in Madrid called “First steps guide for
immigrants”.
2.8. So?a
EU SOCR: reinvented capital
As all the capitals of the New Member States, So?a has gone through drastic changes
during the last 15 years. The City has in facts modernised at a fast rate, attracted
international companies and citizens, and often large amounts of visitors. In addition
to the capital functions, business services and tourism have emerged as new pillars of
economic activity.
Bulgaria is not presented in the MIPEX index
16
. It must be said that as both a source
and destination country for migrants, the country’s accession to the European Union
in 2007 has posed new challenges in the ?eld of migration management. Located at
the south-eastern gateway into Europe, Bulgaria is also a transit country for migrants
from Asia and Africa en route to EU countries.
Population
With a total population of 1,237,891 (2006) inhabitants So?a is by far the largest
Bulgarian city. According to the NSI, since 2003 So?a’s population has been growing at
a rate of some 8% per year. The city is expected to grow to more than 1.3 million, with
an estimated another 400,000 people coming in to work (and shop) every week-day.
The numbers of foreigners living in the city is estimated to exceed 30,000 (2,5% of
the total population), largely Arab (32%), Chinese (21%) and Ukraine, Moldova and
Macedonia (12%) nationals. Since the EU accession, the number of applications for
Bulgarian citizenship has signi?cantly increased.
16
MIPEX’s application for funding was submitted and approved before the accession of Bulgaria and
Romania in January 2007.
149
As post socialist city in a transition economy, So?a holds a different position within the
cities participating to the OPENCities project. The followings have been identi?es as
the key assets which can contribute to the city’s journey to internationalisation and
openness.
Capital Status: So?a is the administrative, economic, ?nancial, political, cultural,
research and development centre.
Position: Geographically it is situated at crossroads of major European and
transcontinental routes; particularly three Pan European Corridors;
Foreign Investments: For the period 1992-2004 more than the half of the
direct foreign investment (DFI) (about 56%) in Bulgaria was directed to So?a. The
increasing share of the DFI in So?a is a main factor for the organization and fast
development of the local economy, but is also an indicator for the high interest
of international companies to invest in the region
17
. So?a has in facts some 4,000
businesses established by foreign migrants.
Highly quali?ed and relatively affordable work force. So?a host 19 universities
and 92,500 students, 4,5% of whom were foreign born (So?a City Council, 2006).
New strategic approach: The development of the City’s Strategy started in
2000
18
with the aim to enhance the development of democratic and self-reliant
municipal management system in So?a in a manner that generates sustainable,
long-term bene?ts for its residents. The SWOT analysis prepared in the document
shows that So?a has a high concentration of business headquarters, a relatively
high quality of life, a reputation of entrepreneurialism and a pro-business attitude.
These factors, together with a concentration of highly skilled labour force, make
So?a’s business milieu attractive. However, sustaining competitiveness within
Europe requires urgent attention to improvements of infrastructure and more
ef?cient delivery of urban services. Other issues of major concern include rising
business and living costs, inadequate quality of life in existing housing areas,
access to jobs, retail and recreation.
2.9. Vienna
EU SOCR: established capital
Due to its geographical location in the eastern part of the country and its historical
development (Austro-Hungarian Monarchy), Vienna is seen as the main gateway to
Central and Eastern Europe. Together with The Hague and Geneva, the City is also
known for the UN-activities taking place within its borders.
17http://www2.fmg.uva.nl/acre/index.html
18
So?a management forged a partnership with the Cities Alliance—a global program led by the World Bank
and the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UNHabitat).
Annex I. Collaborating European Cities
150
Economic and Demographic Factors
The City of Vienna is both Austria’s federal capital and one of its federal provinces too. It
is by far the largest municipality in the country and the most important economic centre,
generating approximately 28% of the nation’s GDP and employing about a quarter of
the nation’s workforce. After decades of a decreasing population, the ?gure increased
by 120,000 between 1987 and 1994, due to an extraordinary in?ux of migrants, and
has remained on a slow but steady rise since then. Today the population stands at
some 1.6 million inhabitants. Data from 2006 shows that 316,188 (19.1%) were foreign
citizens. The largest migrant group was from Serbia and Montenegro (75,895), followed
by Turks (39,153) and Poles (24,111) and migrants from Germany (21,766), Bosnia and
Herzegovina (17,742) and Croatia (16,606). Forecasts suggest that by 2035 over half
a million (543.500) will be foreign citizens.
Figure 3: Vienna Foreign Born, 2006
Source: Vienna City Council
The GDP per capita in Vienna is approximately EUR 40,000 way above most
European cities and this level of income is relatively evenly distributed throughout the
population.
Box 3: Austria Integration Index
Austria lies halfway to best practice only concerning labour market access, and slightly
favourable policies for political participation; while it presents the least favourable
access to nationality, out of the 28 MIPEX countries, for legally-resident third-country
migrants. Policies for families to reunite fall second from the bottom, after Cyprus. In
the EU-15, the anti-discrimination laws relevant to integration score 14th and long-term
residence policies rank 13
th
.
Germany 7%
Turkish 12%
Poles 8%
Bosnia & Herzegovina 6%
Croatian 5%
Others Europa
21%
Africa 4%
Asia 10%
Others 4%
Serbia Montenegro 23%
151
22
55
34
42
34
45
Acess to Nationality
Long-term residence
Family Reunion
Labour Market Access
Anti Discrimination
Political participation
Despite at national level we have found partially unfavourable policies for the migrants’
integration, at city level we have identi?ed numerous initiatives and practices indicating
a wide degree of openness towards international populations.
Amenity Factors
Communication to foreign populations
Since 2002 the city of Vienna has provided its new citizens with an initial guide to
integration in the form of a ‘welcome package’, which contains a letter on integration
(Integrationsstadträtin), a city map, and basic information on the city and its
services (work, social insurance, childcare and schooling, health, housing, traf?c).
Moreover, a so-called ‘conversation for orientation’ (Orientierungsgespräche) has
been introduced – small circles of immigrants moderated by a former migrant
(Stadt Wien, 2006).
The City’s web portal, www.wien.at, offers an additional service for migrants.
Information on life and services are provided in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian and in
Turkish. The existing English version has been expanded as well. Furthermore, a
quarterly magazine called “Welt und Stadt” (The world and the city) is part of the
broad range of municipal print media and is targeted speci?cally at migrants. It is
summarised in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian and Turkish and offers legal and other
information and helps the new Viennese to get to know their city better.
Education and language courses for non native speakers
Different initiatives aimed to language integration and multilingual education have been
found. At the provincial level, children with little German are granted (€80/child) with
the so-called “language tickets”, entitling them to 120 hours of language classes. At
city level, language classes speci?cally for mothers were developed in Vienna (Mama
is Learning German), as well as a system of vouchers for language training (€100 per
person in 2006, increasing to €300 per person in 2007). Furthermore, in addition to all
the conventional German-language state schools, there are kindergartens conducted in
English; a French Lice, American, Czech, Swedish, International and Japanese schools,
even one holding classes in German, Hungarian and Slovakian.
Annex I. Collaborating European Cities
152
Internationalisation Factors
International Organizations
As said above, Vienna is home to numerous UN of?ces and other international
organizations
19
. In 1979 the Austrian Government provided a permanent facility for UN
organizations, named the Vienna International Centre (VIC)14, also known as UNO City,
where more than 4,000 employees from over 100 countries work for the VIC-based
organizations. The presence of UN organizations have a large positive impact on the
local economy
20
and has always been supported both at local and national level. Free
services for employees of UN organizations and their families, especially for newcomers,
are provided at local level by the Vienna Service Of?ce based at VIC whose mission
is creating the best conditions to accommodate international organizations in the city
and facilitate the access of family members of international staff to the Austrian labour
market. It holds a variety of brochures and pamphlets on Vienna and related topics.
It provides prompt and individual help with problems related to their stay in Vienna,
such as contact with authorities, free counselling and information services of the city,
residence permits, education and schooling.
International companies
Vienna hosts almost 300 international companies, 20% of which are specialised in hi-
tech activities, and that employ more than 150,000 people. This is the result of work
done by the City of Vienna that since 1997 has invested € 400 million in technology
projects and has created new high technology centres, such as the Business & Research
Centre on Hochstädtplatz or Tech Gate Vienna, Vienna’s ?rst science and technology
park across the Danube next to the Vienna International Centre. The aim is to make
Vienna the “Research Capital” for central and Eastern Europe. Furthermore, Vienna also
plays an important world role regarding congresses and fairs. Two statistics published
at the end of 2005 by the International Congress and Convention Association (ICCA)
19
Today, the Vienna International Centre houses the United Nations Of?ce at Vienna (UNOV), the United Nations
Of?ce on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear
Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO PrepCom) and the United Nations Commission for International Trade
Law (UNCITRAL). Other United Nations organizations and entities with of?ces in Vienna are the United
Nations Of?ce of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), the United Nations Postal Administration—Vienna
Section (UNPA), the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the United Nations Scienti?c
Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR).
20
In 2002, these organizations spent some €480 million in Austria and employed approximately 4,800
staff including some 1,200 Austrians. In view of their professional quali?cations and required mobility, the
international civil servants earn a relatively high income. Of the available household income per foreign civil
servant, 27% go annual household income of € 70,900 per diplomat, one third goes into savings while the
balance € 47,251 is spent in Austria.
In addition to the personal expenditure of international civil servants and diplomats employed by the
Permanent Missions, the international organizations themselves spent some € 739 million in 2002 to meet
their administrative requirements and in the purchase of goods and services. Of this amount, € 412 million
was spent in Austria, creating a substantial added value for the Austrian economy.
153
and the Union of International Associations (UIA) showed that Vienna had become the
second most popular congress city in the world. According to ICCA Vienna, in the 2004
world listing of the most popular congress cities, came after Barcelona, and according
to UIA following Paris in second place. Vienna congress statistics for 2004 recorded
1,633 congresses with 241,000 participants and 888,000 overnight stays. This made
up 10% of Vienna’s total tourism
21
.
Branding and Strategies
Vienna has the image of a meeting point of east and west. The city works on its
international promotion through agencies in 11 central European countries, the Vienna
House in Brussels and of?ces in Hong Kong and Tokyo. In order to achieve a consistent
image with greater penetration abroad, the city started in 2006 to pursue a policy of
international and integrative image marketing. Prior to this, the main actors in business,
tourism and the municipal authorities had been conducting their international activities
independently. Through closer cooperation between the city of Vienna, its institutions
and partners, and private interests, international activities will now be strategically
coordinated and scheduled. The entire process will be consolidated under a single
brand image on the principle of “strength in numbers”.
Leadership Factors
Institutionally the city responds to the signi?cant presence of internationals most visibly
with the municipality departments (Magistratsabteilungen), MA 11 and MA 17. MA 11
coordinates cooperation with different groups and associations for families and their
support. Besides German they provide help in other languages such as Turkish, Serbian,
Bosnian and Croatian. Explicitly, within the project REBAS, a regional care centre was
created in which teachers, social workers and two native speakers help pupils with
migration backgrounds in solving problems at school, education or social demands
(Stadt Wien, 2006b and 2006c). MA 17 is entrusted with the general task of integrating
and promoting Vienna’s diversity policy.
The MA17 team of 43 persons includes 20 staff members working in decentralised
of?ces in seven different parts of Vienna. This proximity reinforces the MA17’s knowledge
of local communities and associations and of the concrete situation in the different
districts of the city. Almost two thirds of MA17 staff have an immigrant background;
many of them are ?rst-generation migrants. They come from 14 countries and speak
more than 23 languages.
21http://www.wieninternational.at/en/node/747
Annex I. Collaborating European Cities
154
3. Case Studies Conclusions
Although the initial case studies are far from comprehensive, the progress has allowed
us to identify some key points for the general de?nition and to the co-ordination of this
project.
First of all, in order to allow some sort of comparison, the cities participating to the
OPENCities Project have been categorised according to the typology of cities as stated
in the EU State of Cities Report, and classi?ed by population size and foreign presence
(table below).
Table: Participating Cities: Summary table using typology from EU State of the Cities Report.
City Typology Population Foreign Population
Belfast Transformation Pole 270,000 Declining Less 2%
Bilbao Transformation Pole 353,938 Stable 6,2%
Cardiff Gateway 320,000 Growing 10%
Dublin Knowledge Hub 1,6 million Growing 12%
Düsseldorf Knowledge Hub 580,000 Growing 18%
Gdansk Gateway 456,000 Declining n.a.
Madrid Established Capital 3,2 million Growing 16%
Vienna Established Capital 1,664,146 Growing 19,1%
So?a Reinvented Capital 1,237,891 Growing 2,5%
This initial classi?cation has shown that the participating cities all lie at different stages.
The common point is that migration is happening in all of them, even in those cities, like
Belfast or Bilbao, which were historically not immigrant destinations.
Case studies have highlighted that migration is a complex issue because it involves
several ?elds of debate.
The following key points provide an early framework for re?ecting upon it and how a
city can be open.
i. Migrants in-?ows are characterising all the cities both if the local population is
growing or declining. The EU accession of New member states in 2004 has much
contributed to accelerate this in?ux and also to a change in the origin of ethnic
communities. Cities like Dublin, Madrid and Vienna have received the highest
share of new comers in the last decade, and consequently experienced a rapid
155
change in population’s diversity. Also for Sofia and Gdansk the EU accession
has posed new challenges in terms of migration management. Early evidence
of change in the population base has already occurred, despite not properly
documented yet.
ii. Many of the factors of city open-ness are beyond the direct in?uence of city
governments but cities’ in?uence appear to be fundamental in many of the
identi?ed factors. From the country analysis, based on the MIPEX index, it has
in fact emerged that often Cities have found more open and ef?cient policies
to manage international migration than the national governments do. Vienna is a
good example of a city aware of the positive effects of international populations
and where many initiative and programs have been undertaken at local level
to manage it, despite policies for migrants are generally quite unfavourable at
national level.
iii. Openness doesn’t represent yet an explicit goal for many of the participating
cities. By far the most dominant form of strategy exhibited by cities involved
in the OPENCities project was that which sought to promote the integration of
immigrants once they had arrived in the city, rather than pro-actively seeking
them out in the ?rst place. Bilbao, Dublin and Madrid show some good evidence
of recognising the importance that the attraction of migrants represents for
sustaining the city’s growth.
iv. Overall cities more internationalised have emerged to be more attractive to
international populations, con?rming the hypothesis that the journeys to openness
and to internationalisation are inseparable.
v. The initial diagnosis of city’s openness through the eight identi?ed factors of
open-ness has demonstrated that different kinds of cities are differently ‘open’.
The point here is that because all cities are different, and because there are at
least eight important factors to how open a city is, there are bound to be different
combinations of such factors, producing not just different degrees of open-ness
within cities, but also different kinds of open-ness. Each city has in fact shown to
have different local speci?cities which have acted as magnet to attract foreign
populations. It can be the location as in Vienna or Düsseldorf, a positive climate for
investments and well educated people as in Dublin, strategic planning as in Bilbao,
ex colonial ties as in Cardiff, Madrid.
These simple observations lead to important conclusions; cities will not become more
open by following a rigid formula, they will become more open by carefully diagnosing
their own open-ness, and by making progress on factors which are revealed as the key
constraints on their open-ness at this point.
Leadership is key to face the challenges and opportunities that a diverse population
brings. Cities and community leaders (business, NGOs, Trade Unions, media, etc) need
to work together to achieve the advantages that a diverse population can offer.
Annex I. Collaborating European Cities
156
Concluding, from the Case Studies has emerged that despite the participating cities
present different economic development bases, all of them have shifted at some
degree to a service or knowledge economy. This has led us to better de?ne the scope
of the OPENCities project and decide to focus on the attraction and retention of
highly skilled international populations. This is very important if considered that the EU
expects to have a heavy shortfall of skilled workers by 2030 and the attraction of highly
skilled migrants has become a top priority on its agenda. Accordingly to EU statistics, in
facts, highly skilled foreign workers accounted for only 0,9% of all workers in the Union,
compared with 9,9% in Australia, 7,3% in Canada and 3,5% in the United States. The
OPENCities project aims so to further investigate on the role that European cities can
play in attracting and retaining stable and skilled international populations.
4. Case Studies References
Basque Statistic Of?cehttp://www.eustat.es/
Belfast City Councilhttp://www.belfastcity.gov.uk/
Belfast Community Relations Councilhttp://www.community-relations.org.uk/
Belfast Multi-Cultural Resource Centrehttp://www.mcrc-ni.org/
Bilbao City Councilhttp://www.bilbao.net
Bilbao Metropoli 30http://www.bm30.es
Bilbao Porthttp://www.bilbaoport.es/aPBW/index.jsp
Bilbao Ria 2000http://www. bilbaoria2000.com
Bilbao Tourism Infohttp://www.visitbilbao.info
Budapest Tourism Of?cehttp://www.budapestinfo.hu/en/
Cardiff Proud Capital Strategyhttp://www.cardiffproudcapital.co.uk
Cardiff City Councilhttp://www.cardiff.gov.uk
Central Statistic Of?ce Irelandhttp://www.cso.ie/
City of Düsseldorfhttp://www.duesseldorf.de/en/index.shtml
City o Dublin Portalhttp://www.dublin.ie
City of Gdanskhttp://www.gdansk.pl/en/
City of Malmohttp://www.malmo.se/
City of So?ahttp://www.so?a.bg/en/index_en.asp
City of Viennahttp://www.wien.gv.at/english/
Dublin City Council www.dublincity.ie
157
Düsseldorf Chamber of Small Industries and Skilled Tradeshttp://www.hwk-duesseldorf.
de/engl/index.html
Düsseldorf China Competence Centerhttp://www.china-goes-dus.de
Empresa Municipal Promoción de Madridhttp://esmadrid.com
Guggenheim Museumhttp://www.guggenheim-bilbao.es
ImmigraMadrid Portal de Integracion y Convivienciahttp://www.madrid.org/cs/Satellite
?language=es&pagename=PortalInmigrante%2FPage%2FINMI_home
Madrid 2016 Ciudade Aspirantehttp://www.madrid2016.es/
Malmo Universityhttp://www.mah.se/default____12978.aspx
Messe Düsseldorfhttp://www.messe-duesseldorf.de/
Migrant Integration Policy Indexhttp://www.integrationindex.eu/
Migration Information Institutehttp://www.migrationpolicy.org/
Municipalidade Madridhttp://www.munimadrid.es
Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minoritieshttp://www.nicem.org.uk/
NRW.INVESThttp://www.nrwinvest.com
Øresundsbro Konsortiethttp://osb.oeresundsbron.dk/
Port of Gdanskhttp://www.portgdansk.pl/en
Union of Baltic Citieshttp://www.unc.net
Vienna International Centrehttp://www.unvienna.org/unov/en/vic.html
159
Annex II:
Global Case Studies
Selected by the particular interest and city
typologies to our project
160
Global Case
Studies
Selected by the particular interest and city
typologies to our project
1. Birmingham: Cultural diversity as an asset and
opportunity
With nearly 1 million residents, Birmingham is the second largest urban area in the
UK after London. It is an ethnically and culturally diverse city. According to the 2001
Census, 70.4% of the population was White (including 3.2% Irish & 1.5% Other White),
19.5% British Asian, 6.1% Black or Black British, 0.5% Chinese, 2.9% of mixed race and
0.6% of other ethnic heritage. 16.5% of the population was born outside the United
Kingdom. Birmingham is home to one of the largest Pakistani-Kashmiri communities
outside of Kashmir and is said to have an overall Pakistani origin population of more
than 200,000, which would make this the largest Pakistani community of any local
authority in the UK
i
.
Birmingham Foreign Born, 2001
Total Foreign Born:
161,250
Total Population:
977,087
Percentage Foreign Born:
16.50%
Source: National Statistics, Census 2001 byhttp://gstudynet.org/gum/UK/Birmingham2001.htm
ihttp://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=729&CONTENT_ITEM_
TYPE=0&MENU_ID=148
Other countries 39,113
Other EU 7,817
Bangladesh 10,748
Ireland 22,473
Pakistan 52,763
India 28,336
Annex II: Global Case Studies
162
Birmingham is a classic case of a European industrial city struggling to adapt to the
effects of globalisation, de-industrialisation, structural economic change and increasing
intercity competition at a transnational scale. In fact, by the early 1980s Birmingham
was experiencing a severe socio-economic crisis precipitated by the collapse of its
manufacturing basea.
At the beginning of the 1990s, recognising an urgent need to modernise and diversify
the city economy and to address related social and environmental problems that
undermined the city’s long-term prospects, the Birmingham City Council identi?ed a
key new strategic sector for the city – business tourism and related service functions
– and developed this as a means to begin the regeneration of the city centre. The city
council response particularly focused on twin investments set within an innovative new
approach to planning and the urban realm within the city centre area. The ?rst major
set of initiatives comprised the development of a series of ?agship projects designed to
lead Birmingham’s move into international business tourism and related leisure sectors.
The schemes were clustered together in what is now known as the Convention Centre
Quarter on the west side of the city centre. The main elements were:
International Convention Centre/Symphony Hall (ICC),
National Indoor Arena (NIA),
Hyatt Hotel,
Centenary Square,
Downgrading of the Inner Ring Road,
Canal Network and Infrastructure.
More recently, the city council’s attention has turned to the regeneration of the Eastside
district of the city centre. It represents a critical evolution of Birmingham’s city centre
strategy as it combines elements of continuity with preceding policy initiatives discussed
above and some new perspectives on regeneration in this area. In particular, it is an
attempt to broaden and diversify the kinds of activities, users and residents in the city
centre while still contributing to the city’s strategic aims of economic diversi?cation/
modernisation and reversing the processes of out-migration and loss of young, skilled
people. Important dimension of the plans, some of which are beginning to bear fruit
include:
Educational activities,
Creative industries,
Affordable and innovative housing.
The city centre strategy has been effective in diversifying the economy, rebuilding the
heart of the city into civic life and creating substantial new employment opportunities.
Recent research into Birmingham’s city centre experience provides a fuller picture of
163
the impacts (Barber 2002, 2001). The service sector, which in 2003 accounted for
78% of the city’s economic output and 97% of its economic growth is the main activity
sector
ii
.
The new facilities have succeeded in positioning Birmingham as an international
conference venue, hosting the G8 Summit and many other events of national and
European importance. The city centre business tourism sector has also increased the
volume of visitors to the city (particularly high spending overseas visitors) and a strong
improvement in its position relative to other British cities has ensued ( the city now
ranks third behind London and Edinburgh).
The growth of this important economic function has had extensive knock-on effects
in terms of visitor spending and the emergence of new complementary facilities in
the leisure, hotel and catering sectors. Employment growth in these sectors has also
outpaced regional and national averages since the early 1990s (Birmingham Economic
Information Centre, 2002).
Alongside the substantial economic impacts, it is important to note another less tangible
dimension of the city centre policy – its effect on urban quality of life. The city council’s
initiatives and subsequent private investments have created a highly attractive, safer
and more vibrant urban environment that is regularly used by a range of residents and
visitors, including young people, families, and a wide cross section of city cultures.
While much of the follow-on development is of a pro?t-making, commercial nature, the
revived city centre includes extensive spaces and places that allow simple enjoyment of
city life without the need to expend substantial amounts of money. Further, the squares
and open spaces are frequently used to host a range of cultural and civic events – from
New Year’s Eve parties to arts festivals and religious celebrations re?ecting the multi-
cultural fabric of the city population – the vast majority of which are free.
1.1. Cultural diversity: as an asset and opportunity
During these years Birmingham has also embarked on a brave attempt to broaden its
planning ethos and incorporate elements of the city’s diverse cultural population. A
key feature of this new ethos is a re-scripting of its ethnic minorities as an asset rather
than a problem. In February 2001, a conference consisting of planners, politicians,
voluntary sector workers, business people, academics and representatives from
ii
From 1971-1987 the city lost 149,000 manufacturing jobs, representing 46% of the sector total, and
nearly a quarter of overall city employment. Heavy reliance on the automotive industry and related metal-
working and engineering sectors, combined with the weak underlying structure of its manufacturing base
left Birmingham particularly vulnerable to recession and de-industrialisation processes from the late 1970s
through the early 1990s. This was a sharp, swift blow for a city that had boomed through much of the 20
th
century and had experienced a related expansion of population and substantial immigration through this
time.
Annex II: Global Case Studies
164
Birmingham’s ethnic minority communities was held in Birmingham featuring a number
of discussions on how the city could manage its cultural differences. Essentially, with
the attempts to ‘meet the challenge of diversity’ (Birmingham City Council, 2001), the
conference seemingly marked a turning point in Birmingham’s planning agenda. Where
once planners would seek to elide issues of cultural difference, they now solicit and
celebrate its multiculturalism. As the proceedings of the conference states: ‘the city’s
great strength and de?ning characteristic is its depth of diversity’ (Birmingham City
Council, 2001).
Notably, af?liated to the construction of the city’s multicultural ethos is an ongoing
process of re-scripting the character of Birmingham’s population as an asset
(Bhattacharyya, 2000). For instance, one key discussion document commissioned by
Birmingham City Council and entitled Planning for the Cosmopolitan City has identi?ed
the early stages of a revised attitude towards what it calls ‘the others’: Birmingham has
begun to see cultural diversity as an asset and opportunity, rather than a problem or
threat, and this is a vital shift in mindset. (Bloom?eld and Bianchini, 2002)
Reframed as assets, the report casts ethnic minority cultures as an untapped resource
in the local economy. In particular, it highlights the entrepreneurial skills amongst Black
and Asian youth and the connections of ethnic businesses in diasporic networks as
the areas of wealth creation. In an edition of Area, Henry et al. (2002) have made
a similar point on Birmingham’s ethnic diversity. Like Planning for the Cosmopolitan
City, they propose that Birmingham’s location in transnational networks – as marked
by the presence of its minority ethnic communities – offers the city avenues towards
competitive success.
2. Dubai: moving fast towards a knowledge based
economy
Dubai is by far the city with the highest percentage of international populations in
the world. According to of?cial estimates, approximately 80% of the total population
is foreign born (see the ?gure below), predominantly Asian, despite new waves of
immigrations have occurred during the last decade. Dubai’s population, which was
183,200 in 1975, reached some 1,2 million people in 2005, growing at a rate of 7%
a year.
iii
iii
It must be said that little information is in the public domain relating to changes in the composition and
characteristics of the population and also that according to a HSBC Bank Middle East document (2004)
based on different surveys of Dubai , a considerable proportion of the foreign population lives in collective
labour accommodation. Furthermore, there is a general absence of published public opinion about busi-
ness data (Walters, 2006). Data used in this case study are mostly gathered from key word searches in both
the Gulf News, the local English language newspaper of record, and Google.
165
Dubai Foreign Born, 2005
Arab* countries refers to countries of South Western Asia and North Africa
Source: Data on the UAE are 2005 mid-year estimates of the total and international migrant populations
reported by the UN Population Division (2006), Trends in Total Migrant Stock: The 2005 Revision. Data
on Dubai are from Ministry of Labor (available at the GUM website).
The city has profoundly changed since 1995 when the Sheikh Mohammad bin Rashid
Al Maktoum, Crown Prince of Dubai, became vice-president and prime minister of the
UAE. He understood that compared to its neighbours, Dubai had a limited supply of oil
and gas reserves (1/20th the reserves of Abu Dhabi) that would run out by 2010 and
was determined to build up Dubai’s economy so that could it survive the end of the oil
boom. His famous quote was “my grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I
drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his
son will ride a camel.” This quote signi?ed Sheikh Rashid’s understanding of the risks
involved with the end of petrol money. (Matly and Dillon, 2007).
Dubai can be considered an emerging world city. Behind the fast city’s ascent, there is
the Dubai Holding, the government investment branch which has transformed the city
into an engine of growth. The company has developed “an investment empire where
the sun never sets” (7Days, 22 October 2006, pps. 16-17). Under the umbrella of Dubai
Holding, that empire now includes Dubai Investment Group, Jumeriah Hotels, Istithmar,
Emaar, Dubai International Capital, Dubai Ports International, Dubai Islamic Bank, Dubai
Ports World, and Dubai Financial, among others.
The City’s vision (Dubai Vision 2010) is to attract the world’s top companies and
transform Dubai into a knowledge based economy. In 2006 one fourth of the world’s
global 500 companies had a presence in Dubai
iv
. In fact, between 2004-2009, Dubai
has earmarked $40 - $60 billion USD to projects like Dubailand, The Palm and the
Dubai International.
iv
Dubai Internet City: Serving Business” IMD International. 224: v 07.01.2005. p. 2
Other Countries 7%
USA 0%
Europe 1%
Sri Lanka 2%
Philippines 3%
Bangladesh 9%
Arab* 11%
Pakistan 16%
India 51%
Annex II: Global Case Studies
166
The city is realising this, trough a multilevel strategy which includes large scale
initiatives, emblematic projects, business policies, targeted branding. The followings
are examples of some approaches undergone to opening the city up.
The creation of free-zones which not only included freedom of ownership and
management without taxes, but also a simpli?ed approach to documentation
and government regulations. What is new in this strategy, has been the creation
of business parks dedicated to speci?c industrial sectors. The Dubai Internet
City opened in 2000 was designed to appeal to large information-technology
companies and to “knowledge professionals” from around the world. The list of
tenants includes Dell, Siemens, HP, Microsoft, Oracle and Cisco Systems. For media
companies there is the adjacent Dubai Media City, which opened in 2001 and is now
home to branches of CNN, Reuters and Dow Jones, among others. The Healthcare
City de?ned as the “world’s ?rst health care free zone” and includes internationally
known brand health care providers such as Harvard Medical School and the Mayo
Clinic (Dubai Healthcare City). The Dubai Knowledge Village launched in 2003 with
400 plus clients include training centres, professional centres and HR companies.
In 2007, the parent company of Dubai Knowledge Village, TECOM Investments
launched a separate facility - the Dubai International Academic City as an exclusive
cluster for institutions of higher education.
In addition to trade and tourism, much of Dubai’s economic prosperity is due to its
booming real estate and ?nancial services sectors. The Dubai International Financial
Centre, opened in 2004 with the aim to turn Dubai into the leading capital market
in the Middle East. The Dubai International Financial Exchange (DIFX), opened in
the DIFC in September 2005.
Several international events have contributed to this growth. The Dubai Shopping
festival, the wildly popular annual event, held each spring, has continued growing
since its launch in 1995. Mean visitors per day has grown from about 40,000 to
about 100,000 and total spending has increased as well. the period from 2001
to 2006 as in?ation has escalated from 5% to upwards of 14% per annum
v
. Other
events include: Dubai World Cup, the world’s richest horse race, held every March
since 1996. Dubai also focuses on attracting business conferences, new festivals
and also high pro?le sporting events to the country, in addition to heavily investing
in advertising to promote Dubai as the tourist destination in the Middle East.
3. Hong Kong: Settlement of Immigrants
Hong Kong’s population of 6.8 million is growing steadily with a combination of new
immigrants from Mainland China, and immigrants for other parts of the world.
Hong Kong’s population has increased steadily over the past decade, reaching about
6.8 million by 2003. Hong Kong is one of the most densely populated areas in the world,
v
Gulf News, 23 November 2006.
167
with an overall density of some 6,250 people per square kilometre. Cantonese, the
of?cial Chinese language in Hong Kong, is spoken by most of the population. English,
also an of?cial language, is widely understood. It is spoken by more than one-third of
the population. Every major religion is practiced freely in Hong Kong.
Hong Kong’s approach to immigration and its programme for new talent are key to
understanding Hong Kong’s new growth as a ?nancial services centre and it’s re-
emergence as a key world city in Asia.
To grow the economy, following the Asian ?nancial crisis, Hong Kong has focussed on
institutional reform in the ?nancial services sector, the growth of advanced producer
services, modernisation of its logistic platform, and growth of tourism. A major plank of
its new talent programme has focussed upon improving the outcomes for the schools
system for young people already in Hong Kong. A key additional plank has been
signi?cant efforts to boost international immigration. This has included:
300,000 'expat' business people, professionals, and their families be?tting from the
liberal immigration regime.
A review of immigration policy to relax restrictions on the entry of overseas investors
who want to live and invest in Hong Kong.
Increasing the freedom of business people form Mainland China to visit Hong Kong
for business purposes.
Accelerating the entry of people form Mainland China with appropriate skills.
Increasing the freedom of resident foreigners based in Hong Kong to trade, invest,
and work in mainland China.
These efforts, coupled with strong investment in Hong Kong’s tourism promotion have
led to rapid population growth. The city’s population is projected to reach 8 million by
2030. Signi?cant liberalisation in the way that tourism operates between Hong Kong
and mainland china has also been an important feature.
4. London: Global City, Global Population, Global
Companies
Global City par excellence, Greater London is home to some 7 million people.
Accordingly to 2001 Census data, 300 languages are spoken by its inhabitants, 2.2
million people are born outside England, and the city has, at least, ?fty non-indigenous
communities with populations of 10,000 or more. Furthermore, by 2016 over 800,000
more people are expected to make London their home.
This scenario has essentially arisen due to the city’s history of immigration and asylum,
especially the post-colonial multiculturalism developed in the post-war period, and to
Annex II: Global Case Studies
168
an extraordinarily open labour market policy developed since the ‘90. As the journalist
Leo Benedictus wrote in The Guardian “Virtually every race, nation, culture, and religion
in the world can claim at least a handful of Londoners” (February 2005). Quite simply,
this means that London is the immigrant metropolis, and it has a more diverse population
than any other city in the world.
London Foreign Born, 2001
Total Foreign Born:
1,940,390
Total Population:
7,172,091
Percentage Foreign Born:
27.05%
Source: National Statistics, Census 2001 byhttp://gstudynet.org/gum/UK/London2001.htm
Leading centre of control and command, London accounts for some 20% of Britain’s
GDP. It is one of the world’s ?nancial centres, home to numerous banks and to Europe’s
largest stock exchange and is the most connected city worldwide. An average of 115
million passengers (some 2% of the world’s population) ?y from London’s ?ve airports
each year, and 1% of the global population passes through Heathrow).
London’s wide openness is well expressed by the fact that the City has the largest
professional non-national community on this planet (around about a quarter of a million
people), which means, in other words, that some 30 per cent of the FTSE 100 companies
have a non-national as chief executive or chairman. Furthermore, people from ethnic
minorities will account for half of the growth in Britain’s working age population between
1999 and 2009, and half of Britain’s ethnic minority population lives in London. Despite
this, on average there is a ?fteen per cent gap in the employment rate of ethnic
minorities and that of the overall population.
Promoting diversity has assumed a vital role in the economic and social development
of the City. Numerous initiatives and programmes on different levels make Equality and
Diversity key points of the Mayor’s Agenda. Together with the London Development
Agency (LDA), Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London, has launched in March 2005
“Diversity Works for London”, a four year programme aimed at helping organisations to
develop and enjoy the bene?ts of having a diverse workforce which ensures that excluded
India 10%
Ireland 8%
Bangladesh 4%
Jamaica 4%
Nigeria 4%
Pakistan 3%
Kenya 3%
Sri Lanka 3%
Cyprys 2%
South Africa 2%
USA 2%
Australia 2%
Germany 2%
Turkey 2%
Others 49%
169
Londoners receive a second chance to share the city’s opportunities and prosperity.
The programme, funded by up to £9.8 million, focuses on three main areas:
engaging private, public and voluntary sectors in promoting equality;
seeking and sharing business best practice, and;
enabling businesses to ensure that all levels of their workforce re?ect the diversity
of London's population.
Furthermore, it brings a set of practical measures to assist both large corporations and
small businesses, including:
high quality, subsidised consultancy services from workforce diversity specialists,
including a one-stop advisory service on compliance with equality related
legislation, and a telephone helpline;
leadership programmes for Boards, Chief Executive Of?cers and senior managers
that supports their role as the driving force for change;
secondment schemes, training and development programmes;
trainee and modern apprenticeship schemes.
Up to now the programme has secured the backing of twenty-seven leading UK
companies, including Coca-Cola, Pearsons and KPMG, which in March 2006 signed up
to participate in the ?rst pilot for the Diversity Works for London's Diversity Dividend
diagnostic tool .
In July 2005, London won the right to host the Olympic Games in 2012 and Mayor
of London Ken Livingstone said: "London's diversity is its greatest strength and was
crucial in winning the race to host the Olympic and Paralympics Games in 2012”.
5. Los Angeles
5.1. Los Angeles Foreign Born, 2005
Total Foreign Born:
4,407,210
Total Population:
12,703,423
Percentage Foreign Born:
34.69%
All other 26%
Iran 3%
Vietnam 3%
China 3%
Korea 4%
Guatemala 4%
Philippines 6%
El Salvador 7%
Mexico 44%
Annex II: Global Case Studies
170
With a global city-region of 18,000,000 million and fast population growth from new
immigrants and minorities, Los Angeles has rebounded from the shocks of defence base
closures and Aerospace industry collapse, riots, earthquake, and a major hurricane, as
well as two recessions.
The reason for this resilience has been the growth of a very large number of small
companies owned by minority entrepreneurs, many of them recent immigrants.
The upsurge in new businesses have come from a variety of industries including digital
media and entertainment, but also more traditional forms of manufacturing including
fashion/clothing, textiles, food processing, and warehousing.
An important feature appears to be the presence of minority owned banks. Six of the
largest banks in LA are owned by immigrants and other minorities and have made it their
business to specialise in lending and investment in small minority owned businesses.
Small businesses were also supported ?nancially by a wide range of minority led small
business ?nance institutions.
One other important factor was the presence of very ?exible and professional business
support. The Mayor launched a series of Business Teams aimed at helping ?rms to
expand within LA and focussed upon cutting red-tape, dealing with businesses on a
case by case basis and using the power of the mayor’s of?ce to help solve problems.
The range of business leaders and employees involved covers large communities from
China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Mexico, Central America, South Asia (India, Pakistan, Sri
Lanka, Bangladesh) and a variety of south American, African, and European populations.
The propensity to trade and export is high, with a multiplicity of international trade
routes being focussed on LA.
One important reason that the LA economy has actually broadened rather than
narrowed over the past 15 years (unlike New York) is the presence of these trading
immigrant entrepreneurs who serve many global markets from one base.
6. Miami: an international trade centre
Over the last few decades, Miami has been transformed from an aging tourist- and
citrus-industry based town into a thriving, truly “global” metropolis and major hub for
transportation and international commerce. In this process, Miami has experienced
serious cultural con?icts and a host of urban problems — including riots, narco-
traf?cking and corruption — and thus holds important lessons for other would-be
diverse global cities.
Miami has used the advantages of location, its diverse migrant population, and the
current moment of pan-American integration to positions itself as the major “Gateway
171
of the Americas”. With a population in Dade County of nearly 4,000,000 - 2,000,000 of
whom were born outside of the USA, many in Latin America and the Caribbean - Miami
has become a multicultural global city — the most ‘foreign’ of any major metropolitan
area in the United States. The infusion of large numbers of bilingual Latinos with
useful skills and education has made Miami an attractive location for companies that
do business in Latin America and has contributed to the rapid internationalization of
Miami’s economy.
Miami Foreign Born, 2005
Total Foreign Born:
1,949,629
Total Population:
5,334,685
Percentage Foreign Born:
36.55%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005 American Community Survey byhttp://gstudynet.org/gum/
US2005ACS/Miami2005.htm
Miami’s most important trade infrastructure is found in its intermodal transportation
facilities, which have transformed the city into a major trade hub and port of entry over
the last three decades. By the 1980s, the arti?cial harbour had transformed the city
into the world’s biggest cruise-ship port; in the 1990s, Miami saw an increase of 62
percent in cargo traf?c — from 3.2 million to 5.2 million tons between 1989 and 1993.
Another key asset in Miami’s trade infrastructure is its Free Trade Zone, the largest
privately owned and operated zone in the United States. The Free Trade Zone functions
as a duty-free hub, enabling clients to move goods into and out of the city’s port
without duties, provided the place of origin and the destination are both foreign.
Over 70 percent of the zone’s $11 billion in trade is with Latin America. The zone has
increasingly developed as a magnet for goods to be stored or assembled in Miami
before being transported elsewhere.
Miami’s economy has also ?ourished thanks to the development of ?nancial institutions
to facilitate trade. Today a third of all U.S. trade with Latin America ?ows through Miami,
Guatemala 1%
Others13%
Cuba
47%
Nicaragua 8%
Colombia 7%
Venezuela 2%
Mexico 2%
Argentina 1%
Ecuador 1%
Brazil 1%
Dominican Republic 3%
Haiti 6%
Peru 2%
Jamaica 3%
Honduras 3%
Annex II: Global Case Studies
172
as well as more than half of all U.S. trade with the Caribbean and Central America. Miami
has invested heavily in a campaign to attract the various institutions of pan-America
economic development, including the HQ of the Free Trade Area of the Americas,
building upon its success in hosting the Pan-American Summit in 1994.
At the same time, it has invested in cultural and creative industries including ?lm, music,
fashion, TV, and food; fostering a quality of life that attracts celebrities, who in turn
attract young and talented workers.
The development of the city’s trade infrastructure has not eclipsed but has rather
enhanced Miami’s character as a tourist mecca, which clearly bene?ts from the city’s
capacity as a major transportation hub. Miami is a popular destination for tourists and,
increasingly, for conventions and conferences. Indeed, while foreign trade, medicine,
education and other sectors of the economy are high-growth sectors, nearly 10 million
tourists spent over $11 billion in Greater Miami in 1997.
7. Malmö: Regionalism and Infrastructure
Malmo’s economy has undergone important structural changes during the last 20
years resulting in a shift from industrial to knowledge base. Its role of National Service
Hub, as stated in the State of European Cities Report, implies for the city to be the host
of a large number of specialised institutes and agencies. Furthermore, its closeness
to international borders allows it to have access to businesses and visitors beyond
national boundaries.
Sweden’s third-largest city, Malmö is today home to some 280,000 inhabitants, 26% of
which, with foreign roots. Malmö is also part of the Öresund region that includes about
3.5 million people.
Migration is not dominated by any particular ethnic group; it is said that 161 countries
are represented in Malmö. The largest immigration groups today, in falling order, have
their origin in former Yugoslavia, Denmark, Iraq, Poland, Iran, Turkey, Finland, Hungary
and Somalia. Almost half of the city’s population is under the age of 36. Mohammed is
now the most popular name for a newborn son.
173
Malmö Foreign born population 2006
Source: City of Malmö, Facts and ?gures 2006
Behind the recent population’s growth and mobility there are two important trends:
Regionalisation and Internationalisation.
7.1. Regionalisation
Part of the Skåne region located in the south of Sweden, Malmö is now directly connected
to Copenhagen thanks to the Öresund bridge, opened in July 2000 shortening the
journey between the two cities to little over half of an hour. The bridge, supposed to be an
infrastructural improvement, has quickly turned to have a much broader impact on local
economy and culture, becoming the symbol of a new regional cooperation. In fact, a new
social, cultural and industrial entity emerged in the form of a dual centre. The region is
currently one of Europe’s strongest economic centres, which generates one ?fth of the
total Danish and Swedish GNP. The Øresund Region ranks as eighth on the European GNP
scale
vi
. Its rapid development is especially seen in the areas of industry and education.
Graph 1: Total monthly traf?c over Øresundbron bridge in 2002-2007
Source: Øresundsbro Konsortiethttp://osb.oeresundsbron.dk/
vi
http://denmark.dk/portal/page?_pageid=374,477827&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
800000
700000
600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
Serbia 2%
India 2%
Former
Yugoslavia
23%
Denmark
17%
Iraq
17%
Poland
15%
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
15%
Turkey 3%
Chile 3%
Iran 3%
Annex II: Global Case Studies
174
7.2. Collaboration
What makes the Øresund Region working is the way industry, universities and government
are linked together in partnership. Private and public actors on different levels are
creating networks (formal and informal) with the university sector bringing together the
two parts of the Øresund Region. The region does not become harmonised, rather, the
differences of the two countries continues to exist, but the systems become more and
more compatible. This creates a dynamic, European crossborder region in growth.
The vision takes off here and is further structured under the following three headlines:
1. Brain circulation: The idea is to have the bright heads circulate between different
job functions at their wishes: university research, industrial research and education
of students – and this could be at either side of the Øresund - in order to easier
commercialize research ?ndings and make many more people, and the society at
large, bene?t from their knowledge and experiences.
2. Infrastructure: The idea is to connect the rural hinterlands and the urban centres
better together than today so that the region will be able to offer an extremely
active mixture of countryside and city. By 2000, when the bridge was ready,
other infrastructure projects have been initiated: motorway connections on both
sides, new railway lines (in Denmark to Copenhagen Airport, in Sweden around
Malmö), a new Metro in Copenhagen and the City tunnel in Malmö. Also virtual
infrastructure plays an important role. Wireless, high-speed broadband access
to every citizen in the region is a public good in the knowledge economy and
attracts many international IT-companies.
3. Internationalisation: In the City’s internationalisation strategy university education
has had a central role. Malmö University, which opened in 1998, is Sweden’s latest
venture in the ?eld of higher education, accommodating some 26,000 students,
whose 30% with a foreign background. The strategic approach developed by the
Malmo University is known as Internationalisation
at Home. The basic idea has
been to try to let the internationalisation
process embrace the whole university:
all staff and all students—not
only the 10% of the mobile students and a few
professors.
Some practical initiatives developed in this context include:
The Mentoring programme Nightingale (begun in 1997), that matches migrants and
professors at the University of Malmö. Professors act as mentors on a volunteer
basis to the immigrants who are from similar occupational backgrounds. The
mentoring project which received the Malmö city integration award in 2002, has
gone further with the new pilot project based at Helsingborg Campus and the
University of Kristianstad.
A special faculty, ‘International Migration and Ethnic Relations’ (IMER) was established
in 2006.
175
Regional collaboration: Malmö University is part of the Øresund University, a
consortium of 14 universities and institutions of higher education, encompassing
140,000 students and over 10,000 researchers, considered one of Europe’s most
rewarding learning environments. Thanks to this alliance, the Region can offer a
fertile and innovative environment for world-class IT business. Companies like Nokia,
Ericsson, Motorola, Lucent Technologies, Intel, Cisco, Alcatel and IBM plus more
others are based both in Sweden and Denmark, ranked among the world’s leading
countries in the development of software and telecommunications equipment.
In order to investigate questions related to multi-cultural society, since the end of
2002 Rooseum has in collaboration with NIFCA (Nordic Institute for Contemporary Art)
been working on the programme “In 2052 Malmö will no longer be ‘Swedish’ “. For
this programme Rooseum has invited artists to come to Malmö to create site-speci?c
projects focusing on issues of cultural diversity and co-existence.
8. Rotterdam: Culture, diversity, and development
With a population of some 600,000, rising to 1.2 million inhabitants considering the
entire region, Rotterdam is the second largest city of the Netherlands. The city has
always been characterised by large in?ux of immigrants and, in fact nearly half the
population is foreign born or have at least one parent who is not born in the Netherlands.
Some eight percent of population speaks English as second language.
Rotterdam Foreign Born, 2005
Total Foreign Born:
Female: 157,395
Male: 79,676
Total Population:
77,719
Percentage
Foreign Born:
26.38%
Source: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, Vooburg/heerlen 2006 byhttp://gstudynet.org/gum/
Netherlands/Rotterdam2005.htm
Thanks to its port, the largest in the world, Rotterdam is considered the “Gateway to
Europe”, opening up to a hinterland of 500 million inhabitants. Its open economy and
stable political and ?nancial condition has made it a business city without parallel.
Iraq 1,480
Indonesia 4,279
Yugoslavia (former)
6,427
Capa Verde 8,924
Turkey 24,071
Suriname 31,621
Morocco 19,250
Others 30,334
Soviet Union
(former) 1,757
Spain 1,740
United Kingdom 1,821
Pakistan 2,163
Portugal 2,266
Germany 3,520
China 3,536
Annex II: Global Case Studies
176
Innumerable trade and distribution companies operate from Rotterdam. All national and
most international banks and insurance companies have an of?ce there. Thanks to the
close vicinity of two international airports, access to the city is excellent. Furthermore,
by 2007, the annus mirabilis of the European urban interconnectivity, Rotterdam will be
within direct reach of Paris, London and Frankfurt by high-speed train.
However, today, transport and distribution activities in the port, though still very
important, generate fewer and fewer jobs in the region. The economic bene?ts of the
expansion of the port accrue mainly to inland regions, where transport and distribution
activities increasingly locate. With this in mind, the economic strategy of the municipality
has over the last decades been directed to the broadening of the economic base of
the city, investing in sectors recognized as growth clusters, such as the audiovisual
industry. These changes have been accompanied by a progressive enhancement of
the image of the city: from a port and industrial city to a more diverse and dynamic one,
with an improving quality of life.
The City Council is working actively to promote itself, either directly or through its
‘development arm’, the Rotterdam City Development Corporation (OBR) - a powerful
actor in many redevelopment and housing projects which integrates among others the
municipal departments of Economic Affairs and Exploitation of Real Estate. Recently,
the Economic Development Board Rotterdam (EDBR) has been created. The EDBR is
a platform comprised of more than thirty stakeholders from the business community
and the educational, scienti?c and cultural sectors, together with the directors of the
Rotterdam Development Corporation (OBR) and the Port of Rotterdam. Particularly,
there are four main sectors which have been selected:
Information and Communication Technology: With the numerous telecom and
logistics providers based in the city, OBR is stimulating the realization of a citywide
glass-?ber network and of broadband networks in several city areas and specially
IT quarters.
Audio visual/?lm/new media: A large, former power plant area along the river Meuse
has been re-developed into an area in which the audio-visual and ?lm industry and
new media have clustered together. In the area, known as the Lloydkwartier, a
television studio can be found, surrounded by leading companies in the ?eld of
post-editing, multi-media and animation as well as many small companies that are
highly specialized in this industry.
Shared Services Centres and Back Of?ces: Rotterdam has created a special program
for the Shared Services Centres to spearhead economic development. A growing
number of reputable companies such as Eastman Chemicals, Rockwell Automation,
BP-Amoco, Reebok International, Delta Airlines, Lyondell, Progress Software and
Unilever have chosen Rotterdam as a base for their Shared Services Centres. This
has been made possible thanks to different factors including quali?ed multi-lingual
staff, affordable and well-situated of?ce space, education linked to market demand
177
and excellent telecom facilities, all combined with a high standard of living, good
quality of life, international schools and attractive residential areas.
Medical Sector: Over 50,000 people are employed in the medical sector in the
Rotterdam area. The Erasmus Medical Centre (EMC) is the largest university
medical centre in the country. Over the next 15 years a completely new medical
centre for research, training, teaching and patient care will be realized. The city
of Rotterdam, together with the EMC, has also developed a so-called Life Science
Incubator for starting life science R & D companies. This Life Science incubator
can offer services varying from academic research to facilities and administrative
services (management, of?ce facilities, legal affairs (patents/ licenses), ?nancing,
network etc).
Together with these, the City has chosen culture, leisure and tourism as elements of the
vision of a ‘complete town’, aimed at increasing the urban quality of life. Since being
Cultural Capital of Europe for the year 2001 with the motto ‘Rotterdam is many cities’,
Rotterdam has marketed itself as a multicultural city: an attempt to bring into contact
the cultures of ethnic minorities with the rest of the city with a focus on supporting and
developing youth culture.
In Rotterdam there are no less than 160 different nationalities and culture is seen as
an important opportunity to promote ethnic integration in the city. This strategy or
perspective, which was con?rmed by the policy paper ‘Effective Policy on Minorities’,
aims at both making better use of the talents and possibilities of ethnic minorities and
at the same time promoting their social inclusion. More speci?cally, in order to provide
better job opportunities for immigrants and to achieve a better match between the
services and the changed composition of Rotterdam’s population, special attention
is given to the composition of the management and staff of the city administration
and the public administration. Moreover, the city also encourages involvement of the
immigrant organisations in the policy-making process, just as an advisory body with
representatives from the immigrant communities has been set up.
At the same time, the Municipality is actively involved in the attraction of the creative
class and the fostering of the creative economy. Richard Florida has been invited
in 2005 to the CityLive2005 Conference organised by CityCorp (a partnership of 6
Rotterdam-based housing associations) and EDBR to stimulate the debate concerning
the improvement of vitality in the city centre and the increase in urban attractiveness.
The vision ‘Rotterdam: City of the future’ developed by the EDBR is based on three
themes - Working together, Learning together, and Living together – which would stress
the increasing role of the creative and knowledge economy in the city of Rotterdam.
Annex II: Global Case Studies
178
9. Singapore: a hub strategy
Small places can play important niche global roles if they create the right environment. A
hub strategy does not work by magic; it works by setting out to play a hub role (or roles) in
the international economy and then systematically removing the obstacles to doing so.
Through many transformations, Singapore has taken forwards a resourceful strategy
to become a global hub for business and investment. Indeed, in recent years, of?cial
statements have often alluded to the goal of turning Singapore into a “Global City”
economy driven by creativity and lifestyle. The vision is explicitly stated in the
“Renaissance City Report” published by the Ministry of Information and Arts: “To
establish Singapore as a global arts city. We want to position Singapore as a key city in
the Asian renaissance and a cultural centre in the globalized world. The idea is to be
one of the top cities in the world to live, work, and play in, where there is an environment
conducive to creative and knowledge-based industries.”
Migration has always had a central role in the history and development of Singapore.
The former British trading colony, become independent in 1965, has seen its population
growing quickly passing from half a million in 1931 to 4,680 million in 2007. Today’s
population includes citizens of Malaysian, Chinese, and Indian descent as well as
thousands of foreign workers from across Southeast and South Asia. Not surprisingly,
the country has four of?cial languages: English, Mandarin, Malay, and Tamil.
The most rapid increase occurred over the last decade (?gure…); Singapore’s non
resident workforce increased 170%, from 248,000 in 1990 to 670,000 in 2006. About
580,000 foreign workers are lower-skilled workers. They are mainly concentrated in
the construction industry; domestic maid services; and in service, manufacturing, and
marine industries, while the remaining 90,000 are skilled-employment pass holders.
The number of higher skilled and talented foreigners has increased rapidly as a result
of intensive recruitment and liberalized eligibility criteria.
Singapore Population and Annual Growth Rate
Singapore Residents
Annual Growth Rate
3700
3500
3300
3100
2900
2700
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007
Thousand Per Cent
2.0
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.0
Source: Singapore Statistics
179
Immigration policy is, of course, a very important strategic tool for the city-state with a
low fertility rate and with aspirations to be global hub. It is key for maintaining a population
of working age as well as to reinforce the international character of the Global City.
Despite the population is growing, the fertility rate, which was 1.24 children per women
in 2005, is declining. Policies introduced in 2004 to boost fertility — including longer
maternity leave and infant-care subsidies — have yielded no apparent results. Attracting
and retaining migrants has so became fundamental to ensure Singapore’s long-term
growth and prosperity.
Singapore is promoting migration at different levels and with targeted initiatives:
High skilled migrants: Given its aspirations to become a major player in a
globalized world, Singapore’s main economic strategy is based on being
home to a highly skilled workforce. Besides investing heavily in information
technology and human capital to meet global competition, it has focused
on developing Singapore into the “talent capital” of the global economy.
To reach this goal, Singapore has liberalized immigration policies, including making
it easier for skilled immigrants to gain permanent residency, and has launched
various programs aimed at attracting talent, such as company grant schemes
to ease costs of employing foreign skilled labour and recruitment missions by
government agencies. Recent urban development policies aimed at branding
Singapore as a culturally vibrant “Renaissance City” or a “Global City for the Arts”
are at least partially driven by the goal of attracting and retaining foreign talent.
Foreign students: Singapore has long attracted foreign students from Malaysia and
Indonesia but since 1997 the country has made speci?c efforts to develop itself
into an international education hub for primary- to university- level students. With
the brand “Singapore: The Global Schoolhouse”, the message that Singapore is
offering is: combining the best of East (“Asian school systems”) and West (“Western-
styled education practices”). The demand for international higher education alone
is predicted to quadruple from around 1.8 million students in 2002 to 7.2 million
by 2025. Singapore is focusing on its strengths, including its English-speaking
environment and high educational standards as well as its reputation for public
order and safety. A government economic review panel recommended a target
of 150,000 foreign students by 2012 — more than double the 2005 ?gure of
66,000 — estimating that this would not only create 22,000 jobs but also raise the
education sector’s contribution to the gross domestic product from the current
1.9% (S$3 billion or US$1.9 billion) to 5%.
Overseas Singaporeans: Singapore is encouraging overseas Singaporeans with
incentives to return home. A dedicated platform, called Overseas Singaporean
Unit was set up in 2006 to connect Overseas Singaporeans back. This special
unit plans and coordinates multi-agency programmes and initiatives, such as a
dedicated website (www.overseassingaporean.sg), job fairs and link-ups with
Singapore-based companies; tie-up with relevant government agencies to help
Overseas Singaporeans who intend to relocate back to Singapore.
Annex II: Global Case Studies
180
Singapore shows to have a deep philosophy of openness (‘world without borders’,
‘weightless economies’, ‘friction free capitalism’) which drive continuous process of
reform and opening up of the city. The followings are a review of some initiatives
undertaken in this context:
In 1992 a Cluster Development Fund of a S$ 1 billion was established by the
government to promote a parallel strategy in manufacturing and services sectors
(Manufacturing 2000 and International Business Hub 2000 programs, respectively)
to develop Singapore as a global city, and a hub for business and ?nance, logistics
and distribution, communications and information. Singapore sought to secure the
?rst-mover advantage by planning far ahead, organizing itself as a world-class team
and investing in human resources (education, training, and industrial relations) and
infrastructures (airport, seaport, telecommunications network, and ?nancial and
industrial facilities), to obtain a lead on the competition.
Positioning itself as a hub for ?nancial services, and then building itself up as a
technology hub on the back of that. Thanks to IT2000 - Vision for an Intelligent
Island, a 15 years project launched in 1992, and Infocomm 21 (Information and
Communications Technology for the 21st Century) launched in 1999, Singapore is
today a “plug and play” city, the ?rst nationwide broadband network in the world, with
nearly 100% of households, all schools, most public libraries and community centres,
and major commercial buildings with access to broadband Internet.
Seeking to host high-pro?le global events. In July 2005, Singapore hosted the
International Olympic Council session, which elected London as the host city for
the 2012 Olympics. In 2006, the Boards of Governors of the International Monetary
Fund and the World Bank Group held its annual meetings in Singapore, an event
expected to draw 16,000 delegates and observers.
Building good relations with regional countries through political diplomacy, outward
investment, and joint ventures to combine the competitive strengths of Singapore
and its partners to attract international investors. This view has led to Singapore-
government initiatives to establish growth triangles and overseas industrial parks.
The SIJORI growth triangle is a partnership arrangement between Singapore, Johore
(in Malaysia), and Riau (in Indonesia) that combines the competitive strengths of
the three areas to make the subregion more attractive to regional and international
investors. More speci?cally, it links the infrastructure, capital, and expertise of
Singapore with the natural and labour resources of Johore and Riau. As part of this
regionalization strategy, Singapore has also established industrial parks in Suzhou
and Wuxi (China), Bangalore (India), and Vietnam, combining Singapore’s capital
resources and expertise in industrial-infrastructure development and management
with local availability of land and labour resources.
Multi-lingual working is the norm and there is extensive use of multiple language
signage and a strong multi-lingual culture. The foreign population attests to this
approach, and the recent growth of Singapore shows that hub strategies can be
reinvented and renewed over time.
181
10. Toronto: Settlement and Employment of
Immigrants
Toronto is one of North America’s most diverse cities. It is home to communities
speaking over 200 languages, and across the Greater Toronto Region of some 4.5
million people, more than 40% are now born outside of Canada.
Toronto Foreign Born, 2001
Total Foreign Born:
2,091,100
Total Population:
4,647,960
Percentage
Foreign Born:
44.99%
Source: Statistics Canada, 2001 byhttp://gstudynet.org/gum/Canada/Toronto2001.htm
Recent developments in Toronto have emphasised the need to make more of Toronto’s
distinctive diversity to help the economy of the city-region ?ourish. The Toronto City
Summit Alliance was formed in 2002 to devise and take forwards a new development
strategy for the city, against a backdrop of recent amalgamation of 6 municipalities to form
a new metropolitan city government, with both a conservative provincial administration
and mayoral administration which had not emphasised a socially progressive agenda.
The City Summit Alliance recognised that immigration and diversity were key issues
for the city as a whole and that new initiatives were required to make more of the
opportunities. This had entailed some signi?cant initiatives which are worthy of greater
analysis. They include:
Toronto City Summit Immigration Action Plan. This plan emphasises the need
for greater assistance with settlement and employment issues for immigrants
in the city and identi?es the critical issues of immigrant under-employment and
unemployment that need to be tackled.
Toronto Regional Immigrant Employment Council. This multi-stakeholder council
has been created to take forwards new initiatives and have promoted:
Fmr.Yugoslavia
3%
Trinidad and Tobago
3%
China
14%
Pakistan 3%
Jamaica
5%
Philippines
6%
All other
18%
Italy 8%
India
8%
United Kingdom
8%
Vietnam 3%
Fmr. USSR 4%
Guyana 4%
Sri Lanka 4%
Poland 4%
Portugal 5%
Annex II: Global Case Studies
182
New research into the positive role of immigration in the city economy (‘Immigration
Works’) and issues that need to be addressed.
Sectoral action plans to boost employment of immigrants and minorities in key
sectors of the city, beginning with detailed work on conventions, tourism, and
hospitality. The Toronto Immigrant Mentoring Programme and Career Bridge
Programme link immigrant and minority employees with mentors to help develop
their careers, skills, and con?dence. Hireimmigrants.ca, a website which helps
both immigrants and enterprises to match up, and provides useful resources by
showcasing successful case studies to learn from and replicate.
Building an agenda to in?uence Provincial and Federal policies that may be
hindering immigrant and minority employment.
Developing initiatives to bring employers more into the process.
The Toronto Regional Immigrant Employment Council is a new body and there are
few results yet available to share. However, it is an early example of a co-ordinated
approach to addressing the advantages of diversity in the work place, and tackling
barriers to full participation of immigrants and minorities in the labour market.
The British Council is the United Kingdom’s internacional organisation for educational opportunities and cultural
relations. Our purpose is to build mutually beneficial relationships between people in the UK and other countries and
to increase appreciation of the UK’s creative ideas and achievements. We are registered in England as a charity.
© British Council
We thank the group of cities willing to take our proposition forward into a 2-3 years project. Their objective will be to
better understand the impact of openness and diversity in cities and the local factors that influence such success.
Towards
Greg Clark (Ed.)
doc_257792425.pdf
Greg Clark is a city and regional development advisor, speaker, and facilitator, with 20 years experience, principally in leadership roles in city agencies in London.
The British Council is the United Kingdom’s internacional organisation for educational opportunities and cultural
relations. Our purpose is to build mutually beneficial relationships between people in the UK and other countries and
to increase appreciation of the UK’s creative ideas and achievements. We are registered in England as a charity.
© British Council
We thank the group of cities willing to take our proposition forward into a 2-3 years project. Their objective will be to
better understand the impact of openness and diversity in cities and the local factors that influence such success.
Towards
Greg Clark (Ed.)
Introduction
2
First Published in 2008 by:
British Council
Martínez Campos 31
28010 Madrid
Author: Greg Clark
Copy Editor: Carolina Jiménez
Design: www.baetica.com
@ British Council
ISBN: 978-84-612-2121-9
D.L.: M-8868-2008
Print: Lerko Print S.A.
Acknowledgements
Thanks are due to Carolina Jiménez at British Council Madrid, who commissioned this
paper, to Laura Ciof? who provided research support for this paper, and to Jan de Vet
from ECOTEC Research and Consulting in Brussels who gave permission to use the EU
State of the Cities Report typology and background descriptions. Thanks are also to
Emily Pinder, Laura Gledhill, and Andrew Voysey who provided research input on city
indexes and internationalisation.
The Author
Greg Clark is a city and regional development advisor, speaker, and facilitator, with 20 years
experience, principally in leadership roles in city agencies in London, UK, and advisory
roles with many cities/regions, Governmental and inter-Governmental organisations,
internationally. He currently holds a portfolio of core roles; including Lead Advisor on
City, Regional, and Economic Development at the Department for Communities and
Local Government, UK, and Advisor to the OECD, British Council, and Urban Land Institute
on City and Regional Development. He is also chairman of the OECD LEED Forum of
Development Agencies and Investment Strategies. www.citiesandregions.com.
Disclaimer
The British Council is not responsible for the contents of any external website referred
to in this publication.
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 5
(by Chris Hickey)
Section One: Cities and Internationalisation ...................................................................... 9
1.1. Why OPENCities? .......................................................................................................... 11
1.2. The Context of OPENCities ...................................................................................... 14
1.3. Drivers and trends in immigration and human mobility ............................. 17
1.4. The role of Cities in immigration and human mobility ................................ 20
1.5. Who are the migrants? ............................................................................................... 29
1.6. Strategies of cities to attract and retain international populations ...... 33
1.7. City Types and Population Attraction .................................................................. 37
1.8. Competitive advantages of diversity to Cities and their nations ........... 49
1.9. Factors of Openness in cities .................................................................................. 54
1.10. The role of social integration of migrants ......................................................... 56
1.11. Recent Studies on Cultural Diversity in Cities ................................................ 58
1.12. Principles for Open Cities Leadership ............................................................... 62
Section Two: Population Change in European Cities ................................................. 65
2.1. Population change in Cities ....................................................................................... 67
2.2. Apparent Trends in Population Change .............................................................. 68
2.3. Where do Europe’s cities grow or stagnate? .................................................... 74
2.4. Challenges for Cities with Population Changes ............................................... 76
2.5. Population Change and Openness ........................................................................ 78
Section Three: Indexes or Kitemarks of City Openness? ........................................ 81
3.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 83
3.2. Key Ingredients .............................................................................................................. 84
3.3. Ingredients for an OPENCities Index ................................................................... 84
3.4. Learning from existing indexes: Measuring City Performance ............... 85
3.5. Issues associated with Benchmarks, Reports and Indexes ..................... 86
3.6. Reports, Benchmarks and Indexes ...................................................................... 87
3.7. Examples of City Indexes .......................................................................................... 89
Section Four: Local Leadership and Local Planning for OPENCities ........... 105
4.1. Towards Leadership of OPENCities ................................................................... 107
4.2. Local Strategies and Plans .................................................................................... 109
4.3. Does a city need an internationalisation strategy? .................................... 116
4.4. Ten principles for city internationalisation .................................................... 121
4.5. Implications for Local Leadership and Strategies of OPENCities ....... 123
Annex I: Collaborating European Cities ......................................................................... 125
1. Intro to case studies methodology ................................................................................ 127
2. Participating Cities Case Studies .................................................................................... 129
2.1. Belfast .............................................................................................................................. 129
2.2. Bilbao ............................................................................................................................... 131
2.3. Cardiff .............................................................................................................................. 134
2.4. Dublin ............................................................................................................................... 138
2.5. Düsseldorf ..................................................................................................................... 141
2.6. Gdansk ............................................................................................................................ 144
2.7. Madrid ............................................................................................................................. 145
2.8. So?a ................................................................................................................................... 148
2.9. Vienna ............................................................................................................................. 149
3. Case Studies Conclusions ................................................................................................ 154
4. Case Studies References ................................................................................................... 156
Annex II: Global Case Studies ................................................................................................ 159
1. Birmingham: Cultural diversity as an asset and opportunity ........................... 161
1.1. Cultural diversity: as an asset and opportunity ......................................... 163
2. Dubai: moving fast towards a knowledge based economy ............................. 164
3. Hong Kong: Settlement of Immigrants ......................................................................... 166
4. London: Global City, Global Population, Global Companies ............................. 167
5. Los Angeles ............................................................................................................................. 169
5.1. Los Angeles Foreign Born, 2005 ....................................................................... 169
6. Miami: an international trade centre ............................................................................. 170
7. Malmö: Regionalism and Infrastructure .................................................................... 172
7.1. Regionalisation .......................................................................................................... 173
7.2. Collaboration ................................................................................................................ 174
8. Rotterdam: Culture, diversity, and development ................................................... 175
9. Singapore: a hub strategy ............................................................................................... 178
10. Toronto: Settlement and Employment of Immigrants ......................................... 181
5
Introduction
By Chris Hickey
Director British Council, Spain
6
Introduction
By Chris Hickey
This publication presents a short summary of the thinking and re?ection which has
gone into scoping the options for the development of our OPENCities project. It de-
scribes the point we are at now, and I hope provides a good basis for future work. The
initial de?nition of openness outlined in chapter 1 is the starting point for the project.
This is a collaboration project between the British Council and City Governments in
Europe, which is seeking European Commission support. It aims to develop a robust
understanding of the potential for cities to more fully embrace the opportunities
presented by international population ?ows. In an internationally open knowledge
driven economy human capital is an essential, but highly mobile economic asset. Cities
that seek to succeed in knowledge driven economies have to:
Build up human capital
Attract human capital from outside
Retain human capital.
To service globally trading activities a diverse international population base can be very
important. To maintain good quality local services migrants can also play an important
part. Cities that want to attract and retain international populations have to be ‘open’
cities that create a good ‘offer’ for international workers and foster a local climate that
recognises and welcomes diversity and provides freedom of thought and speech.
Our network of partner cities in the OPENCities project will work on establishing:
i. A de?nition of “Open-ness” for cities, based on economic, regulatory, cultural, amen-
ity, accessibility or risk factors and an examination of how cities can shape how they
attract and retain new populations.
ii. A set of guidelines and best practice examples on how diversity in cities can help
drive success.
iii. A diagnostic tool for cities to test their open-ness pro?le and the degree to which
they include the potential and contribution of migrants in their planning.
iv. A publication aimed at national, regional & local policy makers as well as to the
general public.
v. A series of high-pro?le international conferences to disseminate and contrasts our
?ndings & cultural, educational, social activities to widen the debate.
vi. An agreed World Wide ‘City Openness Index or Kitemark’ and a network of
OPENCities.
The OPENCities project addresses issues of central importance in Europe, the UK and
across the world. We are proud of the dynamic relationships we are developing with
and between European and non-European City governments and of their commitment
to engage in a collaborative 3-year project. I am con?dent that our joint efforts will
make a real contribution to de?ning and extending the concept of “openness” for cities
in the modern world.
Apart from the cities directly involved, we are grateful to the many people and institu-
tions who have supported us thus far: the UK’s Department for Communities and Local
Government, the Migration Policy Group, the Maytree Foundation, BAK Basel Econom-
ics ECOTEC Research Consulting and Eurocities. Without their interest and support,
expertise and critical comments, we would not have come this far.
Chris Hickey
February 2008
9
Section One:
Cities and
Internationalisation
Internationalisation, Openness, and the Competitive
Advantage of Diversity
10
Cities and
Internationalisation
Introduction
1.1. Why OPENCities?
We live in a global age where cities have become the junction boxes of international
interactions at the local level. Cities variously play roles as hosts of global events, loca-
tions for international companies, and destinations for international visitors.
If there is a new consensus about the success of cities, it is that they should
align themselves with the opportunities created by globalisation and continental
integration and play a more international set of roles in a more open environment.
Freed from some of the rigid characteristics of old urban hierarchies within national
economies and national states, they are free to internationalise their roles and
functions in new ways.
In the British Council Project, The City of the Future, we traced the importance of large
scale drivers of economic globalisation, population mobility, technological advance,
climate change, and continental governance to cities, and we assessed how eight were
responding.
One theme that consistently emerged was the desire of cities to attract and retain
international populations. Such populations, as we shall see, are not only seen to
contribute to the labour force, but also to add enormously to the quality of life and
the wider attractiveness of the city for international ?rms, events and investors. In
certain economic niches international talent is essential and a multi-lingual and
globally connected labour force can help promote international economic roles in
a city.
So, in this project we are focussing on the theme of the internationalisation of city
populations, as one of the important realms in which cities can adjust to international
change and to the demand of modern ?rms, investors, visitors, and traders.
11
1. Cities and Internationalisation
12
Two key facts underpin our approach:
Cities do not have control over immigration rules and systems, which are the
preserve of national governments.
Not all cities are equally attractive to international populations, and some cities
appear to internationalise their population quicker than others, even within the
same national systems.
We are therefore interested in the local variables (the city dimension) that cause
international populations to settle in one city rather than another. An understanding
of this will allow us to draw conclusions on what cities can do to be more attractive to
international populations in the context of their given national immigration systems.
We use the terms Openness and OPENCities, to refer to the local conditions that appear
to attract and retain international populations. Our working de?nition of Openness is
simply stated:
Openness is the quality and sum of the local conditions that attract and retain international
populations over time.
We assume that cities will be:
More or less open in sum, and that cities operating within the same national systems
will demonstrate different level of openness.
More or less open in some aspects of the city’s life than in others.
More or less open in different ways, perhaps shaped by their history, location,
current pre-occupations and that ‘city types’ may be helpful in understanding
different degrees or qualities of openness.
More or less open to different population groups, re?ecting historical positions,
cultural norms, and other factors.
In this OPENCities project we aim to better de?ne and understand openness and
to provide cities with much better means of assessing their own openness and of
developing and delivering practical leadership and strategies to make themselves
open to international populations - as one plank of their strategy for engaging with
an increasingly international world. We set out to develop practical answers to 10 key
questions:
i. Why do some cities appear to be more attractive to international populations
despite similar national frameworks and conditions? Can cities take effective
actions locally to make themselves more open to international populations? What
will make such local actions successful?
ii. What is city openness and how to de?ne what makes OPENCities - considering
number of factors – economic, regulatory, cultural, amenity, connectivity, risks,
13
leadership and internationalisation ? How can we better de?ne and measure these
factors? How do they affect one another?
iii. What are the different starting points of selected cities within the EU in terms of City
types, economic structure, immigration history, location, stage of development and
how do these affect the attractiveness of the cities for international populations?
iv. What role does the social and economic integration of migrants play in city
competitiveness and the attraction of further international human capital? For
example, does an integrated city offer a more attractive environment for higher
skilled international knowledge workers? Does an integrated city make better use
of its existing human capital?
v. How do different groups of international workers respond to different factors of
openness? For example, are international workers in different age and income
groups, in different economic sectors, or from different parts of the world, sensitive
to different local factors?
vi. What measures and programmes do various European cities have in place in
terms of local population attraction strategies, international promotion, settlement
services, employment, education, and enterprise to facilitate the attraction and
retention of international populations?
vii. Can we explore the opportunity through exchange of best practice, peer reviews
and development of case studies to develop and test the use of local action plans
and strategies, and co-ordinated action involving city stakeholders, to attract
international populations?
viii. Can we develop clear guidance for city leaders on how to increase and promote
the openness of cities to international populations?
ix. Can we develop an OPENCities ‘index’/framework to compare and benchmark
various European cities and to consider the potential for an internationally
recognised openness ‘standard’ or ‘kitemark’ for cities?
x. Given that cities across the EU have different powers, competences, and ?scal
systems, how can cities both manage their own open-ness and best in?uence
other local, regional, and national bodies to help make cities, and the EU, more
open to international talent? What leadership role can cities play?
This is a practical project with practical outcomes that will enable cities to take real steps
and to be con?dent about the steps they take to attract international populations.
1. Cities and Internationalisation
14
1.2. The Context of OPENCities
Cities are junction boxes for human mobility.
The case for OPENCities.
The quest for the OPENCities.
Building the approach.
The year 2007 represents a key milestone in human history. For the ?rst time, more
than half of the world’s population lives in urban areas, according to the 2006 UNPF
State of the World’s Population Report. The last century saw rapid urbanisation of the
world’s population, as the global proportion of urban population rose from 13% (220
million) in 1900, to 29% (732 million) in 1950, to 49% (3.2 billion) in 2005.
As urban areas – both smaller towns and cities, and larger cities and metropolitan areas -
continue to grow in size, about 5 billion people are expected to live in cities by 2030 - c 61%
of the global population of 8.1 billion, the UN predicts.
Figure 1: World Population (billions)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1900 1925 1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100
The 21
st
Century will have also to contend with another demographic issue: an ageing
population. The overall population size of the more developed countries is likely to show
little change over the next 43 years, remaining at about 1.2 billion. Fertility is below
replacement level in all 45 developed countries or areas, as well as in 28 developing
countries, including China. The population of developed regions is ageing and would
actually decline were it not for in-migration. The populations of Germany, Italy, Japan
and most of the successor states of the former Soviet Union are expected to be lower
in 2050 than they are today.
Source: UN Population Division and Statistics Division, 2005
15
Figure 2: % of total population aged 60 years or more.
2002
2050
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
10%
21%
5%
10%
9%
23%
20%
37%
8%
22%
16%
27%
W
o
r
l
d
A
f
r
i
c
a
A
s
i
a
E
u
r
o
p
e
L
a
t
i
n
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
&
C
a
r
i
b
e
a
n
N
o
r
t
h
e
m
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
These two demographic trends outline that whilst there will be ageing populations in
Europe, Japan and North America, young mobile populations will be provided by China,
India and Africa
Cities are the key gateways for international immigrants
Immigration is primarily an urban phenomenon. Cities around the world are being
shaped on political, economic, social and cultural dimensions by unprecedented levels
of global immigration. In the last ?fty years, immigration at a global scale has intensi?ed
as more countries (and hence cities) are impacted by migratory movements (Castles
and Miller, 2003). Through globalisation, rate of migration has accelerated, and the
diversity of origin points has increased. It is recognised that much of this immigration
is driven by economic factors, most notably wage differentials between countries.
But not all cities are equally open to international migrants. In the OPENCities project
we aim to ?nd out what openness is and to de?ne how cities can become more open.
What is an OPENCities?
Open-ness for a city has not yet been fully de?ned but we assert throughout this
document that it can include the combined inter-play of several key factors:
i. Economic factors: such as the availability of jobs, income, access to affordable
basic standards of living, and the comparable cost of living. Labour market and
housing market ?exibility and open-ness may be especially critical. Also important
Source: 2002, UN Population Division
1. Cities and Internationalisation
16
may be the approach of ?rms to innovation and co-operation, and their willingness
to embrace diversity as a potential source of future innovation.
ii. Regulatory factors: such as the overall immigration and asylum policies of the
country, coupled with any speci?c labour market, welfare bene?ts, land/home
ownership, service access, and other local/national regulations that may apply
differentially to foreigners.
iii. Cultural factors: such as the extent to which local culture and entertainment is
attractive to diverse audiences, as well as the propensity of the local population to
respect, celebrate, and enjoy diversity of culture.
iv. Amenity factors: including availability of generic amenities such as housing,
schools, hospitals, as well as more bespoke amenities such as places of worship,
community organisations, specialist support services, entertainment and leisure
choices, communities of interest, street signage, availability of interpretation/
translation, and other specialist services.
v. Connectivity and Accessibility factors: including ease of access to the city and
the potential it offers for connection to other places that are important sources
of opportunity or welfare. According to the Globalisation and World Cities Study
Group and Network
1
, the most connected cities are the most diverse ones.
vi. Internationalisation factors: such as the level of internationalisation in other
areas of city life including business events, fairs & conferences, international
organisations, leisure and culture. Cities as locations for international investments,
visitor destinations, or as centres for inter-governmental institutions, are important
factors in attracting diverse populations. Cities that have proactive approaches to
internationalisation tend to have developed clearer policies on becoming open to
international populations.
vii. Risk factors: such as the general perceptions of the stability of the local political
environment, coupled with other factors such as the perceived incidence of racial/
ethnic persecution or discrimination, or more general concerns about how likely
foreigners are to ‘succeed’ in the city concerned. A key variable may be the extent
to which there are active anti-discrimination policies which appear effective in
addressing many forms of disadvantage.
viii. Leadership factors: how proactive is the city in setting and pursuing an
agenda of open-ness, diversity, and tolerance? Does city leadership provide the
basis for ‘belonging’ and ‘inclusion’ and promote the bene?ts of diversity to the
city? This not only concerns understanding how diversity is an advantage in a
globalising age, but also long-standing issues of how to maintain civil order and
also new challenges — dealing with difference and different levels of wealth and
17
opportunity. Leadership is also a key factor in reaching out to speci?c communities
in order to understand immigrants’ perspectives, needs and interests as well as to
engage their support for developing the common good and shared urban spaces.
Leadership factors involve seeing openness as an asset that enriches the local
environment and makes a city more competitive on the world stage.
From a policy and programme perspective, this view would have municipal governments
working with other governments and with the voluntary and private sectors to remove
barriers and take advantage of opportunities arising from a city’s diverse character.
This approach of eight key factors of openness implies that different kinds of cities
might be differently ‘open’. We will explore this further below. The point here is that
because all cities are different, and because there are at least eight important factors
in how open a city is, there are bound to be different combinations of such factors,
producing not just different degrees of openness within cities, but also different kinds
of openness.
This simple observation leads to an important initial conclusion; cities will not become
more open by following a rigid formula, they will become more open by carefully
diagnosing their own openness, and by making progress on factors which are revealed
as the key constraints on their openness at this point.
The British Council OPENCities project aims to help. It is being designed to establish
an agreed de?nition of openness, build a diagnostic tool that cities can use, and then
support cities to develop a clearer action plan to address their openness.
1.3. Drivers and trends in immigration and human mobility
Globalisation.
The knowledge economy.
Travel and transport costs.
Continental integration and reduction of borders.
Technology.
Exile.
We are familiar with the way in which trade, business, and technological interaction has
increased in the past two decades.
1
Diversity and Power in the World City Network, P.J. Taylor, D.R.F. Walker, G. Catalano and M. Hoyler
1. Cities and Internationalisation
18
Globalisation and Immigration
We use the term globalisation to capture the complex nature of the increasing
integration of economies and societies around the world. Certainly, capital moves
globally and nation states are now placed in a dynamic and changing world as jobs
move ‘off shore’, manufacturing production is replaced by services, and the knowledge
industries change the nature and pace of inter-connections between countries.
Inexpensive telephone connections, cheap international travel and email exchanges
have linked the world in a way which is quite different from the period before the growth
of computers and information technology more broadly. Multinational corporations
manufacture products in many countries and sell to consumers around the world.
Simple statistics capture the nature and increasing reach and range of globalisation.
Trade between countries as a % of gross world product increased from about 15 %
in 1986 to nearly 27 % in 2006. Communication has changed – 30 % of the world’s
population are cell phone users and it is estimated that internet users will soon reach
a billion (Clark, 2006).
A 2002 issue of The Economist devoted itself to surveying migration concluding “it is
impossible to separate the globalisation of trade and capital from the global movement of
people” (Economist, 2002). Researchers Castles and Miller hold that “while movements
of people across borders have shaped states and societies since time immemorial,
what is distinctive in recent years is their global scope, their centrality to domestic and
international politics and their enormous economic and social consequences”.
Knowledge economy
In 2000, the conclusions of the presidency of the Lisbon European Council
established the goal of making the European Union the ‘most competitive and dynamic
knowledge-based economy in the world.’ In so doing, it explicitly acknowledged the
gap separating the EU from the present world leader – the USA – and announced
their intention to catch up within a ten-year period
2
.
Initially, there was no explicit spatial dimension, but the Lisbon Agenda has since
been linked directly to cities. For example, the longest section of a report called
‘Cities and the Lisbon Agenda’ was titled “Cities as engines of regional development”
(European Commission, 2006). In another report paving the way for the Structural
Funds 2007-2013, the Commission reiterated: ‘Cities and metropolitan areas are
drivers of economic development … creating growth, innovation and employment’
(European Commission, 2005).
‘The European Union will be most successful in pursuing its growth and jobs agenda,
2
A year earlier, the President of the United States had set a similar goal: “maintaining world leadership in
science, mathematics, and engineering” (NTSC 1999).
19
if all regions – especially those with the greatest potential for higher productivity and
employment – are able to play their part. Cities are essential in this effort. They are the
home of most jobs, businesses, and higher education institutions and are key actors
in achieving social cohesion. Cities are the centres of change, based on innovation,
entrepreneurship and business growth’ (European Commission, 2005).
This shift towards a recognition of the importance of cities in a knowledge led economy
also provides a link to immigration and human mobility. In a knowledge led economy,
human beings becoming the mobile economic assets upon which local and regional
economies can build their strategies. This means that the emphasis in local and regional
economic development is shifting: both towards strategies to internationalise the base
and trading relations of cities and regions, but also towards the goal of attracting,
retaining, creating, and/or expanding the base of knowledge and human capital in
a locality or a region. In other words, the shift is simultaneously towards people/
knowledge based and internationally oriented strategies.
Cities, in this case, can employ ‘incentivised immigration’ to build their stock of
knowledge assets and human talent more quickly than would be possible simply
through training and education of indigenous populations; although these are not
exclusive or alternative approaches. Cities want to attract a labour force that will in turn
attract private sector jobs, investment, and R&D. In summary, the knowledge economy
and globalisation simultaneously encourage both the mobility of people, and the
urbanisation of production. These two drivers, more than any other current thinking,
explain the growth of cities and the rise of immigration. But they also point to some
initial insights into what makes a city open:
In terms of economic factors, the presence of a dynamic stock of knowledge
economy jobs, and of globally trading and international ?rms.
In terms of regulatory factors, labour market ?exibility, a responsive welfare
system, and mechanisms that allow mobile workers to settle quickly and to convert
previous experience and quali?cations into active labour market participation.
In terms of connectivity and accessibility factors, good transport connections
externally and within the city that support the internationalisation of the city’s
economy and its labour pool.
In terms of leadership factors, a willingness to embrace knowledge and human
capital as key economic assets and a drive towards seeing the city in an open
international context, not just within a rigid nation state urban system.
For cities that take their own internationalisation seriously, and develop an
internationalisation strategy, these are important factors to integrate.
1. Cities and Internationalisation
20
1.4. The role of Cities in immigration and human mobility
Role of immigrants in city population growth.
Importance of immigrants to cities.
Which cities get the immigrants?
Big cities, International cities, and other “OPENCities”.
Importance of international populations to cities
One consequence of the shift towards a globalising, knowledge led (and metropolis
located) economy is that cities and urban areas are increasing in number and in size
(Figure 3). They are gaining an estimated 60 million people per year.
Figure 3: The growth of the World’s population in urban areas
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
u
r
b
a
n
a
r
e
a
s
o
f
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
o
n
e
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
p
e
o
p
l
e
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1950 1975 2000 2020
Growth in the number of large cities in the developed and developing countries, 1950-2000
United Nations, Population Division, 2005
Table 1: Foreign Born Populations (250,000 +) in European Nations – Ranked by Share of Total
Population
Country Foreign Born (000s) Foreign Born Share
Switzerland 1,660 22.9
Latvia 449 19.5
Austria 1,234 15.1
Developed countries
Developing countries
Cont.
21
Source: OCED Database and UN Migration Database (2005)
In 2006 the total population of Western and Central Europe, the Balkans and Turkey
was 594 million. The European Union alone (the EU 25) had 462 million people. Europe
is not growing from natural increase –which is only about 0.7 per 1000 inhabitants.
Rather, almost all the growth in Europe is coming from immigration, and in some cases,
as in Spain, Portugal and Italy, that growth is substantial. The foreign born stock as a
share of total population in 2005 varied from a low of 1.8 per cent in Poland to a high of
23 per cent in Switzerland (Table 1). Many European countries now have a population
which is more than 10 per cent foreign born, and their number is set to rise.
With free movement of people guaranteed across most of the EU since the 1995
‘Schengen Agreement’, movement from regions with a jobs de?cit to regions with a
jobs surplus is considerable.
Thus Ireland, with its growing economy, has received large numbers of new immigrants
in the past 10 years. The EU is also committed to developing a common policy on
immigration. The goals will include the ef?cient management of migration, the pursuit
of immigrant smugglers, and the development of common asylum policies (Salt, 2005).
Already there is evidence of increasing ?ows from Eastern European countries. Major
bene?ciaries are the UK, Germany, and Ireland. Anecdotal descriptions of French
Country Foreign Born (000s) Foreign Born Share
Ireland 585 14.1
Sweden 1,177 12.4
Germany 10,144 12.3
France 6,471 10.7
Netherlands 1,638 10.1
United Kingdom 5,408 9.1
Greece 974 8.8
Spain 4,790 8.5
Norway 334 7.4
Portugal 764 7.3
Denmark 388 7.2
Belgium 719 6.9
Czech Republic 453 4.4
Italy 2,519 4.3
Hungry 316 3.1
Poland 703 1.8
1. Cities and Internationalisation
22
waiters in London and Polish computer programmers in Dublin are simply indications
of the movement of Europeans within the EU for economic opportunities outside their
places of birth (New York Times, June 2, 2006).
Migration has shaped and energised Europe’s cities for centuries. It is a truism to
observe that international populations have been critical to the success of European
cities for at least 2 millennia. However, there is substantial evidence that migration
levels have stepped up in an increasingly integrated and mobile Europe.
Migrants into EU cities can have many origins; many of them are nationals moving
from rural areas and smaller cities and towns, some are from other EU Member
States and others are from outside the EU. The main elements that explain the map
of migration in the late 1990s are related to national trends, border changes and
economic development. For instance in Germany, East – West migration became an
important phenomenon, while the UK has seen strong migration ?ows from the North
to the South.
If we look at the share of newcomers to EU Urban Audit cities (Figure 4), we can note that
it varies widely across Europe. Data available dos not cover the UK and several Nordic
countries. However, in Ireland, France, Denmark and the southern half of Germany,
substantial portions of the urban population have only recently moved into their cities.
In most of these cases the turnover of urban population is rapid, as more than 5% of
the city dwellers moved to the city less than two years ago.
In Paris the share exceeded 11% and in Dublin it was nearly 13%. The single highest
rate is also in Ireland, namely Galway, where more than a ?fth of its total population
(21%) has migrated into the city in the last two years. In absolute terms, Berlin and
Paris are the primary destinations for urban in-migration in Europe. Roughly a quarter
of a million persons (in 2001) migrated to these cities less than two years earlier
(Figure 4).
In addition many other French cities (e.g. Lyon, cities along the Mediterranean/Atlantic
coast), Madrid, Dublin, Vienna, Copenhagen and Budapest have much in-migration.
Apart from Berlin, Munich and the Rhineland are the primary magnets for recent
migrants in Germany. Also in Cayenne in French Guyana, the rate of newcomers was
above 13%.
23
Figure.4.
Despite these extreme differences across the European territory, a general pattern is
that large cities tend to have a high in?ow of migrants whereas smaller ones tend to
have much lower shares of in-migrants. It is also important to recognise that smaller
cities largely attract new citizens from nearby – often from the surrounding region. Their
magnet function is simply not as strong as that for larger cities, their reach is generally
more local, except for smaller research and knowledge hubs, as we shall see later.
Another simple observation is that successful cities tend to attract more migrants than
less successful cities. After all, many migrants look for opportunities and are driven to
those cities where they consider their own chances of success in the labour market
to be the largest. Modern communication tools allow migrants to be better informed
about such opportunities, while guidance from settled relatives and friends are likely to
be at least as important. The strong in?ow of migrants into cities such as London and
Madrid (more so than Rome or Berlin) illustrates this pattern.
1. Cities and Internationalisation
24
Migrants often join pre-existing migrant communities, which can make a city feel more
‘open’ for many. Migrants transform the local economies, local communities, and by ex-
tension, wider political processes of their chosen cities. The importance of immigrants
to cities can be seen, according to one author, in terms of the impact on local labour
markets and local communities (Clark, 2006):
1. Transforming local labour markets: In the United States migrants (2000 Cen-
sus data) make up about 16% of the labour force, well above their proportion in
the population as a whole (Clark, 2003). There has been close to a 200% increase
in the proportions of foreign born in the labour force in the past two decades. In
the big immigrant states of California, New York, Texas, Illinois and Florida, foreign
born make up the majority of workers in some industries and occupations. For
example, Spanish has become the language of the construction site, and heavy
manual labour is increasingly the province of young Mexican and Central Ameri-
can workers. They are also increasingly the tile and brick layers, masons and stone
workers. In the personal service industry, nannies and other household help are
likely to be Central American while in the nail industry, technicians are most likely
to be women from Vietnam and Thailand. Nonetheless, it is important to realize
that in the United States the foreign born workforce is a presence in all occupa-
tions, not only in services, construction and agriculture (Table 2). The pattern is
somewhat different in Europe where there are greater controls on workplace par-
ticipation. United Kingdom data shows that many legal immigrants are profession-
als. Still, local labour markets in London, Amsterdam, Berlin and Paris do have large
numbers of foreign born blue-collar workers. Construction sites in Germany, The
Netherlands, France and Italy employ many Eastern Europeans who have moved
in search of jobs and opportunities.
Table 2: % Distribution of the Foreign born by occupation in the United States and the United Kingdom
i
Occupation United States United Kingdom
Managerial/professional 23.4 56.4
Technical/Sales/Admin. Support 20.6 32.4
Service 21.1 5.8
Precision Production 12.7 5.3
Operators/Labourers 18.3 -
Farming/Forestry 3.8 -
Source: Clark 2006
25
2. Transforming local communities – diversity and cultural change: Just
as labour markets are changed by immigration, so too are local communities of
individuals and families. Take for example the United States, once the bastion of
little league baseball, but which is now a location for the growth of soccer(Price,
et al. 2005). Immigration can prompt a true community transformation, changes
in local mores and culture. The most visible changes are in the ethnic restaurants
and in the signs for ethnic food stores, beauty shops and cheque cashing services.
As the cultural landscape changes so too does the political landscape, as new
immigrants provide new ideas about community organisation and participation.
Ethnic diversity has been celebrated in North America, especially in Canadian
Municipalities, as the beginning of a new blended society. In its Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act (2002) Canada explicitly detailed its ‘two way street’
approach to integration. While newcomers were expected to adapt to Canada,
Canadian society and its institutions are also expected to adapt to a diversifying
population (Biles, et al, 2005).
What is the extent of community transformation? If we look at communities in North
America, we note that they are often mixes, not just of the major ethnic groups, Asians,
Hispanics, Whites and Blacks but also a myriad of different Asian, Hispanic White and
Black ancestry and origins. Many US cities no longer have a white majority, but have
mixes of Asian, Hispanic and African American populations which are between 30 and
40 %. Monolithic white metropolitan areas are a feature of the past. Canadian cities are
also complex mixes of ethnic and racial groups. Nor is this only true of cities in North
America – Birmingham, Amsterdam, London, Paris, Berlin and other large European
cities are also increasingly mixes of different ethnicities.
Which Cities get the Migrants?
Answering the question ‘What are the world’s top urban immigrant destinations?’ requires
drilling down into existing census data from countries on every continent — data that has
never before been gathered.
In most cases, international migrants do not randomly choose their country of
destination. On the contrary, they migrate to certain countries for a variety of economic,
social, linguistic, and other reasons, and within these countries, to certain cities.
A useful tool that allows us to expand our knowledge and understanding of the
movements of international migrants to urban gateways around the world is the Global
City Migration Map. This map utlises city-level data provided by the Globalization,
Urbanization and Migration project, which hosts data on the foreign born in over 150
metropolitan areas of 100,000 million or more people in more than 50 countries
ii
.
1. Cities and Internationalisation
26
Map 1: Cities with over 100,000 Foreign-born Residents
Source: Nuala Cowan, Department of Geography, George Washington University (2006)
The selectivity of immigrant destinations underscores the signi?cance of cities,
especially a few large ones, as locations that are disproportionately impacted by
immigration.
The data reveal 20 cities with more than 1 million foreign-born residents (see Map
1). Combined, these metropolitan areas have 37 million foreign-born residents,
which accounts for 19% of the world’s foreign-born stock according to the United
Nations. These few points on the globe are the destinations for one in ?ve of the
world’s immigrants.
With over 1,000,0000 immigrants, many of these cities are established immigrant
gateways such as Sydney, New York, London, Chicago, and Toronto. Some cities have
topped the 1-million mark only recently; in 2005, Dubai; Houston; Washington, DC;
Dallas-Ft. Worth; and San Francisco were added
3
. In short, for the most part, the
larger immigrant cities are also the world cities for advanced traded services and
creative industries.
3
Latin American and African cities are absent from Map1 although they are destinations for internal and
international migrants. This re?ects the fact that most countries in these regions have a negative rate of
net migration, meaning more emigrants leaving then immigrants arriving.
27
The map also clearly demonstrates that immigration is a global phenomenon - there
are another 59 cities worldwide with a presence of 100,000 or more foreign born
residents. Among them, 11 are cities with an immigrant presence between 500,000
and 1 million (Atlanta, USA; Boston, USA; Buenos Aires, Argentina; Montreal, Canada;
Phoenix, USA; Riverside, USA; San Diego, USA; San Jose, USA; St. Petersburg, Russia; Tel
Aviv, Israel; Vancouver, Canada).
The following table shows the cities where at least one-quarter of the urban population
is foreign-born.
Table 3: Cities with 25% or more foreign born residents
Source: Migrant Policy institute
Table 3 demonstrates that many cities that appear on most global urban hierarchies
also rank highly for the proportion of foreign-born. These include London and New
York, Miami, Amsterdam, Toronto, Vancouver, Los Angeles, Sydney, Frankfurt, and
Brussels. The North American and Australian cities are traditional areas of settlement
1. Amsterdam Netherlands
2. Auckland New Zealand
3. Brussels Belgium
4. Dubai United Arab Emirates
5. Frankfurt Germany
6. Hong Kong China
7. Jerusalem Israel
8. Jeddah Saudi Arabia
9. London United Kingdom
10. Los Angeles USA
11. Medina Saudi Arabia
12. Melbourne Australia
13. Miami USA
14. Muscat Oman
15. New York USA
16. Perth Australia
17. Riyadh Saudi Arabia
18. San Francisco USA
19. San Jose USA
20. Singapore Singapore
21. Sydney Australia
22. Tbilisi Georgia
23. Tel Aviv Israel
24. Toronto Canada
25 Vancouver Canada
1. Cities and Internationalisation
28
for immigrants; however, the percentage of foreign-born in many of these cities far
exceeds the national percentage of foreign-born for their respective countries. For
example, Miami has a 51 % foreign born population which is nearly ?ve times greater
than the U.S. national average of 11.5 %.
Accounting for Diversity
The percentage of foreign-born is an important but crude indicator of cultural
globalisation. However, this indicator does not reveal anything about the diversity of
the immigrant stock or ?ow; it does not tell us if immigrants are crossing one border, or
many, to get to their new city. Perhaps most importantly, it does not explain the spatial
integration or segregation of immigrants within these new localities, or the status of
immigrants, or their impact on the host cities
Consider the cases of New York City and Los Angeles. Both cities are home to more than
3 million foreign-born residents according to US Census 2000. New York’s percentage-
foreign born is 33.7 %; Los Angeles percentage foreign- born is 36.2 %. As Figures 5
illustrates, the crude measurement of % foreign-born hides the true level of diversity in
these two cities. In the case of Los Angeles, Mexican immigrants account for 44 % of the
foreign-born stock. In New York City, the largest group--from the Dominican Republic
--accounts for just 12 % of the foreign-born population. Two countries (Mexico and El
Salvador) account for half of all the foreign-born in Los Angeles, while in New York City
ten countries account for half of the foreign-born.
By examining the composition of the foreign-born in these two cities, it is clear that New
York City has a more diverse stock of foreign-born residents. Also in New York City, no
one group dominates the ?ow compared to the way Mexicans dominate Los Angeles. So,
there are many factors at work here, each differently de?ning the open-ness of these two
cities. Connectedness and accessibility clearly play a part, but so do cultural factors.
Figure 5: Foreign Born Population in Los Angeles and New York
Los Ángeles: 36.2% is foreign born
Vietnam
3%
Iran
3%
China
3%
Korea
4%
Guatemala
4%
Philippines
6%
El Salvador
7%
Mexico
44%
All other
26%
Italy 3%
Trinidad and Tobago
3%
Colombia 3%
Haiti 3%
Ecuador 4%
México 5%
Jamaica 6%
China 7%
Dominican Republic 12%
Guyana 4%
All Others
50%
New York: 33.7% is foreign born
29
The relative importance of Central Americans and Mexicans in LA contrasts with the role
of the Caribbean Islands in New York. Connectivity and accessibility are the important
primary factors here.
1.5. Who are the migrants?
Who moves and why?
How do they select where to go?
Where from and where to?
In these early years of the 21st century, the largest volume of international emigration
clearly comes from the developing world. The world migration map below shows the
broad historical breaks and especially the massive North-South imbalances which
embody labour market push and pull factors, the constraints of population ageing
in the North, and the legitimate aspirations of the underprivileged populations in
the South.
Map 2: Map of net migration – arrivals less departures – in the period 1990-2000
iii
1. Cities and Internationalisation
30
In the forty years between 1960 and 2000 the number of international migrants from
developed nations increased from about 35 million to 110 million. (Table 4).
International migrants are de?ned as people who have lived outside their homeland for
a year or more. This group has increased dramatically (as Map 2 above shows). Now
about 175-190 million people live outside their country of birth. While on one level
the 175-190 million people who live outside of their country of birth is certainly large,
many of the world’s 6.3 billion people only move short distances in their lifetime, if they
move at all. Of those who do move to live outside their country of birth, many are legal
migrants, but many others are undocumented workers, asylum-seekers and refugees.
However, many migrants move temporarily to study, travel, and work. Family reuni?cation
is the most commonly registered reason for international immigration. In the US
these immigrants make up up to 75% of all legal immigrants. Asylum claims, based
on persecution in migrants’ homelands, is the second most signi?cant reason cited.
Unfortunately these two reasons are frequently subject to concerns over fraud and
abuse. Therefore, many countries scrutinise family reuni?cation and are now trying to
reduce the numbers of asylum based migrants. Nations are also limiting the numbers of
refugees they will take in, restricting refugees’ access to welfare services, and choosing
who to accept and who to refuse based on economic potential. As a result, the weakest
or neediest immigrants can be left to fend for themselves (Clark, 2006).
Regions 1960 1980 2000
World 75.9 99.8 174.9
Developed nations 32.1 47.7 110.3
Developing Nation 43.8 52.1 64.6
Continents
Africa 9.0 14.1 16.3
Asia 29.3 32.3 43.8
Europe 14.0 22.2 32.8
USSR (former) 2.9 3.3 29.5
Latin America (Caribbean) 6.0 6.1 5.9
North America 12.5 18.1 40.8
Oceania 2.1 3.8 5.8
Source: United Nations, Trends in Total Migrant Stock – the 2003 Revision
Between 1980 and 2000, while the increase in foreign born populations in less
developed nations was only from 52 million to 65 million, the foreign stock in developed
countries doubled. Most OECD nations have between 5% and 15 % migrant populations.
However there are some countries with a considerably higher percentage including
Australia, with 25%, New Zealand with 23%, and Canada with 19%.
31
The destination of international migrants varies from the 6 million in Latin America and
the Caribbean, and a similar amount in Oceania to the 41 million in North America and
33 million in Europe. Indeed the United States dominates with more than 35 million
foreign born residents. Germany, Russia, the Ukraine, France, India and Canada each
have more than 5 million foreign born residents.
Why do people migrate?
When explaining why people choose to migrate we can examine push and pull factors.
Push factors are issues that drive individuals from a place. They include issues such
as dif?cult living conditions, government persecution, or discrimination of some
sort. Pull factors are conditions that draw people to a new place. Examples of pull
factors include good economic prospects, or the presence of family members and
fellow countrymen who have already migrated there, which may allow for a smooth
beginning in the new place.
Regardless of push and pull factors, it is still not easy to move to a new country. One
must be prepared to face challenges including a different language and culture, being
away from family and friends, and entering into a future full of uncertainties. In addition,
immigrants have to go through lengthy bureaucratic processes in the new nation
before they can become legal residents and/or citizens.
European citizens are, on average, less likely to move residence or change job while,
according to the Lisbon goals, a mobile labour force is essential for creating a more
competitive and dynamic economy. A 2005 Eurobarometer study carried out in all 25
EU Member States which looked at mobility levels across the European Union, shows
that only around 2% of the EU workforce was born in a Member State other than their
current state of residence. The same study shows that only approximately 4% of the
EU population has ever lived in another EU country, while another 3% has lived in a
country outside the EU.
It is often argued that this level of mobility is too low, particularly in comparison to the
USA. In the USA, 32% of the population live outside the state in which they were born.
However, because of the lower institutional and language barriers, moving between
states in the USA cannot be compared to moving between countries in the EU.
The study then assessed the factors that encourage and discourage people to move
to another EU country (?gures 6 and 7).
1. Cities and Internationalisation
32
Figure 6: Factors that encourage people to move to another EU country (%)
Figure 7: Factors that deter people from moving to another EU country (%)
Some important themes arise when considering how and why EU cities attract im-
migrants and diverse populations. For the purposes of this project, we are referring
to the ability of cities to attract and retain immigrants and diverse populations as the
open-ness of the city. One implication of this assessment is that economic pull factors
are very strong indeed, but they appear to be reinforced by regulatory and cultural
factors that support quality of life.
Finally, a strong driving factor behind immigration is the economic conditions in both
the immigrant’s homeland and the country they are migrating to (the economic equa-
tion between ‘push’ and ‘pull’). Research shows that the average per-capita income of
the sending country is usually less than half that in the host country. The larger this gap,
the more of a draw there is to migrate.
Notes:Figures are for respondents from the EU 25 who intend moving to another country within the
next ?ve years
Better support from family or friends
Closer to family or friends
Meet new people
Higher household income
Better working conditions
Shorter commuting time
Better housing conditions
Better local environment
Discover new environment
Better weather
Better health care
Access to better schools
Better public transport
Social
network
Work and
income
Housing and
local
environment
Public
facilities
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0
Social
network
Work and
income
Housing and
local environment
Public
facilities
Other
Notes:Figures are for respondents from the EU 25 who do not intend moving
Source: Eurobarometer (2005)
Miss direct contact with family or friends
Miss support from family or friends
Working conditions
Losing job
Lower household income
Local environment
Housing conditions
Public transport, commuting
Different schooling system
Health care facilities
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 50
Having to learn a new language
33
Source: United Nations Population Division (2002) International Migration Report
How do migrants select where to live?
In principle, cities offer a more favourable setting for meeting economic and cultural
needs and for the resolution of social and environmental problems than rural areas and
smaller towns. Cities generate jobs and income. With good governance, they can deliver
education, health care and other services more ef?ciently than less densely settled areas
simply because of their advantages of scale, mass, connectivity, and proximity.
So, cities have natural advantages, but the competition between cities to attract the most
productive immigrants is now intense and highly established. It is through the implicit and
explicit attempts by cities to internationalise and to attract and retain skilled workers and
other knowledge assets that much of the competition is now being played out.
1.6. Strategies of cities to attract and retain international
populations
Harvard business professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter has framed the challenge of city
growth and competitive advantage as the need by cities to have both ‘magnets’ and
‘glue’. ‘Magnets’ are understood as the elements that attract not only investment but
also people (and in this case immigrants) to cities, and ‘glue’ as the social foundation
that fosters health and well-being, and which contributes to the bonds of community
(Torjman, 2002).
Figure 8: Foreign born stock by major national destination, 2000
0
United States
Russia
German
Urkraine
France
India
Canada
Saudi Arabia
Australia
Pasikstan
United Kingdom
Kazakhstan
Còte d’Ivoire
Iran
Israel
Poland
Jordan
United Arab Emirates
Switzerland
Italy
Number of migrant stock in 2000 (thousands)
5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000
1. Cities and Internationalisation
34
The Equation for city growth:
Attracting population + Retaining population = Thriving city
Attracting population: magnets
Immigrants want to settle ?rst where there is the greatest number of employment
opportunities – large urban centres with agglomeration advantages in terms of scale
and depth of labour markets, and with high degrees of talent mobility. They are not so
likely to go to smaller places without a job contract, because the opportunities there are
more limited. For highly skilled immigrants another important magnet is opportunities
for professional development and advancement, which again are more readily available
and known in the same larger urban centres.
There are other pull factors that in?uence the settlement location of individuals and
families. An important consideration in choosing where to settle is knowledge of a
city. Large cities like London, Miami or New York are known internationally. They are
perceived to be accessible because they are well known, and therefore they are less
risky places to which to migrate. Smaller cities do not have the same pro?le. If cities
are to become magnets that stimulate population growth, there is a critical need
for effective outreach and visibility. Cities need to market not only their economic
opportunities, but also their social and cultural attractions. This is why so many cities
now develop internationalisation strategies and why they see, for example, hoisting
global events (EXPOs, Olympics, Cultural Festivals, etc) and building a stronger visitor
economy, or international student base, as so important.
So there are cultural, risk, and economic factors at play here, that shape how open the
city is to immigrants.
Cultural factors have a signi?cant in?uence on the selection of settlement location.
For many immigrants the presence of a shared ethno-cultural community is of
paramount importance. Having a critical mass of people from the same ethno-
cultural background can not only make a city more attractive, but it can also facilitate
the delivery of settlement services. Establishing a critical mass is dif?cult, but it can
happen over time.
The most direct means of effecting this development are the family reuni?cation
programmes whereby permanent residents sponsor members of their family to
immigrate. Settlement programmes designed to foster ethno-cultural communities in
speci?c locations have been only partially successful. For example, the UK policy of
settling refugees from Vietnam in a ‘dispersed pattern’ around the UK, during the 80s
often led to the Vietnamese people re-concentrating themselves in a smaller number
of urban locations once they were able to.
35
So, these programmes do not ensure long-term settlement. A sustained critical mass
cannot be created in the short term, and certainly not through arti?cial means. It is a
process that takes time to seed and mature. The best way to accelerate this process
is by ensuring that immigrants are able to integrate quickly and effectively into the
economic and social life of a community, and to ensure this integration by increasing
the capacity of the community to provide appropriate settlement responses. Economic
factors can pull immigrants away from one location to another if there are not balancing
amenity and cultural factors to make them want to stay put.
Retaining populations: glue
The second part of the equation for a thriving city is the glue that provides a cohesive
bond for the community. If cities want to retain the immigrants who settle there as well
as existing populations, they need to pay attention to the quality of life they offer their
residents, and give them reasons to stay.
Aside from economic opportunities, when settling in a new city immigrants also seek:
affordable housing, educational opportunities for themselves and their children, and
a vibrant community with cultural activities and recreation. Immigrants in particular
seek welcoming communities, which have a positive attitude towards cultural diversity
and some familiarity in terms of their own cultural speci?city. Ultimately, for anyone to
plan their future in a community they must feel included, and this inclusion must be
economic, social and political. Communities need to be cognizant of the importance
of encouraging and supporting the civic participation of newcomers so that they too
have a vested interest in remaining there.
The most critical investment for retaining immigrants, however, is providing a system
that facilitates their economic integration -that is access to employment. Research
and experience have shown that labour market barriers for immigrants are systemic
in nature, and therefore require solutions that are systems-based. Cities in countries
with greater labour market ?exibility and fewer regulatory barriers tend to attract and
retain more immigrants. Cities in countries with reformed welfare systems that provide
a balance between rights and responsibilities and require active citizenship tend to
have fewer negative reactions to immigration than those whose welfare systems have
not been reformed.
Achieving this ‘city growth equation’ requires leadership and cooperation at all levels. At
the local level, cities need to be able to convene the relevant stakeholders, identify local
priorities, provide policy advice to all government levels, and enhance the coordination
and integration of programs and initiatives. Where cities are able to establish a multi-
stakeholder approach, they are more likely to be able to create the kinds of magnets
and glue that are needed to attract and retain immigrants. But cities need support from
and partnership with all level of governments to make this happen.
1. Cities and Internationalisation
36
Key Issues: Population Change
If we look at Europe the starting point is whether European cities are growing or declining
in absolute terms, and whether the balance between growth and decline has changed in
recent years. The suggestion that ‘cities are back’ (ODPM, 2004) could be interpreted as
implying that there are more growing than declining cities now than there were before.
Figure 9 shows the number of growing cities has in fact been falling steadily since the
1960s. Nearly three times as many cities were growing in the late-1960s compared with
the late-1990s.
There were more declining cities in Europe in the late-1990s than growing cities,
perhaps for the ?rst time in several centuries! This consistent negative trend belies any
suggestion of a general turnaround in the performance of European cities dating back
to the 1980s or 1990s. The only positive sign is the evidence of a slight recovery within
the last ?ve years in the number of growing cities. It is certainly too soon to suggest
that this is a signi?cant or sustained turnaround. There is a long way to go before the
number of growing cities is back even to the level of the 1980s.
Figure 9: The number of growing, declining and stable cities, 1960-2005
Europe: number of cities by population change direction
Growing
Stable
Declining
1960/65 1965/70 1970/75 1975/80 1980/85 1985/90 1990/95 1995/00 2000/05
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
n
º
o
f
c
i
t
i
e
s
The following map by the GaWC study group
iv
gives a snapshot of what are the growing
and declining cities in Europe
v
.
37
Map 3: European cities with over 200,000 population
Irrespective of demographic and population trends, cities are also indisputable engines of
economic growth. Bigger cities generally contribute more to the economy, but not all big
cities do. For cities with more than 1 million inhabitants, GDP ?gures are 25% higher than
in the EU as a whole and 40% higher than their national average. The contribution of cities
to GDP levels tends to level off with decreasing size. Smaller cities (up to 100 000) tend to
lag behind their nations, but display average economic growth rates.
So, this leads to important questions about what kinds of cities are growing and what kinds
declining. How does the nature of what goes on within the city impact on its population trends
and on its ability to achieve open-ness? We address these issues in the next section.
In this section we have noted the importance of economic, regulatory, internationalisation,
cultural and leadership factors in assessing how different cities become more open to
international populations.
1.7. City Types and Population Attraction
1.7.1. What kinds of cities does Europe have?
Building on a recently completed pan-European study
vi
, we now present a typology of
cities. It can provide an insight into urban growth and decline and serve as a basis for
city comparisons. The criteria for allocating Europe’s cities to these typologies are size,
economic structure, economic performance and drivers of urban competitiveness
vii
. The
study was carried out by ECOTEC Research and Consulting for the European Commission.
1. Cities and Internationalisation
38
From the EU State of the Cities report three broad groups of cities can be
distinguished:
International hubs,
Specialised poles, and
Regional poles.
Within these groups, 13 city-types are de?ned. The ?rst group - International Hubs - are
international centres with a pan-European or even global in?uence. They distinguish:
i. Knowledge hubs – key players in the global economy (many of them ‘world cities’),
positioned above their individual national urban hierarchy, and in the forefront of
international trade, industry, business and ?nancial services, based on high levels of talent,
extensive corporate investment, and excellent connections to the rest of the world;
ii. Established capitals – ?rmly positioned at the top of their national urban hierarchies
(many are indeed capital cities of nations) and with a diversi?ed economic base, major
corporate HQ and administrative functions, and concentrations of wealth;
iii. Re-invented capitals – cities with a prominent position in their national economies,
champions of transition to an open and modern economy, and engines of economic
activity for the New Member States.
A second broad group identi?ed by ECOTEC are the Specialised Poles. These play a
(potentially) important international role in at least some aspects of the urban economy:
iv. National service hubs play an essential role in the national urban hierarchy - they ful?l
key national functions and often some capital functions in the (public) services sector;
v. Transformation poles – with a strong industrial past, but well on their way to reinventing
themselves, managing change and developing new economic activities;
vi. Gateways – larger cities with dedicated (port) infrastructure, handling large ?ows of
international goods and passengers;
vii. Modern industrial centres – the platforms of multinational activities, as well as local
companies exporting abroad; high levels of technological innovation;
viii. Research centres – centres of research and higher education, including science and
technology related corporate activities; well connected to international networks;
ix. Visitor centres – handling large ?ows of people of national or international origin,
with a service sector geared towards tourism.
Thirdly, a large number of Regional Poles can be distinguished, which in many ways are
the nodes and pillars of today’s, yesterday’s or tomorrow’s European regional economies:
x. De-industrialised cities – having a strong (heavy) industrial base, which is in decline
or recession;
xi. Regional market centres – ful?lling a central role in their region, particularly in terms of
personal, business and ?nancial services, including hotels/trade/restaurants;
39
xii. Regional public service centres – ful?l a central role in their region, particularly in
administration, health and education;
xiii. Satellite towns – smaller towns that have carved out particular roles in larger
agglomerations.
Figure 9: City-types positioned
From an immigrant’s perspective, not all city-types will be equally attractive.
We expect investors to be interested in dynamic cities with some critical mass, a strong
economic performance in terms of GDP level and/or GDP growth, a thriving and evolving
economic structure, and strong underlying drivers of competitiveness (such as talent,
innovation, entrepreneurship and connectivity).
For immigrants we expect to see a pattern of interest based on:
Open-ness and depth of national and local economies (an opportunity driver).
A suitable regulatory environment for settlement of foreign born nationals (a
regulatory driver).
Connectivity and accessibility of transportation systems (connectivity and
accessibility drivers).
Affordability and availability of social provision (amenity, economic, and regulatory
drivers).
Figures 9 and 10, taken from the EU State of the Cities Report, ?rstly map the position of the
different city types to show the broad con?guration and then illustrate the groupings of the
city types by population and economic output.
Regional Poles
Specialised Poles
Population in core city
International
Hubs
100000 250000 350000 500000 1000000 2000000
175
150
125
100
80
G
D
P
p
e
r
c
a
p
i
t
a
-
c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d
t
o
c
o
u
n
t
r
y
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
=
1
0
0
Regional public
service centres
Regional market centres
De-industrialised
cities
Research centres
Modern industrial
centres
National service hubs
Transformation
poles
Visitor centres
Reinvented
capitals
Knowledge
hubs
Satellite towns
Gateways
Established
capitals
1. Cities and Internationalisation
40
Figure 10 The City Typology.
1.7.2. Exploring the city typologies
Knowledge hubs: top of the European league
In many ways, ‘the Knowledge Hubs’ top the European league. They include eight of the top
ten real estate markets in Europe (London, Stockholm, Munich, Lyon, Helsinki, Barcelona,
Hamburg and Edinburgh).
viii
41
Their GDP levels are 65% above the EU average, and almost 40% above the national aver-
age. Their annual growth rates have been high – which means that they continue to forge
ahead within their national contexts. Employment rates in knowledge hubs are high (68%),
elderly people tend to remain longer in employment than in virtually any other city-type.
Average unemployment rates are just 6.5%, and trending downward. The list of Knowledge
hubs includes national capitals, but only in those cases where their economic performance
is based on international market forces rather than on a purely national role. This is the
prime reason why London has been classi?ed as a Knowledge hub– even though it can be
considered a class on its own. After all, London’s recent economic development has been
primarily driven by the unprecedented growth of its ?nancial sector.
The key feature of this city-type lies in the fact that their development is primarily based
on the market sector. Their market services are more predominant within the economy
than in any other city-type- on average 28% of the workforce are engaged in ?nancial
or business services. In some cities this percentage is even higher, with 30% in London,
33% in Amsterdam and Stockholm and 40% in Milan. Some Knowledge hubs have a strong
manufacturing base (Barcelona, Lyon, Milan), that is often well-linked into the broader urban
economy. Although a number of these cities are national capitals as well (Dublin, London,
Stockholm, Helsinki, Copenhagen), the governmental sector in terms of employment share
is often less dominant than in other large metropolitan areas.
At the root of this strong economic performance lie powerful drivers of competitiveness.
The population is well-educated: on average 28% of the population has completed tertiary
education, but this rate is far higher in Helsinki (39%) and Edinburgh (42%). Many talented
workers have recently moved into these cities. Knowledge hubs have a relatively high
number of immigrants from other EU countries, with German cities leading the way. In Mu-
nich for example, 7.5% of the population is from other EU 15 countries.
Nevertheless Knowledge hubs are faced with a number of important challenges, particu-
larly those associated with rapid growth and economic expansion. Firstly, Knowledge hubs
are invariably very expensive cities to live in. Housing has for many become unaffordable,
as can be clearly seen in cities such as Dublin and Barcelona. This implies that overall
wealth, success and prosperity are not necessarily translated into quality of life for all resi-
dents and large numbers of people are forced, or prefer to live outside the core cities. This
is driving strong suburbanisation pressures, in turn contributing to increasing car usage,
road congestion and other transportation problems. Another common problem stemming
from increased economic activity is the growth in air traf?c with noise pollution impacting
on residential areas. One response has been to construct completely new airports (e.g. Mi-
lan Malpensa and Lyon St. Exupery) at a considerable distance from the cities but this often
generates even more road traf?c. Economic success has also attracted many migrants
– whether wanted or less wanted. In cities such as Milan and Barcelona, many national as
well as international migrants have moved in, putting the housing stock under a great deal
of pressure. Coping with all these challenges is complex and costly; it requires astute and
timely choices and unprecedented urban planning skills.
1. Cities and Internationalisation
42
Established capitals
Established capitals are at the top of Europe’s urban hierarchy. Madrid, Lisbon, Vienna,
Berlin, Paris, Athens and Rome are renowned the world over, built and rebuilt throughout
long and colourful histories. The cities belonging to this group are all located on the
European mainland and are typically large in size: on average almost 2 million people
in the core city and more than double that in the entire agglomeration. The core
population of established capitals is trending downwards whilst expansion is taking
place on the periphery. This is especially the case in Southern Europe where the larger
urban zones of capitals such as Lisbon and Athens are gaining population rapidly.
Established capitals are wealthy both by European and national standards. GDP levels
are on average 30% above the national and 40% above the EU average. All of them
ful?l crucial political and cultural roles; many ful?l a central economic role as well
(e.g. Paris, Vienna, Madrid, Lisbon). Yet, the economy of some Established capitals
is less dominant within a national framework, most notably Rome and Berlin. Overall,
Established capitals have witnessed good growth rates in recent years, maintaining
their already ?rmly established positions.
Through their size and wealth, Established capitals are in a relatively comfortable
position. Their economies are more diversi?ed than any other city-type. They combine
central governmental, higher education and health functions with leadership in ?nancial
and business services, trade/restaurants/hotels, transport and communication as
well as (advanced) manufacturing. This broad spread of economic activity ensures
a certain robustness and this translates into stable and solid property markets, that
are well trusted by foreign investors. This in?ow of capital and people is facilitated by
excellent multimodal accessibility. Established capitals all have international airports,
indeed often more than one, and are also strategically located at the heart of railway
and motorway networks.
Established capitals function as magnets which attract young people from the
countryside, professionals from across the EU and economic migrants from all over
the world. In Brussels and Berlin for example one out of eight inhabitants has moved
into the city in the 2 years prior to the date of measurement. In Paris this ?gure was as
high as one out of three inhabitants. Established capitals are home to large numbers
of foreign nationals. Many migrants initially come to study and subsequently stay to
develop their careers. Key to all this is the fact that Established capitals provide large
and diverse labour markets with a wide range of employment opportunities. But not
all fortune-seekers are successful in the labour market, as a signi?cant portion (12%) of
the workforce in Europe’s established capital cities is unemployed.
High unemployment in combination with average growth levels gives rise to important
questions. Will these Established capitals be able to generate more jobs to tackle
unemployment, or will this segment of the population remain excluded in the foreseeable
future, irrespective of economic and employment growth? And will these vulnerable
43
inhabitants have suf?cient access to healthcare and social services? Questions such
as these often remain unanswered.
Reinvented capitals
During the last 15 years, the capitals of the New Member States have gone through
drastic changes. Although they have faced as much restructuring and undergone as
many plant closures as many other cities in the region, Prague, Budapest, Warsaw or
Tallinn have all been able to take advantage of new opportunities as evidenced by
their impressive growth rates. Although GDP levels are still well below the EU average
(at 88% of it), they are catching up quite quickly. Between 1996 and 2001, the Re-
invented capitals achieved an average annual economic growth rate of more than 7%.
Warsaw, Bucarest, Vilnius and Tallinn were the front runners with burgeoning economic
activity. The Re-invented capitals are the unrivalled growth engines of their national
economies. Their GDP performance is 70% above the national levels and growth
rates have been 3% up on the respective national ?gures. These are unquestionably
the fastest growing cities of Europe and they are making a signi?cant contribution to
Europe’s overall competitiveness.
It may be surprising to observers to note that this economic growth has not gone hand
in hand with population growth. Virtually without exception both core cities and larger
urban zones have lost population during the period covered. An important underlying
reason for this decline is the housing market; the lack of adequate housing stock has
led to a sharp increase in housing prices, which makes living in the Re-invented capitals
an expensive matter. Suburbanisation – often beyond the boundaries of the Larger
Urban Zone – has become an important development. As a consequence, increasing
numbers of workers commute into the cities on a daily or weekly basis – with a rapid
increase in congestion as a consequence.
The spectacular economic growth of Re-invented capitals has coincided with a
complete overhaul of the economic structure as well as the physical appearance of
these cities. With the exception of Bucharest, the service sector has been expanding
rapidly. All cities are developing ?nancial and business services at a fast rate. The
Re-invented capitals of the former Soviet Union (Tallinn, Riga, Vilnius) have reassumed
their position as independent national capitals with much growth in employment in the
public sector as a result. And in cities such as Prague and Tallinn, tourism has also
grown at an impressive rate, with over 20% of employees working in trade, restaurants
and hotels. As traditionally has been the case in Central and Eastern Europe, many
of the workers have high educational levels. 31% of the workforce have completed
tertiary education, amongst the highest rates to be found in Europe’s cities.
On the downside, Re-invented capitals must deal with the problem of an old housing
stock that no longer meets the standards of its aspiring citizens. Strong suburbanisation
1. Cities and Internationalisation
44
pressures are resulting in population decline, increased traf?c and parking problems. This
is prompting of?ces and commercial centres to leave the core cities as well, adding to
the vicious cycle of car dependency and also the loss of vitality in city centres. In some
cases however this vacuum is being readily ?lled by tourists.
The impressive growth of the Re-invented capitals has led to debate over what national
economic strategy is appropriate to follow. Will these growth rates be maintained as these
transitional economies catch up with the rest of Europe? Or will growth slow down due to
shortages of labour, rising property prices and congestion? It is probable that the growth
rates of some of these cities will slow down as they enter the league of Europe’s established
capitals – with a predominantly national focus. Alternatively, some Re-invented capitals may
continue on their growth trajectories and eventually enter the league of Knowledge hubs. It
is too early to say which cities will go on to achieve this status but important prerequisites
include improved international accessibility, an increase in the levels of entrepreneurship
as well as the continued growth of business and ?nancial services.
Transformation poles
These are larger cities with a rich industrial past that have been forced into change by
great economic shifts which impacted heavily on their traditional economic base. This
process has certainly left its mark in the form of abandoned factories, deprived neigh-
bourhoods, limited appeal and modest visual attractiveness overall. However transforma-
tion poles have responded by seizing on new opportunities and implementing economic
strategies which have provided them with a positive way forward. The visible change is
often impressive. For example new city centres have been built, districts upgraded and
state of the art transportation systems put in place. Cities such as Leipzig, Turin, Birming-
ham and Glasgow are prime examples here, but there are many more examples. Lille,
Enschede, Cardiff and Oporto are also regarded as Transformation poles.
The assertiveness and aggressiveness with which Transformation poles have been
tackling challenges and pursuing new opportunities is the key. Typically large-scale
projects are implemented. Examples include the renovation of the former Fiat plant
in Turin into an impressive design and exhibition space, the city centre upgrade of
Glasgow including turning the banks of the Clyde river into a ‘hip’ artistic zone and the
new Bullring shopping centre in Birmingham which is attracting many visitors from far
a?eld. Leipzig and Dresden have invested massively in restoring their cultural herit-
age, while Heerlen has gone far in ‘greening’ the area’s former coal mines. Manchester
is now emerging as a well-connected and fashionable city in the UK, well-positioned
to be a viable alternative to London in areas of services, culture and arts. Key to this
transformation has been the renovation and improved connectedness of its city centre.
Lille has reshaped its own geographical position vis-à-vis London, Paris and Brussels by
exploiting its TGV-connection through the Euralille venture. Most cities have focused
their investments on city centres – where most citizens, workers and visitors convene
and where investment impulses tend to have the most spin off effects.
45
These transformation projects have not been equally successful everywhere and
in some cases expectations have not been met and disappointments are frequent.
Nevertheless, these new initiatives have gone some way to counteracting negative
trends by creating fresh opportunities. Indeed, GDP and growth levels in Transformation
poles tend to lie around the national average, and this can also be said of the economic
structure and unemployment levels. The manufacturing sector is not predominant
across the board although there remain strong differences between individual cities.
A main challenge for the Transformation poles is to build on the existing successes and
to provide a sustainable basis for creating future prosperity and well-being. In their
desire to move forward, Transformation poles sometimes tend to ignore their past, their
raison-d’être, their roots. As investment in modern transport, infrastructure and the
urban environment can be quite uniform, it remains an on-going challenge for these
cities to rede?ne their identity. Only longer-term and consistent urban development
strategies are likely to bring more durable, harmonious and high-quality development
that can win the con?dence of citizens and investors alike.
Gateways
Port cities often have a long history and their port function lies at the centre of their
identity. They base their very existence and wealth on the advantages afforded by a
natural harbour. These are the Gateway cities – all located near important waterways,
whether rivers or seas. They are the platforms for freight transport, distribution
and related industries and services – 11% of their workers are active in transport
and communication. In addition a wide variety of trade-related activities have been
developed – such as the diamond centre in Antwerp. Furthermore, some cities have
been successful in building (?nancial) services, such as the insurance industry in
Rotterdam. Some cities are also home to navy ?eets and have given rise to related
employment opportunities (Portsmouth, Naples).
On average Gateway cities have a little less than 400,000 inhabitants in the core city
and almost 800,000 in the larger urban zone. Despite all their achievements their
strong specialisation gives rise to a number of speci?c challenges. Their port activities
are becoming increasingly capital-intensive and automated, providing an ever narrower
employment basis. Gateways often appear to be highly industrialised due in particular
to concentrations of petro-chemical facilities (for example in Le Havre and Genoa)
and many of their industrial activities tend to be very capital-intensive and have been
shedding labour over recent years. This is re?ected in the lower employment rates
(94% of national average), but especially through higher unemployment rates – 14%
compared to 11% for all Urban Audit cities. Coming from a somewhat protected labour
market position, redundant port workers often ?nd it dif?cult to get other jobs and this
may lie behind the ?erce protests against any moves to liberalise the ports of Europe.
Employees in Gateways have lower levels of educational attainment – 18% completed
tertiary education against 23% for all Urban Audit cities.
1. Cities and Internationalisation
46
Gateways clearly face important economic challenges. Their origin is based on accessibility
by land and water, but nowadays the uniqueness of their position has been eroded by the
development of other modes of transport and the broadening of the scale of competition,
especially when air transport is taken into account. Unlike Transformation poles, Gateways
are still ?rmly locked into their traditional port functions – and this can hamper the pursuit
of new opportunities and diversi?cation initiatives. Furthermore a strong dependence
on freight handling generates large traf?c volumes causing pollution, congestion, and
the need for large-scale programmes of investment in transport infrastructure. Low or
unclear returns often make these investments dif?cult to justify. Due to their physical
appearance Gateway cities are often less attractive to tourists, investors and residents
alike. Some Mediterranean as well as Baltic Gateways have been quite successful in
exploiting cruiseship terminals – with ample spin-offs for local commerce and an added
impulse for inner city renewal (e.g. Genova). But not all Gateways have been successful
in generating large ?ows of tourists. Those Gateways that are seen as ‘Cities with a Port’
(e.g. Antwerp, Genova) are possibly less vulnerable than Gateways which can be viewed
as ‘Ports with a City’ (e.g. Rotterdam, Le Havre, Marseille).
Modern industrial centres
In many ways, Modern industrial centres are the powerhouses of international
production; the main production basis for multinationals – including key coordination
centres and manufacturing plants. Some of these cities owe a great deal to home-
grown multinational companies, such as Goteborg (Volvo), Clermont-Ferrand (Michelin),
Tampere (Nokia), and Zaragoza (Opel). Others are engaged in important niche activities
such as Aberdeen (off-shore drilling) and Besancon (time pieces). Other cities have
developed modern large-scale manufacturing sectors in more recent years, such as
Valladolid (Renault), Pamplona-Iruña (Volkswagen), Cork, Poznan and Arad. Still others
have a longer industrial past but have been successful in adjusting to new industrial
activities (e.g. Tilburg, Leicester).
The characteristics of Modern industrial centres clearly shine through: their GDP levels
are about 10% higher than the national average, and their growth rates are higher as
well. One out of three workers are employed in manufacturing and construction (one
out of four in all cities), but employment in trade, hotels and restaurants is fairly well
developed as well. The quali?cations of the workforce are in line with this; 22% of the
workforce has enjoyed higher education. Some cities have well-developed universities,
and attract high numbers of students (e.g. Graz, Tampere, Poznan and Wroclaw).
The challenges faced by Modern industrial centres are clearcut: strong competitive
pressures require multinationals to constantly re-assess their strategies. Production
plants are threatened by closure or reorganisation on a constant basis. Many of the
Modern industrial centres are heavily reliant on car manufacturing and this industry is a
highly competitive and volatile one with a seemingly unstoppable trend of relocation to
47
areas of the world where labour is cheap. Even Modern industrial cities in Central and
Eastern Europe (e.g. Poznan or Szczecin) are starting to ‘feel the heat’ in this regard. If
they want to remain ‘Modern’, these industrial centres will need to continue to adjust to
the changing requirements of international production.
In order to maintain its productive function, it is crucial to capture and hold onto
international companies by providing international business with an excellent
production climate. They need to address bottlenecks such as schooling, accessibility,
lack of space and levels of service. This strategy may be more feasible for capital-
intensive industries with much ‘sunk’ capital. Modern industrial centres with a strong
endogenous potential and those with a well developed entrepreneurial culture have a
clear advantage. However there are strong differences in this respect. Overall, German
cities (e.g. Augsburg, Wuppertal, Bielefeld) have high levels of self-employment when
compared to their national averages. So do cities such as Graz, Cremona and northern
Spanish cities including Vitoria-Gasteiz and Pamplona-Iruña. These cities are well-
placed to take advantage of large industry through spin-offs, whether in manufacturing
or in related business services, such as logistics, packaging, catering, hotels, trading,
etcetera. An alternative strategic choice is to promote continuous innovation, and
support technological excellence, building on the existing strengths.
Research centres
Although these cities have clear commonalities, each of them has emerged through unique
pathways and over long time periods. Some, such as Bologna, Göttingen or Coimbra owe
a great deal of their historic identity to their universities. Others have developed more
recently due to corporate business investment and now include large-scale privately-
funded research laboratories (e.g. Eindhoven). Other Research centres have emerged
following governmental decisions on the location of R&D facilities (Grenoble, Toulouse,
Oulu). Still others have found a fruitful mix of long-standing universities and a dynamic,
specialised local economy that takes advantage of this asset (Freiburg, Ghent, Karlsruhe).
Despite their modest size (about 200,000 inhabitants on average for the core city),
Research centres have high GDP levels – about 10% above their national average.
Older workers are much more engaged in the workforce than in any other city-type of
comparable size. This indicates that knowledge workers tend to work for longer than
others in the workforce.
Research centres successfully manage the integration and interaction between
the various economic sectors. Synergies are strong between public and corporate
research for instance, or between business services, trade and manufacturing. Multi-
modal accessibility is fairly high, certainly when the modest size of these cities is taken
into account. Many Research centres are in fact located close to international airports,
such as Cambridge (London Stansted), Darmstadt (Frankfurt am Main), Leuven (Brussels
Zaventem), and Leiden (Schiphol Airport).
1. Cities and Internationalisation
48
There are strong signals that many residents, including employees and especially students,
only live for short periods in Research centres: 15% of the population of these cities have
moved in during the last 2 years, a higher share than in any other city-category. Furthermore
many of these new residents have come from afar - from other EU countries or beyond.
The Research centres demonstrate that cities do not need to be excessively big in order
to be economically strong and wealthy. They have successfully built good reputations in
the specialist ?elds of science and technology and attract talented citizens from across
the globe. Some Research centres have centuries of tradition behind them. However
in order to stay ahead, Research centres must continue to invest in their academic
and skills base to maintain a leading position. They also need to maintain and where
possible improve the quality of life on offer as well as ensure good accessibility by air.
Many talented workers have very speci?c requirements which need to be met. Take for
instance the top sport facilities provided on the Hi-tech Campus in Eindhoven. Some
Research Cities bene?t from their proximity to attractive leisure possibilities nearby, as
is the case with Grenoble which is close to ski?elds. ‘Research centres’ are typically in
possession of other assets incuding education and cultural facilities, ?exible housing
arrangements, advanced telecommunications, a wide choice of international cuisine
and in many cases, a diverse multi-cultural local ?avour.
Visitor centres
Some Visitor centres are internationally recognised historic cities of culture (e.g. Bruges,
Florence, Venice, Krakow) whilst others are more recent tourist destinations (Nice, Valletta,
Malaga, Las Palmas) or have become important stop-overs and connection points (Funchal,
Irakleio, Reggio di Calabria). In any case, Visitor centres revolve around facilitating the long
or short-term stays of their guests. Many of them are located in Southern Europe, on
the Mediterranean or Atlantic coasts where a warm climate can be enjoyed. Their multi-
modal accessibility is on average rather low (90 points) yet the growth of low-cost airline
operations has and is continuing to bring about improvement in this regard. In fact ?ying to
a Visitor centre in Southern Europe from Northern Europe is often cheaper and easier than
travelling between destinations within Northern Europe.
The high dependence on the visitor economy is visible in several ways: one out of four
(26%) employees works in the hospitality sector (trade, hotels and restaurants) – more
than in any other city-type. But employment can also be high in the construction sector,
for instance along the Spanish coast where many hotels and second homes are being built.
The numbers of self-employed tend to be very high as well – with an index of 199 nearly
twice the national average. The visitor economy is clearly characterised by a large number
of small businesses and this is especially so in Italian cities such as Catanzaro, Florence,
Pescara and Reggio di Calabria.
But Visitor centres are not necessarily prosperous – on average their GDP per capita
equates to just 94% of the country average. Some are of course more prosperous (e.g.
Florence, Venice or Funchal), but that is not always entirely due to tourism. Visitor centres
49
are often characterised by high levels of unemployment (on average 13%), and part-time
work is more common than in any other city type. The challenge facing Visitor centres is
how to maximise and sustain the economic advantage accruing from their attractiveness
to tourists – and brace for strong cycles and ?uctuations in the property market.
The fact that Europe’s population is ageing offers an important opportunity for Visitor
centres, especially due to the numbers of senior citizens who are moving to Southern
Europe on retirement. According to some, this trend is likely to become even stronger
in the near future. For instance, the numbers of UK residents relocating to Southern
Europe is large and likely to increase. But what effect is this increasing trend likely to
have on destination cities? What are the precise needs of such residents? And what
related business opportunities will there be? Is this limited to catering, leisure, trade and
construction? Or does it extend to medical services, sports and adult education? Other
issues facing these cities concern strong suburbanisation pressures, the affordability
of housing for local residents, and the long term environmental sustainability of new
developments. For example what is the best policy to address water shortages which
may be caused by increasing numbers of private swimming pools and the irrigation of
golf courses? Should contingencies be made for the possibility of increases in the price
of air travel? Perhaps there is a case to be made for a strategy aimed at reducing ones
reliance on the vagaries of the international tourist trade and developing instead a more
rounded, robust and sustainable economy focussing on the strengths of the local area.
City Types and Internationalisation of Population.
In the next section we trace the links between different city types and the potential
bene?ts of population internationalisation and diversity. We argue that the diversity
dividend, or the return on openness, may be different for distinctive types of cities
based on this typology.
1.8. Competitive advantages of diversity to Cities, and their
nations
In principle, we know that population internationalisation and diversity are an advantage to
EU cities and indeed to cities around the world.
To put the role of population internationalisation and diversity, and the importance of open-
ness within cities, in their proper context we need to understand how can contribute
population internationalisation and diversity to city success. In essence this involves tracing
the links between international populations and other drivers of success within cities.
We know that leadership offers an important framework in which the city can view its
own relationship with populations, and can articulate its vision and values in relation to
diverse populations. Leadership of cities on these issues needs to articulate powerfully
the potential bene?ts to the city as a whole of having a diverse population base.
1. Cities and Internationalisation
50
We might observe eight such links that could be worthy of further assessment through
the OPENCities Project.
i. Internationalisation, and the resulting human diversity, promotes the
urban quality of life needed to attract and retain workers and ?rms in
the knowledge economy.
The idea here is that the skilled employees of the knowledge economy have
particular preferences in terms of local quality of life (eg neighbours, amenities, art,
shopping, cultural and food choices) that are enriched by immigration population
diversity. A ‘cosmopolitan’ perspective. This proposition is partially substantiated
by the work of Richard Florida in the USA who has traced correlations between
his melting-pot index, bohemia index, and diversity index in his comparison of US
cities. A good example of this aspect of diversity at work would be both Silicon
Valley and Boston: two of the most in?uential locations in the knowledge economy,
both offering a high degree of population diversity and the attendant quality of
life advantages. This is very much in accord with the work developed by Richard
Florida and others.
ii. Internationalisation and the resulting human diversity create a richer
visitor experience and fuels the visitor economy.
This proposition takes another implication of the city ‘cosmopolis’, recognising that
there is a growing market in city tourism, fuelled by changing tastes in holiday and
vacation experiences, but also recognising the growth in convention/conference
activity, major events, and the increased mobility of art collections and cultural
performances. The argument here is that cities with diverse populations can offer
a more appealing locus for a multiplicity of visitor experiences because they can
provide a richer range of choices for the visitor to enjoy, and because they can
appeal to a wider range of visitors as a consequence. The experience is qualitatively
better and quantitatively more appealing. This proposition is underpinned by a
wide range of evidence from destination marketing organisations. Examples here
would include Singapore, where a strong convention industry has been established
around Singapore and Malaysia’s diverse appeals.
iii. Internationalisation and human diversity is a spur to entrepreneurship
through the ambitious and tenacious characteristics of migrant populations.
There are many studies going back over several generations that demonstrate
high rates of entrepreneurship amongst immigrant and minority communities. These
highlight the tenacious and determined traits of many immigrants and also highlight
the fact that many people who want to run businesses do increasing chose to do so in
another country from their country of origin, especially if this is a developing country.
What is more contested is the extent to which these levels re?ect a response to
discrimination in the labour markets or an implicit drive for business development. A
related concern is the observation that minority led businesses may fail to achieve
51
the growth rates of companies led by members of indigenous communities.
However, more recent research in the UK and the USA shows that minority-led
businesses are now achieving growth rates equal to those of the wider cohorts in
which they are assessed (perhaps an additional feature of global and knowledge
based economic development?). Over time, this very success of minority led ?rms
ought to partially resolve concerns about entrepreneurship being a ‘second best’
for would-be employees who ?nd themselves facing discrimination in the labour
market, as the very success of minority entrepreneurs should itself reduce the
incidence of discrimination.
The Los Angeles region would be a supreme example of how a regional economy
has been re-shaped by successful minority entrepreneurs from many different
backgrounds.
iv. Internationalisation and diversity is a spur to creativity and innovation
through the interaction of different cultures, intellectual frameworks, and
customers.
This aspect of diversity may be especially important because it suggests the
potential to create wholly new products, experiences, and services out of the
interaction between different peoples, and it fosters innovation and creativity
which underpins the (near) universal drive for productivity led growth.
This proposition highlights the observation that immigration and diversity can
increase creativity and innovation through interaction between people of different
backgrounds. There are few studies that underpin this but there is extensive
anecdotal evidence that this kind of phenomenon is at work in narrative content
digital media and in advertising/marketing. This perspective emphasises the roles
of knowledge of different client bases, and the underlying myths and traditions of
different cultures, as well as the potential to create new iconography out of the
combined knowledge of different systems.
More broadly, notions of ‘fusion’ in music, food and fashion are now well accepted:
where distinctive traditions are brought together to create a new ‘fused’ whole.
A good example of this kind of value added might well be London. London’s
computer games industry is concerned highly creative and innovative, and
effective at building products for global markets. It includes very large numbers
of people from a wide range of backgrounds. Another good example would be
Hollywood/Los Angeles where digital animation offers products for most of the
world and draws in diverse expertise in order that it can design new cultural
content products with appeal in a wide array of markets.
v. Internationalisation fuels openness to wider markets, populations, and
customers and helps to grow markets for local businesses.
1. Cities and Internationalisation
52
This proposition implies, simply, that the presence of an immigrant labour force in
a city enables companies to serve wider markets from a single location. A good
example of this might be multi-lingual labour forces. It is clear that the ability to
provide services to a wide range of multi-lingual clients from a single location is
likely to increase the density of activity which a ?rm provides from that location
- as there will be commercial and organisational advantages to doing so - which
in turn will reduce costs and improve quality.
However, evidence of this is also largely anecdotal. The revolution in ICT that
spurred the provision of global services from single hubs has continued to the
point where the cost differences between single or multiple hubs may have
become marginal. The ubiquity of English usage in much B2B trading and service
provision perhaps also undermines this argument. However, it is clear that within
the call centre industry and within the visitor economy there are clear advantages
to multi-lingual labour forces that do help to increase market share.
A good example here would be Hong Kong, where multi-lingual staff in banking,
computing, retail, hospitality, insurance, shipping and trade all encourage signi?cant
market growth.
vi. Internationalisation and diverse local populations increase the propensity
to trade and undertake international joint ventures with third countries,
including those with diaspora communities in the cities involved.
This is also a simple argument, but not insigni?cant. The proposition runs that
the presence of diverse populations, especially with entrepreneurs amongst them,
is, other things being equal, much more likely to lead to their ?rms undertaking
international trade and joint ventures, and raising the general expectations and
ease with which international trade and joint ventures are carried out. This is
important because trading is generally a sign of a healthy economy, and because
many immigrants into world cities come from regions and countries that are
considered emerging or established important markets.
Good examples of this feature abound. The role of North African Entrepreneurs
in Paris, or Latino entrepreneurs in Miami are good examples, though Korean
entrepreneurs in Los Angeles, or Chinese and Indian entrepreneurs in Toronto
would also serve well.
vii. Internationalisation and diversity makes cities more attractive for hosting
international events and activities which need to play to a world audience.
The odd thing about this proposition is that it appears to be true and completely
untrue simultaneously. Countries and Cities that recently hosted the Olympic
Games are not especially diverse (Sydney, Athens, Beijing) although Sydney did
emphasise its diversity during the games and has achieved a ‘diversity brand’
somewhat in advance of the reality. However, the major contenders for the Olympics
53
in 2012 were all cities which emphasized their diversity (Paris, London, New York).
Equally, cities that have recently hosted the FIFA World Cup (Tokyo/Seoul, Berlin/
Hamburg/Munich) are not especially diverse, although when South Africa hosts in
2010 Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Durban will all host major activities, and are
all signi?cantly diverse cities.
This proposition may need more testing. It may be that a time lag is built in and
that we will see diversity of population becoming more apparent in the hosting
of future events which are being planned now. Equally, it may be simply be that
other factors dominate (eg continental ‘turns’ being taken) or that diversity matters
more to certain kinds of events than to others. For example, the hosting of major
diplomatic events such as the Earth Summit (Johannesburg 2002), The World
Urban Summit (Barcelona 2004 and Vancouver 2006), and the Summit of the
Americas (Miami 1994) are events that clearly call for a global (and therefore
diverse) stage.
viii. Internationalisation and diversity can provide ?rms with unique opportunities
for globally signi?cant corporate responsibility initiatives.
This proposition suggests that diverse cities provide ?rms with an opportunity to
take actions which will have global signi?cance in terms of their impact, because
of the presence of diverse population bases. It means that just as ?rms can see
their global reputations damaged by their actions in a single place (Barclays
Bank in Apartheid South Africa, Nike in Child Labour Indonesia) so too by acting
in a responsible way in certain places they can enhance their reputations and
global brands.
Evidence is hard to come by here. Coca Cola’s support of the Atlanta Olympics gave
them exceptional exposure. HSBC’s support of many local development initiatives
in London has played well in the press. Microsoft’s’ philanthropy has been more
global than simply focused on Seattle although good things have been done there
with schools, and the Ford Foundation (amongst many others) is clearly a global
enterprise.
So, it may well be the case that different approaches will suit different ?rms and
sectors at different times.
The competitive advantage of diversity and the typology of cities.
This quick review of the basic conceptual frameworks shows that there are several
distinctive approaches to how cities might value their population internationalisation
and diversity and build justi?cation to promote openness. In this context, it could be
observed that different city types might ?nd that diversity and immigration contribute
in distinctive ways.
1. Cities and Internationalisation
54
For example:
i. Knowledge hubs – human diversity provides the talent pool to serve and support
globally traded ?rm and HQ functions and niche sectors that require speci?c skills.
ii. Established capitals – human diversity provides a source of enlarged cultural en-
dowment and creative offering.
iii. Re-invented capitals – human diversity provides for new entrepreneurship and
sources of new jobs.
iv. National service hubs – human diversity provides opportunities for international
trade which have not previously existed.
v. Transformation poles – human diversity provides new urban pioneers for regen-
eration areas.
vi. Gateways – human diversity provides service support for active trade links and a
supply of mobile workers for trade routes.
vii. Modern industrial centres – human diversity provides technological know how that
can enhance the scope of the local labour force.
viii. Research centres – human diversity expresses the connections of research cen-
tres to a global talent pool of specialists and indicates the international standard
of the work being undertaken
ix. Visitor centres – human diversity provides a richer visitor experience and also
provides skilled multi-staff to support the visitor experience.
x. De-industrialised cities – human diversity provides new sources of population
growth following periods of decline.
xi. Regional market centres – human diversity can add to the range of locally traded
services and products adding scope and mass to local markets.
xii. Regional public service centres – human diversity can ful?l vital skills needs in
public services.
xiii. Satellite towns – human diversity can contribute to the appeal of smaller places by
giving them a distinctive character relative to other smaller towns.
This is by no means a full account of what increasing population internationalisation and
human diversity – the returns for openness – can bring to a full range of cities, but it does
indicate how different kinds of cities might bene?t from human diversity in different ways.
1.9. Factors of Openness in cities
What is an OPENCities?
We asserted earlier that openness for a city has not yet been fully de?ned but it might
include:
55
i. Economic factors: such as the availability of jobs and incomes and access to
affordable basic standards of living, and the comparable cost of living. Labour
market and housing market ?exibility and openness may be especially critical. Also
important may be the approach of ?rms to innovation and co-operation, and their
willingness to embrace diversity as a potential source of future innovation.
ii. Regulatory factors: such as the overall immigration and asylum policies of the
country, coupled with any speci?c labour market, welfare bene?ts, land/home
ownership, service access, and other local/national regulations that may apply
differentially to foreigners.
iii. Cultural factors: such as the level of enthusiasm for population diversity amongst
existing populations, and the extent to which local culture and entertainment is
attractive to diverse audiences, as well as the propensity of the local population to
respect, celebrate, and enjoy diversity of culture.
iv. Amenity factors: including generic amenities such as housing, schools, hospitals,
as well as more bespoke amenities such as places of worship, community
organisations, specialist support services, entertainment and leisure choices,
communities of interest, street signage, availability of interpretation/translation,
and other specialist services.
v. Connectivity and Accessibility factors: including how easy it is to get to the
city concerned and the potential it offers for connection to other places that are
important sources of opportunity or welfare.
According to the Globalisation and World Cities Study Group and Network , the
most connected cities are the most diverse ones. Hong Kong provides a good
example of this concept. Hong Kong has attracted large numbers of service
?rms because of its position. It is the prime location for ?rms to service clients
in the growing Chinese market. Thus for many a global strategy, Hong Kong is
a place where you have to be. Hong Kong is the node in the network where
specialist knowledge on abilities and possibilities in the Chinese market intersect
with global ?ows of information and ideas.
vi. Internationalisation factors: such as the level of internationalisation in other
areas of city life; including business, events, fairs & conferences, international
organisations, leisure and culture. Cities as locations for international investments,
visitor destinations, or cities functioning as centres for inter-governmental institutions,
are important factors to attract diverse populations.
vii. Risk factors: such as both the general perceptions of the stability of the local and
political environment, coupled with other factors such as the perceived incidence
of racial/ethnic persecution or discrimination, or more general concerns about
how likely foreigners are to ‘succeed’ in the city concerned. A key variable may
1. Cities and Internationalisation
56
be the extent to which there are active anti-discrimination policies which appear
effective in addressing many forms of disadvantage.
viii. Leadership factors: how proactive is the city in setting and pursuing an agenda
of openness, diversity, and tolerance? Does city leadership provide the basis for
belonging and inclusion and promoting the bene?ts of diversity to the city? This
includes not only long-standing issues of how to maintain civil order but also new
challenges — dealing with difference and different levels of wealth and opportunity,
and reaching out to speci?c populations in order to understand immigrants
perspectives, needs and interests as well as to engage their support for developing
the common good and shared urban spaces. It involves seeing openness as an
asset that enriches the local environment and makes a city more competitive on
the world stage. From a policy and program perspective, this view would have
municipal governments working with other governments and with the voluntary
and private sectors to remove barriers and take advantage of opportunities arising
from a city’s diverse character.
1.10. The role of social integration of migrants
This OPENCities project is not principally concerned with social integration of immigrants.
This is an important subject, but is already being addressed directly by other efforts
(such as the Integrating Cities and Inter-Cultural Cities projects).
However, an important focus for OPENCities must be what part integration plays in being
open to greater internationalisation, competitiveness, and population ?ows. For example:
Do integrated cities make better use of the human resources?
Do integrated cities appear more attractive for international populations?
Do integrated cities better retain international populations?
Managing openness and diversity in an urban setting is a complex task that involves all
sectors of society all levels of government. Increasingly, city governments are on the front
line, and so their approach is worthy of particular attention. Speci?c challenges lie ahead for
citiy governments as they continue to develop their approaches. These form an important
part of the context in which the quest for the OPENCities is being developed.
i. One key challenge may be how to deal with inter-ethnic and intra-ethnic tensions.
These are real and have a range of manifestations from competition for voice
and resources, to outright violence. Many EU cities have seen the spectre of this
challenge rise quite dramatically in the recent period. Addressing this effectively
with genuine leadership is central to building longer term tolerance and openness.
So in the UK and France there are major challenges that must be addressed.
57
ii. Then, a second challenge is related to the choice of some countries and cities to
be more open to high skill migrants than to low skills migrants, and more open to
temporary stays than to long term stays.
Germany, for example, has adopted a restrictive stance towards migration from the
new member states with the notable exception of seasonal farm workers. Those
policies have in effect attracted large numbers of low-skilled workers from the new
member states to irregular employment in Germany.
At the same time, higher skilled migrants looking for legal employment have
been diverted to Ireland and the UK. Of course, low-skilled and even irregular
migrants contribute to economic growth and ?ll important gaps in the low-wage
labour market, and especially in public services. But in certain areas they may
be competing directly with low-skilled locals who feel already threatened by
globalisation. This, combined with the often irregular work arrangements, has the
potential to seriously undermine the social acceptance of migration.
High-skilled migrants, by contrast, are more likely to ?nd jobs and create jobs for
low-skilled locals, they are more likely to be net ?nancial contributors to the public
?nance system and the welfare state, and often they ?nd it easier to integrate.
iii. A third challenge concerns the welfare state itself. In countries with a pervasive
programme of social bene?ts, such as welfare for the indigent, housing allowances,
free health care for the sick, and pensions for the elderly, accepted immigrants with the
lowest incomes are automatically eligible for these costly social bene?ts. In addition,
the welfare state results in much costly expenditure to produce services speci?cally
for recent immigrants. The lower taxes paid by a large number of immigrants and the
cost of the social bene?ts they consume represent a ?scal burden on indigenous
taxpayers and can lower overall their living standards. Such ‘calculations’, of course,
fail to recognise the positive contribution of all migrants to the national good.
As a result, there exists a perceived con?ict between liberal immigration policies
and the viability of the traditional welfare state. How the public sector redistributes
incomes between immigrants and natives is often a matter for political debate, and
public discourse. There is often a fear that the redistribution will reduce both the
disposable incomes and the opportunities of native born populations. Poor labour
market integration among immigrants and, thereby, negative effects on the public
budget may also lead to tensions between native born and immigrants, which can
have substantial implications for everyone.
During the OPENCities project we want to better explore how integration issues impact
on different international groups, and within different types of cities, and how they can
be addressed to make cities more open.
Many of these factors of open-ness are outside of the control of city governments and
therefore important ingredients of leadership and in?uence are essential, as cities have
1. Cities and Internationalisation
58
to get help from other tiers of government, and from other stakeholders. Cities alone
cannot address and resolve all of these issues, but without effective city leadership
there is little hope that these issues can be tackled effectively at all.
1.11. Recent Studies on Cultural Diversity in Cities
In this section we review some recent work by leading researchers and commentators
on the link between cities and open-ness.
i. Richard Florida’s ‘Boho’ Index
Richard Florida’s ‘Boho index’ forms a part of a study carried out in 2001 which examined
the relationship between measures of diversity and tolerance and high-technology
success in the 50 most populated metropolitan
areas in the United States. The report suggests that
since high human capital individuals or ‘talent’ are
the key to success in the current era of economic
growth, these individuals’ ideas and creativity are
the most important ingredients in the economic
success of a ?rm or region. It argues that,
‘a connection exists between a metropolitan area’s
level of tolerance for a range of people, its ethnic and
social diversity, and its success in attracting talented
people, including high-technology workers.’
Therefore cities and regions which possess diversity
of thought and open-mindedness exhibit low
barriers to entry for human capital. ‘Diverse, inclusive
communities that welcome gays, immigrants, artists,
and free thinking “bohemians” are ideal for nurturing
creativity and innovation, both keys to success in
the new technology.’
The report constructed four indices through which to examine the relationship between
diversity and technological performance:
the Gay Index measures the over—or under-representation of gay male couples in a
metropolitan area relative to the population;
the Foreign-Born Index examines the percentage of those within a metropolitan area who
were not born in the United States or one of its territories;
the Bohemian Index (upon which this note concentrates). This is calculated in the same
fashion as the gay index and measures the over- or under-representation of artists and
musicians in a metropolitan area. The index is based on the number of writers, designers,
Table 2:
Tech Ranking and Boho Index
Milken
Tech-Pole
Ranking
Metropolitan
area
Boho
Index
Ranking
1 San
Francisco
8
2 Boston 9
3 Seattle 1
4 Washington
D.C
6
5 Dallas 15
6 Los Angeles 2
7 Chicago 20
8 Atlanta 13
9 Phoenix 24
10 New York
11 Philadelphia 35
12 San Diego 18
13 Denver 14
14 Austin 10
15 Houston 30
Figure 3.6
59
musicians, actors and directors, painters and sculptors, photographers, and dancers.
Regions in which these ‘bohemians’ are over-represented favour openness to creativity
and artistic expression, and,
the Composite Diversity Index, which is a sum of the rankings of the three individual
diversity measures: the gay index, bohemian index, and foreign-born index.
Florida et al (2001) suggest that the Boho index:
‘offers considerable improvement over traditional measures of amenities (such as
restaurants, museums, symphonies and the like) in that it provides a direct measure of
the producers of those amenities. Metropolitan areas that are over-represented by these
“bohemians” are those with an appreciation of amenities that support and showcase
creativity and artistic expression.’
The diversity measures were compared to a measure of high-technology industry
concentration and growth developed by the Milken Institute.
Cities highlighted by the report
Seattle is ranked highest in the Boho Index, followed by Los Angeles and New York
(See Figure 3.6)
The report found a strong correlation between the Boho Index and the concentration
and strength of high-tech industry. Ten of the top 15 bohemian metropolitan areas also
number among the top 15 US high-technology areas, notably Seattle, Los Angeles, New
York, Washington D.C., San Francisco, and Boston (see Table 16.1). Similarly, 13 out of the
bottom 15 high-tech metropolitan areas failed to appear in the top 15 of the Boho Index.
However, the report does not identify why certain cities rank higher than others on
the Boho index.
ii. Boho Britain Creativity Index
A similar index to that outlined above has been produced for British cities. The think-
tank Demos produced the Boho Britain Creativity Index (2003). For the index, the
UK’s 40 largest cities were ranked using three of the creativity indicators identi?ed by
Richard Florida. The indicators used were ethnic diversity, proportion of gay residents,
and the number of patent applications per head. The UK index was carried out ahead
of the Boho Britain conference and aims to illustrate the link between creativity and
economic regeneration in UK cities.
The report makes a qualitative assessment of what makes a city successful in the
creativity index and suggests that,
1. Cities and Internationalisation
60
‘places where there is a mix of people and cultures are where new ideas will spring from
and be encouraged. Even with the internet, cities can still act as a production site for new
ideas, and are still the best way we have of moving people and new ideas around.’
Cities highlighted by the report
The table below illustrates the top 20 cities in the creativity index. Manchester tops the
Boho Britain index as a result of its mix of ethnic diversity, gay friendliness and techno-
logical innovation. Leicester and London share sec-
ond place, suggesting that the creative potential of
UK cities is not con?ned to national and regional
centres.
Manchester’s success is attributed to a number of
factors. The city has the vibrant Canal Street area,
a renowned gay area whilst UMIST, the renowned
science and technology institute contributes to its
high technological ranking. According to Patent Of-
?ce ?gures, Manchester comes top of the ranking
for patent applications, which is accounted partly
for by its concentration of higher education institu-
tions and technology companies.
However, it is important to note that the fact that the
report includes only the 40 largest cities produces
slightly inaccurate results. If Oxford, which is outside
the top 40 by population, had been included in the
list it would come second, ahead of London and
Leicester. Both Oxford and Cambridge score highly
because of their diverse student populations and
high concentration of technology research facilities
which generate numerous patent applications.
iii. Commedia: Unlocking the Cultural Diversity of Cities.
A recent completed pan-European study on cultural diversity
4
de?nes ‘openness’ as how
a city attracts people to it; how easy people feel it is to make connections in the city; how
diversity is experienced in every day life and in work; and how different people come to-
gether in the city. OPENCities recognise and respond to opportunities. They are also likely
to respect and value the diversity of their community as an asset in its own right.
The ingredient for cities to be successful are the openness of individuals, companies and
institutions. A city can be open when the main institutions and the prevailing culture allow
people to think, plan and act with imagination, courage and risk.
1 Manchester
2 Leicester and London
3 Leicester and London
4 Nottingham
5 Bristol
6 Brighton and Hove
7 Birmingham
8 Coventry
9 Cadiff
10 Edinburgh
11 Glasgow
12 Milton Keynes
13 Shef?eld
14 Aberdeen
15 Wolverham pton
16 Liverpool
17 Bradford
18 Derby
19 West Bromwich
20 Newcastle/Gateshead
4
Comedia, How can we unlock the potential of cultural diversity in cities? Joseph Rowntree Foundation
(2006)
61
For the city to become intercultural and socially creative, openness to ideas and
initiatives and interactivity with civil society need to become embedded in policy-
making. (Bloom?eld and Bianchini, 2004, 106)
In order to address the question “how open is a city?” the study team proposed a series of
indicators of openness and inter-culturalism.
For the Indicators of openness four key areas of openness that need considering have
been identi?ed.
These are:
Openness of the institutional framework: relates to the policy, regulatory and
legislative environment and might include both qualitative and quantitative assessments.
For example, it would be important to go beyond identifying the existence of policies
to also measure their implementation and effects. The research found that while
there are non-discriminatory policies in place for the customs service in reality there
was evidence of discrimination on the basis of colour with regard to searching and
questioning of entrants to the UK.
Openness of the business environment: relates to issues such as employment
opportunity, access to training and diversity of management. The means of measuring
this at a city level might be through the local chamber of commerce reviewing their
membership to establish the ethnic composition of staff and leadership positions and
cultural awareness training in a sample of the major and smaller companies in their
membership.
Openness of civil society: relates to cross-cultural economic, social, cultural and
civic networks which could possibly be measured from observation and interviews to
establish the level of ethnically and culturally mixed business associations, social clubs,
religious groups, political parties and movements. Positive cultural representations or
images of the ‘other’ in the media, the number of minority broadcast channels and
minority programmes within mainstream public service broadcasting can also be
indicators of openness. In addition, indicators could be established to measure the
education environment by collecting information on the inclusion of diversity in the
overall curriculum and how many school children are learning foreign languages or the
percentage of overseas or minority ethnic students in university.
And openness of public space: relates to the collecting of information on the
quantity of privatised, controlled or democratic public space. The indicators might
measure mixed housing and neighbourhoods; safety and mobility of ethnic minorities
in all areas of the city based on crime statistics; the level of open access to facilities such
as libraries and cultural venues in the city centre and feeling of cultural inclusiveness
in public space; and an assessment of perceptions of the city centre, such as which
institutions are welcoming and which forbidding.
1. Cities and Internationalisation
62
These formulations (Florida and Comedia) offer important insights into the open-ness of
cities based on considered work and detailed case studies. But we must ask whether this
is enough? Does it fully explain the factors of open-ness in a city?
Firstly, to what extent does they help to explain the pull factors that may make a
city open: the city’s population needs, it’s economic and welfare opportunities, it’s
connectivity and accessibility, and the wider regulatory environment (especially
labour market ?exibility) that conditions it’s legal and regulatory open-ness?
Secondly, do these approach these take full account of the many different kinds
of cities? For example city size, location, and functions clearly play an important
role in explaining how cities perform economically and environmentally. Don’t
they also help to explain the different ways in which cities become more open to
international population ?ows? Equally, city governance models vary substantially
from one constitutional setting to another. These impact upon how far the balance
between city openness and national openness, for example, will condition the
population mix in any city.
Thirdly, to what extent do they include crime and safety dimensions, and the
broader quality of urban life?
Lastly, do these notions take full account of the issues of belonging, leadership,
identity, and public discourse; the means through which a sense of open-ness
might be conveyed and communicated.
Together with these wider factors, the insights of Florida and the Comedia team provide
a city with a basis for beginning to assess its openness. We will seek to develop a
diagnostic tool for this during the OPENCities Project.
1.12. Principles for OPENCities leadership
What are the key principles for making cities more open? 10 principles
The overview of drivers of internationalisation of population, advantages of human
diversity, openness factors for cities, city types, and insights from recent research point
to an enormous variety across Europe’s cities, and the cities of the world.
There is a fundamental need to better understand and articulate the different and
distinctive ways in which EU cities might be open to immigration and diversity. The
unique national and local contexts and their attendant histories are important variables
that emerge in the typologies. This is what the OPENCities project will focus upon.
There are also useful preliminary insights from the work so far that we can articulate to
develop the discussion.
We recognise from the outset that cities that want to become more open must have
some level of active local consent. Cities do not become more open against the l of
63
he people who already live there, though they may be surprised by how much they
bene?t and enjoy it.
Active city leadership will be an essential ingredient to achieve this consent and to
build a co-ordinated plan of action.
Initial ideas on the roles of city leaders are set out as ten principles below:
For cities that want to be open to diverse populations, it is important to:
i. Recognise that diverse types of cities will have distinctive approaches to openness.
Cities can be open or closed in different ways. Understand your own history and
context fully and assess what makes your city more or less open. The journey to
openness and to internationalisation are inseparable. Not all cities will be like Los
Angeles or Singapore, there is no simple model for becoming an OPENCities.
ii. Recognise, understand, and articulate the importance of immigration and diversity
to the future of your city. It is important to place this discussion in a far reaching
framework of what the city needs for the long term in order to support all of its
citizens and to succeed internationally. The case for OPENCities has to be made
actively.
iii. Recognise that openness requires co-ordinated multi-dimensional thinking and
action. In this review we have identi?ed 8 factors that are generally key to openness
in cities:
Economic factors
Regulatory factors
Cultural factors
Amenity factors
Connectivity and Accessibility factors
Internationalisation factors
Risk factors
Leadership factors
These provide an initial framework for re?ecting upon openness, and for planning.
Openness will come from getting these things to work together.
iv. Diagnose openness systematically and set targets to make progress against
objective measures of progress. Use external reference points, such as kitemarks,
indexes, surveys, and other indicators, to mark progress.
v. Place dialogue with international populations and their employers and supporters
at the heart of how the city develops its approach, and assesses its progress. A
cross Institutional approach will be necessary.
1. Cities and Internationalisation
64
vi. Organise to in?uence the national and supra-national spheres. Many of the factors
of city openness are beyond the direct control of city governments so in?uence
becomes very important. Cities need to work together to achieve this, and to ?nd
alliances with other lobbies (business, NGOs, Trade Unions, media, etc).
vii. Provide leadership which challenges barriers to openness, promotes an inclusive city
identity, articulates the bene?ts of diversity, and creates a broad sense of belonging
for all people.
viii. Promote visible initiatives and interventions which can be recognised by citizens as a
positive approach to the agenda.
ix. Do not take initiatives that will not be sustained until they have succeeded. This is a
long term agenda and there are cyclical dimensions to some of the challenges that will
be faced. It is important to persevere.
x. Remember the future. Cities have succeeded over the long sweep of time by attracting
new populations. There is no reason to think that the future will be any different.
i
Note: Foreign Labour in the United Kingdom: current patterns and trends. The data for the United
Kingdom are based on work permits and are not strictly comparable to the survey data from the United
States but they clearly show the difference in immigration policies.
ii
The tool has been realised by the George Washington Center for the Study of Globalization working
group.
iii
International migration trends Gildas Simon (2002) Migrinter Laboratory (University of Poitiers)
iv
Turok, I. & Mykhnenko, V. (2006) Resurgent European Cities?, CPPR Working Paper 2
v
The analysis takes a longer-term perspective than previous studies and is based on data between
1960 and the most recent available information, usually 2005. It is also more comprehensive in covering
all 310 cities (in 36 countries) with a population of over 200,000. These cities account for 36.5% of
the total population of the 36 countries. The cities in the West account for 42.3% of the population of
Western Europe and the cities in the East account for 29.7% of the population of Eastern Europe.
vi
European Commission DG REGIO (2007) “State of the European Cities Report” , prepared by ECOTEC/
ECORYS/Nordregio/Eurofutures. The report is currently still under embargo.
vii
Despite its advantages, the typology has some limitations too. The typologies should therefore be
used as a complimentary tool for a better understanding urban dynamics.
viii
ULI/PWC (2007) Emerging Trends in Real Estate - Europe.
ix
Diversity and Power in the World City Network, P.J. Taylor, D.R.F. Walker, G. Catalano and M. Hoyler
65
Section Two:
Population Change
in European Cities
66
Population Change
in European Cities
in European Cities
Population Change in European Cities
In this section of the report we review recent trends in population changes and interna-
tionalisation of European Cities, based on the work of the EU State of the Cities Report,
published by the EU Commission in 2007.
2.1. Population Change in Cities
The basic starting point of this section is that healthy cities grow – they attract people
and that less healthy cities stagnate or even shrink – they lose population, a symptom
that might call for remedial actions.
What emerges from this section of the Report is that, across Europe, some cities are
thriving as they have a growing and young population, while attracting even more
from outside. But many other cities face different developments; they witness a natural
loss of population, due to falling birth rates, and a rapidly ageing population. From a
numerical point of view, the main challenge lies in the ability of cities to attract migrants
who can keep up the numbers. But as a consequence, the face of Europe’s cities is
changing rapidly.
The pace of change differs enormously amongst Europe’s cities. Some cities have
witnessed a population decline for several decades already, some have gone through
major crisis but have become known to us as models of growth and success. These
changes tend to be cyclical: during a period stretching from roughly the mid-1950s up
till the 1970s the urban core of North Western Europe saw a process of rapid urban
growth, followed by decentralisation and suburbanisation, to be followed by a partial
de-urbanisation. Thus, during the 1970s most metropolitan cores in the UK, and by the
late 1970s also in France, Germany and Italy, were in a process of rapid decline. This also
concerned many larger cities of Fennoscandia. At the same time virtually all metropolitan
areas in Eastern Europe were growing very rapidly. Now, the opposite situation partly
prevails, where cities in Eastern Europe shrink while most Western European cities grow.
2. Population Change in European Cities
68
2.2. Apparent Trends in Population Change
Urban Areas grow faster than non urban areas:
When looking at European urban areas as a whole (so-called Larger Urban Zone or
LUZ), the population has been growing at a rate of 0.35% per year - over a ?ve year
period. For Europe as a whole, this growth rate has been about twice the national
growth rate (0.2% per year). Thus, urban areas have been growing clearly faster than
non-urban areas.
The strongest urban growth can be recorded in Spain, where some urban areas have
seen an annual growth of 3%. Overall, urban areas have also been growing fast in
Ireland, Finland, Greece and Cyprus. To the contrary, in some other countries, urban
areas have witnessed an overall population decline, notably in Romania and Italy.
In many other countries, growth and stagnation occur at the same time. In the UK,
the Southern English cities have been growing steadily, with Exeter or Bristol in the
Southwest as examples. Urban areas in Northern England, such as Newcastle upon
Tyne have lost population. In Germany, some urban areas have lost signi?cant numbers
of people, with those in Eastern German such as Frankfurt an der Oder or Halle a/d
Saale as examples, while more prosperous urban areas (Regensburg, Bonn) have been
gaining in population size.
The regional context of cities is crucial in explaining urban performance:
Across Europe, urban areas in fast growing regions are expanding much faster than
urban areas situated in declining regions. This pattern is most visible in countries like
Germany and the UK where regional differences have been strong in recent years.
Urban areas in the North of England or in Eastern Germany have had great problems to
retain population, while urban areas in more prosperous and growing areas have been
able to gain inhabitants. The only major exceptions to this pattern can be grouped
into two categories. On the one hand typical regional urban growth engines located
in more peripheral areas of e.g. Greece, Spain, Ireland or northern Fennoscandia do
attract population at a much faster rate than their – in relative – terms lagging regions
are able to. On the other hand there is a smaller group of lagging cities that are in this
respect performing even worse than their surroundings. The most prominent examples
of cities of the latter type can be found in Romania.
Core cities are no longer growing in about half the European Union:
Core cities are obviously part of their larger urban zones and the link between their
developments is strong. The faster the core city grows, the more likely is a growth of
the whole agglomeration. But the agglomeration grows faster than the core city in
about 2/3 of the cities. Faster growth of the core cities than in the agglomerations is
also recorded, but is less common.
69
Larger urban areas tend to in?uence their hinterlands more so than smaller
cities:
In general, larger urban areas in Europe are relatively speaking more successful in
growing – their population growth rates tend to be higher than those for smaller cities.
This is the case in most countries, especially so in the Netherlands, the western parts
of Germany, the Nordic countries, Greece, Spain and Slovenia.
Even though urban areas are growing faster than their nations as a whole, there is no
unique pattern – and variation across Europe’s cities is strong. Urban areas tend to
grow more when they are located in a favourable national and regional context, while
growth is more prevalent in the agglomerations than in their core. It is much harder to grow
for cities where the overall national population is stagnating or shrinking, especially when
looking at the level of core cities.
Broadly speaking, four different types of development can be distinguished: urbanisation,
reurbanisation, urban decline and suburbanisation.
i. Urbanisation implies that both the agglomeration and the core cities grow. This phe-
nomenon can be noticed in large and dynamic cities in Spain (Madrid, Seville, Zarago-
za), Greece (Athens, Thessaloniki), and the Benelux (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Brussels).
In the Nordic countries second-tier cities such as Turku or Odense also display this
pattern, which also includes several dynamic German centres.
ii. Re-urbanisation suggests that both the core city and the agglomeration as a
whole experience growth but the core city expands faster than its surroundings.
Re-urbanisation is not very frequent and characteristic only for some smaller Euro-
pean cities and towns . In many of these cases, suburbanisation cannot be accom-
modated due to a lack of land. Most of these cities can be found in Spain, Greece,
Denmark or Finland. In some cases, urbanisation in general often takes place at
the cost of the more rural areas.
iii. Suburbanisation means that growth in the agglomeration takes place at the expense
of the core city. Suburbanisation is primarily taking place on the Iberian Peninsula
(including Portugal) and in Poland. Other scattered cases can be found mainly in Italy
and the UK. Notably larger cities where suburbanisation is strong include Barcelona,
Vienna, Warsaw and Berlin – for which suburbanisation is a new phenomenon after the
recent geopolitical changes.
iv. Overall urban decline can be noticed in a large number (80) of Urban Audit cities
- the decline in the core city coincides here with a decrease in the population of the
wider agglomeration. Such decline can be primarily found in East Germany and in all
Eastern European countries apart from Bulgaria. Also the Ruhr area and many Italian
cities belong to this group. Commonly, the core city is experiencing a faster decline
than its surroundings. In certain cases, this development is not always as negative as
2. Population Change in European Cities
70
it seems. For instance in Italian cities (including Milan and Rome), suburbanisation is
taking place outside the borders of the agglomeration. A similar development can
be noticed in north-eastern Romania around the cities of Bacau and Piatra Neamt or
around Budapest in Hungary.
Population change is due to 2 main drivers:
The role of ageing
The role of migration
Ageing
The overall numbers of elderly persons have increased in a large number of cities. For the
cities of Spain, Italy or Germany this development is striking as in these countries the share
of elderly is already amongst the highest in all EU27. Cities with a larger share of senior citi-
zens tend to have lower growth rates in the Nordic countries especially. Put differently, the
faster the city grows the lower is its share of elderly persons and, correspond-
ingly, the higher the share of children. A similar relationship, albeit not as clear-cut,
exists for the cities of Central and North-western Europe as well as for Southern Europe
– where most cities with a large senior population can be found. For Central and Eastern
European cities, such a pattern is however far from clear. In these New Member States,
there is no clear relation between population growth and age structure.
Migration
Measuring migration is far from easy, as a range of variables are at play. One indicator is the
share of newcomers to Urban Audit cities, which varies widely across Europe
(?gure 2.8). In Ireland, France, Denmark and the southern half of Germany substantial por-
tions of the urban population have only recently moved into their cities. In most of these
cases the turnover of urban population is rapid as more than 5% of the city dwellers have
located in the city less than two years ago. In Paris the share exceeded 11% and in Dublin it
was nearly 13%. The single highest rate is also in Ireland, namely Galway, where more than
a ?fth of its total population (21%) has migrated into the city in the last two years. In abso-
lute terms Berlin and Paris are the primary destinations for urban in-migration in Europe.
Roughly a quarter of a million persons have (in 2001) migrated to these cities less than two
years earlier (Figure 2.9). Also many other French cities (e.g. Lyon or all cities along the
Mediterranean/Atlantic coast), Madrid, Dublin, Vienna, Copenhagen and Budapest have
much in-migration. Apart from Berlin, Munich in Germany as well as the Rhineland are the
primary magnets for recent migrants. Also in Cayenne in French Guyana the rate of new-
comers was above 13%.
71
Figure 2.8: Share of newcomers to Urban Audit cities
2. Population Change in European Cities
72
A striking point that emerges is the fact that a large number of cities are not strongly
affected by immigration. Especially in the Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltic
States, but also in Italy and in smaller cities on the Iberian Peninsula, many cities attract only
a limited number of citizens.
Despite these extreme differences across the European territory, a general pattern is that
large cities tend to have a high in?ow of migrants whereas smaller ones tend
to have much lower shares of in-migrants. Besides, it is important to recognise that
smaller cities attract new citizens from nearby – often from the surrounding region. Their
magnet function is simply not as strong as that for larger cities.
An important hypothesis is that successful cities tend to attract more migrants than
less successful cities. After all, many migrants look for opportunities and are driven to
those cities where they consider their own chances of success on the labour market
to be the largest. Modern communication tools allow migrants to be better informed
about such opportunities, while relatives and friends already moved earlier are likely to be
at least as important. The strong in?ow of migrants into cities such as London and Madrid
(more so than Rome or Berlin) illustrates this pattern.
Despite images and impressions, the facts show that the majority of migrants
to Europe’s cities are national residents. In most cases the share of nationals
exceeds three quarters and in Central and Eastern Europe migrants are nearly
exclusively nationals.
Some cities receive large numbers of migrants from outside the EU. In western Eu-
rope, Spain and the Netherlands and to a lesser extent Austria are striking as the countries
where the origin of migrants lies often outside the EU, in the Italian case nearly exclusively.
Munich and Cologne are the primary magnets for EU migrants, these cities having the
largest relative shares of migrating nationals from other EU countries. The largest cohorts
of other EU nationals in 2001 can be found within the northern parts of the Pentagon, in
Scandinavia as well as in Ireland. Also Vienna, the aforementioned Munich or Palma de Mal-
lorca have large shares of residents coming from other EU countries. The relative share of
EU citizens in cities within the Pentagon is decreasing though. On the whole, migrants to
capitals or other large cities tend to come from further away whereas smaller cities tend to
have more in-migration from their respective countries alone.
As a consequence of these migratory movements, most European cities are
becoming increasingly international. However small the share of non-nationals
in Urban Audit cities is, it is growing constantly as European and global integration
proceeds. In 1981 the average share of non-nationals in UA cities was 7.8%. By 1996
it had increased to 10.4%. The largest increase was in the share of non-EU nationals.
Cities in Spain, Greece and northern Italyand to a slightly lesser extent in Ireland
and Portugal are the ones experiencing the most rapid shifts. The top ten in
this respect are “internationalising” cities such as Athens, Nicosia and Thessaloniki in
Greece, Dublin in Ireland, Madrid, Palma de Mallorca, Barcelona and Pamplona/Iruña in
Spain, Ljubljana in Slovenia as well as Luxembourg.
73
Anyway, it should be said that migration remains a relatively modest phenomenon
for a broad range of – mostly smaller – cities. In case of limited in?ow of new citizens
(less than 5% of the population in the last 2 years), there is hardly any link with population
growth or decline. This link could be somewhat stronger for cities where larger numbers of
new residents ?ock in, as these cities tend to have higher population growth rates as well.
Figure 2.9: Number and origin of newcomers to UA cities 2001
2. Population Change in European Cities
74
What emerges is that, across Europe, some cities are thriving as they have a growing
and young population, while attracting even more from outside. But many other cities
face different developments; they witness a natural loss of population, due to falling
birth rates, and a rapidly ageing population. From a numerical point of view, the main
challenge lies in the ability of cities to attract migrants who can keep up the numbers.
But as a consequence, the face of Europe’s cities is changing rapidly. As there is so
much diversity across Europe, we will now look more speci?cally at developments in
Northern, Northwestern, Central & Eastern and Southern Europe respectively.
2.3. Where do Europe’s cities grow or stagnate?
On a diverse continent as today’s Europe, there are limits to generalisations. Patterns
of urban developments in Northern Europe are quite different from those in Central,
Southern or North-western Europe.
Figure 2.10: Population change in Nordic cities (1996-2001) 28
Figure 2.11: Population Change in Central and Northwest European cities (1996-2001) 30
75
Figure 2.12: Population change in Central & Eastern European cities (1996-2001) 33
Figure 2.13: Population change in Southern European cities (1996-2001)
Overall, urban development in the Nordics has been positive – where cities have
grown substantially faster than their respective countries on the whole.
In many ways, the urban patterns of North-western Europe are complex and diverse.
Growth, stagnation and decline all seem to coincide in these countries – albeit
not to the same extent in all places. The changing economic and social context has also
had a strong impact on urban development across Central and Eastern Europe. An
overall trend is that many cities in the region face population loss. In recent years, many of
the Southern European cities have been growing, but this has created a number of pres-
sures and challenges.
2. Population Change in European Cities
76
2.4. Challenges for Cities with Population Changes
All cities, whether growing or shrinking appear to face particular challenges and problems
to be analysed, to be addressed and taken forward. At this stage, we can distinguish three
main challenges for European cities:
Pains of Growing Cities
Symptoms of Stagnating or Falling Cities
Issues concerning Social Exclusion
Table 2.1: Overview of urban development issues across the EU 27
Type of
challenge
Region
Pains of Growing
Cities
Symptoms of
Stagnating or Falling
Cities
Issues concerning
Social Exclusion
Northern
Europe
(Denmark,
Finland,
Sweden)
Lack of affordable
housing due to growth
and/or rolling back of
council housing and
reluctance of private
sector to ?ll this part
of market Lack of land
for construction
Lack of development
opportunities in
smaller and more
peripheral towns
(Denmark, Finland,
Sweden)
Social and ethnic
segregation,
integration of
immigrant
communities (Danish
and Swedish cities)
The (re)integration of
Immigrant populations
and those made
unemployed through
industrial restructuring
(Sweden).
Northwestern
Europe
(UK, Ireland,
France,
Netherlands,
Belgium,
Luxembourg)
Overheating of the
main urban centres,
with rapid increases
of housing prices and
traf?c congestion
(Ireland, S.E.
England,
Luxembourg)
Low demand for housing, as
a result of limited economic
opportunities and low quality
of place (North of England,
Wales, Southern Belgium)
Deteriorating urban living
conditions in some core
cities, as an outcome of urban
decline (Belgium)
‘Ghetto’ formation
in suburbs of larger
cities and towns,
social exclusion and
segregation (France)
Social segregation,
anti-social behaviour,
perceptions of insecurity
and limited integration of
immigrant communities
77
Central & E.
Europe
(Germany,
Austria, New
Member
States)
Shortage of affordable
housing and rapid
increases in housing
costs
Rapid changes in
household structure,
with housing stock
not adjusting (Czech
Republic, Poland)
Low quality of the
post WW II housing
stock (All C& E.
Europe)
Financial problems
of new owners of
large housing estates,
following privatisation
(Hungary)
High unemployment
and poverty in areas
of industrial decline
(Eastern parts of
Germany, Poland,
Czech Republic,
Hungary)
Population loss in cities,
due to limited economic
opportunities and related
emigration – with ageing
population and strains on
local ?nance (former Eastern
Germany, some W. German
cities)
General decline of
(urban) population due
to demographics and
(out)migration (Czech
Republic, Poland)
Population decline and
abandoned housing estates
due to outmigration of non-
nationals (Estonia, Latvia)
Limited ?nancial capabilities of
local governments
Social exclusion
issues around the
Roma population
(Hungary, Slovakia,
Czech Republic)
Social exclusion of non-
nationals (Baltics)
Southern
Europe
Concentration of
population and
associated pressures
Pressures on urban
infrastructure,
including transport,
land and water
Lack of
affordablehousing
in larger cities
Urban sprawl
and uncontrolled
(sometimes illegal)
development
Ageing population
and stagnation (Italy,
smaller towns elsewhere)
Limited integration of
new immigrants and
access to housing
(Northern Italy)
Disproportionate
concentration of
immigrant communities
in the suburbs and
certain sections of inner
city Lisbon and Porto
(Portugal)
Urban insecurity and
crime levels in larger
cities (Portugal)
2. Population Change in European Cities
78
2.5. Population Change and Openness
Overall, mobility of citizens has been increasing across Europe and immigration has there-
fore become a key trend that is still poorly understood. Statements regarding immigration
are not always balanced and they tend to emphasise either its advantages or its disadvan-
tages. On the one hand, as Europe continues to integrate, the in-migration of non-na-
tionals can be seen as an indicator for attractiveness. People moving to cities are
often young, as they are wish to study at centrally-located and prestigious universi-
ties or because the economic opportunities are better in the cities than elsewhere. On
the other hand, immigration represents a social challenge in many cities. As the diversity
and the number of immigrants increase, there is also a risk for segregation and social exclu-
sion, especially if these coincide with signi?cant unemployment, poverty and exclusion.
The share of non-nationals in core UA cities is rather modest in most cases, and the number
of cities where their share is higher than 10% is primarily found in Northwestern Europe.
By far highest level of non-nationals is recorded in Luxembourg where in 2001 54% of the
citizens held a foreign passport. The obvious explanation for this lies in the limited number
of nationals, the presence of European institutions as well as international banks.
Other cities with a high number of non-nationals are Bruxelles and Liège in Belgium, the
German cities of Hamburg, München, Köln, Frankfurt am Main, Düsseldorf, Hannover, Nürn-
berg, Wuppertal, Wiesbaden, Augsburg, Bonn and Mainz, together with Paris in France and
Athens in Greece. But the origin and background of non-nationals is different from
city to city. For instance in Tallinn (Estonia), 28% of the citizens are considered non-na-
tionals, as they lack an Estonian passport. Their background is predominantly Russian and
many of them have been living in Tallinn for a long period of time and are often born there.
With the exception of the three Baltic States, numbers of non-nationals tend to be low in
the New Member States.
The Urban Audit cities tend to host a large share of these non-EU citizens – much high-
er than their countries overall (Figure 2.14). Cities which host relatively large numbers of
non-EU citizens overall can be found in France, Belgium, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Latvia,
and Slovakia. Larger numbers of non-EU citizens can also be found in cities outside these
countries, but these cities are not always the rule and sometimes more the exception (e.g.
Madrid and Barcelona in Spain).
Yet, the foreign population tends to have a general preference to live in the core
city rather than in the larger urban zone (or LUZ). This locational preference can be
recorded in almost all UA cities, independent of the size and composition of the foreign
population. However, when the numbers of foreign residents increase in the urban area
overall, the dominance of the core city as the preferred place of residence tends to in-
crease (Figure 2.15). (UA cities where the share of foreigners is higher in the core city than
in the LUZ are plotted below the diagonal line).
79
Without aiming to be complete, several explanations for this pattern could be provided.
First of all, immigrants of all nature are likely to take the core city as their starting point
of their housing career, as these areas are more easily to be explored and discovered.
Secondly, immigrants with limited ?nancial possibilities are more likely to gravitate to those
areas where housing is more affordable – which is often the case in the core city rather
than the surrounding suburbs. Newly arrived are also more likely to join others who have
migrated before them. Thirdly, core cities also tend to cater to the expatriate communties,
where the offer of (temporary) rental housing is often larger than in surrounding areas,
and where cultural amenities are concentrated. Fourthly, core cities tend to have a more
diverse social composition and tend to provide an atmosphere which is more receptive
towards newcomers than other parts of the agglomeration.
Figure 2.14: Share of non-EU citizens, national average and core cities, 2001
2. Population Change in European Cities
80
Figure 2.15: Share of non-nationals in the core city and the LUZ
81
Section Three:
Indexes
or Kitemarks of City
Openness?
82
Indexes
or Kitemarks of City
Openness?
This section reviews existing city indexes and re?ects about the need of creating an
index about the openness of cities, a new concept which is, nevertheless key to cities’
success.
3.1. Introduction
The OPENCities Project has set an objective to develop practical guidance for cities on
how they can become successful at attracting and retaining international populations
as part of their efforts for internationalisation.
The project includes core elements such as:
De?ning and diagnosing Open-ness in Cities.
Developing Local Open-ness Action Plans
Peer Reviews by Other Cities.
Detailed guidance for city leaders.
Promotion of the voice of migrants in cities.
Building an International OPENCities Index or Kite Mark.
This paper is concerned with ?nal item, building and OPENCities Index.
An OPENCities Index would be potentially of great interest because it would be a unique
index that benchmarks and indexes cities on their attractive to foreign populations
during an era of exceptional human mobility. The index would also drive debate about
what some cities are more open than others and how cities can become ‘more open’,
and it would stimulate and focus discussions and debate about the value of migration
to host cities and the de?nition of open-ness itself.
3. Indexes or Kitemarks of City Openness?
84
An OPENCities Index would also be a highly branded product that would attract media
attention and offer many spin off activities for the British council and it’s partners.
There are more than 30 international city indexes but none of them are concerned with
OPENCities.
3.2. Key Ingredients
This proposal is based on a global review of city indexes and benchmarks that illustrates
how such indexes work and what they can achieve.
For an international index to be useful if must include a number of key ingredients.
Enough cities must participate in the index to make its conclusions meaningful.
The methodology for assessing each city must be transparent and robust, and
based on a clear conceptual framework.
Any data used must be internationally available.
There should be a diagnostic element as well as a comparative element.
It should make sense to readers as a meaningful thing to produce measures on.
It should include both hard and soft measure where available.
It should be sensitive to different kinds of cities and not simply measure all against all.
The regular production of the index should be accompanied by a commentary and
explanations of changing positions.
It should be re?ned regularly to adjust for changes and for greater clarity about
what is being measured.
3.3. Ingredients for an OPENCities Index
Much work needs to be done to develop the OPENCities Index or Kitemark. T is hoped
this would be taken forwards in the ?rst full phase of the project. Key issues will be:
Will it be better to have an Index (ranking) or a kitemark (quality standard)?
What are the factors, measures, and indicators that we can use that are internationally
comparable?
What weighting would we give to each measure?
What balance between perception measures, eg from within the city population
or from outside the city, versus performance measures to use, and in what
combination?
85
What groupings or segmentations to apply? Are we comparing all cities against
each other or undertaking comparisons of cities within groups or typologies?
Are we measuring outcomes only or progress?
What is a minimum number of cities for an Index or a kitemark?
3.4. Learning from existing indexes: Measuring City
Performance
A number of institutions, companies and research bodies produce reports, benchmarks
or indexes of cities across the UK, Europe and the rest of the world. These offer an insight
into how various communities – business, political, cultural and academic – view cities
in a globalising world, and serve as invaluable sources to a range of organisations. The
indexes and benchmarks summarised here cover everything from cost of of?ce space
to quality of life to the number of car thefts per 1,000 people, to the depth and reach
of ‘city brands’. Environmental, social and economic indicators are all given coverage
across the various indexes. However, each by itself offers only a partial view of the city,
dictated by the information that it details. In synthesis, it is possible, however, to get a
more holistic picture of cities; this is the main value of the indexes.
Why are Indexes and Benchmarks used?
As globalisation continues apace, cities and regions are becoming increasingly
important actors within the world economy. Cities are no longer bounded within ‘nation
state’ regional systems and urban hierarchies, and increasingly have to compete on
an international scale. Cities are inevitably coping differently with these changes, and
some are performing better than others. Benchmarks, reports and indexes provide
particularly useful tools in today’s globalised economy for a number of reasons:
Diagnostic/prior assessment: Making judgemen about progress made by cities as a
preliminary to developing new action plans, strategies, or investment decisions.
Comparative ‘pegging’: Reports, benchmarks and indexes usually compare cities
against one another, and as such can be used to evaluate the relative strengths
and weaknesses of different cities. This is useful not only for outside observers, but
for the cities themselves who can accordingly develop strategies which focus on
their weakest competitive areas.
Pedagogy: Reports, benchmarks and indexes are essentially educative tools. By
uncovering trends and examining the reasons behind city’s successes and failures
they can prove instructive both for cities themselves and for other interested
parties.
Leveraging/persuading: Cities which are performing well can use these benchamarks,
reports and indexes as “evidence” to demonstrate their strengths to prospective
investors, inhabitants or workers. For example, Zurich and Geneva have used their
3. Indexes or Kitemarks of City Openness?
86
high rankings in quality of life benchmarks to encourage investment from a wide
range of ?rms. Where cities are very close rivals, benchmarks, reports and indices
can be used to gain leverage over direct competitors.
Evaluation / review: Reports, benchmarks and indexes are often produced on an
annual basis, or at least at regular intervals, using the same criteria and methods
for comparison of cities from year to year. This allows cities to review their recent
performance relative to their competitors. Benchmarks thus also prove useful if a
city has implemented a major change e.g. introduced tax incentives or launched
a new development strategy, as the results of such a change may be assessed by
comparing past and present city rankings.
‘Home truths’: Reports, benchmarks and indexes can illustrate “home truths” to cities
which may not have been apparent to them before, highlighting problem areas or
underlining particularly successes.
How are Benchmarks Used?
There are a variety of different ways of using benchmarks, including:
Comparative analysis of data. e.g. EU State of Cities Report
Diagnostic analysis.
Case study approach: e.g. Siemens Megacities Report
Networking. e.g. URBACT
Surveys e.g. ULI Emerging Trends in Real Estate Report
Indexes e.g. Anholt City Brands Index
Benchmarking clubs. e.g. Richard Florida’s Boho Indexes
Peer review and assessment e.g. OECD
3.5. Issues associated with Benchmarks, Reports and Indexes
The advantages to using these comparative tools are extremely apparent (as outlined
in the “why are benchmarks used?” section). However, although useful, benchmarks
reports and indexes are tools which must be employed with caution. There are a number
of ways in which error or bias may be incorporated into these comparative tools. The
more information the user has about the background to the benchmark, report or index
the more objectively they may be used. Possible issues include:
Quality of data: sometie the data is just not reliable enough because the sample is too
small, the induicators used are not reliable measures, or there is ‘contamination’ in
the data by ogther factors.
87
Comparability of data: Different indexes are not always directly comparable due to
differing parameters used in their construction (in terms of both space and time).
e.g. “London” may refer to Central London, Greater London or even the City of
London (a single smal municipality).
Geographical scale at which data collected: Data collected at too large a scale may
overlook smaller scale intricacies, e.g. unemployment rates are highly divergent in
different boroughs of London. In addition as indices, benchmarks and reports are
compiled from data collected at different scales, this in turn affects comparability
of data
Perception data versus performance data: Where data used in the formation of benchmarks
or indices is qualitative rather than quantitative, issues of objectivity may arise. For
example, ranking the quality of life in different cities around the world is inherently
a subjective exercise – what one researcher perceives as contributing positively to
quality of life e.g. presence of wireless internet, another may see as irrelevant or even
a negative. Equally some indices are solely based on perceptions, e.g. the Anholt
Brand Index quanti?es people’s perceptions of different city brands, and are therefore
necessarily more subjective than indices based on performance data
Independence of assessment: Assessment of indices etc is made by people, and as
such is subject to signi?cant subjectivities
Who produces? Who buys?: Many benchmarks, reports or indexes are made with a
particular purpose or particular audience in mind – in this sense they are a form
of policy driven research. Neutrality of ?ndings and recommendations is therefore
not always assured as inputs may be doctored to ensure the outcomes best suit
the needs of interested parties.
Multiple or singular data sources?: Those benchmarks, reports and indices which are
compiled from a singular data source are necessarily more prone to inaccuracies
and subjectivities than those which are compiled from a wider range of sources.
Bearing in mind these possible areas for error then, it is clear that the real value of
benchmarks, reports and indexes is the potential that they offer to use and compare
several at a time. It is only in doing so that their limits of accuracy will be overcome.
3.6. Reports, Benchmarks and Indexes
Twenty ?ve reports, composite benchmarks and more narrowly-de?ned indexes
have been investigated. They range from extensive reviews of cities in the global and
European economies, through to benchmarks comprised of analyses of multiple urban
factors and ?nally indexes constructed from analyses of singular urban variables. The
indexes and itemarks analysed include:
3. Indexes or Kitemarks of City Openness?
88
1. Reports on cities in the global and European economies
i. OECD: Competitive Cities in the Global Economy
ii. BAK Basel: International Benchmarking (2006)
iii. UN-Habitat’s ‘State of the World’s Cities’
iv. PricewaterhouseCoopers City Leadership
v. PricewaterhouseCoopers: UK Economic Outlook Report (2007)
vi. Siemen’s Megacities Report
2. Composite city-regional benchmarks
vii. Globalisation and World Cities Group (GAWC)
viii. Jones Lang LaSalle World Winning Cities
ix. Jones Lang LaSalle ‘World Winning Cities: Deciding Where to Offshore’
x. The Climate Group: ‘Low Carbon Leader: Cities’ Report
xi. Mastercard: Worldwide Centres of Commerce Index
xii. The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Business Trip Index
xiii. Economist Intelligence Unit – Liveability Ranking
3. Singular city indexes
xiv. Standard & Poor’s
xv. Anholt GMI City Brands Index
xvi. Mercer Human Resources ‘Quality of Living’ Index
xvii. Mercer Human Resources Cost of Living Survey
xviii. Robert Huggins Associates ‘World Knowledge Competitiveness Index’
xix. Shanghai Jiao Tong University’s ‘Academic ranking of world universities’
xx. Urban Land Institute (ULI): Emerging Trends in Real Estate
xxi. HotelBenchmark™ Survey by Deloitte (2006)
xxii. How Worldly Are World Cities?: From Concept to Measurement Kim Hunmin
xxiii. GaWC Assessment of Centrality
xxiv. International Congress and Convention Association Rankings (2006)
xxv. Cushman & Wake?eld Healey & Baker ‘Main Streets Across the World’
89
3.7. Examples of City Indexes
Some city indexes relevant for considering how an OPENCities could work are
highlighted below.
i. OECD: Competitive Cities in the Global Economy
The OECD’s report Competitive Cities in the Global Economy (2006) provides a valuable
introduction to the state of metropolitan regions in the twenty-?rst century. It presents
a more holistic view of city environments than that offered by many of the indexes
examined in this report, thereby allowing the indexes to be placed in a wider socio-
economic context. The report does not produce a single index or ranking of cities
but instead discusses and analyses a wide range of indicators regarding a number
of metropolitan-regions, whilst particularly focusing upon city competitiveness. The
factors examined range from GDP per capita to higher education, levels of innovation,
metropolitan governance strategies and ideas for policy reform.
Statements on Success and Failure
The report combines a quantitative analysis of key data, whilst simultaneously providing
qualitative assessments of the ?ndings. At the highest level, the report suggests that metro-
regions often succeed in generating higher output per capita and productivity since:
Agglomeration economies allow large metro-regions to attract global or regional
corporate headquarters. They offer a wide range of choice in resources and a
concentration of more specialised business services and infrastructure
Metro-regions typically provide contrasting advantages of specialisation and diversity
The more favourable pattern of metro-regions’ industrial mix is closely linked with
their capacity to concentrate R&D activities and generate innovation
Metro-regions tend to have greater endowments of human capital and a higher
stock of physical capital, measured by the equipment of ?rms and the stock of
buildings and infrastructure facilities
However, the report does also identify why metro-regions can fail. This may be due to,
Diseconomies of agglomeration in mega-cities (e.g. Seoul, Mexico City, Istanbul,
and probably Tokyo)
Metro-regions tend to be home to large and persistent pockets of unemployment,
exclusion, poverty and socio-economic inequalities
Metro-regions surprisingly feature lower activity rates than other types of regions
(44.3% against 49.7% and 44.5% in intermediate and rural regions respectively
in 2003). Large cities tend to contain disproportionate numbers of people who
3. Indexes or Kitemarks of City Openness?
90
are or inactive, or who work in the informal economy. This is often due to a larger
proportion of immigrants who typically tend to concentrate in large cities.
Cities highlighted by the report
Different cities are highlighted by different sections of the report, depending upon
which indicators are examined. There is no de?nitive successful metro-region identi?ed;
different regions are identi?ed as succeeding in different areas.
For instance, the cities demonstrated to have the highest levels of GDP per capita (See
Figure 1.1) are different to those identi?ed as those with rapid rates of employment
growth (See Figure 1.2). The highest ranking cities in terms of GDP per capita are San
Francisco, Washington and Boston, whilst Madrid, Valencia and Istanbul top the list for
metro-region employment growth.
Figure 1.1.
Rank Metropolitan Region Country Population (millions) GDP pc in PPPs (thousand USD)
1 San Francisco USA 4.2 62.3
2 Washington USA 5.1 61.6
3 Boston USA 4.4 58.0
4 Seattle USA 3.2 54.4
5 Minneapolis USA 3.1 53.0
6 New York USA 18.7 52.8
7 Denver USA 2.3 50.8
8 Philadelphia USA 5.8 50.5
9 Dallas USA 5.7 50.1
10 Atlanta USA 4.7 47.8
11 Houston USA 5.2 47.4
12 San Diego USA 2.9 46.8
13 London UK 7.4 46.2
14 Chicago USA 9.4 45.6
15 Los Angeles USA 12.9 45.3
16 Detroit USA 4.5 44.0
17 Baltimore USA 2.6 43.3
18 Paris France 11.2 42.7
19 Cleveland USA 2.1 42.2
20 Portland USA 2.1 41.8
Figure 1.2
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
-1%
-2%
-3%
M
a
d
r
i
d
V
a
l
e
n
c
i
a
I
s
t
a
m
b
u
l
S
t
o
c
c
k
h
o
l
m
S
e
o
u
l
A
n
k
a
r
a
D
u
b
l
i
n
D
a
o
g
u
L
i
l
e
A
t
h
e
n
a
I
z
m
r
R
a
n
d
s
t
a
d
-
H
o
l
a
n
d
B
a
r
c
e
l
o
n
a
L
y
o
n
R
o
m
e
N
a
p
l
e
s
B
u
s
a
n
M
u
n
i
c
h
H
e
l
a
n
k
F
r
a
n
k
f
u
r
t
R
h
i
n
e
-
R
u
h
r
M
i
l
a
n
P
a
r
i
s
S
t
u
t
t
g
a
r
t
T
u
r
i
n
H
a
m
b
u
r
g
C
o
p
e
n
h
e
g
u
e
n
O
s
l
o
B
u
d
a
p
e
s
t
B
r
u
s
s
e
l
s
P
r
a
g
u
e
F
u
k
u
o
k
a
B
e
r
l
i
n
A
i
c
h
i
T
o
k
y
o
V
i
e
n
n
a
O
s
a
k
a
K
r
a
k
o
w
Metro-region
Employment
Growth
Country
Employment
Growth
91
Cities making progress
Since the report does not produce a single index or ranking, it is not immediately
obvious which cities are identi?ed as making signi?cant overall progress. Indeed, due
to the wide range of indicators examined it would in fact be very dif?cult to identify any
single city as making particular overall progress. Instead the aspect of metro-regions in
which the reader is interested should be examined and then any cities highlighted here
as making progress drawn out.
ii. BAK Basel Economics: International Benchmarking 2006
The BAK Basel International Benchmarking (2006) series of reports provides a
comprehensive analysis of global regional performance. In total, 512 regions were
covered by BAK’s International Benchmarking Report 2006, encompassing the
geographical area illustrated to the left. However, there does seem to be a strong focus
on Europe in many sections of the overall report which explains the arguable European
bias in the subsequent discussion.
Statements of Success and Failure
The report suggests that the following factors are important when assessing regional
performance and can explain why cities and metropolitan regions succeed or fail:
i. Innovation resources
Availability of human capital
Quantity of quality of university research
Expenditure on research and development
3. Indexes or Kitemarks of City Openness?
92
ii. Regulation of markets
Product markets
Labour markets
iii. Taxation
Company taxation
Taxation of highly quali?ed manpower
iv. Connectivity
Global accessibility
Cities highlighted by the Report
As with various reports outlined in this note, different aspects of the report highlight
different cities and metropolitan regions. Figure 1.3 provides an illustration of the
differential performance of regions according to different variables.
For instance, rapid GDP growth has been seen in Cork (c.9.2%), Waterford (c.7.9%)
and Athens (c.4.6%) whilst R&D spending is highest in Basel, followed by Boston
and Turku. Again, regional accessibility highlights three other city-regions, namely
Amsterdam, London and Oresund.
Figure 1.3
Crowht of real DGP
p.a. (based on 2000
prices and 1997 PPP)
Global accessibility (2004)
Company taxation
(effective annual tax rate
2005)
1 Cork Paris Boston
2 Waterford Cambridge Munich
3 Slovakia Zurich Barcelona
4 Athens Cologne Milan
5 Tampere Karisruhe Oslo
6 Cambridge Dublin Helsinki
7 Czech Republic Oresund Czech Republic
8 Slovenia Madrid Zurich
9 Luxembourg Stockholm Slovakia
10 Eastern Europe Zug Dublin
93
Cities making Progress
Progress is analysed for some indicators, but by no means all. For instance, in terms
of GDP growth 2000-2005, Athens, Tampere and Dublin exhibit rapid growth, whilst
changes in employment growth are highest in Rome (2.5%), Vorarlberg (c.1.2%) and
Gothenberg (c1.0%).
In a wider sense, BAK suggest that the following sectors are important for regional develop-
ment (see ?gure 1.4), which may explain the varying rates of progress seen in regions.
Figure 1.4
iii. UN Habitat’s ‘State of the World’s Cities’
UN-Habitat, the UN agency concerned with urbanisation, urban poverty and other ur-
ban issues that affect development and quality of life in the world’s cities, produce this
report to assess urban development across the world.
‘Urban-based economic activities account for more than 50 per cent of GDP in all countries and up
to 80 per cent in more urbanised countries in Latin America, or more in Europe. For example, the ten
largest metropolitan areas in Mexico, accounting for one third of the country’s population, generate
62 per cent of national value added. This disproportionate economic contribution of cities - indeed,
their importance to the economy as a whole - is normally ignored or overlooked. This neglect is dan-
gerous because, cities and towns are not only the loci of production, but they are also the loci of the
most important impacts of globalisation and, hence, the places of change and expectations for the
future. Undervaluing urban areas can unwittingly place the economic and social futures of countries
at risk.’
The “New Economy” Sector
• Computers and of?ce quipment
• Telecommunication equipment (incl.electrical
engineering)
• Telecommnication services
• IT-Services
The High Value Added “Old Economy” Sector
• Chemicals and pharmaceuticals
• Precision and optical equipment, wathes
• Manufacture of vehicles
The Political “Sector”
• Primary Sector
• Energy and water supply
• Researcha and development
• Public administration etc.
• Education
• Health and social services
• Sewage treatment, refuse disposal
The Urban Sector
• Trade and repair of automobiles and consumer
durables
• Hotels and restaurants
• Transport
• Financial services
• Real estate
• Leasing of movables without operating personnel.
• Provision of services to companies
• Interest groups and other associations
• Entertainment, culture and sport
• Personal services
• Private household’s
The Traditional Sector
• Food, beverage, tobacco products
• Textiles, garments, furs, leather products and shoes
• Processing of wood
• Paper-and boardmaking/ Printing and publishing
• Coke, re?ned petroleum products
• Rubber and plasctic products
• Other products form non-metallic minerals
• Metals and metal products/Mechanical engineering
• Manufacturing not elsewhere classi?ed
• Construction
3. Indexes or Kitemarks of City Openness?
94
It is this understanding of cities that underpins the making of the cities report. Con-
cerns of urban poverty, deskilling of the workforce and the unequal distribution of the
fruits of globalisation processes are other concerns of the UN report.
Statements of Success and Failure
There are no statements in the report as to what makes a successful or failed city. How-
ever, there are issues raised as to the problems in cities such as the micro-politics of social
integration. The report notes that whilst migration has become easier and greater in scale
than at anytime before, the politics of integrating diverse people into new urban areas is
complicated, leading to the increased formation of ghettos, both rich and poor. This is as-
sociated with the increased standardisation of urban culture which leads to more adverse
effects for marginalised communities. The report suggests that there is an institutional bias
against (poor) migrant communities that means provision for them is limited. It calls for
more training of public sector personnel, including the police, to deal with a new politics
of difference effectively. The report also highlights that cities are concentrations of crime
and suffering. Cities are identi?ed as sites of physical and sexual abuse, particularly towards
women and children, and as the ports of entry for illegal weapons. Cities are also the places
of government corruption and civil war. Environmental degradation and pollution continue
to constrain development and growth of cities. Ill health and premature death not only
cause pain and suffering, they also impose heavy costs on the economy.
However, the report does make reference to the ability of governments to guide
development and planning in cities. It argues that the privatisation of public utilities has
made it dif?cult for governments to be effective. For example, it notes that 11.5% of
the population of Buenos Aires received 68% of urban investment between 1991 and
1997, demonstrating the massive inequalities that cities contain beyond the veneer
promoted by city managers. They conclude that:
‘It should not be surprising that privatised companies do not want to invest their prof-
its in extending services to unserved slum or squatter areas in Latin American cities.
They would rather send the pro?ts back to their stockholders in Spain or France.’
More than one billion of the world’s urban residents live in inadequate housing, mostly
in the sprawling slums and squatter settlements in developing countries. The right to
adequate housing is recognised by more than 70% of the world’s countries. Almost all
countries in the Asia-Paci?c region promote housing rights in their legislation and the
Arab States provide the greatest protection against eviction. Extending urban citizenship
to the poor, through the granting of secure tenure, for example, is one of the most far-
reaching decisions that can be taken in promoting a sustainable shelter strategy.
Exclusion, as a result of physical, social or economic barriers, prevents many groups from
participating fully in urban life and services. Failure of local authorities to integrate such
groups in their decision-making is often a function of inertia, along with bureaucratic and
unresponsive forms of governance. Participatory governance is a prerequisite to social
95
cohesion and inclusion. It involves supporting local populations to engage in, and bene?t
from, opportunities offered by urban-scale activities, all of which devolved to the local
level, while simultaneously offering opportunities for strengthening civil society.
Cities highlighted by the Report
The report does not highlight any cities speci?cally. Figure 1.5 shows a selection of
measures of the City Development Index (CDI), similar to the Human Development
Index (HDI) used by UNDP for nation states.
Figure 1.5
Region CDI
City
Products
Infre-
structure
Waste Health Education
Sockholm 97.4 93.6 99.5 100.0 94.0 99.8
Melbourne 95.5 90.0 99.8 100.0 93.7 94.1
Singapore 94.5 91.6 99.5 100.0 92.7 88.6
Hong Kong 92.0 89.4 99.3 99.0 90.9 81.3
Moscow 89.9 81.0 98.7 86.8 83.8 99.3
Seoul 86.0 66.3 98.4 100.0 88.7 77.7
Rio de
Janeiro
79.4 82.3 86.2 62.6 81.9 84.3
So?a 79.1 70.9 93.7 58.5 86.2 86.3
Hanoi 74.2 59.6 72.0 90.0 80.6 69.0
Havana 71.0 65.0 74.8 50.0 80.7 84.7
Lakarta 69.2 66.2 57.3 46.7 80.2 95.7
Utaanbaatar 68.4 53.7 59.0 90.0 72.5 66.7
Lahore 61.1 71.1 78.5 50.0 64.9 40.8
Colombo 58.4 46.9 68.6 45.0 86.2 45.3
Bangalore 58.0 51.1 82.7 31.3 76.5 48.5
Dhaka 48.4 55.6 45.3 27.5 64.6 48.7
Vientiane 47.1 44.0 58.0 0.0 62.3 71.3
Acora 46.6 49.4 50.0 0.0 71.4 62.0
Phnom Penh 43.5 40.2 33.0 27.0 47.2 69.9
Port Moresby 39.3 69.0 18.1 10.0 59.1 40.2
Lagos 29.3 42.1 29.5 2.0 44.0 29.1
Niamey 21.7 40.0 22.0 0.0 78.3 14.9
1998 data
Cities making Progress
Some general considerations as to how cities can make progress on addressing the
issues outlined in the report are presented. Economic constraints are seen as the major
cause of inequalities, and as the basis of social and cultural fracturing. Strategies to
combat these constraints include:
Strengthening the management of urban infrastructure by improving the level and
composition of investment, reinforcing institutional capacity for operation and
maintenance, and seeking opportunities for greater private sector involvement
3. Indexes or Kitemarks of City Openness?
96
Improving city-wide regulatory frameworks to increase land and housing market
ef?ciency and to enhance private sector provision of shelter and infrastructure
Improving the technical and ?nancial capacity of municipal institutions through
more effective application of resources and division of responsibility between cen-
tral and local governments, and,
Strengthening ?nancial services for urban development, ranging from micro-credit
systems to municipal bond markets.
Urban economies in the developing world are largely driven by the informal sector. In-
formal sector employment makes up 37% of the total employment in developing coun-
tries as a whole, and is as high as 45% in Africa. Cities can support the informal sector
through the provision and maintenance of infrastructure, including adequate supply of
electricity, water, transport and telecommunications networks. By relaxing rules and
regulations, the informal sector can be expected to contribute further to the creation
of jobs and, perhaps, eventually be integrated into the formal economy.
The ‘key ?nding’ of the report is that the national success of the country rests on local
shoulders, with cities in the Global South in particular having a massive impact on the
national economy (38% of Thailand’s GDP comes from Bangkok; Budapest represents
25% of Hungary’s GDP). In the developed world it is less; London at 7.2% of the UK’s
economy is particularly high, but then is a particularly unique city. Measures to address
city inequalities and issues would serve to help the State as a whole, and this is the
main emphasis of the UN-Habitat report.
iv. The Climate Group: ‘Low Carbon Leader: Cities’ Report
As part of C20:The World Cities Leadership Summit in 2005, The Climate Group produced
a report examining ?fteen major cities that have taken an active role in reducing their
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The report covers Barcelona, Beijing, Berlin, Cape
Town, Chicago, Copenhagen, London, Melbourne, Paris, Mexico City, New York, San
Francisco, Seattle, Tokyo, and Toronto and spans cities in both the developed and
developing world. It examines the cities’ current GHG emissions, their targets for future
emissions’ reductions and discusses how the cities are delivering on these targets. The
total carbon footprint for the cities included in the report is 483 million tonnes CO2e
(carbon dioxide equivalent) per year, which equates to about 1.8% of the global total.
Statements of Success and Failure
The report identi?es those cities which have taken active measures to reduce green-
house gas emissions. It outlines the measures taken by each city thus far, the effect
these measures have had on reducing emissions and any future targets the cities have
set. The report makes qualitative assessments of each city’s experience and states
whether targets have been met. For instance, it suggests that,
97
‘Toronto was one of the ?rst municipal governments in the world to set a GHG emis-
sions target, pledging in 1990 to reduce its city-wide emissions 20% by 2005. In
2003, Toronto had far exceeded this goal in its own corporate facilities and opera-
tions, reducing emissions 42% below 1990 levels.’
However, statements of success and failure are only made on a case-by-case basis;
there is no overall assessment of the different methods cities have utilised.
Cities highlighted by the report
Figure 2.11 illustrates the total carbon footprint of each city discussed in the report.
Figure 2.11
Whilst no city is given more prominence
than any other within the report, it is noted
in press releases accompanying the report
that the highest reduction in emissions has
been achieved by Seattle. By 2000, the city
had reduced emissions from its operations
by 48% on 1990 levels. Similarly, the city
which has made the highest cost savings
is identi?ed as Toronto. In total the city has
saved US$102 million in energy cost sav-
ings through building retro?ts.
Cities making progress
The report does not make an assessment
of cities faring better or worse over time, it
merely documents their attempts to man-
age and curb greenhouse gas emissions.
However, the reader can ascertain that
those cities which have stringent targets
for future reductions are likely to make the
most rapid progress.
v. Anholt GMI City Brands Index
The Anholt City Brands Index, an annual ranking of cities around the globe, is com-
piled from the results of a survey conducted online among 17,502 men and women
aged 18-64 in 18 countries. The 30 cities whose brand was measured are illustrated
in Figure 3.2.
City Carbon
Population/
m
Seattle 0.6 0.6
Copenhagen 2.5 0.5
Barcelona 4.8 1.4
San Francisco 9.7 0.8
Paris 13.0 2.2
Cape Town 21.0
1
3.2
2
Berlin 25.3
3
3.4
Chicago 28.4 2.9
Mexico City 33.5 8.2
Toronto 40.2 2.5
London 41.9 7.4
Melbourne 59.6 3.6
Beijing 62.4 7.4
Tokyo 69.0 12.5
New York 72.0 8.1
1
Figure for 2003
2
Figure for 2005
3
Figure for 2002
3. Indexes or Kitemarks of City Openness?
98
Figure 3.2
Amsterdam, Barcelona, Beijing, Berlin, Brussels, Cairo, Edinburgh, Geneva, Hong
Kong, Johannesburg, Lagos, London, Los Angeles, Madrid, Mexico City, Milan,
Moscow, Mumbai, New York, Paris, Prague, Rio de Janeiro, Rome, San Francisco,
Singapore, Stockholm, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto, and Washington DC
The six components of the ‘City Brand Hexagon’ are:
Presence: the city’s international status and standing
Place: people’s perceptions about the physical aspect of each city
Potential: the economic and educational opportunities that each city is believed
to offer visitors, businesses and immigrants
Pulse: the appeal of a vibrant urban lifestyle); People (respondents’ impressions of
the inhabitants, community, and safety, and,
Prerequisites: people’s perceptions of the basic qualities of the city
Please note, due to the cost of this report, this analysis has
been compiled from press releases and other reports.
Statements of Success and Failure
From the press releases examined, brief reasons as to
why cities are successful brands appear to be highlighted
by the report (see below).
Cities highlighted by the report
As illustrated by Figure 3.3, London is the world’s favourite
city brand according to the Anholt Index. Second place
in the survey goes to Paris and 3rd place to Sydney. The
highest American entry is New York in 7
th
place behind
Rome (4
th
), Barcelona (5
th
) and Amsterdam (6
th
).
Most panellists feel they know more about London than
any of the other cities by a wide margin. It is the second
most visited city, coming in a fraction behind Paris: 30%
of people have visited on holiday and 10% have been on
business. London is ranked top for ease of ?nding a job,
for doing business in, for obtaining a valuable educational
quali?cation and for ease of ?nding a community where
Figure 3.3
Overall
Rankings
Rank
London
Paris
Sidney
Rome
Barcelona
Amsterdam
New York
Los Ángeles
Madrid
Berlin
San Francisco
Toronto
Geneva
Washington
Brussels
Milan
Stockholm
Edinburgh
Tokyo
Prague
Hong Kong
Singapore
Rio de Janeiro
Beijing
Mexico City
Moscow
Johannesburg
Cairo
Mumbai
Lagos
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
99
one can ?t in. The city is only second to Geneva for the general standard of public
amenities, such as schools, hospitals and public transport, and is second after Paris
for overall lifestyle. The Index also shows that the strength of a city’s brand can also
lead to false perceptions. Perceptions of London are so positive that people imagine
it to be cleaner than it is: it came 13
th
in the cleanliness poll, but was in fact ranked
only 102
nd
out of 215 cities for actual cleanliness in a global survey of cities carried
out by Mercer.
American cities fared the worst when panels were asked, “How safe would you feel
in this city?” San Francisco is the highest at 18th; Washington D.C. following closely
behind at 19th, and Los Angeles at 22
nd
. However, this fact, coupled with the perceived
unwelcoming aspect of U.S. cities, has not dampened the global desire to visit the U.S.
When asked where they would want to spend a week of free time, respondents rank
New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco in the top ten cities. The popularity may be
due to the fact that New York won third place for offering exciting and fun things to do,
while Los Angeles ranked ?fth place, and San Francisco seventh.
Overall, Toronto ranks second only to Sydney in the “Prerequisites” category, 3rd for
“People,” and 5th in the area of “Potential.” In the Prerequisites category, when asked,
“What do you think the general standard of public amenities – schools, hospitals, public
transport, sports facilities - is like,” respondents placed Toronto ?fth behind Geneva,
London, Sydney, and Stockholm. In the same category, panellists found it easy to seek
satisfactory, affordable accommodation, ranking it sixth overall. Worldwide, people feel
safe in Toronto, giving the city ?fth-place in the People category. In the same area,
Toronto receives high marks not only for having the warmest and friendliest people,
but also for making people feel as though they would easily ?t in with their language
and culture (seventh overall for both). In the Potential category, Toronto beats 26 other
cities for being able to ?nd a job easily, weighing in at 4th place. Many respondents
also consider Toronto to be a superior city in which to do business as well as to go to
school for a higher-education degree.
Cities making Progress
The 2005 report is the ?rst issue of this index and hence there is no data or analysis
with which to assess progress in cities.
vi. Mercer Human Resources ‘Quality of Living’ Index
Mercer Human Resources Consulting produce an annual ‘Quality of Living’ index which
analyses the quality of living in over 350 cities around the world. The aim of the index
is to give companies information upon which to base hardship pay for expatriate
employment. New York is given a baseline score of 100 and 39 measures are then used
3. Indexes or Kitemarks of City Openness?
100
to assess the quality of living in each city surveyed. These include personal safety and
security, health issues, cleanliness and pollution and transportation.
Statements of Success and Failure
Mercer makes its rankings based on the following information:
Political and social environment: (political stability, crime, law enforcement, etc.)
Economic environment: (currency exchange regulations, banking services, etc.)
Socio-cultural environment: (censorship, limitations on personal freedom, etc.)
Medical and health considerations: (medical supplies and services, infectious
diseases, sewage, waste disposal, air pollution, etc.)
Schools and education: (standard and availability of schools, etc.)
Public services and transportation: (electricity, water, public transport, traf?c
congestion, etc.)
Recreation: (restaurants, theatres, cinemas, sports and leisure, etc.)
Consumer goods: (availability of food/daily consumption items, cars, etc.)
Housing: (housing, household appliances, furniture, maintenance services, etc.)
Natural environment: (climate, record of natural disasters)
Mercer asserts that quality of life and quality of living are different:
‘A city with a high Quality of Living index is a safe and stable one, but it may be lacking
the dynamic je ne sais quoi that makes people want to live in world-renowned cities
such as Paris, Tokyo, London or New York. Sometimes you need a little spice to make
a city exciting. But that “spice” may also give a city a lower ranking. What makes one
person’s quality of life better or worse cannot be quanti?ed in an objective index.
Therefore, Mercer’s Quality of Living report re?ects only the tangible aspects of living
in a city on expatriate assignments, and leaves the question of the quality of one’s life
to those living it!’
The element of danger noted by Quilley (1999) as an integral part of the image of the
world city is hinted at here – certainly Paris, London and New York have their danger-
ous but exciting underworlds.
101
Cities highlighted by the report
Figure 3.4
Rank
2006
Rank
2005
City Country
Index
2006
Index
2005
1 1 ZURICH Switzerland 108.2 108.0
2 2 GENEVA Switzerland 108.1 107.9
3 3 VANCOUVER Canada 107.7 107.4
4 3 VIENA Austria 107.5 107.4
5 8 AUCKLAND New Zealand 107.3 106.5
6 5 DUSSELDORF Germany 107.2 107.0
7 6 FRANKFURT Germany 107.0 106.8
8 7 MUNICH Germany 106.8 106.7
9 9 BERN Switzerland 106.5 106.4
9 9 SYDNEY Australia 106.5 106.4
Zurich ranks as the world’s top city for quality of living. The city has an index score of
108.2 and is only marginally ahead of Geneva, which scores 108.1, while Vancouver fol-
lows in third place with a score of 107.7. Almost half of the top 30 scoring cities are in
Western Europe. In this region, Vienna follows Zurich and Geneva in 4th position with a
score of 107.5. Other highly rated cities include Düsseldorf (107.2), Frankfurt (107.0) and
Munich (106.8) in positions 6, 7 and 8 respectively. Athens remains the lowest scoring
city in Western Europe, scoring 86.8 at position 79. London is the UK’s highest ranking
city at position 39 (score 101.2). The two other UK cities covered in the survey are Bir-
mingham and Glasgow, which both score 98.3, in joint 55
th
position. Dublin has dropped
two places to 24
th
position, scoring 103.8, mainly due to increased traf?c congestion.
Honolulu, the highest ranking city in the U.S., is 27
th
city with a score of 103.3. San
Francisco is at 28
th
position and scores 103.2 whilst Boston, Washington, Chicago and
Portland follow in positions 36, 41, 41 and 43. Houston remains the lowest ranking city
in the U.S. in 68
th
position. Overall, U.S. cities show falling trends in the rankings, except
Chicago, which has moved up 11 places due to decreased crime rates.
Auckland and Wellington have both moved up the rankings in 2005 from 8th to 5th,and
14
th
to 12
th
places respectively, mainly due to strong internal stability relative to other cit-
ies. Sydney remains in 9th position with a score of 106.5. Out of the Asian cities, Singapore
ranks 34th, followed by Tokyo, Japan’s highest scoring city, at position 35. Hong Kong’s
modern and ef?cient infrastructure, including its airport (which is considered one of best in
the world), has led to the city rising up in the rankings over the last few years from 70
th
to
68
th
position. The top-ranking city in China is Shanghai in 103rd place (score 80.1).
Cairo has fallen nine places to position 131 largely due to the political turmoil and ter-
rorist attacks in the city and surrounding area. Baghdad ranks as the least attractive
city for expatriates for a third consecutive year, with a score of 14.5.
3. Indexes or Kitemarks of City Openness?
102
Cities making Progress
A number of cities are identi?ed as making progress. The report notes that the quality of
living in Mumbai and Bangalore is slowly increasing due to improved political relation-
ships between India and other countries. Increased investment from multinationals is
seen as a spark for further improvements in the quality of living, driven by local authori-
ties. International foreign direct investment to China is leading to Beijing and Shanghai
climbing up the index, and rapid change is anticipated by Mercer as this foreign invest-
ment accelerates. Argentinean cities are starting to improve as the economy recovers
from the recent currency crisis whilst Dubai is doing particularly well due to massive
investment in the sorts of facilities demanded by expatriates, including good airport
connections and better recreation facilities than many (East) European cities.
In contrast, cities in Eastern Europe, whilst seeing a gradual improvement due to invest-
ment from the EU15, still lack a number of key facilities that expatriate workers require
for a high quality of living. In the developed world, increasing crime rates, traf?c con-
gestion, pollution and terrorist incidents (real and imagined) are affecting the quality of
living in these cities, and leading to their drop in the rankings. Unusual events such as
Hurricane Katrina also have an impact on these cities. Finally, places such as Baghdad,
Cairo, Johannesburg and other cities in war zones, tense geopolitical regions, places of
extreme social inequality and very ‘non-western’ religious and cultural milieus are also
failing on this index. Often, of course, this is not due to the active neglect of the city
management, but to uncontrollable external events.
vii. Mercer Human Resources Cost of Living Survey
Mercer’s Cost of Living Survey is produced annually and aims to help multinational com-
panies and governments determine compensation allowances for their expatriate em-
ployees. The survey covers 144 cities across six continents and measures the compara-
tive cost of over 200 items in each location. These items fall within the categories of:
Alcohol and tobacco
Clothing and footwear
Domestic services
Food at home
Food away from home
Health and personal care
Household supplies
Sports and leisure
Transportation
Utilities
103
The different categories are then weighted according to the research ?ndings. New
York is used as the base city scoring 100 points from which other cities are then com-
pared.
Statements of Success and Failure
The Cost of Living Survey does suggest why cities exhibit particular rankings in terms
of what indicators drive the high or low cost of living. Furthermore, in the 2006 edition
of the survey it is noted that ‘there have been some signi?cant changes in the rank-
ings this year which are primarily due to exchange rate ?uctuations, in particular the
strengthening of the US dollar.’ This helps to place the differential performance of cities
within the wider socio-economic context.
Cities highlighted by the report
In 2006, Moscow is the most expensive city in the world, with a score of 123.9. Anna
Krotova, Senior Researcher at Mercer, suggests that ‘steep accommodation costs have
contributed to the city’s high ranking, as the recent property boom has driven up rental
prices for expatriates.’ Moscow is followed closely by Seoul (121.7) and Tokyo (119.1).
(See Figure 3.5). Asuncion in Paraguay remains the least expensive city globally, in
144
th
position with a score of 43.5.
Figure 3.5
Mercer Human Resource Consulting Cost of Living Survey-Worldwide Rankings 2006
Rankings COL Index
March 2006 City Country March 2006 March 2005
1 4 MOSCOW Russia 123.9 119
2 5 SEOUL South Korea 121.7 115.4
3 1 TOKYO Japan 119.1 134.7
4 9 HONG KONG Hong Kong 118.3 109.5
6 3 LONDON United Kingdom 110.8 120.3
6 2 OSAKA Japan 108.3 121.8
7 6 GENEVA Switzerland 103 113.5
8 8 COPENHAGEN Dermark 101.1 110
8 7 ZURICH Switzerland 100.8 112.1
10 10 OSLO Normay 100 105.3
10 13 NEW YORK CITY United States 100 100
12 15 ST.PETERSBURG Russia 99.7 99.5
Cont.
3. Indexes or Kitemarks of City Openness?
104
London is the second most expensive city in Europe and ranks 5
th
overall, with a score
of 110.6. The report suggests that this is because, ‘while prices have actually increased
slightly over the last year, the strengthening of the dollar against the pound means
London has dropped two places since last year.’ Other costly European cities include
Geneva in 7
th
place (103), Copenhagen in 8
th
(101.1) and Zurich in 9
th
(100.8).
New York remains the most expensive city in North America and climbed three places
to 10
th
position (score 100). Currency appreciation is the main reason for this, although
price increases in fuel and certain consumer goods also contributed to New York’s rise
in the rankings.
Cities making progress
The de?nition of progress here is dif?cult, as this depends on whether climbing up the index
due to a higher cost of living constitutes ‘progress.’ Similarly, many of the changes within the
rankings have been due to currency changes. For instance, strong growth in the Brazilian
Real against the US Dollar pushed Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro well up in the rankings as a
result of good economic growth and foreign investment, suggesting that economic devel-
opment and socio-economic ‘progress’ may lead to a higher cost of living.
Mercer Human Resource Consulting Cost of Living Survey-Worldwide Rankings 2006
Rankings COL Index
March 2006 City Country March 2006 March 2005
13 11 MILAN Italy 99.9 104.9
14 19 BEIJING China 94.9 95.6
15 22 ISTANBUL Turkey 93.1 93.8
16 12 PARIS France 93.1 102.2
17 34 SINGAPORE Singapore 92 88
18 13 DUBLIN Ireland 91.8 100
18 20 SYDNEY Australia 91.3 99.2
20 30 SHANGHAI China 91.2 90.4
21 17 ROME Italy 89.8 97.3
21 54 KIEV Ukraine 89.8 84.5
21 16 VIENNA Austria 89.8 97.8
24 39 TELAVIV Israel 89.7 87.6
25 20 HELSINKI Finland 87.8 95.2
105
Section Four:
Local Leadership and
Local Planning for
OPENCities
Local Action Plans, Internationalization of cities, and how
to take forwards the OPENCities project
106
Local Leadership
and Local Planning
for OPENCities
European Cities
Local Action Plans, Internationalization of cities, and how to take forwards the
OPENCities project
Introduction
As we move towards de?ning what OPENCities are and how they can encourage
openness we remember some important factors that were outlined in Section One of
this publication:
Different cities operating within the same national systems, appear to be
differently attractive to international populations and there are clearly some
local factors at play.
City Governments do no control many of the preliminary factors of Openness that we
have identi?ed, and they have different pattern of authority in each EU country.
We do not yet fully understand whether a city can take de?ned local actions to
become more open to international populations.
Cities cannot easily become more Open without a high degree of local consent.
The Internationalisation and Openness of cities should the subject of locally led
action plans and leadership lodged appropriately within wider regional and national
frameworks.
All of these point to the key role for Local Leaders in the process of becoming more
and we outlined some preliminary points in the ?rst section of the report.
4.1. Towards Leadership of OPENCities
For cities that want to be open to diverse populations, it is important to:
i. Recognise that diverse types of cities will have distinctive approaches to openness.
Cities can be open or closed in different ways. Understand your own history and
4. Local Leadership and Local Planning for OPENCities
108
context fully and assess what makes your city more or less open. The journeys to
openness and to internationalisation are inseparable. Not all cities will be like Los
Angeles or Singapore, there is no simple model for becoming an OPENCities.
ii. Recognise, understand, and articulate the importance of immigration and diversity
to the future of your city. It is important to place this discussion in a far reaching
framework of what the city needs for the long term in order to support all of its
citizens and to succeed internationally. The case for OPENCities has to be made
actively.
iii. Recognise that openness requires co-ordinated multi-dimensional thinking and
action. In this review we have identi?ed 8 factors that are generally key to openness
in cities:
Economic factors
Regulatory factors
Cultural factors
Amenity factors
Connectivity and Accessibility factors
Internationalisation factors
Risk factors
Leadership factors
These provide an initial framework for re?ecting upon openness, and for planning.
Openness will come from getting these things to work together.
iv. Diagnose openness systematically and set targets to make progress against
objective measures of progress. Use external reference points, such as kitemarks,
indexes, surveys, and other indicators, to mark progress.
v. Place dialogue with international populations and their employers and supporters
at the heart of how the city develops its approach, and assesses its progress. A
cross Institutional approach will be necessary.
vi. Organise to in?uence the national and supra-national spheres. Many of the factors
of city openness are beyond the direct control of city governments so in?uence
becomes very important. Cities need to work together to achieve this, and to ?nd
alliances with other lobbies (business, NGOs, Trade Unions, media, etc).
vii. Provide leadership which challenges barriers to openness, promotes an inclusive
city identity, articulates the bene?ts of diversity, and creates a broad sense of
belonging for all people.
viii. Promote visible initiatives and interventions which can be recognised by citizens
as a positive approach to the agenda.
109
ix. Do not take initiatives that will not be sustained until they have succeeded. This is
a long term agenda and there are cyclical dimensions to some of the challenges
that will be faced. It is important to persevere.
x. Remember the future. Cities have succeeded over the long sweep of time by
attracting new populations. There is no reason to think that the future will be any
different.
4.2. Local Strategies and Plans
We want to explore the potential for cities to develop local actions and strategies focussed
upon becoming more open. Few cities have such a plan at present. Those that have active
strategies to attract international population generally have it as part of a wider strategy
for internationalisation of the city. So a useful pace to start maybe an assessment of what
we might learn from the Internationalisation strategies of cities so far.
4.2.1. Internationalising Cities
We have reviewed the internationalisation strategies and efforts of a range of cities in
order to provide a comparative analysis of the ways in which cities are responding to
the new opportunities and challenges of the changing global economy.
In order to allow for some sort of sensible analysis, the cities covered have been
classi?ed into ?ve different categories, outlined below.
Established World Cities: Hong Kong; London; New York; Paris; Singapore;
Tokyo
Emerging World Cities: Berlin; Dubai; Frankfurt; Johannesburg; Madrid; Miami;
Milan; San Francisco; Seattle; Sydney; Toronto
Megacities: Buenos Aires; Cairo; Istanbul; Mexico City; Moscow; Mumbai; Sao
Paulo; Seoul; Shanghai
National Stars: Auckland; Brisbane; Cape Town; Dublin; Glasgow; Helsinki; Lyon;
Manchester; Prague; Stuttgart; Turin; Valencia
Cities in Transformation: Baltimore; Bilbao; Busan; Halifax, Nova Scotia;
Kitakyushu, Japan; Leeds; Leipzig; Oakland, California; Pittsburgh; Riga; Rotterdam;
Shef?eld
4. Local Leadership and Local Planning for OPENCities
110
These categories may be understood as:
i. Established world cities
- well recognised cities which are key sites in the global economy
ii. Emerging world cities
-
cities which are becoming increasingly recognised as new competitors to the
established world cities
iii. Megacities
-
urban areas of enormous population
iv. National stars
-
cities which perform well at the national scale
v. Cities in transformation
-
including cities which were key sites in the industrial economy and are now
undergoing restructuring and change and also cities which are new contenders
for global recognition
It is important to note at this point however that the intention in carrying out this
classi?cation is not to ‘brand’ or ‘?x’ a city into a particular category and use this as
a fundamental assertion about its development status. There are several reasons
for this.
The boundaries between categories are somewhat imprecise and they are certainly
not always mutually exclusive. For instance, Tokyo, classi?ed as an ‘established
world city’, is de?nitely also a ‘megacity’. Some might say that Dublin, classed here
as a ‘national star’ is actually closer to an ‘emerging world city’. There are numerous
of these examples so it is accepted outright that this classi?cation is neither infallible
nor permanent; it is simply designed to impose some sort of order on analysis.
Fixed categories imply a ?xed status and this, too, is inaccurate. All cities are
known to be on different development trajectories but this resolution of analysis
is not captured by this classi?cation. This more nuanced approach is borne out in
subsequent analysis.
There is arguably an implicit hierarchy built into the classi?cation used here but
this is unintentional. This study has no motive for classing one city as more or less
important or signi?cant as another. In fact, seeing as the focus is on exploring what
cities are doing to respond to globalisation, there are lessons to be learned from all
cities, of all shapes and sizes. In this sense, all cases are completely equal from the
perspective of this paper.
With these provisos in mind, we now explore in more detail how these ?ve analytical
categories were de?ned in order to justify their continued use.
111
Established World Cities
Hong Kong, London, New York, Paris, Singapore and Tokyo have long been recognised
as major international cities. All are recognised as ‘alpha world cities’ by the Globalisation
and World Cities Group (see above) due to the level of their advanced producer
services and the PWC UK Economic Outlook Report for March 2007 ranked each of
their economies as amongst the biggest 15 city economies in the world (by estimated
2005 GDP at PPPs), except Singpore, which was ranked 36th. As such, they are not only
present, but perform strongly, on a wide range of international benchmarks spanning
the economic, social and environmental realms. The Anholt City Brands Index 2006, for
instance, ranked all of these cities in the top 50 brands in the world and London, New
York and Paris were all in the top 5. Furthermore, all of the cities were ranked in the top
eight of the Mastercard Worldwide Centres of Commerce Index (2007). The challenge
for these cities is to maintain their established positions.
Interestingly however, only London has a clearly apparent explicit internationalisation
strategy. This goes beyond a simplistic economic development strategy and provides
for all aspects of internationalisation. London’s Internationalisation Strategy
i
envisages
‘a sustainable world city with strong long-term economic growth, social inclusion and
environmental improvement.’ In contrast, the other cities tend to discuss internationalisation
as part of broader (economic) development strategies. Both Hong Kong and Singapore
are clearly aiming to become key nodes in the global economy through the attraction of
international businesses, international FDI and becoming regional and global hubs for the
light manufacturing and service sectors. However, these aims are not presented in (easily
accessible) single documents concerning internationalisation. Whilst this may initially
seem surprising, deeper consideration would suggest this is not so. These cities have long
been recognised as major world cities and, as such, arguably do not need to make such
focused efforts towards internationalisation. However, when the aggressive of strategies
of some of the ‘emerging world cities,’ ‘national stars’ and ‘cities in transformation’ are
taken into consideration, it is clear that more coherent and comprehensive efforts may
be required from these world cities if they are to retain their positions.
A. ALPHA WORLD CITIES
12: London, Paris, New York, Tokyo
10: Chicago, Frankfurt, Hong Kong Kong, Los Angeles, Milan, Singapore
B. BETA WORLD CITIES
9: San Francisco, Sydney, Toronto, Zurich
8: Brussels, Madrid, Mexico City, Sao Paulo
7: Moscow, Seoul
C. GAMMA WORLD CITIES
6: Amsterdam, Boston, Caracas, Dallas, Dusseldorf, Geneva, Houston, Jakarta, Johannesburg, Melbourne,
Osaka, Prague, Santiago, Taipei, Washington,
5: Bangkok, Beijing, Rome, Stockholm, warsaw
4: Atlanta, Barcelona, Berlin, Buenos Aires, Budapest, Copenhagen, Hamburg, Istanbul, Kuala Lumpur,
Manila, Miami, Minneapolis, Montreal, Munich, Shanghai
4. Local Leadership and Local Planning for OPENCities
112
It seems that part of the way in which these cities retain their positions in the world
economy is through strong, collaborative international efforts. These include, Singapore’s
‘Growth Triangle’ with Malaysia and Indonesia, and Hong Kong’s links with Mainland
China through the Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (CEPA) and the recent
establishment of the Greater Peal River Delta (GPRD). Such regional collaborative efforts
are likely to become increasingly important going forward as regional economic strength
becomes ever more vital for worldwide recognition and success.
Emerging World Cities
These cities are increasingly becoming global cities and are currently categorised by the
GaWC as: Berlin (gamma), Frankfurt (alpha), Johannesburg (gamma), Madrid (beta), Miami
(gamma), San Francisco (beta), Sydney (beta), Toronto (beta) and Dubai and Seattle as
‘some evidence of world city formation’. PWC’s (2007) UK Economic Outlook Report
classes all of the cities as amongst the top 40 biggest city economies in the world (by
estimated 2005 GDP at PPPs), except for Johannesburg and Berlin, which are both in
the 60s, and Dubai and Frankfurt, which do not feature. The vast majority feature in the
top 50 of the Anholt City Brands Index (2006) and all are in the top 50 of the Mastercard
Worldwide Centres of Commerce Index (2007), with Frankfurt coming in at 7
th
.
In contrast to the ‘established world cities,’ the vast majority of the ‘emerging world
cities’ have developed comprehensive and coherent internationalisation strategies.
Madrid, Toronto, Sydney and Johannesburg have all developed such strategies,
whilst Seattle’s and Miami’s internationalisation efforts are achieved more through
the efforts of Chambers of Commerce and inward investment attraction agencies.
Indeed, it is arguable to what extent Miami has made any signi?cant efforts towards
internationalisation rather than become a key global city – the ‘Gateway to the Americas’
- through geographical advantages.
These internationalisation strategies, in particular those of Madrid and Toronto, are
some of the most comprehensive carried out by the any of the cities covered by this
report, involving extensive SWOT analyses, benchmarking and analysis of the changing
global situation and the cities position within it. Since these cities are in the early to
mid-stages of development within the global economy, infrastructure provision is
often seen to be a fundamental step in providing for global investors and visitors.
Attracting international ?rms is also important to all of the cities, with every city having
implemented initiatives or incentives to attract such ?rms. These include extensive
Enterprise Zone development (Miami) and tax exemptions (Toronto) amongst others.
Achieving a greater global presence is also seen as prerequisite for these cities. With
the exception of Miami, every emerging world city has undertaken a comprehensive
(re)branding strategy. Since these cities are not as well-known as the established world
cities, achieving greater recognition within the global consciousness is arguably a key
113
step forwards in directing future developments. If the world does not know about the
city, no amount of development within the city will achieve results.
Megacities
Whilst these cities are vast in terms of population, they do not perform as highly in
terms of many international benchmarks. In the GaWC’s analysis, the cities are rated
as - Buenos Aires (gamma), Istanbul (gamma), Mexico City (beta), Moscow (beta), Sao
Paulo (beta), Seoul (beta) and Shanghai (gamma). Cairo and Mumbai are both classed
as showing ‘evidence of world city formation’. In PWC’s (2007) UK Economic Outlook
Report, all of these cities are ranked as somewhere between the 15th and 45
th
biggest
city economy in the world (by estimated 2005 GDP at PPPs), while just over half feature
in the Mastercard Worldwide Centres of Commerce Index (2007), generally ranking
around 50
th
. Seoul is an exception here, coming in 9th. Finally, in the Anholt City Brands
Index (2006), most of these cities are ranked as having between the 40
th
and 60
th
best
brands in the world, except Istanbul and Sao Paulo, which do not feature.
Only Mumbai, Seoul and Sao Paulo appear to have explicit internationalisation
strategies. However, whilst research into many of these cities was hampered by
language dif?culties, even if strategies do exist, the very fact that such strategies
are not available published in English speaks volumes. But this is not to say that
the cities are inactive with regards to creating urban spaces for globalisation. Major
investment in infrastructure and large urban development projects are important in
these cities – Moscow’s International Business Centre, Federation Tower and new
railway development, Mumbai’s Urban Infrastructure Project (UIP) and Mexico’s
Santa Fe development are prime examples. Interestingly only Seoul appears to have
undertaken a coherent city branding strategy – it may be that the vast size of these
cities has prevented more general efforts in this arena.
National Stars
‘National stars’ may largely be categorised as cities which are important in the domestic
economy, but have less of a standing on the global stage. None of these cities are
recognised as alpha, beta or gamma world cities by the GaWC but all, except Prague
and Valencia, were recognised in a fourth category of showing differing degrees of
world city formation. This suggests that at the time of the analysis, any efforts towards
internationalisation had achieved few measurable results. All of the cities were ranked
by PWC’s (2007) UK Economic Outlook Report has having city economies that were
no bigger than 68th in the world (by estimated 2005 GDP at PPPs). Brisbane, Glasgow,
Stuttgart and Valencia did not feature at all in the top 150. None of these cities made a
particular mark in the Mastercard Worldwide Centres of Commerce Index (2007) or the
Anholt City Brands Index (2006).
4. Local Leadership and Local Planning for OPENCities
114
All of these cities, however, with the exception of Dublin and Stuttgart have developed
explicit internationalisation strategies and even these two have undertaken speci?c
efforts to become increasingly international with the development of an International
Financial Services Centre (IFSC) in Dublin and industrial cluster development in Stuttgart.
These cities are often forced to develop more speci?c internationalisation trajectories
because there is another dominant, world city in the country which overshadows the
‘national star.’ For instance, Glasgow and Manchester are overshadowed by London,
Brisbane is dominated by Sydney and Lyon is a secondary city to Paris.
Therefore these cities are often trying to reposition themselves in more niche sectors.
For instance Glasgow is capitalising upon its retail and cultural sectors, Stuttgart has
chosen a small sub-sector of high technology industry to exploit and Auckland is
arguably promoting its high quality of life. This suggests that one route cities may be
able to successfully follow is not to compete with another key domestic city, but use
differentiation to achieve global recognition.
Cities in Transformation
‘Cities in transformation’ may largely be categorised as cities which were important
in the industrial economy up until the mid-twentieth century, but have suffered from
signi?cant decline from this period onwards. Other cities within this category such as
Busan and Kitakyushu represent wholly new cities to the global arena. None of the
cities are recognised by the GaWC research group, except for Baltimore, Leeds and
Rotterdam which are thought to show a little evidence of world city formation. The PWC
(2007) UK Economic Outlook Report shows that most of the cities do not feature in
the top 150 city economies (by estimated 2005 GDP at PPPs) – although Leeds (88th),
Pittsburgh (61st) and Rotterdam (99th) are exceptions. None of these cities made a
particular mark in the Mastercard Worldwide Centres of Commerce Index (2007) or the
Anholt City Brands Index (2006).
Those cities which did suffer a period of industrial decline are often now aiming to
reposition themselves and revitalise their communities in order to respond to the new
forms of inter-city competition. Many are building upon their industrial heritage or
attempting to become important hub cities, for instance Rotterdam and Halifax. Others,
such as Bilbao, are pursuing large scale cultural and iconic redevelopments to escape
from their past.
However, when compared to the other categories there is little similarity across the
cities, which renders a cross-cutting analysis not only dif?cult, but liable to the pitfalls
of over-generalisation.
115
Assessment
It would seem that even analysing cities within such categories is not suf?cient. There
is signi?cant differentiation amongst categories with regards to the ways in which cities
are internationalising and responding to global forces. It is arguably more appropriate
to examine cities in light of the type of internationalisation strategy they are pursuing.
For instance, social equity is important to cities such as Cape Town and Johannesburg,
whilst environmental and sustainable development is important to London and Auckland,
whilst culture has been seen as vital in Glasgow and Bilbao. It is also interesting to note
the different time scales upon which these internationalisation strategies are articulated
– for instance Madrid’s strategy is concerned with the period 2005-2007
ii
whilst others
look far further into the future, for instance Johannesburg’s 2030 plan. Nevertheless,
with these points in mind, we must, of course, settle on one form of categorisation for
practicality’s sake.
Arguably too many cities are using ‘internationalisation’ as the current buzzword
but are not carrying out the extensive research necessary to develop an effective
internationalisation strategy. Cities must decide how they wish to position themselves
and then follow speci?c actions to implement this strategy.
It remains to be seen how the current implementation of such internationalisation
strategies will in?uence future development in the world’s cities.
4.2.2. The factors of Internationalisation
We have undertaken a preliminary qualitative review of how 50 cities are doing on 9
different indicators of internationalisation. The factors are:
i. Presence in International benchmarking and analysis
ii. Presence of Internationalisation strategies/strategies for the global economy
iii. Success in International events’ attraction
iv. Success in International population attraction
v. Success in International institutions’ attraction
vi. Success in International ?rms’ attraction
vii. Success in International positioning and branding/marketing
viii. Effective International relationships and collaboration
ix. Effective engagement with growing/emerging international markets.
4. Local Leadership and Local Planning for OPENCities
116
The attraction of international population is identi?ed as one of the 9 factors. We have
begun to present the internationalisation of the cities using a radargram.
A fuller report that examines the 50 cities in detail will be published in due course.
However, some preliminary observations can be made from the initial review.
4.3. Does a city need an internationalisation strategy?
Nearly all cities are now engaging with the challenges of the various ‘open systems’
that characterise the global age and we present here a strong argument for cities
developing an internationalisation strategy as a result, but it is accepted that this must
?rst be justi?ed. The fundamental question that must be answered therefore is ‘what
does an internationalisation strategy actually do for a city?’ This can be answered in
several ways. An internationalisation strategy:
i. orientates a city’s development efforts towards a globalised world
ii. formalises the city’s response to the challenges of globalisation
iii. prevents ad hoc and disorganised policies from proliferating
iv. ensures a holistic approach is taken so that all inter-related aspects of the city
(such as economic development and labour force policy) are working towards the
same goals
v. co-ordinates different policy makers and departments
vi. sets common goals for all city stake-holders
vii. makes the best use of limited or shared resources
viii. prioritises city-wide goals so that the city bene?ts the most
ix. provides a basis for city-wide monitoring and evaluation for ongoing improvement
International Recognition
Internationalisation
International Events
International Populations
International Institutions International Firms
International Branding
International Relationships
Emerging Markets
Example
Explicit strategy
Achievement
117
Many cities reviewed do indeed show signs of developing an internationalisation
strategy and often this is directly correlated with those cities that are most successful.
The ?rst point to note is that there are different types of internationalisation strategy.
Some cities have developed explicit, dedicated policies whose sole function is to outline
the policy that the city will take in order to become more internationalised. Where this
is the case, the strategies are almost always holistic in nature; they encompass most, if
not all, of the categories for analysis presented here. Furthermore, this type of strategy
serves as a policy-guidance document – a point of reference – for subsequent, more
speci?c policy. It sets out the city’s overall stance and de?nes the manner in which
all city development policy areas will be approached. Explicit internationalisation
strategies are almost always well-publicised, accessible and clear as a result of the
speci?c motive for their creation.
Although it is not strictly accurate to talk of two distinct types of internationalisation
strategy, for often there is more of a continuum between two extremes, what might
be considered to be at the other end of the ‘spectrum’ is an economic development
policy with consideration for international perspectives. This is what might be termed
an implicit internationalisation strategy, because it does not necessarily refer to
‘internationalisation’ directly nor cite it as a particular goal. Nonetheless, through the
research carried out for this study, it has become clear that this type of policy does
constitute a form of internationalisation strategy and has been included as such. Most
city administrations formulate some sort of policy to guide the economic development
of their city and those that do not draw up an explicit internationalisation strategy will,
due to the various links between their city economy and the rest of the world, naturally
build in elements of an international focus. This type of policy is often more dif?cult to
locate and is altogether less accessible than the explicit version.
Comparative analysis between cities should be approached tentatively because there
are a number of different factors that can contribute to a city’s ‘explicit strategy’
rating, or indeed its ‘achievement’ rating. For instance, highly centralised states often
do not devolve enough power to city-level government for the city administration to
reasonably be expected to formulate an internationalisation plan.
What are the likely bene?ts for cities of formulating an internationalisation strategy?
Why, fundamentally, should cities consider drawing up an internationalisation strategy
of some sort if they have not already? For simplicity, let us assume that an explicit
internationalisation strategy is the better of the two options available.
An explicit internationalisation strategy,
i. Creates a single, coherent framework within which all other development policy
can be set.
ii. Sends a clear message to local, national and international stakeholders about what
the underlying philosophy of the city administration is in relation to the mega-
trends associated with globalisation.
4. Local Leadership and Local Planning for OPENCities
118
iii. Creates an environment of con?dence and stability whereby stakeholders can act
according to well-de?ned long-term goals and pathways.
iv. Ensures that all aspects of the city administration are working towards the same
long-term targets.
v. Helps the city to achieve its full potential and enjoy the maximum bene?ts from a
globalising world.
What lessons can be taken from examples of best practice so as to ensure that a city
goes about formulating an internationalisation strategy in the best possible way?
Lessons that relate speci?cally to the formulation of an internationalisation strategy:
i. The internationalisation strategy should be explicit. In order to go about
formulating an internationalisation strategy in the best possible way, the ?rst
point is almost as simple as that; given the choice between an explicit strategy or
implicit elements of lots of other strategies, a city should aim to produce a single,
dedicated strategy whose sole aim is to establish the city’s internationalisation
pathway. This will make all of the lessons below signi?cantly more achievable.
Madrid is the clearest and best example of this, but Toronto is also a very good
case in point.
ii. An internationalisation strategy should aim to be as holistic as possible.
To be fully successful, orientating a city towards the international arena requires
focussing on more than just one or two aspects of city life like its economy or
value as a tourist destination. Population, international relations, emerging
markets, city image, international institutions and global events are all important
elements of what is required to be a successful international city. Each city will, of
course, emphasise different strengths amongst these categories, but attempting
to consider all of them in some shape or form is an important prerequisite for
drawing up a very successful internationalisation strategy. Singapore is a useful
example for showing how many different policy areas can be tackled by the same,
broad strategy document.
iii. Clear targets should structure the strategy. With holism being a key aim,
there is a lot to consider here. As such, clear targets help to structure and ground
what might otherwise be a less-than-constructive, abstract strategy. Targets do
not necessarily have to be quantitative to be useful. The San Francisco case study
demonstrates this point excellently.
iv. The city administration should move quickly and signi?cantly beyond
rhetoric. ‘Internationalisation’ is quickly becoming the new, fashionable buzzword
for cities and many are therefore using it to describe policy documents or strategies
that simply do not compare to true, dedicated internationalisation strategies.
There is also a danger that talking of mega-trends to do with globalisation can
lead to the abstract, since concepts can be ‘big’ and unfamiliar. In light of this, city
administrations should aim to achieve tangible results as soon as possible. At the
119
very least, this provides a platform from which a process of ‘trial and improvement’
(in terms of what is best for the city in question) might be adopted.
v. The formulation of the strategy should be based on research and analysis.
The most successful strategies work to the city’s strengths and weaknesses but these
may well not be adequately understood without extensive research being done
beforehand. Many cities looking to make the most from an internationalisation strategy
carry out SWOT analysis as a means by which to structure their policy and this certainly
focuses all involved on pre-de?ned areas to target. We return to Madrid here as the
best example of thorough research underpinning an internationalisation strategy.
vi. An underlying theme of an internationalisation strategy should be ‘pro-
activeness’. There is too much competition in a globalised world for a city to
passively internationalise itself and expect the world to respond in the way that it
anticipated. The best results are secured through pro-active strategies that seek
out stakeholders that are likely to be most bene?cial to the city in question. This
may mean physically travelling to meet target groups, or designing strategies that
speci?cally appeal to them. Either way, the onus is on the city administration to
make the ?rst move.
vii. Policy-makers should refrain from over-complicating what could be
a clear, simple strategy. Such a signi?cant, holistic document has potential
to become burdensome and unwieldy. Even if information is made readily
available to stakeholders, if it is not comprehensible and clearly laid-out, it will
not serve as a source of inspiration. Despite the complex nature of the project,
an internationalisation strategy should retain the qualities of any good policy
document: clarity, succinctness and focus.
viii. Internationalisation strategies should be ambitious. One of the key roles
of this strategy is to differentiate a city from its competition around the world and
make it more competitive in an international context. This is much more likely
to be achieved through the construction of a bold strategy that actually makes
a difference to city life. Despite the need for clarity, policy-makers should aim
to achieve ambitious, yet attainable, goals. London, for instance, aims to be a
‘sustainable world city’, which, if taken at its word, is a highly impressive target.
Lessons which are equally as important, but serve to facilitate the implementation of an
internationalisation strategy:
i. Use an internationalisation strategy to promote the city’s unique assets.
Internationalisation is not about standardisation, nor should it be. In fact, a city
will only be successful amidst the plethora of competitor cities in the world if it
is different and offers unique assets in an attractive combination. SWOT analysis
will have offered the city’s main strengths and these can be used as a basis for
establishing a city’s niche. Toronto is very good at this, setting out in its strategic
document the 5 ‘Ps’ – People, Place, Prosperity, Positioning and Partnership.
4. Local Leadership and Local Planning for OPENCities
120
ii. Allay fears that internationalisation means standardisation. Local
resistance to internationalisation strategies is often formed on the basis of
fears that internationalisation, or opening up to the global economy, will involve
becoming like any other successful city in the world – the city is bound to lose its
individual characteristics and uniqueness. As outlined above, such fears must be
unfounded if the path the city takes is to lead to its successful internationalisation.
Communicating this fact to the local community is important if there is any chance
that local resistance will be a problem. Having local support is vital to securing
success in any development strategy.
iii. Stakeholder partnerships are a key element to success. Whether it be
public-private partnerships or public-community based interactions, a city’s
internationalisation is best achieved through joint action whereby resources can
be pooled and a wider support base generated. New York’s ‘Partnership for New
York City’ is actually a good example of this process in action.
iv. All efforts to internationalise should be well publicised. Research for this
study has included some cities that are very good at communicating their policies,
actions and successes and others that make it very dif?cult for anybody to learn
about what might be going on, let alone be informed when they were not looking for
the information in the ?rst place. In line with creating an explicit strategy, with clear
targets that inspire con?dence and allays fears of standardisation, it is crucial that
information is easily accessible and, better still, made available to the city community
and those abroad even if they did not know they needed to know. Having a well
publicised internationalisation strategy is a key step in ensuring the very success of
the policy and Madrid is an excellent example of how this might work.
v. The need for monitoring and evaluation is paramount. Ongoing assessment,
at regular intervals, is necessary to ensure that the city and its internationalisation
strategy are performing to the best level possible. For one thing, the characteristics
of the globalised world are never the same from one year to another, so it is
highly likely that policies will need to be adapted. Once an internationalisation
strategy has been formulated and implemented, there is still work to do to ensure
its success and monitoring and evaluation forms an essential part of this. Riga
is a city that leads the ?eld in this respect, since it assesses and re-evaluates its
Business Environment Action Plan every single year.
vi. City leadership must be strong, dedicated and consolidated. The lesson
that could have come at the beginning or the end of the list pertains to leadership.
Managing all of the lessons learned here requires a strong leadership team within
the city that can see the project through from start to ?nish with an appropriately
high level of commitment. This often requires a dedicated team within a city
administration because the demands of the job can be so high. What is also a
distinguishing feature is how consolidated this team is – there are often examples
of cities where internationalisation policies are emanating from several different
sources and there is no clear central node. This can create a confusing environment
that lacks full drive and clarity and often does not achieve the same level of success
121
that more easily identi?able city units can. The London Development Agency, Paris
Development and the New York City Economic Development Corporation are all
?rst-class examples here.
4.4. Ten principles for city internationalisation
The following are ten broad, basic principles which can be taken from this paper as
general lessons learned that are most applicable to city leadership. What are the
ten most important things to bear in mind when developing your internationalisation
strategy to respond to the challenges of globalisation?
i. Internationalisation strategies should be based on thorough prior
research. It is clearly quite an undertaking for a city to develop an explicit
internationalisation strategy for the ?rst time. For this reason, research should not
only involve looking at what other cities are doing, but should also focus on your
own city so as to establish an as-comprehensive-as-possible review of all policy
areas. This will allow the strategy to be tailored to the exact needs of the city and
will also provide a basis from which future assessments can measure progress.
ii. Identify and foster a niche specialisation in your city. There are too many
cities in the world, all vying for international attention, for an internationalisation
strategy to be successful if it fails to differentiate its city. Look at what the comparative
advantages of your city are and build a strategy that uses these as its key drivers.
If a city can become known as being an international city that is a world leader for
something, it is much more likely to be successful in the long term.
iii. Build a strong, stable business environment. Regardless of the city’s niche
specialisation, all internationalised cities need a business environment that can
accommodate international ?rms, institutions and events successfully. If a city
cannot support these elements of the global age, it does not have a solid base
from which to be competitive. This means investing in infrastructure and people,
science and business, government structures and private enterprise.
iv. Always make sure the internationalisation plan is holistic in nature. The
most successful internationalised cities are high achievers in all of the analytical
categories that have been presented in this paper and this is no accident. To class
amongst the best in the long term, cities must attract international events, ?rms,
institutions and populations, manage strong international relationships and brands
and engage with emerging markets. While these do not all need to be achieved at
once, a holistic plan that takes them all into account is an ideal ?rst step.
v. Engage local stakeholders. Creating an internationalised city does not have
to be just the city administration’s burden – in fact, it cannot be, the job is simply
too onerous. All interest groups, from businesses to events’ organisers, can and
should contribute to an international orientation. Public-private partnerships are
a good way of formalising such relationships, but public consultations are equally as
important. This really is a case where the sum of the parts is greater than the whole.
4. Local Leadership and Local Planning for OPENCities
122
vi. Ensure that interaction with international actors is mutually bene?cial.
City administrations can play an active role in the relationships developed between
the city and international ‘actors’ like foreign-owned businesses, institutions and
even populations. Use this role to formally ensure that the interaction is mutually
bene?cial – i.e. that maximum bene?ts are leveraged for the city as well as for the
‘actor’. This might take the form of ?nancial incentives to business that come in
the form of residents’ training grants, immigration policies that target speci?cally-
needed demographic or skill groups and so on.
vii. Advertise the bene?ts of all of this work to the city’s people. A city needs
the support of its people to undertake all of the changes that are associated with
internationalisation and this can only happen if they are well-informed about why the
changes that are occurring are of direct bene?t to them. Too often, poor communication
can allow local residence to develop where more accessible information would
have quickly informed people of the expected bene?ts of a particular scheme.
Internationalisation is supposed to bene?t the city’s people as much as anyone, so to
neglect securing their support is to fundamentally misunderstand the project.
viii. Coordinate the city administration so that there is a single, clear
source of information. Many, if not all, different city government of?ces and
departments should be involved in a city’s internationalisation strategy making
and implementation. However, it is nonsensical for all of these different actors
to attempt to communicate their activities individually and without interaction to
the public, potential investors or other interested parties. All too often, a city’s
efforts become diluted through poor accessibility to information which comes
about because there are simply too many sources. This leads to a confusing and
unproductive environment for those seeking information. Construct a central
communication node that can serve as the main portal to information. This may
simply re-direct enquiries to the relevant department but it nonetheless plays a
vital role in presenting a coherent and effective city strategy.
ix. Plan for the long term. The process of internationalisation is clearly one that
will take many years and aims for the bene?ts to be enjoyed for even longer. This
will not be achieved unless the internationalisation strategy builds plans over the
appropriate time-frame. It may be more practical to work in smaller time-frames
of, for example, ?ve years, but this must be under-taken with the understanding
that it is a rolling process that will continue for many more years to come.
x. Monitor, evaluate and improve the plan at regular intervals. Just as there
is no ?xed or set internationalisation strategy for every city, it is highly unlikely
that there will not be room for improvement in a city’s internationalisation strategy.
A regular monitoring and evaluation process should not be seen as identifying
failure as such but as striving to achieve the very best outcome possible for the
city and its people. Moreover, it can help to convert the effort input to strategy-
making into actual achievement during this highly complex process.
123
4.5. Implications for Local Leadership and Strategies of
OPENCities
As we begin to develop ideas about how cities become more open to international
populations we can learn the analysis of city internationalisation directly.
4.5.1. Developing indicators of OPENCities
The 8 possible factors and 40 measures of openness as already identi?ed and we want
to develop our understanding and assessment of them further.
Economic factors: Population, Employment, Enterprise, Skills & Quali?cations.
Regulatory factors: Citizenship, Welfare, Health, Housing, social inclusion.
Connectivity/Accessibility factors: Ports and Gateways, digital access, public
transport, city centres.
Risk factors: Crime, security, disasters, deportation, racism and xenophobia.
Amenity factors: Signage/information, language, education, retail, and
neighbourhood mixity.
Cultural factors: Civic organisations, mixed marriages, creative expressions,
media, food.
Internationalisation factors: International populations, business, events,
institutions, visitors and students.
Leadership factors: Diversity strategy, brand and belonging, voting and
representation, active projects.
Visualising City Open-ness
Each of the eight factors is further broken down into 5 measures, providing 40
measures in all. When aggregated, these forty measures might give us a good picture
of the open-ness of any city which can be modelled, illustrated, and interrogated. The
example below uses a ‘radar gram’ to do this:
Maximum
Open-ness
Diagnosis
Leadership
Risk
Internationalisation
Connectivity
Amenity
Cultural
Regulation
Economic Explicit strategy
Achievement
4. Local Leadership and Local Planning for OPENCities
124
This approach will be explored further in the OPENCities Project.
As the OPENCities project develops we plan therefore to develop practical lessons on
4 key questions:
i. What are the best ways to de?ne and manage Openness in Cities?
ii. What are the best ways to de?ne and manage Openness in Cities?
iii. How can a city become open?
iv. What part can local action and local plans play?
v. What is the role of city leaders?
We look forwards to exploring these questions as the OPENCities project develops.
i
The London Plan (2004) produced by the Mayor of London and the London Development Agency
ii
Madrid City Council ‘Plan for the Internationalisation of the City of Madrid 2005-2007’
125
Annex I:
Collaborating
European Cities
126
Summary information on the cities interested in OPENCities
1. Intro to case studies methodology
These initial case studies provide an introduction to some of the cities that will be
part of the ?rst phase of the OPENCities project along with cases of cities not yet
involved in the project that have achieved some success in being open to international
immigration. They are offered here as initial preparatory work for discussion.
In this initial phase, the case studies on cities participating to the OPENCities project aim:
1. To assess their current situation in terms of demographic status and migrants
presence in order to build a basis for comparisons across cities.
2. To examine the links between different city types as stated in the EU state of Cities
Report and the potential bene?ts of immigration and diverse populations.
3. To examine the national framework for migration and integration issues and the
role that Cities can assume within this context .
4. To test the feasibility of the 8 factors of openness, in view of the Openness Index
de?nition.
The project has gathered data from the most reliable sources including Urban Audit,
Eurostat, OECD, National and City Statistics Of?ces, City’s pro?le prepared by the
participating Cities of?cers.
In assessing the Regulatory Factors, which are a matter of National Policy, we have
used the results of the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX)
1
, an index produced
bi-annually by a network of over 20 organisations, lead by British Council and Migration
Policy Group, with the aim of providing a quick-reference guide to Migrant Integration
Policies in the EU countries. Using over 140 policy indicators it scores countries on the
following six key dimensions of integration policy:
Collaborating
European Cities
1http://www.integrationindex.eu
Annex I. Collaborating European Cities
128
Labour Market Access
Family Reunion
Long Term Residence
Naturalisation
Anti-Discrimination
Political Participation.
Results are converted into a 0-100 scale
for dimensions and strands, where 100% is
best practice. The table on the left presents
the overall ?ndings, showing as the EU-25’s
policies on integration score only halfway to
best practice. The report also highlights that:
Only Sweden’s policies scored high enough
overall to be considered ‘favourable’ for
promoting integration.
Of the 28 countries surveyed in MIPEX, nine
countries have policies that were overall
partially favourable. They were located
in the Nordic countries, the Western
Mediterranean, the BENELUX countries,
Canada and the UK.
Five countries have integration policies
that, overall, are at least partially
unfavourable (Latvia, Cyprus, Greece,
Slovakia, Austria).
The countries with the ten lowest scores
are the Baltic Republics, the countries of
the Eastern Mediterranean and Central
Europe, and Denmark.
This approach is useful to offer a quick and
visual picture of the national context and
will be helpful in understanding the conditions under which cities attract, retain and
integrate migrants.
For each city, we have particularly focused on one or two of the Openness Factors,
providing statistical information, and/or reporting on the existence of initiatives, policies
or programs.
1 Sweden 88
2 Portugal 79
3 Belgium 69
4 Netherlands 68
5= Finland 67
Canada 67
7 Italy 65
8 Norway 64
9 United Kingdom 63
10 Spain 61
11= Slovenia 55
France 55
Luxembourg 55
14= Germany 53
Ireland 53
16 Switzerland 50
17= Hungary 48
Czech Republic 48
19 Estonia 46
20 Lithuania 45
21= Poland 44
Denmark 44
23 Malta 41
24= Slovakia 40
Greece 40
26= Austria 39
Cyprus 39
28 Latvia 30
Final ranking across 6 strands
129
2. Participating Cities Case Studies
2.1. Belfast
EU SOCR: transformation centre
As the capital of Northern Ireland, Belfast is the economic, transport and political
centre of the country. It is the largest port in Ireland with two airports, an advanced ICT
infrastructure and two major universities. While not as cosmopolitan as many UK cities,
as a capital city and headquarters of many regional bodies, Belfast is attracting more
resident minority ethnic groups than other local authorities in Northern Ireland. Census
?gures for 2001 show that Belfast is home to almost one-third of the total Chinese
community of Northern Ireland, almost 30% of the Indian community, and 25% of the
Pakistani community.
Despite this, the share of foreigners found in Belfast is one of the lowest among the
Cities participating to the OPENCities project. In 2001 it was just 1.37% of the total
population. However, since the enlargement of the European Union in 2004, there
has been signi?cant migration to Northern Ireland from new member States. Statistical
data on the New Migrants arriving to the city shows the large presence in the City of
Poles, Slovaks, Filipinos, Indians and Czechs. Other data on the city’s economy, shows
that the construction industry and health sector are the sectors where migrants mostly
work, and where Polish followed by Lithuanians and Czechs represent the largest part.
Overall, migration has contributed to ‘rejuvenating’ the city’s population.
Population
With a population of approximately 270,000 rising to some 700,000 in the wider
metropolitan area, Belfast has in facts a high percentage of young people (46% of the
population is under 30), but also a high proportion of elderly people compared with
national averages. Current projections suggest further decline in the city’s population
to 260,000 by 2015 (a decline of 3.7%).
Over the past decade, there have been many profound political, social, legislative and
policy changes across Northern Ireland. Particularly signi?cant are:
The peace process, political developments and the Belfast Agreement (1998).
The devolution of government in Northern Ireland and the establishment of the
Assembly (1998).
The State of European Cities identi?ed the Belfast’s position in the Transformation pole
typology. This is explained by the City’s transition from an industrial economy to one
based on services.
Annex I. Collaborating European Cities
130
The combination of the peace process, European funding support and strategic planning
have contributed to the city regeneration (the redevelopment of the city’s river front
and of city centre) and also to attract foreign direct investment and tourists.
In the paper Where is Belfast Going
2
(2007), professor Michael Parkinson has illustrated
some progress the city has made since 2003, when he prepared the “Belfast
Benchmarking a Competitive European City Report” for the City Council. He found early
evidence that Belfast has improved its performance on a whole range of indicators of
economic competitiveness including:
Population decline has slowed. After a sustained period of population loss,
Belfast’s population has begun to stabilise. As with all large UK cities the population
of Belfast fell substantially between 1981 and 2001, down by 12.4%. Since 2000
population loss from the Belfast City Council area has slowed down. It fell 1.3%
between 2000 and 2001 and just 0.36% between 2004 and 2005.
Employment and unemployment levels are improving. Ten years ago the
rate was 9.3%. Today it is 3.9%. Employment has grown during the ?rst half of this
decade by 5.4%.
There is growth in some of the most dynamic sectors of the economy.
Despite the public sector plays a huge role in Belfast’s economy with almost two
out of every ?ve jobs e in public administration, education and health sector, many
of Belfast’s industrial sectors have experienced strong employment growth over
the last ?ve years. Most important, the biggest increase in recent years has been
in the sectors where the city has traditionally done least well
Connectivity nationally and internationally is much better. In terms of
connectivity, there have been some improvements in recent years. In
2006 its two airports handled 7.1 million passengers. This is an increase of 61%
since 2000. Belfast is increasingly well connected to both UK and European cities.
In 2006 Belfast had links to 17 UK cities. International scheduled ?ights have also
substantially increased and in 2006 these ?ights carried 882,000 passengers.
Other important indicators include:
Educational achievement in schools is good.
Productivity is high and continues growing.
Overall competitiveness levels are up.
Retail rentals are up.
House prices are dramatically up.
Investment in physical development is booming.
2
European Institute for Urban Affairs Liverpool John Moores University (2007)
131
Leadership
In January 2001, in an attempt to demonstrate its commitment to improving the quality
of life of people in the City, the Belfast City Council adopted “Promoting Good Relations”,
a strategy aimed at improving integration, equality, community relations and cultural
diversity within the Council.
In 2004 a new Good Relations Strategy, “Building our Future Together” followed, setting
out the Vision for “a stable, tolerant, fair and pluralist City, where individuality is respected
and diversity is celebrated, in an inclusive manner”. The four themes of the strategy are:
Promoting Community Relations
Celebrating Cultural Diversity
Promoting Equality through Service Delivery
Promoting Equality through a Representative Workforce.
2.2. Bilbao:
EU SOCR: transformation pole
Bilbao constitutes an impressive example of city where seizing on new opportunities
and implementing economic strategies have provided a very positive way forward.
Basically the city has shaped its image of old industrial city, with job losses estimated
at 10,000 in shipbuilding alone (Campbell 2006), into an attractive international city.
The Guggenheim Museum is the symbol of this urban and economic regeneration, and
has been a fundamental asset to put the city on the global map.
For Bilbao, we have chosen to assess the elements of its internationalisation reviewing
some key initiatives and programs in order to understand how they have impacted on
city’s population and foreign population’s attraction.
Internationalisation Factors
Bilbao’s internationalisation has been achieved through emblematic projects, large
scale initiatives, prestigious architecture that features exquisite urban design (Kerexeta
and Ibarzabal, 2003).
Apart the Guggenheim Museum, become the symbol of the “new city” over the world,
thanks to architect Frank O. Gehry’s innovative design, a dozen other major projects
were planned around it, including a convention centre, a concert hall, a new airport, a
regional transportation system, and improvements for universities and other educational
institutions (Campbell, 2006).
Annex I. Collaborating European Cities
132
Strategic planning and public/private partnerships
Strategic planning and public/private collaboration have been recognised as the main
factors of the city’s revitalisation.
The ?rst Strategic Plan (1991-2000) was in facts promoted by the City of Bilbao and
the Provincial Council of Bizkaia, with the participation of all the national and regional
institutions, and together with the 35 municipalities making up the metropolitan area.
Also major ?rms were part of the collaboration. In this phase, the Plan was centred
around the followings elements:
i. External accessibility to the metropolis, internal mobility.
ii. Urban and environmental renewal.
iii. Investment in human resources and technological overhaul.
iv. Cultural centrality as an element of internal vitalization and external promotion.
In 2001 the general view was that the previous period had been successfully completed.
Bilbao Metropoli-30 identi?ed ?ve strategic keys for the future to achieve new success
in the following decade and overcome growing international competition:
i. Active, committed leadership.
ii. People and values.
iii. Knowledge and innovation.
iv. Networking or the capacity to participate in the world’s most advanced networks;
v. and quality of life (Bilbao Metropoli-30, 2001).
As we can observe, it is an in depth approach to the same competitive internationalising
strategy that was being encouraged up to that moment. In this context, the advisability
of generating social capital is highlighted as one of the keys to successfully formulating
this vision of the Bilbao of the future (Bilbao Metropoli-30, 2001). Furthermore, it is
necessary to indicate that, in the last phase of the planning a set of core values has
been recognised as essential for the competitive and sustainable development of a
medium-sized city such as Metropolitan Bilbao. Openness de?ned as “a favourable
attitude towards other ideas and cultures, different forms of being and of doing things,
to foster creativity and cultural diversity” is one of them. Others include innovation,
professionalism, identity, community.
This long term strategic approach has produced large positive outcomes. In ten years
(1997-2007), the Museum has attracted nearly ten million visitors, roughly ?ve and a
half million of them from abroad (Guggenheim Dossier X Anniversary, 2007). Airline
passenger traf?c has tripled since 1994.
Other elements found on the degree of the city’s internationalism include:
133
Bilbao is home of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, set up 1996.
The European Software Institute is hosted in the Bizkaia Technology Park.
Bilbao’s City Council has been recently awarded two important prizes for its work
in the renovation of the city. One was awarded in Prague under the category of
“Local Plans Development” and the other in Venice, Italy, for the regeneration of
Bilbao’s river banks.
Population
Bilbao’s population stand at 353,938 (2006). The migrants presence in the city has
signi?cantly raised in the last 5 years, passing from 2,9% in 2002 to 6,2% in 2007. Most
of the migrants are from Latino America countries (?gure 1) and with a higher level of
education (76%) .
Figure 1: Bilbao Foreign Born, 2006
Source: Bilbao City Council
Box 1: Spain Integration Index
Acess to Nationality
Long-term residence
Family Reunion
Labour Market Access
Anti Discrimination
Political participation
41
70
66
90
50
50
Others 35%
Paraguay 3%
Portugal 2%
Colombia
17%
Bolivia 11%
Ecuador 8%
Marocco
6%
Romania
7%
China
4%
Brazil
5%
Argentina
2%
Annex I. Collaborating European Cities
134
The ?gure on the left shows the overall national attitude towards migrants in terms of
regulatory factors. What emerges from the MIPEX index is that Spain ranks very well
(2
nd
out of the 28 MIPEX countries) on labour market access but has less favourable
conditions for family reunion and long-term residence policies. The weakest policy
areas are political participation and access to nationality, where it ranks 14
th
, and anti-
discrimination, where it ranks 17
th
.
At local level, the City Council is working to address the new challenges brought by the
recent in?ow of migrants, with a wide programme aimed to their social, economic and
cultural integration in the Community. Future objectives include, among others, the
creation of an intercultural forum involving the local government and associations and
the de?nition of an immigration plan.
2.3. Cardiff
EU SOCR: Gateway
The once world’s largest coal exporting port, Cardiff is de?ned by the EU State of the
Cities report as a Gateway city. It experienced major economic, social, physical and
political changes which have transformed it. Cardiff grew on coal but survived the
decline of the coal industry in the 1980s to reinvent itself as service sector city. During
this transition to a service sector economy, public sector functions, devolution and
the creation of the National Assembly for Wales in Cardiff in 1999 played a major part
(Cardiff, A competitive European city Report)
3
.
In reshaping the Cardiff’s economy contributed the city’s regeneration began in the
mid 1980’s when plans to transform Cardiff Docks into Cardiff Bay were drawn up.
In 1987 the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation was formed as part of the British
Government’s urban development programme to regenerate particularly deprived and
run-down areas of British inner cities.
The Corporation’s primary target was: “To put the capital on the international map as a
superlative maritime city”. The Development Corporation spearheaded the regeneration
of 1,100 hectares of South Cardiff and Penarth - the old docklands area of the city.
Population
Cardiff is relatively small if compared to other European cities, but its population is
growing. Between 1991 and 2001 it experienced an increase in population of +2.8%
(Urban Audit 2001). Today the city stands at some 320,000 inhabitants. Foreign
population, as said above, is almost 10% of the total one. Although Cardiff has long
been a multi cultural city, and home to numerous long established multi-ethnic groups,
recent trends suggest that there has been an increase in the number of migrants from
3
Michael Parkinson and Jay Karecha, European Institute for Urban Affairs, July 2006
135
the new EU member states, mainly from Poland and Slovakia, according to worker
registration scheme approved data (Home Of?ce Statistics).
Cardiff GDP per capita is 26,859 € (Urban Audit & Eurostat for UK cities). The overall
unemployment rate is low – at just 4.9% (Urban Audit). Migrants seem to perform well
also in terms of entrepreneurship. The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2006 Wales
Executive Summary Report revealed that white migrants are the most entrepreneurial
group in Wales, with around 7% of the population within this group undertaking early
stage entrepreneurial activity.
Figure 2: Cardiff Foreign Born, 2006
Source: Cardiff City Council
Box 2: United Kingdom Integration Index
According to MIPEX, migrants in the UK bene?t from slightly favourable labour market
access, long-term residence, family reunion, and access to nationality policies. Political
participation policies score around halfway to best practice. Anti-discrimination laws
and policies are particularly strong and have improved since 2004.
Cardiff’s long term experience as multicultural city implies the presence of numerous
support organisations and initiatives aimed to migrants. We have reviewed some points
related to the amenity and cultural factors.
Acess to Nationality
Long-term residence
Family Reunion
Labour Market Access
Anti Discrimination
Political participation
62
67
60
81
46
Oceania 2%
South America 1%
North America 6%
Other 1%
Europe-Non EU
Countries 5%
África 15%
EU Countries 27%
Asia 43%
Annex I. Collaborating European Cities
136
Amenity and Cultural Factors
International Students
Cardiff, which is one the lowest cost of living of any university city in UK (Virgin Guide to
Universities, 2003), is home to some 30,000 students enrolled at the Cardiff University,
10% of whom are international students. Around 10,000 students are enrolled at the
University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, of which over 800 are international students.
Voluntary Organizations
Race Equality First, which is part funded by Cardiff Council, have employed an
Outreach Of?cer for economic migrants, and are leading a project that identi?es the
needs economic migrants in the Cardiff area. There are numerous voluntary support
organisations in Cardiff that support economic migrants, but many concentrate on
addressing the needs of ethnic groups rather than speci?cally economic migrants.
Diversity Celebration
In terms of diversity’s celebration, two events highlight Cardiff’s history of migration
and diversity of population, Cardiff MAS Carnival, a costumed MASquerade of the historic
resistance to Slavery, held in 2007; and Roots to Cardiff, an exhibition undertaken in
Cardiff’s Old Library on the story of the migrants that have made their home in Cardiff
over many centuries.
Communication to foreign populations
A Welcome to Wales Pack for Migrant Workers in 18 languages was produced by the Welsh
Assembly Government. The aim is to ensure that migrant workers are fully aware of
their rights and responsibilities, and to help them ?t in with the local community.
Language courses for non native speakers
The Parade ESOL in Cardiff service is the largest ESOL provider in Wales. There are
also 24 Outreach centres in Cardiff of which ten are within Primary Schools, which
has proved an effective way of engaging with the local people and community. A
programme to provide ESOL in classes in the workplace throughout Cardiff is also in
place, funded by Basic Skills Cymru.
These initiatives suggest that the City is not new in working with migrants but that
the recent change in the migration patterns, with most people arriving from New EU
137
Member States, is posing new challenges in need to be addressed. The above mentioned
Cardiff, A competitive European city Report, commissioned by the Economic Scrutiny
Committee of Cardiff Council to locate Cardiff in its UK and European context, found
that attracting and retaining a potentially mobile highly skilled workforce is considered
as an important feature for the city’s competitiveness. Stakeholders argued that Cardiff
has a number of advantages that make it attractive to employers and employees making
location choices. It is a compact city, has some good housing, an attractive waterfront,
many cultural facilities and is in an attractive regional location.
Internationalisation Factors:
In line with its ambition of being a major European capital city, the City Council has
recently launched two strategic programmes:
1. A Competitive Capital 2007-12, the economic strategy, developed around the “drivers
of urban competitiveness” as identi?ed by the European Institute of Urban Affairs.
The strategy aims, as stated in its vision, to ensure that Cardiff, as an International
Capital City, is an inclusive, vibrant and thriving city in which to live and work, with a
skilled, creative workforce and a buoyant business environment.
2. The Proud Capital Community Strategy 2007-2017, structured on three levels
which involve local strategic partnership of public, private and voluntary sector
with four identi?ed projects (Integrating Social Care & Health to look at long term
care; Neighbourhood Transformation; ‘Ask Cardiff’ citizen consultation project
which will improve consultation across partnerships and organisations and
LSB Scrutiny & Performance to consider joint scrutiny arrangements between
partners). A website www.cardiffproudcapital.co.uk has been established promote
the activities of the Strategy.
Furthermore, Cardiff is working to host international events. The city has already hosted
some mayor events, including the 1999 Rugby World Cup, the FA Cup Final and the Rugby
Union’s European Cup Final which attracted large numbers of visitors and, critically,
have provided a focus for global media coverage. Cardiff is due to play its own part in
the London 2012 Olympic Games as one of six UK cities that have been designated as
hosts for Olympic football matches. The City should so bene?t from signi?cant sporting,
cultural and economic regeneration opportunities before, during and after the Games.
Other future events include the 2009 Ashes cricket tournament and the 2010 Ryder
Cup in Newport. Cardiff is the host of a number of major international cultural events,
including Cardiff Singer of the World, which considered one of the opera world’s most
prestigious competitions.
These recent developments, combined with the concrete evidence of the improvement
in the past, shows there is plenty of capacity in the city to tackle its challenges. There
is clearly recognition within Cardiff of what needs to be done next.
Annex I. Collaborating European Cities
138
2.4. Dublin
EU SOCR: Knowledge Hub
Knowledge Hub ful?lling the role of national capital as well, Dublin has registered over
the last years one of the highest share of newcomers in Europe. This is due to the
country’s rapid economic growth which has fuelled the continued expansion of Dublin
and the increasing dominance of the capital in terms of population, economic activity
and the urban system (EU State of Cities Report).
This explosion in growth could hardly have been predicted back in the 1980’s when
Ireland and Dublin were experiencing tough economic conditions and population
decline. The emergence of the ‘Celtic Tiger’ economy in the 1990’s has transformed the
country and in particular the city. The city region has become a magnet for attracting
new international populations and foreign investment. A positive climate for business
investment, an internationally recognised educational system and a well-developed
tourist industry have all contributed to this growth.
In few years the Dublin City Region has become home to a range of world-class
companies including IBM, Intel, Google, E-bay, Wyeth and Microsoft. The advent of
a globalised economy alongside the availability of cheap air fares and freedom of
movement in the EU has radically changed the ?ows and patterns of migration into
Ireland. The city economy continues to grow and high levels of inward net migration
continue to support this growth. Migrant workers have played a key role in supporting
and maintaining this growth. As a result of these migrant ?ows signi?cant cultural
changes have taken place within the country that was until very recently predominantly
over 95% Irish, white and Catholic. International populations are making an important
contribution to the City that extends well beyond economic considerations. At a more
tangible level the streets of Dublin City now play host to a range of ethnically diverse
food stores, restaurants, bars and cultural clubs.
Population
With a population of 505,739 rising to more than 1,6 million considering the Greater
Dublin Area, the City of Dublin has experienced a population growth of almost 18%
since 1996
4
. Over 60% of this population increase since 2002 can be attributed to the
arrival of migrants into the city, of these over 50% were in the 25 to 44 age category
5
.
Forecasts are for continue population growth suggesting that the city region will reach
2 million by 2021.
Migrants represent 12% of the city population (15% in the core city area). The largest
group in 2006 was from the UK, followed by Poland, and Lithuanians
6
.
4
Source: Central Statistics Of?ce www.cso.ie.
5
NCB – economics weekly Jan 2008 www.ncb.ie
6
Ethnicity was recoded for the ?rst time in the Census of 2006.
139
Figure 4: Dublin City Region Foreign Born, 2006
Source: Census 2006
While the initial attractors to the city region have been very much based on economic and
monetary factors it will be increasingly important that the city leads in the co-ordination
and development of future strategies ensuring that the city continues to hold onto these
international populations. This needs to be set in the context of the growing importance
of city regions competing for international mobile talent, tourism and students.
Cultural and Internationalisation Factors
International Students
The city region has seen sustained growth also in the numbers of international students
with over 15,600 students
7
registered in higher-level institutions in the city region in
2006/07 (accounting for 57% of the national total). This has contributed approximately
€213m to the city in 2006/07. International students account for about 10% of the total
student population.
Tourism
Tourism represents another critically important sector to the national and city economy.
This can be evidenced through the 4.3 million overseas tourists that visited Dublin in
2006
8
(representing a 30% increase from 2002). The growth in short city breaks and
the rise in the international population in the city has helped drive this growth. The
7
International Education Board Ireland (IEBI).
8
Regions 2006 – Dublin Tourism and Faille Ireland.
UK
Poland
Lithuania
Nigeria
China
Philippines
Romania
India
Latvia
France
USA
0 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000
Annex I. Collaborating European Cities
140
bene?t to the city economy is estimated at €1.374 billion (2006). In 2004, Dublin was
ranked as the third most popular destination in Europe, with over 20 million bed nights
recorded
9
.
High Skilled
Attracting migration is now felt as a fundamental resource for ensuring the country’s
growth. As stated in the National Competitiveness Council Annual Competitiveness
Report 2006, participation, training and attracting skills from abroad
10
are the top three
priority policy areas which need to be addressed over the next years.
Box 4: Ireland Integration Index
Acess to Nationality
Long-term residence
Family Reunion
Labour Market Access
Anti Discrimination
Political participation
62
39
50
58
59
50
The MIPEX index found that access to nationality policies are among the strongest,
ranking fourth in the EU-25, tied with the UK. Anti-discrimination, family reunion, labour
market access, and political participation score around halfway to best practice. Ireland’s
long-term residence policies received the worst score of all 28 MIPEX countries.
In order to attract and retain high skilled migrants, since January 2007, the Employment
Permit Act facilitated skilled labour migration from outside the EU. Highly skilled workers
from outside the EU/EEA receive ‘Green Cards’, which give them different eligibility,
conditions, and rights to those of regular workers for many of the MIPEX strands.
Leadership Factors
For a country whose history has been dominated by mass emigration, inward migration
has brought signi?cant challenges for government agencies and policy makers alike
both at national and local level.
At city level, the Dublin City Development Board has set out ‘New Migrant Communities’
as a key strategic priority for the period 2006-2008. The main objective within this
priority is to develop a strategic anti-racism, diversity and integration framework
9
Tourism Marketing Information System (TourMIS), Statistics of European cities´ Tourism (2004).
10
National policy and advisory board for enterprise, trade, science, technology and innovation,http://www.
forfas.ie/ncc/reports/ncc_challenge_06/webopt/ncc070207_acr_challenge_2006_webopt.pdf
141
plan for the city. The framework plan currently being developed, will map the policy
development, strategic direction and actions of public service agencies and other
stakeholders, including the local development sector, and to capture the input of the
social partners of business, trade unions and community interest groups (including
migrant and ethnic minority communities) in addressing these issues.
Two dedicated units, the Intercultural Relations Unit and Social Inclusion Unit work
to address the policy needs of Dublin’s new communities, to combat discrimination
and promote social inclusion. The Intercultural Relations Unit was set up in 2006 to
facilitate and encourage mutual understanding through dialogue, education, creation/
assistance of cultural events and celebrations by assisting migrant and cultural groups
with community based projects.
The Social Inclusion Unit which was set up in 2000 works towards the inclusion of all
members of society both within the structures and departments of Dublin City Council
itself and within community groups and projects throughout the city. Project carried
out by this unit include:
A Social Exclusion Strategy 2007-2009.
A Social Inclusion Handbook for Staff (best practice; impact assessment; language).
Inclusive projects across the city.
Close liaison internally and with other agencies.
Quarterly newsletter – ‘All In’.
Furthermore, in order to develop and manage initiatives and projects of international
scope, the International Relations, Research & Special Projects Department was
established as a Corporate Service in April 2007.
2.5. Düsseldorf
EU SOCR: knowledge hub
Capital of the federal state of North-Rhine Westphalia, Dusseldorf has all the main
characteristics of a knowledge hub, as identi?ed by the EU State of Cities Report:
signi?cant GDP level, good economic growth; high levels of employment and
participation-including younger and older population members; a large share of the
private sector as part of the economy; strong innovation and entrepreneurship; a high
share of the population with a university education; high commercial and residential
property prices; and excellent accessibility via a range of transport methods.
Not surprisingly the city has a large presence of foreigners, 17,2% of the total population
which stands at some 585,000 inhabitants (2006). The largest minority ethnic groups
Annex I. Collaborating European Cities
142
are Turkish, Greek, and Italian. Düsseldorf has the third largest Japanese community in
Europe and the largest in Germany (about 11,000).
Figure 5: Düsseldorf Foreign Born, 2006
Source: Dusseldorf City Council
Location and Accessibility
Düsseldorf is part of the Rhine Ruhr region
11
which is one of the largest metropolitan
areas in the world, estimated as being home to some 10,2 million people. Its location,
at the centre of Europe, has made the city very attractive to international companies.
Within less than 500 km/310 miles away from Düsseldorf live 35% of the EU total
population (i.e. 55 % of EU purchasing power). The region is easily accessible, thanks
to 172 international air connections, a dense network of motorways and highways, and
numerous rail lines.
As a major regional centre it has a wide variety of businesses and industries which
include telecommunications, media, fashion, advertising and trade fairs. With 42
universities, technical colleges, and administration academies, the region is also a
mayor centre for higher education and research.
Furthermore, the 2007 Mercer HR Consulting survey ranks Düsseldorf on place 5 of
the cities with highest quality of life worldwide and number 1 in Germany.
11
The Rhine Ruhr region is neither politically nor statistically de?ned. As such, it has no de?nite boundaries
and there are It is generally accepted that the region spreads from the Ruhr area megalopolis in the north
to the cities of Düsseldorf, Wuppertal, and Cologne in the south. Certainly the region comprises 20 cities
with a population of more than 100,000 people and 11 counties with a population of over 250,000 and
is a classic example of polycentricism. Although it contains several large cities such as Cologne, Essen,
Duisburd, Dortmund and Dusseldorf, no clear hierarchy of cities exists.
Turkish 14%
Other European 22%
Macedonian 3%
Ukrainan 3%
Croatian 3%
Russian 3%
Poles 5%
Sebia Montenegro 6%
Italian 6%
Greek 10%
Morocco 5%
US 1%
Other Asian 9%
Japanese 5%
Other African 3%
Other American 2%
143
Box 6: Germany Integration Index
With a consistently average performance, Germany’s six areas of integration policy
score either slightly favourably (family reunion and political participation) or around
halfway to best practice (labour market access, anti-discrimination, access to nationality
and long-term residence).
38
53
61
50
66
50
Acess to Nationality
Long-term residence
Family Reunion
Labour Market Access
Anti Discrimination
Political participation
Internationalisation Factors
International companies and trade fairs
Düsseldorf is home to almost 40,000 companies. More than 5,000 are branches of
international companies (?gure 6). It is one of the most important trade-fair venues in the
world, hosting 43 international trade fairs which attract some 1,5 million visitors annually.
Düsseldorf has also assumed a leading role as a ?nance centre with 170 national and
50 international banks and the Rheinisch-Westfälische Stock Exchange, which is the
second largest in Germany. Furthermore, the presence of other international institutions,
including 30 foreign Chambers of Commerce and Trade, and international schools and
clubs, facilitate the climate for international businesses and foreign investments.
Figure 6: International companies represented in the region
Approx. 5,000 foreign company
branches, there of from:
Source: Of?ces of Economic Promotion, Chambers of Industry and Commerce, City Council.
N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s
J
a
p
a
n
450
750
520
350
250
200
90
40
U
S
A
G
r
e
a
t
B
r
i
t
a
i
n
F
r
a
n
c
e
C
h
i
n
a
T
a
i
w
a
n
K
o
r
e
a
Annex I. Collaborating European Cities
144
Düsseldorf describes itself as “Nippon’s Capital on the Rhine.” Since the end of World
War II, Japanese companies have set up in the City. Among Japanese companies with
German headquarters in Düsseldorf is Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, a unit of Mitsubishi
UFJ Financial, the biggest Japanese bank. Its of?ces are on the Immermannstrasse,
called “Little Tokyo” by locals, which abuts the banking district. In 2006 ten Japanese
companies moved to Düsseldorf
12
.
The City is now looking to attract Chinese businesses. Different activities have been
undertaken by the City since 2004 in close collaboration with Messe Düsseldorf and
the Düsseldorf Chamber of Industry and Commerce, under the slogan “China goes
Düsseldorf - Düsseldorf goes China”. These initiatives are aimed at assisting local companies
in establishing and expanding business contacts with China while helping Chinese
companies with their investment and location projects in Düsseldorf. The Düsseldorf
China Competence Center (China Kompetenzzentrum Düsseldorf) was founded in
January 2005 and has been located at the Of?ce of Economic Development. According
to NRW.INVEST in three years (2003-2006) the number of Chinese companies has
tripled with over 400 ?rms now based in the North-Rhine Westphalia which employ
approximately 2,400 people in total
13
.
2.6. Gdansk
EU SOCR: Gateway
With some 456,000 inhabitants, Gdansk is the 6th most populated city in Poland. Its
population is very young (some 20% are under 17) and well educated but declining,
showing both negative birth rate and negative migration. Statistical forecasts also
suggest for continuing population decline.
Being part of a country of rich migration history, with a great propensity of its residents
to migrate, there are few data available on immigration. At national level, a recent
study (Agnieszka Fihel, 2006) found that as of 01.09.04, the number of foreigners
living in Poland was 84,729, among whom 37.8% held permission for settlement. The
most numerous national groups include: Ukrainians, Russians and Belarusians. Also
Vietnamese and citizens of Western Europe constitute the big groups of foreigners
resident in Poland. Currently, there are no data available on migrants living in Gdansk.
Box 5: Poland Integration Index
Poland’s integration policies perform rather unevenly on the MIPEX indicators. Policies
are slightly favourable on long-term residence, which are the best in the EU-10, and on
family reunion, which are the third best after Slovenia and Lithuania. Access to nationality
is also third best in the EU-10, although just below halfway to best practice, similar to
12
International Herald Tribune August 16, 2007
13http://www.nrwinvest.com/nrwinvest/nrwinvest.nsf/contentByKey/BSEE-6YCARN-EN-p
145
45
67
66
42
14
45
Acess to Nationality
Long-term residence
Family Reunion
Labour Market Access
Anti Discrimination
Political participation
anti-discrimination. Political participation and access to the labour market policies are
unfavourable to integration being respectively the third worst in the 28 MIPEX countries,
after Latvia and Lithuania and the second worst in the 28, after Latvia.
For its location and maritime tradition, Gdansk is included by the EU State of Cities
report among the Gateway cities. The city is in facts one of the main Polish ports and
bene?ts from its strategic location on Scandinavian and Western, Easter and Central
European routes. The city represents a regional transportation hub with rail and road
connections to the central parts of Central and Eastern Europe. Furthermore, the newly
renovated airport is one of the three international airports in Poland.
Gdansk is one of the main educational centres in the country, with almost 20% of
the working age population consisting of students. It is home to six universities and
four colleges. As said above the population is well educated, with some 13% having
completed higher education studies (the national average is 7%).
EU membership since 2004 and low-cost airlines are rapidly changing Gdansk into a
tourist destination and business location. The Gdansk’s region, Pomerania, is in facts
of one of the 14 Special Economic Zones created in Poland. The Pomeranian Special
Economic Zone (PSSE) was established in 2001 and will be in operation until 2017.
Gdanski Park Naukowo-Technologiczny is also associated with the PSSE.
The park is also part of the ScanBalt BioRegion, a transnational networks involving
universities, biotech/life science industry, hospitals and other important actors in the
biotech/life science arena from 11 countries set up with the aim of ensuring that
North European Life Science and Biotechnology realises its potential for global
competitiveness.
2.7. Madrid
EU SOCR: Established Capital
Madrid is the third largest city in Europe, and together with London and Dublin offers
an example of fast growing and young city. Madrid has in facts one of the highest
Annex I. Collaborating European Cities
146
share of newcomers in Europe (Urban Audit). Its role of established capital, as de?ned
in the State of European Cities, implies a diversi?ed economic base, the presence of
major corporate HQ and administrative functions, a good accessibility, a central role
in culture and education, and concentrations of wealth. These are all aspects that can
act as magnets for different types of migrants.
Population
According to Madrid City Council the signi?cant number of foreign migrants settling in
the city in recent years has raised their number to 16.6% of the total population (around
537,000), as opposed to 2.8% of just seven years ago, taking the city’s population past
3.2 million in 2006. Considering the metropolitan area, the population raises to more
than 6 million inhabitants.
Re?ecting former colonial ties, the largest migrant group consists of people from
Central and South America (62.4%), and then from European countries (19.5%), from
Africa (8.3%), Asia (7.4%) and North America (2%). In terms of single nationalities, the
most numerous groups are the Ecuadorians (29.7%), Colombians (9.3%), Romanians
(6.5%), Peruvians (6.1%) and Moroccans (5.3%) (Dirección General de Estadística,
2005). Furthermore, more than 50,000 foreign nationals now choose Madrid as their
new home each year, and this trend, though slackening slightly, remains strong.
In reviewing the openness factors, we have focused on Internationalisation and
Leadership Factors.
Internationalisation Factors
Long term planning and Branding
Over the last decades, Madrid has undertaken a wide process of internationalisation
based on the development of comprehensive and coherent strategies which have
brought the city to rise on the international panorama. Its positive performance across
numerous international and European benchmarks and indexes con?rm the city’s
success. Just to name a few:
Madrid places highly on the Lisbon Benchmark (a comprehensive measure of
economic performance).
In the European Cities Monitor (2005) the city is 7
th
for overall performance as a
business location and is one of the top cities in terms of self-improvement as a
business location. It also made signi?cant improvement on a variety of measures
between 2004 and 2005; 11
th
to 5
th
place in terms of access to markets, 9th to 6
th
in external transport links and 3
rd
to 2
nd
in the availability of of?ce space.
It is ranked as the 9
th
strongest city brand in the world according to the Anholt GMI
City Brands Index (2005)
147
14http://www.pwc.com/extweb/pwcpublications.nsf/docid/940ABE55AB5865A6852570F400722582/
$FILE/cities-?nal.pdf
15
The Plan Madrid is coordinated by the city’s General-Directorate for Immigration, Cooperation for
Development and Community Service, af?liated to the Agency for Employment and Citizen Services
(Dirección General de Inmigración, Cooperación al Desarrollo y Voluntariado del Area de Gobierno de
Empleo y Servicios a la Ciudadanía), which controls a budget of € 41.6 million till 2007 (Observatorio de
las Migraciones y de la Convivencia Intercultural, 2005, p. 3).
Madrid’s long term internationalisation strategy includes sections dedicated speci?cally
to brand management, so that the city’s international positioning is something that
will receive attention for years to come. In line with this approach is the ¡Madrid!, a
“focused passion” branding campaign, the “esmadrid.com” website to promote tourism,
culture, business and leisure, the Madrid 2016 candidature for the Olympic Games.
In a recent interview
14
Ignacio Niño, the General Co-ordinator of Economics at
Madrid City Council about future challenges and their consequences for the Spanish
capital, identi?ed the increase in land prices as a critical factor in absorbing, attracting
and retaining economic activity and population. In addition, he de?ned the integration of
migrants as critical for preserving the quality of urban life and harmonious coexistence
between different groups in all districts of the city. The ageing of the local population is felt
as another critical factor, determining business activity and future investments in the city.
In order to attract investment and people to Madrid, issues/factors of congestion such
as environmental quality, traf?c problems, housing and business land prices have been
identi?ed as factors to be addressed by investing in infrastructure and urban technology.
No less important also is the need for companies based in Madrid to evolve towards
quality, innovation and the appreciation of investment and R&D in order to preserve a
leading position for Madrid’s economy.
Leadership Factors
Despite Madrid has become a receiving migrants destination lately, the city has soon
recognised the importance of international populations and has looked for local
initiatives to address the large arrival of migrants in a such short period.
In March 2005 the City Council launched a strategic plan to elaborate a ‘City for Everybody’,
a ‘City of Neighbours’ appointing mutual responsibilities for both migrants and natives
named the Plan Madrid de Convivencia Social e Intercultural (Madrid Plan for Social and
Intercultural Coexistence) (Ayuntamiento de Madrid, 2005, p. 21). The Plan constitutes
the practical outcome of a debate on migration matters between governmental and non-
governmental participants convened within the Foro Social, a social forum established
in October 2003. The overall objectives are de?ned a fostering the institutional progress
of immigrant reception at the municipal level, to provide better access to civil rights and
resources for immigrants, as well as to improve coexistence between Spaniards and
foreigners in order to create dynamic and harmonious neighbourhoods
15
.
Since Plan Madrid was adopted, the city has established an information centre for
the integration of immigrants (O?cina Municipal de Información y Orientación para la
Annex I. Collaborating European Cities
148
Integración) and also founded a centre to facilitate immigrants’ access to the local
housing market called Agencia de Alquiler del Área de Gobierno de Urbanismo y
Vivienda e Infraestructuras del Ayuntamiento (Accomodation Bureau of the Municipal
Of?ce for Urban Housing and Infrastructure). The housing agency collaborates closely
with the intercultural mediation services of the city.
IMMIGRAMADRID a web portal aimed to help immigrants integration into the City was
launched by the Immigration Department (Consejería de Inmigración). The website
provides information on the most concerned subjects: employment, housing, health,
education. Furthermore, the Community of Madrid has published an information booklet
in Spanish, French, English, Arabic, Rumanian and Chinese to answer foreigners’ most
frequently asked questions when they arrive in Madrid called “First steps guide for
immigrants”.
2.8. So?a
EU SOCR: reinvented capital
As all the capitals of the New Member States, So?a has gone through drastic changes
during the last 15 years. The City has in facts modernised at a fast rate, attracted
international companies and citizens, and often large amounts of visitors. In addition
to the capital functions, business services and tourism have emerged as new pillars of
economic activity.
Bulgaria is not presented in the MIPEX index
16
. It must be said that as both a source
and destination country for migrants, the country’s accession to the European Union
in 2007 has posed new challenges in the ?eld of migration management. Located at
the south-eastern gateway into Europe, Bulgaria is also a transit country for migrants
from Asia and Africa en route to EU countries.
Population
With a total population of 1,237,891 (2006) inhabitants So?a is by far the largest
Bulgarian city. According to the NSI, since 2003 So?a’s population has been growing at
a rate of some 8% per year. The city is expected to grow to more than 1.3 million, with
an estimated another 400,000 people coming in to work (and shop) every week-day.
The numbers of foreigners living in the city is estimated to exceed 30,000 (2,5% of
the total population), largely Arab (32%), Chinese (21%) and Ukraine, Moldova and
Macedonia (12%) nationals. Since the EU accession, the number of applications for
Bulgarian citizenship has signi?cantly increased.
16
MIPEX’s application for funding was submitted and approved before the accession of Bulgaria and
Romania in January 2007.
149
As post socialist city in a transition economy, So?a holds a different position within the
cities participating to the OPENCities project. The followings have been identi?es as
the key assets which can contribute to the city’s journey to internationalisation and
openness.
Capital Status: So?a is the administrative, economic, ?nancial, political, cultural,
research and development centre.
Position: Geographically it is situated at crossroads of major European and
transcontinental routes; particularly three Pan European Corridors;
Foreign Investments: For the period 1992-2004 more than the half of the
direct foreign investment (DFI) (about 56%) in Bulgaria was directed to So?a. The
increasing share of the DFI in So?a is a main factor for the organization and fast
development of the local economy, but is also an indicator for the high interest
of international companies to invest in the region
17
. So?a has in facts some 4,000
businesses established by foreign migrants.
Highly quali?ed and relatively affordable work force. So?a host 19 universities
and 92,500 students, 4,5% of whom were foreign born (So?a City Council, 2006).
New strategic approach: The development of the City’s Strategy started in
2000
18
with the aim to enhance the development of democratic and self-reliant
municipal management system in So?a in a manner that generates sustainable,
long-term bene?ts for its residents. The SWOT analysis prepared in the document
shows that So?a has a high concentration of business headquarters, a relatively
high quality of life, a reputation of entrepreneurialism and a pro-business attitude.
These factors, together with a concentration of highly skilled labour force, make
So?a’s business milieu attractive. However, sustaining competitiveness within
Europe requires urgent attention to improvements of infrastructure and more
ef?cient delivery of urban services. Other issues of major concern include rising
business and living costs, inadequate quality of life in existing housing areas,
access to jobs, retail and recreation.
2.9. Vienna
EU SOCR: established capital
Due to its geographical location in the eastern part of the country and its historical
development (Austro-Hungarian Monarchy), Vienna is seen as the main gateway to
Central and Eastern Europe. Together with The Hague and Geneva, the City is also
known for the UN-activities taking place within its borders.
17http://www2.fmg.uva.nl/acre/index.html
18
So?a management forged a partnership with the Cities Alliance—a global program led by the World Bank
and the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UNHabitat).
Annex I. Collaborating European Cities
150
Economic and Demographic Factors
The City of Vienna is both Austria’s federal capital and one of its federal provinces too. It
is by far the largest municipality in the country and the most important economic centre,
generating approximately 28% of the nation’s GDP and employing about a quarter of
the nation’s workforce. After decades of a decreasing population, the ?gure increased
by 120,000 between 1987 and 1994, due to an extraordinary in?ux of migrants, and
has remained on a slow but steady rise since then. Today the population stands at
some 1.6 million inhabitants. Data from 2006 shows that 316,188 (19.1%) were foreign
citizens. The largest migrant group was from Serbia and Montenegro (75,895), followed
by Turks (39,153) and Poles (24,111) and migrants from Germany (21,766), Bosnia and
Herzegovina (17,742) and Croatia (16,606). Forecasts suggest that by 2035 over half
a million (543.500) will be foreign citizens.
Figure 3: Vienna Foreign Born, 2006
Source: Vienna City Council
The GDP per capita in Vienna is approximately EUR 40,000 way above most
European cities and this level of income is relatively evenly distributed throughout the
population.
Box 3: Austria Integration Index
Austria lies halfway to best practice only concerning labour market access, and slightly
favourable policies for political participation; while it presents the least favourable
access to nationality, out of the 28 MIPEX countries, for legally-resident third-country
migrants. Policies for families to reunite fall second from the bottom, after Cyprus. In
the EU-15, the anti-discrimination laws relevant to integration score 14th and long-term
residence policies rank 13
th
.
Germany 7%
Turkish 12%
Poles 8%
Bosnia & Herzegovina 6%
Croatian 5%
Others Europa
21%
Africa 4%
Asia 10%
Others 4%
Serbia Montenegro 23%
151
22
55
34
42
34
45
Acess to Nationality
Long-term residence
Family Reunion
Labour Market Access
Anti Discrimination
Political participation
Despite at national level we have found partially unfavourable policies for the migrants’
integration, at city level we have identi?ed numerous initiatives and practices indicating
a wide degree of openness towards international populations.
Amenity Factors
Communication to foreign populations
Since 2002 the city of Vienna has provided its new citizens with an initial guide to
integration in the form of a ‘welcome package’, which contains a letter on integration
(Integrationsstadträtin), a city map, and basic information on the city and its
services (work, social insurance, childcare and schooling, health, housing, traf?c).
Moreover, a so-called ‘conversation for orientation’ (Orientierungsgespräche) has
been introduced – small circles of immigrants moderated by a former migrant
(Stadt Wien, 2006).
The City’s web portal, www.wien.at, offers an additional service for migrants.
Information on life and services are provided in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian and in
Turkish. The existing English version has been expanded as well. Furthermore, a
quarterly magazine called “Welt und Stadt” (The world and the city) is part of the
broad range of municipal print media and is targeted speci?cally at migrants. It is
summarised in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian and Turkish and offers legal and other
information and helps the new Viennese to get to know their city better.
Education and language courses for non native speakers
Different initiatives aimed to language integration and multilingual education have been
found. At the provincial level, children with little German are granted (€80/child) with
the so-called “language tickets”, entitling them to 120 hours of language classes. At
city level, language classes speci?cally for mothers were developed in Vienna (Mama
is Learning German), as well as a system of vouchers for language training (€100 per
person in 2006, increasing to €300 per person in 2007). Furthermore, in addition to all
the conventional German-language state schools, there are kindergartens conducted in
English; a French Lice, American, Czech, Swedish, International and Japanese schools,
even one holding classes in German, Hungarian and Slovakian.
Annex I. Collaborating European Cities
152
Internationalisation Factors
International Organizations
As said above, Vienna is home to numerous UN of?ces and other international
organizations
19
. In 1979 the Austrian Government provided a permanent facility for UN
organizations, named the Vienna International Centre (VIC)14, also known as UNO City,
where more than 4,000 employees from over 100 countries work for the VIC-based
organizations. The presence of UN organizations have a large positive impact on the
local economy
20
and has always been supported both at local and national level. Free
services for employees of UN organizations and their families, especially for newcomers,
are provided at local level by the Vienna Service Of?ce based at VIC whose mission
is creating the best conditions to accommodate international organizations in the city
and facilitate the access of family members of international staff to the Austrian labour
market. It holds a variety of brochures and pamphlets on Vienna and related topics.
It provides prompt and individual help with problems related to their stay in Vienna,
such as contact with authorities, free counselling and information services of the city,
residence permits, education and schooling.
International companies
Vienna hosts almost 300 international companies, 20% of which are specialised in hi-
tech activities, and that employ more than 150,000 people. This is the result of work
done by the City of Vienna that since 1997 has invested € 400 million in technology
projects and has created new high technology centres, such as the Business & Research
Centre on Hochstädtplatz or Tech Gate Vienna, Vienna’s ?rst science and technology
park across the Danube next to the Vienna International Centre. The aim is to make
Vienna the “Research Capital” for central and Eastern Europe. Furthermore, Vienna also
plays an important world role regarding congresses and fairs. Two statistics published
at the end of 2005 by the International Congress and Convention Association (ICCA)
19
Today, the Vienna International Centre houses the United Nations Of?ce at Vienna (UNOV), the United Nations
Of?ce on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear
Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO PrepCom) and the United Nations Commission for International Trade
Law (UNCITRAL). Other United Nations organizations and entities with of?ces in Vienna are the United
Nations Of?ce of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), the United Nations Postal Administration—Vienna
Section (UNPA), the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the United Nations Scienti?c
Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR).
20
In 2002, these organizations spent some €480 million in Austria and employed approximately 4,800
staff including some 1,200 Austrians. In view of their professional quali?cations and required mobility, the
international civil servants earn a relatively high income. Of the available household income per foreign civil
servant, 27% go annual household income of € 70,900 per diplomat, one third goes into savings while the
balance € 47,251 is spent in Austria.
In addition to the personal expenditure of international civil servants and diplomats employed by the
Permanent Missions, the international organizations themselves spent some € 739 million in 2002 to meet
their administrative requirements and in the purchase of goods and services. Of this amount, € 412 million
was spent in Austria, creating a substantial added value for the Austrian economy.
153
and the Union of International Associations (UIA) showed that Vienna had become the
second most popular congress city in the world. According to ICCA Vienna, in the 2004
world listing of the most popular congress cities, came after Barcelona, and according
to UIA following Paris in second place. Vienna congress statistics for 2004 recorded
1,633 congresses with 241,000 participants and 888,000 overnight stays. This made
up 10% of Vienna’s total tourism
21
.
Branding and Strategies
Vienna has the image of a meeting point of east and west. The city works on its
international promotion through agencies in 11 central European countries, the Vienna
House in Brussels and of?ces in Hong Kong and Tokyo. In order to achieve a consistent
image with greater penetration abroad, the city started in 2006 to pursue a policy of
international and integrative image marketing. Prior to this, the main actors in business,
tourism and the municipal authorities had been conducting their international activities
independently. Through closer cooperation between the city of Vienna, its institutions
and partners, and private interests, international activities will now be strategically
coordinated and scheduled. The entire process will be consolidated under a single
brand image on the principle of “strength in numbers”.
Leadership Factors
Institutionally the city responds to the signi?cant presence of internationals most visibly
with the municipality departments (Magistratsabteilungen), MA 11 and MA 17. MA 11
coordinates cooperation with different groups and associations for families and their
support. Besides German they provide help in other languages such as Turkish, Serbian,
Bosnian and Croatian. Explicitly, within the project REBAS, a regional care centre was
created in which teachers, social workers and two native speakers help pupils with
migration backgrounds in solving problems at school, education or social demands
(Stadt Wien, 2006b and 2006c). MA 17 is entrusted with the general task of integrating
and promoting Vienna’s diversity policy.
The MA17 team of 43 persons includes 20 staff members working in decentralised
of?ces in seven different parts of Vienna. This proximity reinforces the MA17’s knowledge
of local communities and associations and of the concrete situation in the different
districts of the city. Almost two thirds of MA17 staff have an immigrant background;
many of them are ?rst-generation migrants. They come from 14 countries and speak
more than 23 languages.
21http://www.wieninternational.at/en/node/747
Annex I. Collaborating European Cities
154
3. Case Studies Conclusions
Although the initial case studies are far from comprehensive, the progress has allowed
us to identify some key points for the general de?nition and to the co-ordination of this
project.
First of all, in order to allow some sort of comparison, the cities participating to the
OPENCities Project have been categorised according to the typology of cities as stated
in the EU State of Cities Report, and classi?ed by population size and foreign presence
(table below).
Table: Participating Cities: Summary table using typology from EU State of the Cities Report.
City Typology Population Foreign Population
Belfast Transformation Pole 270,000 Declining Less 2%
Bilbao Transformation Pole 353,938 Stable 6,2%
Cardiff Gateway 320,000 Growing 10%
Dublin Knowledge Hub 1,6 million Growing 12%
Düsseldorf Knowledge Hub 580,000 Growing 18%
Gdansk Gateway 456,000 Declining n.a.
Madrid Established Capital 3,2 million Growing 16%
Vienna Established Capital 1,664,146 Growing 19,1%
So?a Reinvented Capital 1,237,891 Growing 2,5%
This initial classi?cation has shown that the participating cities all lie at different stages.
The common point is that migration is happening in all of them, even in those cities, like
Belfast or Bilbao, which were historically not immigrant destinations.
Case studies have highlighted that migration is a complex issue because it involves
several ?elds of debate.
The following key points provide an early framework for re?ecting upon it and how a
city can be open.
i. Migrants in-?ows are characterising all the cities both if the local population is
growing or declining. The EU accession of New member states in 2004 has much
contributed to accelerate this in?ux and also to a change in the origin of ethnic
communities. Cities like Dublin, Madrid and Vienna have received the highest
share of new comers in the last decade, and consequently experienced a rapid
155
change in population’s diversity. Also for Sofia and Gdansk the EU accession
has posed new challenges in terms of migration management. Early evidence
of change in the population base has already occurred, despite not properly
documented yet.
ii. Many of the factors of city open-ness are beyond the direct in?uence of city
governments but cities’ in?uence appear to be fundamental in many of the
identi?ed factors. From the country analysis, based on the MIPEX index, it has
in fact emerged that often Cities have found more open and ef?cient policies
to manage international migration than the national governments do. Vienna is a
good example of a city aware of the positive effects of international populations
and where many initiative and programs have been undertaken at local level
to manage it, despite policies for migrants are generally quite unfavourable at
national level.
iii. Openness doesn’t represent yet an explicit goal for many of the participating
cities. By far the most dominant form of strategy exhibited by cities involved
in the OPENCities project was that which sought to promote the integration of
immigrants once they had arrived in the city, rather than pro-actively seeking
them out in the ?rst place. Bilbao, Dublin and Madrid show some good evidence
of recognising the importance that the attraction of migrants represents for
sustaining the city’s growth.
iv. Overall cities more internationalised have emerged to be more attractive to
international populations, con?rming the hypothesis that the journeys to openness
and to internationalisation are inseparable.
v. The initial diagnosis of city’s openness through the eight identi?ed factors of
open-ness has demonstrated that different kinds of cities are differently ‘open’.
The point here is that because all cities are different, and because there are at
least eight important factors to how open a city is, there are bound to be different
combinations of such factors, producing not just different degrees of open-ness
within cities, but also different kinds of open-ness. Each city has in fact shown to
have different local speci?cities which have acted as magnet to attract foreign
populations. It can be the location as in Vienna or Düsseldorf, a positive climate for
investments and well educated people as in Dublin, strategic planning as in Bilbao,
ex colonial ties as in Cardiff, Madrid.
These simple observations lead to important conclusions; cities will not become more
open by following a rigid formula, they will become more open by carefully diagnosing
their own open-ness, and by making progress on factors which are revealed as the key
constraints on their open-ness at this point.
Leadership is key to face the challenges and opportunities that a diverse population
brings. Cities and community leaders (business, NGOs, Trade Unions, media, etc) need
to work together to achieve the advantages that a diverse population can offer.
Annex I. Collaborating European Cities
156
Concluding, from the Case Studies has emerged that despite the participating cities
present different economic development bases, all of them have shifted at some
degree to a service or knowledge economy. This has led us to better de?ne the scope
of the OPENCities project and decide to focus on the attraction and retention of
highly skilled international populations. This is very important if considered that the EU
expects to have a heavy shortfall of skilled workers by 2030 and the attraction of highly
skilled migrants has become a top priority on its agenda. Accordingly to EU statistics, in
facts, highly skilled foreign workers accounted for only 0,9% of all workers in the Union,
compared with 9,9% in Australia, 7,3% in Canada and 3,5% in the United States. The
OPENCities project aims so to further investigate on the role that European cities can
play in attracting and retaining stable and skilled international populations.
4. Case Studies References
Basque Statistic Of?cehttp://www.eustat.es/
Belfast City Councilhttp://www.belfastcity.gov.uk/
Belfast Community Relations Councilhttp://www.community-relations.org.uk/
Belfast Multi-Cultural Resource Centrehttp://www.mcrc-ni.org/
Bilbao City Councilhttp://www.bilbao.net
Bilbao Metropoli 30http://www.bm30.es
Bilbao Porthttp://www.bilbaoport.es/aPBW/index.jsp
Bilbao Ria 2000http://www. bilbaoria2000.com
Bilbao Tourism Infohttp://www.visitbilbao.info
Budapest Tourism Of?cehttp://www.budapestinfo.hu/en/
Cardiff Proud Capital Strategyhttp://www.cardiffproudcapital.co.uk
Cardiff City Councilhttp://www.cardiff.gov.uk
Central Statistic Of?ce Irelandhttp://www.cso.ie/
City of Düsseldorfhttp://www.duesseldorf.de/en/index.shtml
City o Dublin Portalhttp://www.dublin.ie
City of Gdanskhttp://www.gdansk.pl/en/
City of Malmohttp://www.malmo.se/
City of So?ahttp://www.so?a.bg/en/index_en.asp
City of Viennahttp://www.wien.gv.at/english/
Dublin City Council www.dublincity.ie
157
Düsseldorf Chamber of Small Industries and Skilled Tradeshttp://www.hwk-duesseldorf.
de/engl/index.html
Düsseldorf China Competence Centerhttp://www.china-goes-dus.de
Empresa Municipal Promoción de Madridhttp://esmadrid.com
Guggenheim Museumhttp://www.guggenheim-bilbao.es
ImmigraMadrid Portal de Integracion y Convivienciahttp://www.madrid.org/cs/Satellite
?language=es&pagename=PortalInmigrante%2FPage%2FINMI_home
Madrid 2016 Ciudade Aspirantehttp://www.madrid2016.es/
Malmo Universityhttp://www.mah.se/default____12978.aspx
Messe Düsseldorfhttp://www.messe-duesseldorf.de/
Migrant Integration Policy Indexhttp://www.integrationindex.eu/
Migration Information Institutehttp://www.migrationpolicy.org/
Municipalidade Madridhttp://www.munimadrid.es
Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minoritieshttp://www.nicem.org.uk/
NRW.INVESThttp://www.nrwinvest.com
Øresundsbro Konsortiethttp://osb.oeresundsbron.dk/
Port of Gdanskhttp://www.portgdansk.pl/en
Union of Baltic Citieshttp://www.unc.net
Vienna International Centrehttp://www.unvienna.org/unov/en/vic.html
159
Annex II:
Global Case Studies
Selected by the particular interest and city
typologies to our project
160
Global Case
Studies
Selected by the particular interest and city
typologies to our project
1. Birmingham: Cultural diversity as an asset and
opportunity
With nearly 1 million residents, Birmingham is the second largest urban area in the
UK after London. It is an ethnically and culturally diverse city. According to the 2001
Census, 70.4% of the population was White (including 3.2% Irish & 1.5% Other White),
19.5% British Asian, 6.1% Black or Black British, 0.5% Chinese, 2.9% of mixed race and
0.6% of other ethnic heritage. 16.5% of the population was born outside the United
Kingdom. Birmingham is home to one of the largest Pakistani-Kashmiri communities
outside of Kashmir and is said to have an overall Pakistani origin population of more
than 200,000, which would make this the largest Pakistani community of any local
authority in the UK
i
.
Birmingham Foreign Born, 2001
Total Foreign Born:
161,250
Total Population:
977,087
Percentage Foreign Born:
16.50%
Source: National Statistics, Census 2001 byhttp://gstudynet.org/gum/UK/Birmingham2001.htm
ihttp://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=729&CONTENT_ITEM_
TYPE=0&MENU_ID=148
Other countries 39,113
Other EU 7,817
Bangladesh 10,748
Ireland 22,473
Pakistan 52,763
India 28,336
Annex II: Global Case Studies
162
Birmingham is a classic case of a European industrial city struggling to adapt to the
effects of globalisation, de-industrialisation, structural economic change and increasing
intercity competition at a transnational scale. In fact, by the early 1980s Birmingham
was experiencing a severe socio-economic crisis precipitated by the collapse of its
manufacturing basea.
At the beginning of the 1990s, recognising an urgent need to modernise and diversify
the city economy and to address related social and environmental problems that
undermined the city’s long-term prospects, the Birmingham City Council identi?ed a
key new strategic sector for the city – business tourism and related service functions
– and developed this as a means to begin the regeneration of the city centre. The city
council response particularly focused on twin investments set within an innovative new
approach to planning and the urban realm within the city centre area. The ?rst major
set of initiatives comprised the development of a series of ?agship projects designed to
lead Birmingham’s move into international business tourism and related leisure sectors.
The schemes were clustered together in what is now known as the Convention Centre
Quarter on the west side of the city centre. The main elements were:
International Convention Centre/Symphony Hall (ICC),
National Indoor Arena (NIA),
Hyatt Hotel,
Centenary Square,
Downgrading of the Inner Ring Road,
Canal Network and Infrastructure.
More recently, the city council’s attention has turned to the regeneration of the Eastside
district of the city centre. It represents a critical evolution of Birmingham’s city centre
strategy as it combines elements of continuity with preceding policy initiatives discussed
above and some new perspectives on regeneration in this area. In particular, it is an
attempt to broaden and diversify the kinds of activities, users and residents in the city
centre while still contributing to the city’s strategic aims of economic diversi?cation/
modernisation and reversing the processes of out-migration and loss of young, skilled
people. Important dimension of the plans, some of which are beginning to bear fruit
include:
Educational activities,
Creative industries,
Affordable and innovative housing.
The city centre strategy has been effective in diversifying the economy, rebuilding the
heart of the city into civic life and creating substantial new employment opportunities.
Recent research into Birmingham’s city centre experience provides a fuller picture of
163
the impacts (Barber 2002, 2001). The service sector, which in 2003 accounted for
78% of the city’s economic output and 97% of its economic growth is the main activity
sector
ii
.
The new facilities have succeeded in positioning Birmingham as an international
conference venue, hosting the G8 Summit and many other events of national and
European importance. The city centre business tourism sector has also increased the
volume of visitors to the city (particularly high spending overseas visitors) and a strong
improvement in its position relative to other British cities has ensued ( the city now
ranks third behind London and Edinburgh).
The growth of this important economic function has had extensive knock-on effects
in terms of visitor spending and the emergence of new complementary facilities in
the leisure, hotel and catering sectors. Employment growth in these sectors has also
outpaced regional and national averages since the early 1990s (Birmingham Economic
Information Centre, 2002).
Alongside the substantial economic impacts, it is important to note another less tangible
dimension of the city centre policy – its effect on urban quality of life. The city council’s
initiatives and subsequent private investments have created a highly attractive, safer
and more vibrant urban environment that is regularly used by a range of residents and
visitors, including young people, families, and a wide cross section of city cultures.
While much of the follow-on development is of a pro?t-making, commercial nature, the
revived city centre includes extensive spaces and places that allow simple enjoyment of
city life without the need to expend substantial amounts of money. Further, the squares
and open spaces are frequently used to host a range of cultural and civic events – from
New Year’s Eve parties to arts festivals and religious celebrations re?ecting the multi-
cultural fabric of the city population – the vast majority of which are free.
1.1. Cultural diversity: as an asset and opportunity
During these years Birmingham has also embarked on a brave attempt to broaden its
planning ethos and incorporate elements of the city’s diverse cultural population. A
key feature of this new ethos is a re-scripting of its ethnic minorities as an asset rather
than a problem. In February 2001, a conference consisting of planners, politicians,
voluntary sector workers, business people, academics and representatives from
ii
From 1971-1987 the city lost 149,000 manufacturing jobs, representing 46% of the sector total, and
nearly a quarter of overall city employment. Heavy reliance on the automotive industry and related metal-
working and engineering sectors, combined with the weak underlying structure of its manufacturing base
left Birmingham particularly vulnerable to recession and de-industrialisation processes from the late 1970s
through the early 1990s. This was a sharp, swift blow for a city that had boomed through much of the 20
th
century and had experienced a related expansion of population and substantial immigration through this
time.
Annex II: Global Case Studies
164
Birmingham’s ethnic minority communities was held in Birmingham featuring a number
of discussions on how the city could manage its cultural differences. Essentially, with
the attempts to ‘meet the challenge of diversity’ (Birmingham City Council, 2001), the
conference seemingly marked a turning point in Birmingham’s planning agenda. Where
once planners would seek to elide issues of cultural difference, they now solicit and
celebrate its multiculturalism. As the proceedings of the conference states: ‘the city’s
great strength and de?ning characteristic is its depth of diversity’ (Birmingham City
Council, 2001).
Notably, af?liated to the construction of the city’s multicultural ethos is an ongoing
process of re-scripting the character of Birmingham’s population as an asset
(Bhattacharyya, 2000). For instance, one key discussion document commissioned by
Birmingham City Council and entitled Planning for the Cosmopolitan City has identi?ed
the early stages of a revised attitude towards what it calls ‘the others’: Birmingham has
begun to see cultural diversity as an asset and opportunity, rather than a problem or
threat, and this is a vital shift in mindset. (Bloom?eld and Bianchini, 2002)
Reframed as assets, the report casts ethnic minority cultures as an untapped resource
in the local economy. In particular, it highlights the entrepreneurial skills amongst Black
and Asian youth and the connections of ethnic businesses in diasporic networks as
the areas of wealth creation. In an edition of Area, Henry et al. (2002) have made
a similar point on Birmingham’s ethnic diversity. Like Planning for the Cosmopolitan
City, they propose that Birmingham’s location in transnational networks – as marked
by the presence of its minority ethnic communities – offers the city avenues towards
competitive success.
2. Dubai: moving fast towards a knowledge based
economy
Dubai is by far the city with the highest percentage of international populations in
the world. According to of?cial estimates, approximately 80% of the total population
is foreign born (see the ?gure below), predominantly Asian, despite new waves of
immigrations have occurred during the last decade. Dubai’s population, which was
183,200 in 1975, reached some 1,2 million people in 2005, growing at a rate of 7%
a year.
iii
iii
It must be said that little information is in the public domain relating to changes in the composition and
characteristics of the population and also that according to a HSBC Bank Middle East document (2004)
based on different surveys of Dubai , a considerable proportion of the foreign population lives in collective
labour accommodation. Furthermore, there is a general absence of published public opinion about busi-
ness data (Walters, 2006). Data used in this case study are mostly gathered from key word searches in both
the Gulf News, the local English language newspaper of record, and Google.
165
Dubai Foreign Born, 2005
Arab* countries refers to countries of South Western Asia and North Africa
Source: Data on the UAE are 2005 mid-year estimates of the total and international migrant populations
reported by the UN Population Division (2006), Trends in Total Migrant Stock: The 2005 Revision. Data
on Dubai are from Ministry of Labor (available at the GUM website).
The city has profoundly changed since 1995 when the Sheikh Mohammad bin Rashid
Al Maktoum, Crown Prince of Dubai, became vice-president and prime minister of the
UAE. He understood that compared to its neighbours, Dubai had a limited supply of oil
and gas reserves (1/20th the reserves of Abu Dhabi) that would run out by 2010 and
was determined to build up Dubai’s economy so that could it survive the end of the oil
boom. His famous quote was “my grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I
drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his
son will ride a camel.” This quote signi?ed Sheikh Rashid’s understanding of the risks
involved with the end of petrol money. (Matly and Dillon, 2007).
Dubai can be considered an emerging world city. Behind the fast city’s ascent, there is
the Dubai Holding, the government investment branch which has transformed the city
into an engine of growth. The company has developed “an investment empire where
the sun never sets” (7Days, 22 October 2006, pps. 16-17). Under the umbrella of Dubai
Holding, that empire now includes Dubai Investment Group, Jumeriah Hotels, Istithmar,
Emaar, Dubai International Capital, Dubai Ports International, Dubai Islamic Bank, Dubai
Ports World, and Dubai Financial, among others.
The City’s vision (Dubai Vision 2010) is to attract the world’s top companies and
transform Dubai into a knowledge based economy. In 2006 one fourth of the world’s
global 500 companies had a presence in Dubai
iv
. In fact, between 2004-2009, Dubai
has earmarked $40 - $60 billion USD to projects like Dubailand, The Palm and the
Dubai International.
iv
Dubai Internet City: Serving Business” IMD International. 224: v 07.01.2005. p. 2
Other Countries 7%
USA 0%
Europe 1%
Sri Lanka 2%
Philippines 3%
Bangladesh 9%
Arab* 11%
Pakistan 16%
India 51%
Annex II: Global Case Studies
166
The city is realising this, trough a multilevel strategy which includes large scale
initiatives, emblematic projects, business policies, targeted branding. The followings
are examples of some approaches undergone to opening the city up.
The creation of free-zones which not only included freedom of ownership and
management without taxes, but also a simpli?ed approach to documentation
and government regulations. What is new in this strategy, has been the creation
of business parks dedicated to speci?c industrial sectors. The Dubai Internet
City opened in 2000 was designed to appeal to large information-technology
companies and to “knowledge professionals” from around the world. The list of
tenants includes Dell, Siemens, HP, Microsoft, Oracle and Cisco Systems. For media
companies there is the adjacent Dubai Media City, which opened in 2001 and is now
home to branches of CNN, Reuters and Dow Jones, among others. The Healthcare
City de?ned as the “world’s ?rst health care free zone” and includes internationally
known brand health care providers such as Harvard Medical School and the Mayo
Clinic (Dubai Healthcare City). The Dubai Knowledge Village launched in 2003 with
400 plus clients include training centres, professional centres and HR companies.
In 2007, the parent company of Dubai Knowledge Village, TECOM Investments
launched a separate facility - the Dubai International Academic City as an exclusive
cluster for institutions of higher education.
In addition to trade and tourism, much of Dubai’s economic prosperity is due to its
booming real estate and ?nancial services sectors. The Dubai International Financial
Centre, opened in 2004 with the aim to turn Dubai into the leading capital market
in the Middle East. The Dubai International Financial Exchange (DIFX), opened in
the DIFC in September 2005.
Several international events have contributed to this growth. The Dubai Shopping
festival, the wildly popular annual event, held each spring, has continued growing
since its launch in 1995. Mean visitors per day has grown from about 40,000 to
about 100,000 and total spending has increased as well. the period from 2001
to 2006 as in?ation has escalated from 5% to upwards of 14% per annum
v
. Other
events include: Dubai World Cup, the world’s richest horse race, held every March
since 1996. Dubai also focuses on attracting business conferences, new festivals
and also high pro?le sporting events to the country, in addition to heavily investing
in advertising to promote Dubai as the tourist destination in the Middle East.
3. Hong Kong: Settlement of Immigrants
Hong Kong’s population of 6.8 million is growing steadily with a combination of new
immigrants from Mainland China, and immigrants for other parts of the world.
Hong Kong’s population has increased steadily over the past decade, reaching about
6.8 million by 2003. Hong Kong is one of the most densely populated areas in the world,
v
Gulf News, 23 November 2006.
167
with an overall density of some 6,250 people per square kilometre. Cantonese, the
of?cial Chinese language in Hong Kong, is spoken by most of the population. English,
also an of?cial language, is widely understood. It is spoken by more than one-third of
the population. Every major religion is practiced freely in Hong Kong.
Hong Kong’s approach to immigration and its programme for new talent are key to
understanding Hong Kong’s new growth as a ?nancial services centre and it’s re-
emergence as a key world city in Asia.
To grow the economy, following the Asian ?nancial crisis, Hong Kong has focussed on
institutional reform in the ?nancial services sector, the growth of advanced producer
services, modernisation of its logistic platform, and growth of tourism. A major plank of
its new talent programme has focussed upon improving the outcomes for the schools
system for young people already in Hong Kong. A key additional plank has been
signi?cant efforts to boost international immigration. This has included:
300,000 'expat' business people, professionals, and their families be?tting from the
liberal immigration regime.
A review of immigration policy to relax restrictions on the entry of overseas investors
who want to live and invest in Hong Kong.
Increasing the freedom of business people form Mainland China to visit Hong Kong
for business purposes.
Accelerating the entry of people form Mainland China with appropriate skills.
Increasing the freedom of resident foreigners based in Hong Kong to trade, invest,
and work in mainland China.
These efforts, coupled with strong investment in Hong Kong’s tourism promotion have
led to rapid population growth. The city’s population is projected to reach 8 million by
2030. Signi?cant liberalisation in the way that tourism operates between Hong Kong
and mainland china has also been an important feature.
4. London: Global City, Global Population, Global
Companies
Global City par excellence, Greater London is home to some 7 million people.
Accordingly to 2001 Census data, 300 languages are spoken by its inhabitants, 2.2
million people are born outside England, and the city has, at least, ?fty non-indigenous
communities with populations of 10,000 or more. Furthermore, by 2016 over 800,000
more people are expected to make London their home.
This scenario has essentially arisen due to the city’s history of immigration and asylum,
especially the post-colonial multiculturalism developed in the post-war period, and to
Annex II: Global Case Studies
168
an extraordinarily open labour market policy developed since the ‘90. As the journalist
Leo Benedictus wrote in The Guardian “Virtually every race, nation, culture, and religion
in the world can claim at least a handful of Londoners” (February 2005). Quite simply,
this means that London is the immigrant metropolis, and it has a more diverse population
than any other city in the world.
London Foreign Born, 2001
Total Foreign Born:
1,940,390
Total Population:
7,172,091
Percentage Foreign Born:
27.05%
Source: National Statistics, Census 2001 byhttp://gstudynet.org/gum/UK/London2001.htm
Leading centre of control and command, London accounts for some 20% of Britain’s
GDP. It is one of the world’s ?nancial centres, home to numerous banks and to Europe’s
largest stock exchange and is the most connected city worldwide. An average of 115
million passengers (some 2% of the world’s population) ?y from London’s ?ve airports
each year, and 1% of the global population passes through Heathrow).
London’s wide openness is well expressed by the fact that the City has the largest
professional non-national community on this planet (around about a quarter of a million
people), which means, in other words, that some 30 per cent of the FTSE 100 companies
have a non-national as chief executive or chairman. Furthermore, people from ethnic
minorities will account for half of the growth in Britain’s working age population between
1999 and 2009, and half of Britain’s ethnic minority population lives in London. Despite
this, on average there is a ?fteen per cent gap in the employment rate of ethnic
minorities and that of the overall population.
Promoting diversity has assumed a vital role in the economic and social development
of the City. Numerous initiatives and programmes on different levels make Equality and
Diversity key points of the Mayor’s Agenda. Together with the London Development
Agency (LDA), Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London, has launched in March 2005
“Diversity Works for London”, a four year programme aimed at helping organisations to
develop and enjoy the bene?ts of having a diverse workforce which ensures that excluded
India 10%
Ireland 8%
Bangladesh 4%
Jamaica 4%
Nigeria 4%
Pakistan 3%
Kenya 3%
Sri Lanka 3%
Cyprys 2%
South Africa 2%
USA 2%
Australia 2%
Germany 2%
Turkey 2%
Others 49%
169
Londoners receive a second chance to share the city’s opportunities and prosperity.
The programme, funded by up to £9.8 million, focuses on three main areas:
engaging private, public and voluntary sectors in promoting equality;
seeking and sharing business best practice, and;
enabling businesses to ensure that all levels of their workforce re?ect the diversity
of London's population.
Furthermore, it brings a set of practical measures to assist both large corporations and
small businesses, including:
high quality, subsidised consultancy services from workforce diversity specialists,
including a one-stop advisory service on compliance with equality related
legislation, and a telephone helpline;
leadership programmes for Boards, Chief Executive Of?cers and senior managers
that supports their role as the driving force for change;
secondment schemes, training and development programmes;
trainee and modern apprenticeship schemes.
Up to now the programme has secured the backing of twenty-seven leading UK
companies, including Coca-Cola, Pearsons and KPMG, which in March 2006 signed up
to participate in the ?rst pilot for the Diversity Works for London's Diversity Dividend
diagnostic tool .
In July 2005, London won the right to host the Olympic Games in 2012 and Mayor
of London Ken Livingstone said: "London's diversity is its greatest strength and was
crucial in winning the race to host the Olympic and Paralympics Games in 2012”.
5. Los Angeles
5.1. Los Angeles Foreign Born, 2005
Total Foreign Born:
4,407,210
Total Population:
12,703,423
Percentage Foreign Born:
34.69%
All other 26%
Iran 3%
Vietnam 3%
China 3%
Korea 4%
Guatemala 4%
Philippines 6%
El Salvador 7%
Mexico 44%
Annex II: Global Case Studies
170
With a global city-region of 18,000,000 million and fast population growth from new
immigrants and minorities, Los Angeles has rebounded from the shocks of defence base
closures and Aerospace industry collapse, riots, earthquake, and a major hurricane, as
well as two recessions.
The reason for this resilience has been the growth of a very large number of small
companies owned by minority entrepreneurs, many of them recent immigrants.
The upsurge in new businesses have come from a variety of industries including digital
media and entertainment, but also more traditional forms of manufacturing including
fashion/clothing, textiles, food processing, and warehousing.
An important feature appears to be the presence of minority owned banks. Six of the
largest banks in LA are owned by immigrants and other minorities and have made it their
business to specialise in lending and investment in small minority owned businesses.
Small businesses were also supported ?nancially by a wide range of minority led small
business ?nance institutions.
One other important factor was the presence of very ?exible and professional business
support. The Mayor launched a series of Business Teams aimed at helping ?rms to
expand within LA and focussed upon cutting red-tape, dealing with businesses on a
case by case basis and using the power of the mayor’s of?ce to help solve problems.
The range of business leaders and employees involved covers large communities from
China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Mexico, Central America, South Asia (India, Pakistan, Sri
Lanka, Bangladesh) and a variety of south American, African, and European populations.
The propensity to trade and export is high, with a multiplicity of international trade
routes being focussed on LA.
One important reason that the LA economy has actually broadened rather than
narrowed over the past 15 years (unlike New York) is the presence of these trading
immigrant entrepreneurs who serve many global markets from one base.
6. Miami: an international trade centre
Over the last few decades, Miami has been transformed from an aging tourist- and
citrus-industry based town into a thriving, truly “global” metropolis and major hub for
transportation and international commerce. In this process, Miami has experienced
serious cultural con?icts and a host of urban problems — including riots, narco-
traf?cking and corruption — and thus holds important lessons for other would-be
diverse global cities.
Miami has used the advantages of location, its diverse migrant population, and the
current moment of pan-American integration to positions itself as the major “Gateway
171
of the Americas”. With a population in Dade County of nearly 4,000,000 - 2,000,000 of
whom were born outside of the USA, many in Latin America and the Caribbean - Miami
has become a multicultural global city — the most ‘foreign’ of any major metropolitan
area in the United States. The infusion of large numbers of bilingual Latinos with
useful skills and education has made Miami an attractive location for companies that
do business in Latin America and has contributed to the rapid internationalization of
Miami’s economy.
Miami Foreign Born, 2005
Total Foreign Born:
1,949,629
Total Population:
5,334,685
Percentage Foreign Born:
36.55%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005 American Community Survey byhttp://gstudynet.org/gum/
US2005ACS/Miami2005.htm
Miami’s most important trade infrastructure is found in its intermodal transportation
facilities, which have transformed the city into a major trade hub and port of entry over
the last three decades. By the 1980s, the arti?cial harbour had transformed the city
into the world’s biggest cruise-ship port; in the 1990s, Miami saw an increase of 62
percent in cargo traf?c — from 3.2 million to 5.2 million tons between 1989 and 1993.
Another key asset in Miami’s trade infrastructure is its Free Trade Zone, the largest
privately owned and operated zone in the United States. The Free Trade Zone functions
as a duty-free hub, enabling clients to move goods into and out of the city’s port
without duties, provided the place of origin and the destination are both foreign.
Over 70 percent of the zone’s $11 billion in trade is with Latin America. The zone has
increasingly developed as a magnet for goods to be stored or assembled in Miami
before being transported elsewhere.
Miami’s economy has also ?ourished thanks to the development of ?nancial institutions
to facilitate trade. Today a third of all U.S. trade with Latin America ?ows through Miami,
Guatemala 1%
Others13%
Cuba
47%
Nicaragua 8%
Colombia 7%
Venezuela 2%
Mexico 2%
Argentina 1%
Ecuador 1%
Brazil 1%
Dominican Republic 3%
Haiti 6%
Peru 2%
Jamaica 3%
Honduras 3%
Annex II: Global Case Studies
172
as well as more than half of all U.S. trade with the Caribbean and Central America. Miami
has invested heavily in a campaign to attract the various institutions of pan-America
economic development, including the HQ of the Free Trade Area of the Americas,
building upon its success in hosting the Pan-American Summit in 1994.
At the same time, it has invested in cultural and creative industries including ?lm, music,
fashion, TV, and food; fostering a quality of life that attracts celebrities, who in turn
attract young and talented workers.
The development of the city’s trade infrastructure has not eclipsed but has rather
enhanced Miami’s character as a tourist mecca, which clearly bene?ts from the city’s
capacity as a major transportation hub. Miami is a popular destination for tourists and,
increasingly, for conventions and conferences. Indeed, while foreign trade, medicine,
education and other sectors of the economy are high-growth sectors, nearly 10 million
tourists spent over $11 billion in Greater Miami in 1997.
7. Malmö: Regionalism and Infrastructure
Malmo’s economy has undergone important structural changes during the last 20
years resulting in a shift from industrial to knowledge base. Its role of National Service
Hub, as stated in the State of European Cities Report, implies for the city to be the host
of a large number of specialised institutes and agencies. Furthermore, its closeness
to international borders allows it to have access to businesses and visitors beyond
national boundaries.
Sweden’s third-largest city, Malmö is today home to some 280,000 inhabitants, 26% of
which, with foreign roots. Malmö is also part of the Öresund region that includes about
3.5 million people.
Migration is not dominated by any particular ethnic group; it is said that 161 countries
are represented in Malmö. The largest immigration groups today, in falling order, have
their origin in former Yugoslavia, Denmark, Iraq, Poland, Iran, Turkey, Finland, Hungary
and Somalia. Almost half of the city’s population is under the age of 36. Mohammed is
now the most popular name for a newborn son.
173
Malmö Foreign born population 2006
Source: City of Malmö, Facts and ?gures 2006
Behind the recent population’s growth and mobility there are two important trends:
Regionalisation and Internationalisation.
7.1. Regionalisation
Part of the Skåne region located in the south of Sweden, Malmö is now directly connected
to Copenhagen thanks to the Öresund bridge, opened in July 2000 shortening the
journey between the two cities to little over half of an hour. The bridge, supposed to be an
infrastructural improvement, has quickly turned to have a much broader impact on local
economy and culture, becoming the symbol of a new regional cooperation. In fact, a new
social, cultural and industrial entity emerged in the form of a dual centre. The region is
currently one of Europe’s strongest economic centres, which generates one ?fth of the
total Danish and Swedish GNP. The Øresund Region ranks as eighth on the European GNP
scale
vi
. Its rapid development is especially seen in the areas of industry and education.
Graph 1: Total monthly traf?c over Øresundbron bridge in 2002-2007
Source: Øresundsbro Konsortiethttp://osb.oeresundsbron.dk/
vi
http://denmark.dk/portal/page?_pageid=374,477827&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
800000
700000
600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
Serbia 2%
India 2%
Former
Yugoslavia
23%
Denmark
17%
Iraq
17%
Poland
15%
Bosnia and
Herzegovina
15%
Turkey 3%
Chile 3%
Iran 3%
Annex II: Global Case Studies
174
7.2. Collaboration
What makes the Øresund Region working is the way industry, universities and government
are linked together in partnership. Private and public actors on different levels are
creating networks (formal and informal) with the university sector bringing together the
two parts of the Øresund Region. The region does not become harmonised, rather, the
differences of the two countries continues to exist, but the systems become more and
more compatible. This creates a dynamic, European crossborder region in growth.
The vision takes off here and is further structured under the following three headlines:
1. Brain circulation: The idea is to have the bright heads circulate between different
job functions at their wishes: university research, industrial research and education
of students – and this could be at either side of the Øresund - in order to easier
commercialize research ?ndings and make many more people, and the society at
large, bene?t from their knowledge and experiences.
2. Infrastructure: The idea is to connect the rural hinterlands and the urban centres
better together than today so that the region will be able to offer an extremely
active mixture of countryside and city. By 2000, when the bridge was ready,
other infrastructure projects have been initiated: motorway connections on both
sides, new railway lines (in Denmark to Copenhagen Airport, in Sweden around
Malmö), a new Metro in Copenhagen and the City tunnel in Malmö. Also virtual
infrastructure plays an important role. Wireless, high-speed broadband access
to every citizen in the region is a public good in the knowledge economy and
attracts many international IT-companies.
3. Internationalisation: In the City’s internationalisation strategy university education
has had a central role. Malmö University, which opened in 1998, is Sweden’s latest
venture in the ?eld of higher education, accommodating some 26,000 students,
whose 30% with a foreign background. The strategic approach developed by the
Malmo University is known as Internationalisation
at Home. The basic idea has
been to try to let the internationalisation
process embrace the whole university:
all staff and all students—not
only the 10% of the mobile students and a few
professors.
Some practical initiatives developed in this context include:
The Mentoring programme Nightingale (begun in 1997), that matches migrants and
professors at the University of Malmö. Professors act as mentors on a volunteer
basis to the immigrants who are from similar occupational backgrounds. The
mentoring project which received the Malmö city integration award in 2002, has
gone further with the new pilot project based at Helsingborg Campus and the
University of Kristianstad.
A special faculty, ‘International Migration and Ethnic Relations’ (IMER) was established
in 2006.
175
Regional collaboration: Malmö University is part of the Øresund University, a
consortium of 14 universities and institutions of higher education, encompassing
140,000 students and over 10,000 researchers, considered one of Europe’s most
rewarding learning environments. Thanks to this alliance, the Region can offer a
fertile and innovative environment for world-class IT business. Companies like Nokia,
Ericsson, Motorola, Lucent Technologies, Intel, Cisco, Alcatel and IBM plus more
others are based both in Sweden and Denmark, ranked among the world’s leading
countries in the development of software and telecommunications equipment.
In order to investigate questions related to multi-cultural society, since the end of
2002 Rooseum has in collaboration with NIFCA (Nordic Institute for Contemporary Art)
been working on the programme “In 2052 Malmö will no longer be ‘Swedish’ “. For
this programme Rooseum has invited artists to come to Malmö to create site-speci?c
projects focusing on issues of cultural diversity and co-existence.
8. Rotterdam: Culture, diversity, and development
With a population of some 600,000, rising to 1.2 million inhabitants considering the
entire region, Rotterdam is the second largest city of the Netherlands. The city has
always been characterised by large in?ux of immigrants and, in fact nearly half the
population is foreign born or have at least one parent who is not born in the Netherlands.
Some eight percent of population speaks English as second language.
Rotterdam Foreign Born, 2005
Total Foreign Born:
Female: 157,395
Male: 79,676
Total Population:
77,719
Percentage
Foreign Born:
26.38%
Source: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, Vooburg/heerlen 2006 byhttp://gstudynet.org/gum/
Netherlands/Rotterdam2005.htm
Thanks to its port, the largest in the world, Rotterdam is considered the “Gateway to
Europe”, opening up to a hinterland of 500 million inhabitants. Its open economy and
stable political and ?nancial condition has made it a business city without parallel.
Iraq 1,480
Indonesia 4,279
Yugoslavia (former)
6,427
Capa Verde 8,924
Turkey 24,071
Suriname 31,621
Morocco 19,250
Others 30,334
Soviet Union
(former) 1,757
Spain 1,740
United Kingdom 1,821
Pakistan 2,163
Portugal 2,266
Germany 3,520
China 3,536
Annex II: Global Case Studies
176
Innumerable trade and distribution companies operate from Rotterdam. All national and
most international banks and insurance companies have an of?ce there. Thanks to the
close vicinity of two international airports, access to the city is excellent. Furthermore,
by 2007, the annus mirabilis of the European urban interconnectivity, Rotterdam will be
within direct reach of Paris, London and Frankfurt by high-speed train.
However, today, transport and distribution activities in the port, though still very
important, generate fewer and fewer jobs in the region. The economic bene?ts of the
expansion of the port accrue mainly to inland regions, where transport and distribution
activities increasingly locate. With this in mind, the economic strategy of the municipality
has over the last decades been directed to the broadening of the economic base of
the city, investing in sectors recognized as growth clusters, such as the audiovisual
industry. These changes have been accompanied by a progressive enhancement of
the image of the city: from a port and industrial city to a more diverse and dynamic one,
with an improving quality of life.
The City Council is working actively to promote itself, either directly or through its
‘development arm’, the Rotterdam City Development Corporation (OBR) - a powerful
actor in many redevelopment and housing projects which integrates among others the
municipal departments of Economic Affairs and Exploitation of Real Estate. Recently,
the Economic Development Board Rotterdam (EDBR) has been created. The EDBR is
a platform comprised of more than thirty stakeholders from the business community
and the educational, scienti?c and cultural sectors, together with the directors of the
Rotterdam Development Corporation (OBR) and the Port of Rotterdam. Particularly,
there are four main sectors which have been selected:
Information and Communication Technology: With the numerous telecom and
logistics providers based in the city, OBR is stimulating the realization of a citywide
glass-?ber network and of broadband networks in several city areas and specially
IT quarters.
Audio visual/?lm/new media: A large, former power plant area along the river Meuse
has been re-developed into an area in which the audio-visual and ?lm industry and
new media have clustered together. In the area, known as the Lloydkwartier, a
television studio can be found, surrounded by leading companies in the ?eld of
post-editing, multi-media and animation as well as many small companies that are
highly specialized in this industry.
Shared Services Centres and Back Of?ces: Rotterdam has created a special program
for the Shared Services Centres to spearhead economic development. A growing
number of reputable companies such as Eastman Chemicals, Rockwell Automation,
BP-Amoco, Reebok International, Delta Airlines, Lyondell, Progress Software and
Unilever have chosen Rotterdam as a base for their Shared Services Centres. This
has been made possible thanks to different factors including quali?ed multi-lingual
staff, affordable and well-situated of?ce space, education linked to market demand
177
and excellent telecom facilities, all combined with a high standard of living, good
quality of life, international schools and attractive residential areas.
Medical Sector: Over 50,000 people are employed in the medical sector in the
Rotterdam area. The Erasmus Medical Centre (EMC) is the largest university
medical centre in the country. Over the next 15 years a completely new medical
centre for research, training, teaching and patient care will be realized. The city
of Rotterdam, together with the EMC, has also developed a so-called Life Science
Incubator for starting life science R & D companies. This Life Science incubator
can offer services varying from academic research to facilities and administrative
services (management, of?ce facilities, legal affairs (patents/ licenses), ?nancing,
network etc).
Together with these, the City has chosen culture, leisure and tourism as elements of the
vision of a ‘complete town’, aimed at increasing the urban quality of life. Since being
Cultural Capital of Europe for the year 2001 with the motto ‘Rotterdam is many cities’,
Rotterdam has marketed itself as a multicultural city: an attempt to bring into contact
the cultures of ethnic minorities with the rest of the city with a focus on supporting and
developing youth culture.
In Rotterdam there are no less than 160 different nationalities and culture is seen as
an important opportunity to promote ethnic integration in the city. This strategy or
perspective, which was con?rmed by the policy paper ‘Effective Policy on Minorities’,
aims at both making better use of the talents and possibilities of ethnic minorities and
at the same time promoting their social inclusion. More speci?cally, in order to provide
better job opportunities for immigrants and to achieve a better match between the
services and the changed composition of Rotterdam’s population, special attention
is given to the composition of the management and staff of the city administration
and the public administration. Moreover, the city also encourages involvement of the
immigrant organisations in the policy-making process, just as an advisory body with
representatives from the immigrant communities has been set up.
At the same time, the Municipality is actively involved in the attraction of the creative
class and the fostering of the creative economy. Richard Florida has been invited
in 2005 to the CityLive2005 Conference organised by CityCorp (a partnership of 6
Rotterdam-based housing associations) and EDBR to stimulate the debate concerning
the improvement of vitality in the city centre and the increase in urban attractiveness.
The vision ‘Rotterdam: City of the future’ developed by the EDBR is based on three
themes - Working together, Learning together, and Living together – which would stress
the increasing role of the creative and knowledge economy in the city of Rotterdam.
Annex II: Global Case Studies
178
9. Singapore: a hub strategy
Small places can play important niche global roles if they create the right environment. A
hub strategy does not work by magic; it works by setting out to play a hub role (or roles) in
the international economy and then systematically removing the obstacles to doing so.
Through many transformations, Singapore has taken forwards a resourceful strategy
to become a global hub for business and investment. Indeed, in recent years, of?cial
statements have often alluded to the goal of turning Singapore into a “Global City”
economy driven by creativity and lifestyle. The vision is explicitly stated in the
“Renaissance City Report” published by the Ministry of Information and Arts: “To
establish Singapore as a global arts city. We want to position Singapore as a key city in
the Asian renaissance and a cultural centre in the globalized world. The idea is to be
one of the top cities in the world to live, work, and play in, where there is an environment
conducive to creative and knowledge-based industries.”
Migration has always had a central role in the history and development of Singapore.
The former British trading colony, become independent in 1965, has seen its population
growing quickly passing from half a million in 1931 to 4,680 million in 2007. Today’s
population includes citizens of Malaysian, Chinese, and Indian descent as well as
thousands of foreign workers from across Southeast and South Asia. Not surprisingly,
the country has four of?cial languages: English, Mandarin, Malay, and Tamil.
The most rapid increase occurred over the last decade (?gure…); Singapore’s non
resident workforce increased 170%, from 248,000 in 1990 to 670,000 in 2006. About
580,000 foreign workers are lower-skilled workers. They are mainly concentrated in
the construction industry; domestic maid services; and in service, manufacturing, and
marine industries, while the remaining 90,000 are skilled-employment pass holders.
The number of higher skilled and talented foreigners has increased rapidly as a result
of intensive recruitment and liberalized eligibility criteria.
Singapore Population and Annual Growth Rate
Singapore Residents
Annual Growth Rate
3700
3500
3300
3100
2900
2700
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007
Thousand Per Cent
2.0
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.0
Source: Singapore Statistics
179
Immigration policy is, of course, a very important strategic tool for the city-state with a
low fertility rate and with aspirations to be global hub. It is key for maintaining a population
of working age as well as to reinforce the international character of the Global City.
Despite the population is growing, the fertility rate, which was 1.24 children per women
in 2005, is declining. Policies introduced in 2004 to boost fertility — including longer
maternity leave and infant-care subsidies — have yielded no apparent results. Attracting
and retaining migrants has so became fundamental to ensure Singapore’s long-term
growth and prosperity.
Singapore is promoting migration at different levels and with targeted initiatives:
High skilled migrants: Given its aspirations to become a major player in a
globalized world, Singapore’s main economic strategy is based on being
home to a highly skilled workforce. Besides investing heavily in information
technology and human capital to meet global competition, it has focused
on developing Singapore into the “talent capital” of the global economy.
To reach this goal, Singapore has liberalized immigration policies, including making
it easier for skilled immigrants to gain permanent residency, and has launched
various programs aimed at attracting talent, such as company grant schemes
to ease costs of employing foreign skilled labour and recruitment missions by
government agencies. Recent urban development policies aimed at branding
Singapore as a culturally vibrant “Renaissance City” or a “Global City for the Arts”
are at least partially driven by the goal of attracting and retaining foreign talent.
Foreign students: Singapore has long attracted foreign students from Malaysia and
Indonesia but since 1997 the country has made speci?c efforts to develop itself
into an international education hub for primary- to university- level students. With
the brand “Singapore: The Global Schoolhouse”, the message that Singapore is
offering is: combining the best of East (“Asian school systems”) and West (“Western-
styled education practices”). The demand for international higher education alone
is predicted to quadruple from around 1.8 million students in 2002 to 7.2 million
by 2025. Singapore is focusing on its strengths, including its English-speaking
environment and high educational standards as well as its reputation for public
order and safety. A government economic review panel recommended a target
of 150,000 foreign students by 2012 — more than double the 2005 ?gure of
66,000 — estimating that this would not only create 22,000 jobs but also raise the
education sector’s contribution to the gross domestic product from the current
1.9% (S$3 billion or US$1.9 billion) to 5%.
Overseas Singaporeans: Singapore is encouraging overseas Singaporeans with
incentives to return home. A dedicated platform, called Overseas Singaporean
Unit was set up in 2006 to connect Overseas Singaporeans back. This special
unit plans and coordinates multi-agency programmes and initiatives, such as a
dedicated website (www.overseassingaporean.sg), job fairs and link-ups with
Singapore-based companies; tie-up with relevant government agencies to help
Overseas Singaporeans who intend to relocate back to Singapore.
Annex II: Global Case Studies
180
Singapore shows to have a deep philosophy of openness (‘world without borders’,
‘weightless economies’, ‘friction free capitalism’) which drive continuous process of
reform and opening up of the city. The followings are a review of some initiatives
undertaken in this context:
In 1992 a Cluster Development Fund of a S$ 1 billion was established by the
government to promote a parallel strategy in manufacturing and services sectors
(Manufacturing 2000 and International Business Hub 2000 programs, respectively)
to develop Singapore as a global city, and a hub for business and ?nance, logistics
and distribution, communications and information. Singapore sought to secure the
?rst-mover advantage by planning far ahead, organizing itself as a world-class team
and investing in human resources (education, training, and industrial relations) and
infrastructures (airport, seaport, telecommunications network, and ?nancial and
industrial facilities), to obtain a lead on the competition.
Positioning itself as a hub for ?nancial services, and then building itself up as a
technology hub on the back of that. Thanks to IT2000 - Vision for an Intelligent
Island, a 15 years project launched in 1992, and Infocomm 21 (Information and
Communications Technology for the 21st Century) launched in 1999, Singapore is
today a “plug and play” city, the ?rst nationwide broadband network in the world, with
nearly 100% of households, all schools, most public libraries and community centres,
and major commercial buildings with access to broadband Internet.
Seeking to host high-pro?le global events. In July 2005, Singapore hosted the
International Olympic Council session, which elected London as the host city for
the 2012 Olympics. In 2006, the Boards of Governors of the International Monetary
Fund and the World Bank Group held its annual meetings in Singapore, an event
expected to draw 16,000 delegates and observers.
Building good relations with regional countries through political diplomacy, outward
investment, and joint ventures to combine the competitive strengths of Singapore
and its partners to attract international investors. This view has led to Singapore-
government initiatives to establish growth triangles and overseas industrial parks.
The SIJORI growth triangle is a partnership arrangement between Singapore, Johore
(in Malaysia), and Riau (in Indonesia) that combines the competitive strengths of
the three areas to make the subregion more attractive to regional and international
investors. More speci?cally, it links the infrastructure, capital, and expertise of
Singapore with the natural and labour resources of Johore and Riau. As part of this
regionalization strategy, Singapore has also established industrial parks in Suzhou
and Wuxi (China), Bangalore (India), and Vietnam, combining Singapore’s capital
resources and expertise in industrial-infrastructure development and management
with local availability of land and labour resources.
Multi-lingual working is the norm and there is extensive use of multiple language
signage and a strong multi-lingual culture. The foreign population attests to this
approach, and the recent growth of Singapore shows that hub strategies can be
reinvented and renewed over time.
181
10. Toronto: Settlement and Employment of
Immigrants
Toronto is one of North America’s most diverse cities. It is home to communities
speaking over 200 languages, and across the Greater Toronto Region of some 4.5
million people, more than 40% are now born outside of Canada.
Toronto Foreign Born, 2001
Total Foreign Born:
2,091,100
Total Population:
4,647,960
Percentage
Foreign Born:
44.99%
Source: Statistics Canada, 2001 byhttp://gstudynet.org/gum/Canada/Toronto2001.htm
Recent developments in Toronto have emphasised the need to make more of Toronto’s
distinctive diversity to help the economy of the city-region ?ourish. The Toronto City
Summit Alliance was formed in 2002 to devise and take forwards a new development
strategy for the city, against a backdrop of recent amalgamation of 6 municipalities to form
a new metropolitan city government, with both a conservative provincial administration
and mayoral administration which had not emphasised a socially progressive agenda.
The City Summit Alliance recognised that immigration and diversity were key issues
for the city as a whole and that new initiatives were required to make more of the
opportunities. This had entailed some signi?cant initiatives which are worthy of greater
analysis. They include:
Toronto City Summit Immigration Action Plan. This plan emphasises the need
for greater assistance with settlement and employment issues for immigrants
in the city and identi?es the critical issues of immigrant under-employment and
unemployment that need to be tackled.
Toronto Regional Immigrant Employment Council. This multi-stakeholder council
has been created to take forwards new initiatives and have promoted:
Fmr.Yugoslavia
3%
Trinidad and Tobago
3%
China
14%
Pakistan 3%
Jamaica
5%
Philippines
6%
All other
18%
Italy 8%
India
8%
United Kingdom
8%
Vietnam 3%
Fmr. USSR 4%
Guyana 4%
Sri Lanka 4%
Poland 4%
Portugal 5%
Annex II: Global Case Studies
182
New research into the positive role of immigration in the city economy (‘Immigration
Works’) and issues that need to be addressed.
Sectoral action plans to boost employment of immigrants and minorities in key
sectors of the city, beginning with detailed work on conventions, tourism, and
hospitality. The Toronto Immigrant Mentoring Programme and Career Bridge
Programme link immigrant and minority employees with mentors to help develop
their careers, skills, and con?dence. Hireimmigrants.ca, a website which helps
both immigrants and enterprises to match up, and provides useful resources by
showcasing successful case studies to learn from and replicate.
Building an agenda to in?uence Provincial and Federal policies that may be
hindering immigrant and minority employment.
Developing initiatives to bring employers more into the process.
The Toronto Regional Immigrant Employment Council is a new body and there are
few results yet available to share. However, it is an early example of a co-ordinated
approach to addressing the advantages of diversity in the work place, and tackling
barriers to full participation of immigrants and minorities in the labour market.
The British Council is the United Kingdom’s internacional organisation for educational opportunities and cultural
relations. Our purpose is to build mutually beneficial relationships between people in the UK and other countries and
to increase appreciation of the UK’s creative ideas and achievements. We are registered in England as a charity.
© British Council
We thank the group of cities willing to take our proposition forward into a 2-3 years project. Their objective will be to
better understand the impact of openness and diversity in cities and the local factors that influence such success.
Towards
Greg Clark (Ed.)
doc_257792425.pdf