A number of reports have recently been carried in the news media about
international and domestic studies of Chinese cities.
These studies placed major cities under scrutiny in terms of their
competitiveness, liveability, charm, cost of living, healthcare, attractiveness
to foreign investment and average per capita housing space.
For instance, Beijing is considered the most attractive to foreign investment
and comes third in terms of its average per capita housing.
As far as the cost of living is concerned, Beijing is the 14th most expensive
city in the world, according to a report by Mercer Human Resource Consulting,
which is based in the United States.
However, another study, the result of collaborative research between the
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and an American university, placed Beijing
70th in the world in terms of competitiveness.
Others are more elaborate in their research. For instance, "A Study of
Liveable Cities in China" collected more than 10,000 questionnaires from
residents in Beijing, who gave a score of 63.8 as their level of satisfaction
with life in the Chinese capital.
The studies have generated heated discussions on the Internet and in the
media, with people raising questions about the priorities of those running
cities such as Beijing.
Some people have gone as far as to criticize Beijing for favouring the rich
while neglecting the poor and the vulnerable.
The studies offer a broad range of perspectives to appraise the capabilities
of urban administrators, but the public has yet to know how much these studies
sway the policy-makers in terms of their decisions and blueprints.
We cannot say that our current city administrators are ill informed.
Many have travelled abroad. It is said that public servants above a certain
level in Shanghai have the chance to go on publicly funded overseas study tours
every year.
Chinese cities have no lack of international experts, who have come in droves
to give their opinions on various subjects.
However, the performance of officials and experts does not always correspond
with public expectations, as these studies seem to indicate.
It goes without saying that all Chinese urban administrators, those in
Beijing included, have more daunting tasks than their international
counterparts, as they have to deal with the complex problems that exist in both
developing and developed countries.
They still have to feel their own way about, as they tackle the problems of a
huge population, an ageing society, the lack of a social safety net, as well as
the wealth gap and disparities between urban and rural residents, among many
others.
No other cities in the world provide ready references.
It has been even more difficult to avoid others' mistakes, as cities, even
growing rural towns and villages are grappling with the problems of
environmental pollution.
That is why these studies, as well knowledge and suggestions from overseas,
are so important.
They remind us that urban development and the people's well-being should not
be judged solely by the city's revenue, how many new roads or buildings are
constructed, or the growth of the city's GDP.
As Ecorys Research and Consulting, a European-based economics consulting
firm, shows in its studies, a city's competitiveness is like a tree.
While its talents, innovation, connectivity and entrepreneurship serve as the
roots, its industrial structure and productivity as its trunk and employment,
income, profits and investment, taxes and contributions as its main branches, it
must be able to bear leaves and fruit for welfare, social inclusion and
sustainability.
Email: lixing@chinadaily.com.cn
(China Daily 07/06/2006 page4)
