The fact that places like Moscow, St Petersburg, Tehran, and Minsk are excluded tells me that this ranking is very political. Their methodology for these rankings is kind of laughable. They rank based on certain economic metrics but also based on the authors' opinions on the cities' "international connectedness". While I don't think the metric is entirely incorrect, this information certainly has significantly devalued it for me.
The craziest part is that cities like Port Louis, Nicosia, and Labuan make it while Moscow is ranked as a "sufficiency city", which is the same level as Des Moines, Iowa. The rest of the cities don't even make that tier and are left entirely off the ranking.
After doing a bit of research for my own curiosity, the study is based out of London which is significant because countries like Iran, Belarus and Russia are disconnected from global trade, sure. But they take in consideration cities that are more connected with the UK first. The three you mentioned all were former British city states, and therefore are ranked higher.
Also GaWC only considers these places purely on an economic, global trading perspective. Culture, history and government hold no merit to the ranking.
Its far from a perfect list if you had a theoretical "Global Cities" accounting for all facets. I still think the list of cities here are very solid, but the rankings hold a lot to be desired. The cities you mentioned are straight up misses, in addition to Vladivostok, and Africa Latin America & SEA with underwhelming representation.
Crazy that a study from London put London as #1 lol. In addition to these misses, I would love to see other cities with huge historical or cultural significance be included as well such as Jerusalem, Mecca, or Baghdad. To me, other notable misses include some major non-Chinese Asian cities. China has 29 cities, compared to the rest of Asia besides the Middle East being given 26 cities. India has the most with only 7 in that group, less than a quarter of China despite both countries being major international centers. Missing Nagoya and other Japanese cities as well as Busan or something else from South Korea also seems shocking, in addition to Yangon, Davao, Bandung, and quite a few others.
The craziest part is that cities like Port Louis, Nicosia, and Labuan make it while Moscow is ranked as a "sufficiency city", which is the same level as Des Moines, Iowa. The rest of the cities don't even make that tier and are left entirely off the ranking.
Also GaWC only considers these places purely on an economic, global trading perspective. Culture, history and government hold no merit to the ranking.
Its far from a perfect list if you had a theoretical "Global Cities" accounting for all facets. I still think the list of cities here are very solid, but the rankings hold a lot to be desired. The cities you mentioned are straight up misses, in addition to Vladivostok, and Africa Latin America & SEA with underwhelming representation.