DC doesn't really have much of an economy outside of the government sector. Dublin has a lot of international companies headquartered there due to Ireland's tax laws. Milan and Naples are more important in Italy's economy than Rome is.
I don't think DC is too relevant, at least economically, on an international stage. Though I think that could be said for other cities on this list as well. Personally, if I were to include more US cities I'd add Atlanta, Dallas, and possibly Miami and Houston over DC.
Even if the overall economy of DC isn't that big, the political decisions made there affect billions of people's economic conditions. Furthermore, organizations like the CIA have massive influence over the ways goverments conduct business. If you don't play ball with American economic interests, you might just go the way of Mossadegh and Allende.
Biggest surprises for me was the absence of Rome, Berlin, Washington DC, Geneva and Tel Aviv. Particularly surprised by Rome, as I'd have thought the presence of the Pope would give them a bit of a bump!
On the flip side, Dubai is too high for a city with zero cultural output (I'd swap them with Sao Paulo), not sure that Melbourne is more influential than any of my missing 5, same perhaps for Boston (even with their universities), Dublin, Prague and Warsaw.
Still, it's a provocative list which is always a good thing!
This list is in my opinion little bit kind a joke. Rome and Berlin are very influental cities (especially in historical point of view), comparing in many other cities in this list.
As Mexican, the fact that Querétaro is a Gamma- city, and the fourth of Mexico, is truly worthy a "WTF?". I know it has grown, but not that much.
Seriously, if you ask any Mexican "Which cities are the most economically important cities beyond the usual suspects (Mexico City, Monterrey and Guadalajara)?", I'm pretty sure they're gonna list 5-10 cities before Querétaro.
Prague is the economic hub of Central Europe. Due to its location, it is kind of a transition between Western Europe and Eastern Europe. It is also affordable to live in and is the fourth or fifth most visited European city, depending on if you count Istanbul as European or Asian. Also, half of the Czech Republic's tourism income is in Prague. DC on the other hand doesn't really have an economy outside of government. A lot of people visiting DC don't stay in DC and instead stay in Virginia or Maryland, and only spend the day in DC. Just a guess.
There used to be other comments on this quiz I think that have been lost.. but even putting DC aside, and I could argue against the arguments against DC, too, Prague over Mumbai makes zero sense. Being affordable to live in a city doesn't make it a global city.
Exactly! There are many affordable places that are only small towns with little to no impact on the global scope. On the other hand, Tokyo is a gargantuan player in the global networks, yet is everything but affordable.
With the new source/update Mumbai is on now. Finally. Though the current list still puts many European cities too high. And many Asian cities too low. This will be more and more apparent as time rolls on.
QM, I think they went easy with Brussels and Luxembourg for holding several EU institutions. Although, by that logic, Strasbourg should also be a Global City (it only hit "High Sufficiency" level).
Perhaps Brussels got its place because it's often use as a synonym of "European Union" (like during Brexit, where "negotiations between London and Brussels" had place). And Luxembourg got its place because their main crop is money.
Also, yeah: they should've chosen Sydney or Melbourne as Alpha, but not both.
As I said, following that idea, Strasbourg should also be at least a Gamma city (since is the third city of the EU trifecta, with Alpha Brussels and Alpha Luxembourg)
Before anyone criticising why one city is in the list and another city is not, it's worthwhile to note the methodology used by GaWC. The list depends on interconnectivity and reliance of a city in relation to other global cities e.g. it's counting the number of international flights, bilateral trade, number of embassies/consulates and international institutions etc. Therefore some major cities such as Washington and Osaka don't make the list because they are dwarfed by their neighbouring cities such as New York and Tokyo. Also this list favours some small capitals, e.g. Prague is deemed the most significant city economically and culturally for the Czech, while big cities like Houston is relatively less important in the English speaking world.
The explanation provided on GaWC's web site is helpful: "Results are derived from the activities of 175 leading firms providing advanced producer services... The results should be interpreted as indicating the importance of cities as nodes in the world city network (i.e. enabling corporate globalization).
I'm not sure why Quizmaster singles out Australia's cities for demotion, though I'll agree Luxembourg seems like a strange inclusion and I think certain tax haven factors are skewing things in its favour. But both Sydney and Melbourne are major regional corporate and financial services hubs. Unlike the US where companies have far more choices in terms of major metropolitan centres, there aren't many globally connected, English-speaking and sufficiently large cities to choose from for operations in Asia-Pacific. Sydney and Melbourne's relative isolation from any similarly large developed metropolises gives them an edge in global importance over slightly larger US centres like Dallas, for example. Plus, on a per capita basis Australia isn't unique in Alpha cities. I'd say in terms of international commerce, population within national borders matters less than the characteristics of an individual city.
The $A is one of the most traded currencies in the world which contributes to Sydney and Melbourne's status...they are also similar in population, economy and geo-political influence. The ongoing changes China is forcing on Hong Kong are pushing many institutions out; Cities like Singapore, Sydney and Melbourne are the beneficiaries
Some cities I think should be added are Rotterdam (the largest port in Europe and in the same metro area as The Hague) and a lot of African cities such as Addis Ababa, Cairo, Lagos, and Durban. But of course, that's just my opinion and I'm sure that the GaWC guys probably put a whole lot of research into this :)
Got 46 first try, little disappointed though after seeing which ones I missed (Mumbai, Johannesburg, Luxembourg, Stockholm). Should have gotten them all. Tried Oslo but no Stockholm, got both the other Benelux capitals etc...
It would be helpful for those of us who are unfamiliar with GaWC or Alpha cities to include an explanation in the quiz description. Something like "These are the cities determined to have the most influence on the global economy." I was just trying to guess cities based on size/general fame/whatever criteria seemed like it was fitting the list; probably would have had better guesses if I'd known what the heck I was aiming for.
In China we always say "北(Beijing)上(Shanghai)广(Guangzhou)深(Shenzhen)". It makes sense that the Pearl river delta should be treated as one metro area, but it's weird for citypopulation.de to treat Guangzhou and Shenzhen as one city. No one in China do so.
This list is much better than the last one, but it definitely isn't perfect. My main problem with it is having Boston up here but not cities such as Seattle, Washington DC, or Atlanta (at the very least). Also, just because Luxembourg is one of the capitals of the EU, I don't really think that's reason enough to be on the list IMO. However, I'm glad that it didn't just include a bunch of European cities like the last one lol
I'm from Boston, but why is it on here compared to cities like Dallas, Seattle, Phoenix. Maybe its the Universities or hospital/biotech? Regardless, its a much smaller city than most of them on this list.
Boston is extremely wealthy (despite having terrible weather), has the headquarters of a large number of financial and healthcare companies, and has two of the most significant universities in the world.
Crazy that Luxembourg city, Brussels and Dublin is up there, but not economic/ cultural giants Osaka (bigger GDP than London), Guangzhou, Rome, Barcelona.
If these are in alphabetical order, then I think Bangalore should come before Bangkok. I had this space at the end between Bangkok and Boston, and I thought of Bangalore, but it didn't fit; or so I thought.
I'm happy that the GaWC finally made a new report after 8 years. We were able to ditch the crappy A.T. Kearney report that we used in the mean time.
I mostly like the GaWC report, but there are a few changes I would make personally.
There's a few oddities lower down on the list as well, but overall, I think it's a very solid list!
On the flip side, Dubai is too high for a city with zero cultural output (I'd swap them with Sao Paulo), not sure that Melbourne is more influential than any of my missing 5, same perhaps for Boston (even with their universities), Dublin, Prague and Warsaw.
Still, it's a provocative list which is always a good thing!
As Mexican, the fact that Querétaro is a Gamma- city, and the fourth of Mexico, is truly worthy a "WTF?". I know it has grown, but not that much.
Seriously, if you ask any Mexican "Which cities are the most economically important cities beyond the usual suspects (Mexico City, Monterrey and Guadalajara)?", I'm pretty sure they're gonna list 5-10 cities before Querétaro.
Perhaps Brussels got its place because it's often use as a synonym of "European Union" (like during Brexit, where "negotiations between London and Brussels" had place). And Luxembourg got its place because their main crop is money.
Also, yeah: they should've chosen Sydney or Melbourne as Alpha, but not both.