Xinhua-Dow Jones
International Financial Centers
Development Index（2013）

September, 2013

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 20132

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

CONTENTSPREFACE ......................................................................................................................... 4
I. ANALYSIS OF IFCD INDEX RESULTS ............................................................................. 6(I) COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTERS ...................... 6(II) ANALYSIS OF DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS OF INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTERS................................. 8
II. ANALYSIS OF GLOBAL FINANCIAL CENTERS BASED ON GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION 16(I) GENERAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................... 16(II) EVALUATIONS OF INTERVIEWEES FROM DIFFERENT REGIONS ON THE DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS OF
INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTERS ................................................................................................ 20

III. SPECIAL ANALYSIS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF FINANCIAL CENTERS IN BRICS
COUNTRIES ................................................................................................................... 26（I）CONFIDENCE ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 26（II）INVESTMENTS ATTRACTION ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 26
THIRDLY, THE SCORES SHANGHAI GETS MAINLY ALTERNATE BETWEEN 4 AND 5 PERCENT, WITH THE TOTALPERCENTAGE 69.78, WHILE THE REST END UP WITH MORE PERCENT SCORES OF 3 AND 4. ......................... 27（III） ANALYSIS OF TALENT ATTRACTION ....................................................................................... 27（IV） ANALYSIS OF ABUNDANT DEGREE OF FINANCIAL PRODUCTS ..................................................... 28（V）ANALYSIS OF DEGREE OF FINANCIAL INNOVATION ..................................................................... 28（VI）ANALYSIS OF DEGREE OF FINANCING FACILITIES ....................................................................... 29（VII） ANALYSIS OF INTERMEDIARY SERVICE LEVEL ......................................................................... 29（VIII）ANALYSIS OF DEGREE OF PERFECTION OF FINANCIAL LEGAL ENVIRONMENT ................................ 30（IX）ANALYSIS OF DEGREE OF CURRENCY INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION ............................................ 31
IV. INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH APPROACH OF IFCD INDEX ........................................ 32(I) GENERAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................. 32(II)CONSTRUCTION OF OBJECTIVE INDICATOR SYSTEM ......................................................................... 33(III) SUBJECTIVE SURVEY APPROACHES ............................................................................................. 36(IV) COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS APPROACH OF IFCD INDEX INDICATORS ................................................ 37
APPENDIX I: FIGURES AND TABLES OF IFCD INDEX 2013 ........................................................... 39
APPENDIX II: IFCD INDEX SURVEY SYSTEM ................................................................... 47(I) ABOUT THE QUESTIONNAIRES..................................................................................................... 47(II) BASIC INFORMATION OF QUESTIONNAIRES ................................................................................... 47(Ⅲ) FURTHER ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 49
APPENDIX III: QUESTIONNAIRE .................................................................................... 55
APPENDIX IV: OBJECTIVE INDICATOR SYSTEM.............................................................. 60

3

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

and impartial” approach, the IFCD Index
adopts development and progressiveness as amajor dimension practiced throughout its
index research and development efforts,
paying specific attention to international
financial centers’ progress and focusing not
only on the existing capacity but also growthcapability. In doing so, the IFCD Index aims
to share its important value as a store ofexperience to help constitute an assessment
system of international financial structure andto boost the reasonable flow of global
financial elements.

Preface
International financial centers are formed
as a result of the flow and aggregation offinancial factors in global scope. Whether acity will develop into an international
financial center depends on its comprehensivecompetitiveness in terms of financial market
construction, growth and development
capability, industrial support, city service
standards, and the national environment. In an
era of economic globalization, international
financial centers boast richer functions andmore diversified types, which have presented
a multivariate development pattern. The
construction of international financial centersin emerging economies, in particular, has
attracted more and more attention across theworld. Under such circumstances, it has
become necessary as a matter of urgency tomake scientific and all-round assessment on
the development status of international
financial centers, probe their development
rules, and promote the reasonable flow ofglobal finance factors.

The IFCD Index adopts an index
compiling methodology of combining an
objective indexing system with subjective
questionnaire surveys so as to reach acomprehensive conclusion covering both theobjective examination and subjective appraisal
over international financial center cites.
Regarding methodology design, aprogressive analytic framework has been
introduced to exercise all-around analysis of
the development situation as international
financial centers of 45 selected sample cities.
In the first level analysis, by examining theintermittent difference of scores, acomprehensive assessment is made to specify
the difference of the index. The focus of thesecond level is on breaking down the IFCD
index into smaller sub-indexes, engaging indeeper analysis on every element to elaborate
the excellence and weakness of specificfinancial center cities. The third level observes
the regional distribution of financial center
cities to illustrate the regional environment’s
influence on functioning of the financial
centers. The fourth level unveils the world’s
on-going economic development hot spots,
while financial center cities in the BRICS

In 2010, Xinhua News Agency linked up
with the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Group(CME), which owns the former Dow Jones
Index Service Co. and now also the Standard& Poor’s Dow Jones Index Co., to jointly
launch the Xinhua-Dow Jones International
Financial Centers Development Index (IFCD
Index). A report on the IFCD Index is released
every year to assist the practical development
and application of international financial
centers and national and regional economies,
and for related academic study.
Following the principle of a “scientific4Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

countries are examined one by one throughXinhua’s global IFCD index surveying system,
which provides for the equal usage ofsubjective questionnaire surveys and regional
in-depth interviews to collect respondents’comments across the world on thedevelopment standards of financial center
cities in BRICS countries.
Data that underpins the index, which is
all collected from third-party international
authorities, have been proven stable, reliable,transparent, and credible. Meanwhile, theobjective data is mostly obtained in form of
three-year averages to avoid contamination by
incomparable interference factors, while
Xinhua’s global information collection system
is responsible for the acquisition of subjective
survey results, a variety of views from
respondents in different industries and regions
is put under full consideration as questionnaire
survey samples are carefully studied andanalyzed in terms of credibility and validity tomake sure the results of the surveys meet therules and are more scientific.
The IFCD Index, which was successfully
published in 2010 and 2011 and 2012, hasreceived extensive praise and has been
gradually recognized by global politicalcircles, business circles, and the academic
world and has provided an important reference
for global investors to objectively learn thegrowth capability, industrial support andpolicy and system environment of regional
financial markets.
In 2013, the research group, consistently
upholding the development philosophy ofsustainability and tolerance, gradually
improving the index system and survey
methods to maintain consistency of algorithm.
Research and launches the “IFCD Index
2013” to the world.

5

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

so on; fourthly, it is located in a modern city,with developed communication networks,
sound traffic conditions, a developed service
industry, and a relatively high degree of
openness.
In order to ensure that the selection offinancial center sample cities is scientific,
comprehensive, and representative, thisreport further defines the above-mentioned
characteristics into the following principles:

I. Analysis of IFCD Index
Results(I) Comprehensive evaluation ofdevelopment of international financial
centers(1) Scale: namely, the ranking of cities’
finance trading scale in stocks, bonds, funds,
foreign exchange, and so on;(2) Growth capability: namely, rankingof cities’ development momentum of financemarkets of stocks, bonds, and foreignexchange etc;
(3)
Equilibrium:
namely,the
distribution of sample cities will be balanced
so as to ensure that major economies of theworld will have representative cities
selected.
In accordance with the above principles
and sample continuity and stability
requirements, the number of sample cities in2013 is still 45.

1. Selection of sample cities
Generally speaking, an international
financial center has following major
characteristics: first, it assembles certain
number of financial institutions engaged ininternational
businesses,
suchasinternational large banks, securities brokers,
insurers, fund firms, and so on; secondly, itboasts a relatively complete international
finance market system, including a stock
market, bond market, Interbank lending
market, gold market, foreign exchange
market, and so on; thirdly, it holds relativelarge-scale international finance trading
activities, including issuing and trading ofstocks, borrowing and lending of capital andTable 1 Sample cities and regional distribution of the IFCD Index 2013

EuropeAmerica

Asia
Other

Amsterdam
Budapest
Copenhagen
LondonMoscow
Zurich
BostonWashington
Sao Paulo
Tokyo
Singapore
Seoul
Johannesburg

ViennaBrussels
HelsinkiRome
MunichOslo
DublinLisbonMadridGenevaParisFrankfurt
Luxembourg
Milan
Stockholm

Buenos Aires
San Francisco
Vancouver
Osaka
Beijing
TaipeiMelbourne

TorontoMontreal

ChicagoNew York

Dubai
ShanghaiHong Kong
SydneyMumbaiShenzhen6

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

Based on the comprehensive evaluation
system of the IFCD Index and after
comprehensive analysis and calculation, we
obtain the comprehensive scores and ranking
results of the development indices of the 45
international financial centers, the ranking
results presents the following characteristics :Firstly ,the international financial centersthat rank the top 10 are, from the top down,
New York, London ,Hong Kong, Tokyo,
Singapore, Shanghai, Paris, Frankfurt,
Chicago and Sydney. Compared with the past
three years rank, the top 10 cities in all 45
samples in the city ranked the moststable ,especially the top 6 sample cities are
New York, London, Hong Kong, Tokyo,
Singapore , Shanghai.
Hong Kong for the first time beyond theTokyo in 2013,into the world's top three, andthe four international financial center in the
Asia Pacific Region ,Hong Kong, Tokyo,
Singapore, Shanghai has formed a regional
financial center relatively stable cluster groupin the global scope. In addition, Paris beyond
Frankfurt, the two cities always in seventh,eighth ranking interval .Compared with lastyear, Chicago has moved to higher position,
Sydney has been back in the top 10 since 2012.

Table 2 Top 10 international financial centers in 2010-2013
Ranking

2013

2012

2011

2010

1

New York

New York

New York

New York

2

LondonLondonLondonLondon3

Hong Kong

Tokyo

Tokyo

Tokyo

4

Tokyo

Hong Kong

Hong Kong

Hong Kong

5

Singapore

Singapore

Singapore

Paris

6

Shanghai

Shanghai

ShanghaiSingapore

7

Paris

Frankfurt

ParisFrankfurt

8Frankfurt

ParisFrankfurt

Shanghai

9

ChicagoZurichSydneyWashington

10

SydneyChicagoAmsterdam

SydneySecondly, compared with 2012,theinternational
financialcenterskeep
relative ,the number of financial centers withbig variation or stable is increasing .In
2012,the number of financial centers withstable or relatively stable rankings totals
27,accounting for60percent of the total

sample cities ,it is almost equal to lastyear .As for the number of cities with big
variation in rankings ,the year of 2013 has
18,which is much higher than in 2012 and2011,which was 14 and 5.

7

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

Figure 1 Analysis of Categorization Based on Position Difference of IFCD Index 2013

Thirdly, International financial center
positionchanges
obviously
regularity ,besides the top 10,the ranking of
the whole international financial centers ofEurope are decline ,but the international
financial centers of Asia and North America
are
have
moved
to
higherpositions ,especially the BRIC countries
financial center increase greatly ,this kind ofchange is also in line with the characteristicsof the development of global economic
pattern over the past year .The signs of
economic recovery in North America wasmore obvious, while the European debt
crisis has not yet bottomed out ,and the
traditional European small and medium
financial center city showed a downturn
trend
higher.Such
asMilan ,Copenhagen ,Helsinki ,Oslo,
Luxembourg ,Dublin ,Rome ,Lisbon, which
decline so obvious.

international financial centers.
1. Financial market
The secondary indicator of the financial
marketincludesfour
sub-elements,
including the capital market, the foreignexchange market, the banking market, andthe insurance market. Synthesizing theevaluation results on the four sub-elementsof the 45 international financial centers, we
get the ranking of their power in financial
market development. The top 10 cities are as
follows (Table 3):(II) Analysis of development indicatorsof international financial centers
Comparative analysis on the evaluation
results of primary indicators and theircorresponding secondary indicators can leadtobetterunderstandingof
thecompetitiveness and development of8

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

Table 3 Top 10 cities in financial market
Ranking

2013

2012

2011

2010

1

New York

New York

New York

London2LondonLondonLondon

New York

3

Tokyo

Tokyo

Tokyo

Tokyo

4

Hong Kong

Hong Kong

Hong Kong

Hong Kong

5

SingaporeFrankfurt

Paris

Paris

6

Shanghai

ShanghaiFrankfurtFrankfurt

7

Paris

Singapore

Shanghai

Shanghai

8Frankfurt

Paris

Singapore

Singapore

9

ChicagoZurichBeijing

Zurich10SydneyChicagoChicagoWashington

The year of 2013 witnesses thefollowing features in terms of financial
market element assessment:
First, the ranking of the financial
market element is similar to that of the city’scomprehensive index .In addition to Hong
Kong and Tokyo ranking is different ,theranking of the other cities is consistent ,thischaracteristic has lasted three years ,theperfection of the financial market and thedevelopment degree is the first coreelementsofthefinancialcenterdevelopment.
Secondly, the financial elements of themarket top 10,there are Tokyo, Hong Kong,
Singapore, Shanghai, Sydney in the Asia
Pacific Financial center in the Asia Pacificregion's financial market ,the position ofwhich is becoming stable.
Thirdly ,from the financial market
volatility factor ranking ,cities in Europe andemerging economies fluctuations ,Europe
Rome, Oslo, Brussels, Milan, Stockholmcity ranking sharply ,while the emerging
economies of St Paul, Johannesburg, Buenos
Aires increase greatly.

9

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

Table 4 Cities with bigger change of positions in ranking of financial market
City

2013

2012

Change ofposition

ABS of change

Sao Paulo

22

41

19

19

Johannesburg

26

44

18

18

Rome

41

29

-12

12

Vancouver

23

33

10

10

Oslo

43

35

-8

8

Buenos Aires

35

43

8

8

Brussels

29

21

-8

8

Osaka

24

30

6

6

Milan

32

26

-6

6

Montreal

31

37

6

6

Taipei

36

31

-5

5

Stockholm

33

28

-5

5

Moscow

30

25

-5

5

Vienna

37

32

-5

5

Seoul

27

22

-5

5

Madrid

28

24

-4

4

Mumbai

20

23

3

3

Frankfurt

8

5

-3

3

Shenzhen

17

20

3

3

Boston

16

19

3

3

Geneva

18

15

-3

3

Melbourne

39

36

-3

3

Amsterdam

21

18

-3

3

Table 5 Top 10 cities in growth and development
Ranking

2013

2012

2011

2010

1

Shanghai

Shanghai

Shanghai

Shanghai

2

Hong Kong

New York

Hong Kong

Hong Kong

3

LondonLondonTokyo

Beijing

4

New York

Hong Kong

New York

New York

5

Singapore

Beijing

Singapore

Tokyo

6

BeijingTokyo

Beijing

London7

Tokyo

Singapore

LondonSingapore

8

ShenzhenShenzhen

Dubai

Dubai

9

Paris

Paris

Seoul

Paris

10

Dubai

Frankfurt

ShenzhenShenzhen

10

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

region .Hong Kong overtook London, ranked
second . The growth rankings of Beijing and
Shenzhen are in front, Dubai once again
returns to the first 10.

2. Growth and development
The growth and development indicator
contains three sub-elements, i.e. capital
market growth, economic growth, andinnovation potential reserves. Synthesizing theevaluation results on the three sub-elements of
the 45 international financial centers we get
the ranking of their importance in growth anddevelopment. The top 10 cities are showed inTable 5:On the other hand ,the largest
fluctuations of growth factor ranking cities are
Johannesburg, St Paul, Moscow, Dubai andMadrid .The first three are the BRICs
countries financial center cities ,the BRIC
countries strong strength in terms of growthand development .But in the growing factor,
the distribution of the decline cities isbalanced ,which includes Dublin, Frankfurt,
Rome, Osaka, Seoul, Melbourne ,Taipei,
Washington ,the growth of European andAmerican financial center cities significantly
backwards.

In 2013 the ranking of growth factor
shows the main following characteristics:
On the one hand ,for ranking first in thepast four years ,Shanghai is still the most
growth financial center in the Asia Pacific

Table 6 Cities with bigger changes of position in ranking of growth and development
City

2013

2012

Change ofposition

ABS of change

Johannesburg

30

45

15

15

Sao Paulo

27

39

12

12

Moscow

25

16

-9

9

Dubai

10

17

7

7

Madrid

37

30

-7

7

Osaka

44

38

-6

6

Dublin

38

32

-6

6

Frankfurt

15

10

-5

5

Munich

20

25

5

5

Seoul

19

14

-5

5

Melbourne

31

26

-5

5

Taipei

32

27

-5

5

Toronto

16

20

4

4

Washington

23

19

-4

4

Geneva

18

22

4

4

Rome

39

35

-4

4

Sydney

12

15

3

3

environment support, intellectual capital, andurban infrastructure. The index assesses all thethree elements to evaluate the industrial
support capability of the 45 international

3. Industrial support
The indicator of industrial support has
three sub-elements, including business
11

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

financial centers and the top 10 cities are

displayed in Table 7:

Table 7 Top 10 cities with strongest industrial support
Ranking

2013

2012

2011

2010

1

New York

New York

New York

New York

2

LondonLondon

Tokyo

Tokyo

3

Tokyo

Tokyo

LondonLondon4

Hong Kong

ShanghaiHong Kong

Hong Kong

5

ShanghaiHong Kong

Singapore

Singapore

6

Singapore

Singapore

ShanghaiParis

7

BeijingFrankfurt

Paris

Shanghai

8

Paris

BeijingFrankfurtFrankfurt

9

ChicagoParis

Beijing

Beijing

10Frankfurt

ChicagoChicagoDubai

The 2013 industrial support index
assessments demonstrate the following
features:On the other hand ,the fluctuations ofindustry support ranking have no obvious
rules, St Paul, Johannesburg and Taipei rise
rapidly .Compared with the corresponding
growth factors ,the European financial centercity ranked overall is still in a downward trend,
including Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Vienna,
Oslo, Lisbon ,Industrial base recovery moredifficult, on the contrary is, Boston rose
rapidly in America Including the CanadianMontreal and Toronto increase scope.

On the one hand, industry supporting the
top 10 financial center sample lasted three
years ,which remains unchanged .The rankingof Tokyo, Beijing, Paris, Chicago arerising ,compared with 2012,Shanghai falls one
place.

Table 8 Cities with bigger changes of position in ranking of industrial support
City

2013

2012

Change ofposition

ABS of change

Boston

18

29

11

11

Sao Paulo

31

42

11

11

Johannesburg

34

45

11

11

Amsterdam

20

11

-9

9

Copenhagen

38

30

-8

8

Melbourne

30

23

-7

7

Taipei

26

33

7

7

Montreal

32

38

6

6

Toronto

13

18

5

5

Vienna

36

31

-5

5

Milan

29

24

-5

5

Rome

37

32

-5

5

Seoul

19

15

-4

4

12

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

Oslo

41

37

-4

4

Lisbon

45

41

-4

4

Frankfurt

10

7

-3

3

Zurich

15

12

-3

3

Shenzhen

14

17

3

3

Helsinki

42

39

-3

3

Dublin

39

36

-3

3

life. The index assesses all the two elements toevaluate the service standard of the 45
international financial centers and the top 10
cities are displayed in Table 9:

4. Service level
The indicator of service has two elements,
including social management, working andTable 9 Top 10 cities with highest service level
Ranking

2013

2012

2011

2010

1

New York

New York

New York

London2LondonLondonLondon

New York

3

Tokyo

Tokyo

Tokyo

Tokyo

4

Hong Kong

Hong Kong

Hong Kong

Paris

5

Singapore

Paris

Paris

Hong Kong

6

Paris

Singapore

Singapore

Singapore

7

ZurichFrankfurt

Shanghai

Zurich8

SydneyZurichFrankfurt

Washington

9Frankfurt

ChicagoGenevaGeneva10

ChicagoSydneyZurichSydneyThe 2013 service index assessments
show the following features:

St Pau .In addition to Munich ,most of thecities are emerging growth cities, although thecity rankings back ,their service level improvevery fast .Lay a solid foundation for the world
financial center.

On the one hand ,the service level forcovering infrastructure, social management,
working and life .These projects are advantage
in developed countries where the traditional
financial center are .Therefore ,in 2013 the top
10 cities are the cities in developed economies.
No emerging economies cities are in the top
10 ranking of service level.
On the other hand, the service level
ranking volatility ,Positive fluctuation
respectively cities are Beijing, Shenzhen,
Taipei, Dubai, Munich, Vancouver, Moscow,

13

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

Table 10 Cities with bigger change of positions in ranking of service level
City

2013

2012

Change ofposition

ABS of change

Beijing

19

35

16

16

Shenzhen

27

40

13

13

Helsinki

32

21

-11

11

Taipei

26

36

10

10

Rome

39

29

-10

10

Copenhagen

29

20

-9

9

Dublin

40

31

-9

9

Madrid

33

25

-8

8

Dubai

21

27

6

6

Munich

20

26

6

6

Vancouver

18

24

6

6

Stockholm

24

18

-6

6

Lisbon

44

38

-6

6

Geneva

16

11

-5

5

Moscow

37

41

4

4

Sao Paulo

41

45

4

4

Amsterdam

17

13

-4

4

Vienna

23

19

-4

4

San Francisco

11

14

3

3

Toronto

12

15

3

3

Washington

13

16

3

3

Osaka

31

34

3

3

Brussels

25

22

-3

3

Budapest

45

42

-3

3

Table 11 Top 10 cities with most favorable general environment
Ranking

2013

2012

2011

2010

1

London

New York

LondonLondon2

New York

London

New York

New York

3

Hong Kong

Hong Kong

Tokyo

Tokyo

4

Tokyo

Frankfurt

Hong Kong

Hong Kong

5

Singapore

Tokyo

Paris

Paris

6

Paris

Singapore

Singapore

Washington

7

ZurichZurichAmsterdam

Singapore8Frankfurt

ParisFrankfurt

Sydney9TorontoGenevaSydneyZurich10SydneyAmsterdam

GenevaFrankfurt

14

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

developed countries’ outstanding political,
economic, natural environment are important
support for the development of the financial
markets .Including legal, open ,and the market
are extremely important .In 2013,the top 10
cities are as the same as those in the last three
years ,it is relatively stable.

5. General environment
The indicator of general environment iscomposed of forth sub-elements, including the
economic environment, political environment,
openness, and nature environment. The index
assesses all these four elements to evaluate thegeneral environment of the 45 international
financial centers and the top 10 cities are
displayed in Table 11:

On the other hand , the generalenvironment ranking of the countries whichhave a big fluctuation are most concentrated inEurope,Copenhagen,
Vienna,Oslo,
Amsterdam, Luxemburg . The cities ofAmerica such as Boston, San Francisco,
Vancouver, and Washington are rising
sharply ,In the Asia Pacific region, Taipei,
Shenzhen Shanghai to rise slightly.

The 2013 general environment index
assessments demonstrate the following
features:On the one hand, general environmental
ranking is similar with the ranking of service
level ,the financial center of the traditional

Table 12 Cities with bigger changes of position in ranking of general environment
City

2013

2012

Change ofposition

ABS of change

Boston

18

28

10

10

Copenhagen

25

15

-10

10

Vienna

23

14

-9

9

Oslo

27

18

-9

9

San Francisco

11

19

8

8

Moscow

35

43

8

8

Luxembourg

37

29

-8

8

Vancouver

17

23

6

6

Amsterdam

16

10

-6

6

Washington

15

20

5

5

Shenzhen

31

36

5

5

Melbourne

21

26

5

5

Geneva

14

9

-5

5

Frankfurt

8

4

-4

4

Johannesburg

41

45

4

4

Helsinki

28

24

-4

4

Budapest

44

40

-4

4

Taipei

29

33

4

4

Dublin

34

31

-3

3

Buenos Aires

45

42

-3

3

Shanghai

13

16

3

3

15

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

II.

Analysisoftable, Europe has the biggest number offinancial centers, followed by the Asia-Pacificregion and Africa. The American continent has
10 cities listed here, with eight coming from
North America. Judging from the 2013
ranking, there are 5 Asia-Pacific region and
Africa cities have rushed into the top 10,
which means their collective strength isstabilizing and rising.

GlobalFinancial Centers based on
Geographic Distribution
The geographic distribution of the IFCD
Index 2013’s 45 financial centers around theworld is showed in Table 13. According to theTable 13 Global distribution of cities under assessment
RegionCitiesinvolved

America

10EuropeAsia Pacificand Africa

21

14

Top 10 cities in2013

Top 10 cities in2012

Top 10 cities in
2011

New York(1)New York(1)Chicago(9)Chicago(10)London(2)London(2)London(2)Paris(7)Frankfurt(7)Paris(7)Frankfurt(8)Paris(8)Frankfurt(8)Zurich(9)Amsterdam(10)Hong Kong(3)Tokyo(3)Tokyo(3)Tokyo(4)Hong Kong(4)Hong Kong(4)Singapore(5)Singapore(5)Singapore(5)Shanghai(6)Shanghai(6)Shanghai(6)Sydney(10)New York(1)Sydney(9)United States. From 2012, through stimulus
package and fiscal cliff aversion, US is alreadyon the route to recovery. Especially, a rapid
process of re-industrialization provides animportant basis for financial centers’
development. In 2013, America's top 5
financial centers are New York, Chicago, San
Francisco, Toronto and Washington.

(I) General analysis

1. Financial centers in each continentGroup of the financial centers in America
is the steadiest one in our list and the base of
its stability comes from the support of theworld's top economies which leaded by the16

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

Figure 2 Indicator Scores Comparisons of the Top Five American Cities
With the title of traditional and olddeveloped, Europe's financial hubs are theorigin for the other centers. However, as
the European Debt Crisis continue to ferment,
several countries even on the edge ofbankruptcy, European economy and the euro
are continue to slump. We see Policies andmeasures to relieve this slump are often

invalid due to the loose Relationship between
European countries. Even Germany economy
have released several positive signals, othereconomies related to it are still in recession,
which might drag down the Germany
economy. In 2013, Europe's top 5 financial
centers are London, Paris, Frankfurt, Zurich
and Geneva.

Figure 3 Indicator Scores Comparisons of the Top Five European Cities
Financial centers in Asia-Pacific region
and Africa is a good team in the developmentof the world's financial structure. Economies

in these regions are highly complementary,with underlying growth potential and wide
markets. All the basic elements have17

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

supported the rapid expansion of the cities.
Especially, the reformation and industries’
upgrade led by China has brought a hugeprogress for the region. In 2013, the top 5

financial centers in Asia-Pacific region and
Africa are Hong Kong, Tokyo, Singapore,
Shanghai and Sydney.

Figure 4 Indicator Scores Comparisons of the Top Five Asian Cities
2. Continents’ rankings in each indicatorTokyo, Hong Kong and Singapore, which arevery stable in the list. However, cities like
Shanghai, Shenzhen, Dubai and Sidney thatscore higher on development and growth are
relatively weak on the two elements.

From the competitions in each indicator,
financial centers in each continent are mainlypresent the following characteristics:
Firstly, with a stable ranking in America
and Europe and a larger change in
Asia-Pacific region and Africa, thedistribution of the centers is balanced in all.
Secondly, from the elements of financial
market and development and growth, in 2013,
financial centers in Asia-Pacific region and
Africa have outstanding performance whichmakes more of them entry the top 10.
Particularly on development and growth, 7
cities in the top 10 are from these regions.
Thirdly, on service level and generalenvironment, Financial centers in Asia-Pacificregion and Africa remained close to theirrivals in America and Europe, especially for18

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

Table 14 Global distribution of top 10 cities in financial market
RegionAmerica

Europe

2013

2012

2011

New York(1)New York(1)New York(1)Chicago(9)Chicago(10)Chicago(10)London(2)London(2)London(2)Paris(7)Frankfurt(5)Paris(5)Frankfurt(8)Paris(8)Frankfurt(6)Zurich(9)Asia PacificHong Kong(3)Tokyo(3)Tokyo(3)Tokyo(4)Hong Kong(4)Hong Kong(4)Singapore(5)Shanghai(6)Shanghai(7)Shanghai(6)Singapore(7)Singapore(8)Sydney(10)Beijing(9)Table 15 Global distribution of Top 10 cities on growth and development
2012

Region2013

America

New York(4)New York(2)London(3)London(3)Paris(9)Paris(9)Europe2011
New York(4)London(7)Frankfurt(10)Asia PacificShanghai(1)Shanghai(1)Shanghai(1)Hong Kong(2)Hong Kong(4)Hong Kong(2)Singapore(5)Beijing (5)Tokyo(3)Beijing (6)Tokyo(6)Singapore(5)Tokyo(7)Singapore(7)Beijing(6)Shenzhen(8)Shenzhen(8)Dubai(8)Dubai(10)Seoul(9)Shenzhen(10)Table 16 Global distribution of Top 10 cities on industrial support
RegionAmerica

EuropeAsia Pacific

2012

2013

2011

New York(1)New York(1)New York(1)Chicago(9)Chicago(10)Chicago(10)London(2)London(2)London(3)Paris(8)Frankfurt(7)Paris(7)Frankfurt(10)Paris(9)Frankfurt(8)Tokyo(3)Tokyo(3)Tokyo(2)Hong Kong(4)Shanghai(4)Hong Kong(4)Shanghai(5)Hong Kong(5)Singapore(5)Singapore(6)Singapore(6)Shanghai(6)Beijing(7)Beijing(8)Beijing(9)19Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

Table 17 Global distribution of Top 10 cities on service level
Region2012

2013

America

Europe2011

New York(1)New York(1)Chicago(10)Chicago(9)London(2)London(2)London(2)Paris(6)Paris(5)Paris(5)Zurich(7)Frankfurt(7)Frankfurt(8)Frankfurt(9)Zurich(8)Geneva(9)New York(1)Zurich(10)Asia PacificTokyo(3)Tokyo(3)Tokyo(3)Hong Kong(4)Hong Kong(4)Hong Kong(4)Singapore(5)Singapore(6)Singapore(6)Sydney(8)Sydney(10)Shanghai(7)Table 18 Global distribution of Top 10 cities on general environment
Region2013

America

New York(2)Toronto（10）New York(1)New York(2)London(1)London(2)London(1)Paris(6)Frankfurt(4)Paris(5)Zurich(7)Paris(8)Amsterdam (7)Frankfurt(8)Zurich(7)Frankfurt(8)Geneva(9)Geneva(10)Europe2012

2011

Amsterdam (10)Asia PacificHong Kong(3)Hong Kong(3)Tokyo(3)Tokyo(4)Tokyo(5)Hong Kong(4)Singapore(5)Singapore(6)Singapore(6)Sydney(10)Sydney(9)more objective evaluations pointed to different
development indicators.

(II) Evaluations of interviewees fromdifferent regions on the development
indicators of international financial centers

In 2013, the Xinhua news agency global
information collection system has obtained
4856 valid questionnaires. The sample
distribution is balanced as a whole, including
1217 from America, 1809 from Europe and1830 from Asia-Pacific region and Africa.

A major innovation in IFCD Index 2013is by using information system in Xinhua
news agency, we made a subjective survey
facingglobalfinancialandrelatedprofessionals. The survey mainly serves thecomprehensive ranking; meanwhile, by
digging deeper the data we could obtain some

20

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

Table 19 Continents of questionnaires’ respondents
RegionSample amount

Proportion (%)

America

1217

25.06

Europe

1809

37.25

Asia Pacific and Africa

1830

37.69

Total

4856

100.001. Evaluations from interviewees in different
regions on the indicator of financial market

consider cities like Shanghai, Beijing, St Pauland Buenos Aires also own financial markets
which can list on the top 20. Intervieweesfrom Asia-Pacific region and Africa relatively
approve noted cities like New York, London,
Hong Kong, Paris and Tokyo. Beyond that,they tend to give high scores to boom cities
like Taipei and Bombay.

Apart from New York, London, Hong
Kong and Singapore, European respondents
don’t think there are more commendable
developed financial markets in Asia-Pacificregion. To the contrary, American respondents

Table 20 Valuations of financial markets by respondents from various regions
Ranking

America

EuropeAsia Pacific and Africa

City

Ratio

City

Ratio

City

Ratio

1

New York

38.70

London

27.58

New York

34.32

2Toronto18.90

New York

22.22

Hong Kong

29.89

3

London17.17

Frankfurt

14.21

London27.54

4

Chicago

13.72

Paris

9.95

Tokyo

21.20

5

San Francisco

11.50

Zurich

9.67

Singapore

20.98

6

Tokyo

11.09

Tokyo

8.40

Shanghai

17.60

7

Boston9.86

Hong Kong

6.91

Sydney13.22

8

Washington

9.29

Brussels

6.25

Beijing

11.31

9Hong Kong

9.20

Geneva5.58

Washington

8.85

10

Vancouver

7.97

Milan

5.25

Dubai

8.69

11

Montreal

6.82

Amsterdam

5.14

Melbourne

8.42

12

Paris

6.33

Madrid

4.20

Paris

8.36

13

Sao Paulo

5.42

Singapore

4.20

Taipei

7.05

14Shanghai

4.93

Stockholm

4.15

Chicago6.89

15

Zurich4.85

Luxembourg

3.92

Seoul

6.78

16

Beijing

4.77

Munich

3.81

Mumbai

6.72

17Singapore

4.35

Rome

3.54

San Francisco

6.17

18

Frankfurt

4.11

Moscow

3.54

Frankfurt

6.07

19

Geneva3.86

Vienna3.21

Shenzhen

6.01

20

Buenos Aires

3.53

Washington

3.21

Zurich5.79

Note: 1、The city incell is European city, incell is American city, incell is the Asia Pacific or African city. Tables from 21 to 24 are showed in the same way; 2、The“Proportion” in the table is the ratio of the number of respondents who believe the city isoutstanding to the total number of respondents in each continent. The proportions in the tablefrom 21 to 24 are calculated in the same way.
21

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

2. Evaluations from interviewees in different
regions on the growth and development
indicator

Beijing, Shanghai and Dubai into the top 20
cities measured by the growth anddevelopment indicator.

Interviewees from the three regions havemutually given high scores to financial centers
in Asia-Pacific region on the growth anddevelopment indicator. Even the normally
stodgy European interviewees have list

It’s worth noting that Asia-Pacific region
and Africa Interviewees have still list New
York and London into the top 5, which means
their irreplaceability in the global financial
development structure.

Table 21 Valuations of growth and development by respondents from various regions
Ranking

America

EuropeAsia Pacific and Africa

City

Ratio

City

Ratio

City

Ratio

1

New York

34.35

London17.74

Shanghai

28.47

2

Toronto15.20

New York

14.65

Hong Kong

23.50

3

London13.31

Frankfurt

9.51

New York

20.98

4

Chicago12.00

Hong Kong

8.02

Singapore

19.62

5

San Francisco

10.93

Paris

7.08

London16.12

6

Hong Kong

9.53

Zurich

6.91

Beijing

15.85

7

Boston

9.45

Tokyo

6.63

Tokyo

15.19

8

Tokyo

9.29

Singapore

4.64

Shenzhen

11.15

9

Washington

8.87

Brussels

4.48

Sydney11.15

10

Vancouver

7.40

Amsterdam

4.26

Dubai

10.87

11

Beijing

6.33

Geneva3.81

Mumbai

8.74

12Montreal

6.00

Munich

3.54

Seoul

8.14

13

Sao Paulo

5.75

Moscow

3.48

Melbourne

8.14

14

Shanghai

5.51

Stockholm

3.32

Taipei

7.81

15

Paris

5.09

Beijing

3.26

Washington

6.67

16

Zurich

4.27

Milan

3.21

Paris

6.45

17

Singapore

3.94

Shanghai

3.10

San Francisco

6.17

18

Buenos Aires

3.78

Vienna2.93

Chicago

5.96

19

Dubai

3.78

Dublin2.87

Zurich4.97

20Frankfurt

2.71

Dubai

2.87

Osaka

4.70

Note: 1、The city incell is European city, incell is American city, incell is the Asia Pacific or African city. Tables from 21 to 24 are showed in the same way; 2、The“Proportion” in the table is the ratio of the number of respondents who believe the city isoutstanding to the total number of respondents in each continent. The proportions in the tablefrom 21 to 24 are calculated in the same way.
3. Evaluations from interviewees in different
regions on the industrial support indicator

support is similar to that on the growth anddevelopment. American and European
interviewees admit financial centers in
Asia-Pacific region such as Tokyo, Hong

Situation on the indicator of industrial

22

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

Kong, Singapore, Beijing, Shanghai andDubai enjoy high level of industrial support.
European Interviewees regard only New Yorkand Washington have good industrial support.
By comparison, American interviewees havelisted London, Paris, Frankfurt and Zurich.

Table 22 Valuations of industrial support by respondents from various regions
Ranking

America

EuropeAsia Pacific and Africa

City

Ratio

City

Ratio

City

Ratio

1

New York

33.85

London17.74

New York

25.79

2

Chicago15.53

New York

13.93

Hong Kong

22.30

3

Toronto15.12

Frankfurt

10.61

Tokyo

20.82

4

London13.80

Zurich

7.24

London

19.56

5

San Francisco

11.34

Tokyo

7.24

Shanghai

18.85

6

Boston

10.60

Paris

6.74

Singapore

17.05

7

Tokyo

10.19

Hong Kong

5.69

Beijing

12.84

8

Washington

10.02

Amsterdam

4.81

Sydney10.55

9Vancouver

7.72

Milan

4.48

Taipei

8.20

10Hong Kong

7.72

Munich

4.31

Melbourne

8.03

11

Montreal

6.00

Brussels

4.26

Paris

7.92

12

Paris

5.67

Madrid3.70

Washington

7.81

13

Beijing

5.09

Geneva

3.70

Seoul

7.81

14

Sao Paulo

4.68

Stockholm

3.37

Dubai

7.65

15

Shanghai

4.27

Vienna3.21

Shenzhen

7.32

16

Singapore

4.11

Singapore

3.15

Mumbai

7.21

17Frankfurt

3.29

Beijing

2.93

Chicago6.94

18

Zurich

3.29

Dublin2.87

Frankfurt

6.56

19

Dubai

3.29

Moscow

2.60

Osaka

5.74

20

Rome

2.96

Washington

2.54

San Francisco

5.08

Note: 1、The city incell is European city, incell is American city, incell is the Asia Pacific or African city. Tables from 21 to 24 are showed in the same way; 2、The“Proportion” in the table is the ratio of the number of respondents who believe the city isoutstanding to the total number of respondents in each continent. The proportions in the tablefrom 21 to 24 are calculated in the same way.
4. Evaluations from interviewees in different
regions on the indicator of service

level in Tokyo and Hong Kong are regarded tobe relatively low. According to European
interviewees, Shanghai has not been selected
into the top 20 Judged by services level. As
the capital of China, Beijing is picked byAmerican interviewees into the top 20 due toits given advantages in aspect of service level.

American and European interviewees
think the service level in Asia-Pacific region is
not high. Compared with scores obtained on
indicators of financial market, growth anddevelopment and industrial support, services

23

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

Table 23 Valuations of service standards by respondents from various regions
Ranking

America

EuropeAsia Pacific and Africa

City

Ratio

City

Ratio

City

Ratio

1

New York

30.57

London

19.68

New York

26.72

2Toronto

16.43

New York

12.88

Hong Kong

26.12

3

London

14.13

Paris

11.00

Tokyo

24.04

4

Chicago13.31

Frankfurt

10.72

London22.46

5

San Francisco

12.74

Zurich

8.18

Singapore

20.33

6

Boston11.75

Madrid

5.36

Shanghai

13.01

7

Washington

11.67

Brussels

5.25

Sydney12.57

8

Vancouver

10.19

Amsterdam

5.14

Paris

9.45

9

Tokyo

9.12

Tokyo

5.03

Melbourne

9.34

10

Montreal

8.22

Munich

4.59

Washington

8.96

11

Paris

6.82

Geneva

4.37

Beijing

8.85

12Hong Kong

6.74

Stockholm

4.31

Dubai

8.47

13

Buenos Aires

4.27

Vienna3.98

Taipei

7.76

14Zurich

4.03

Hong Kong

3.76

Chicago6.17

15

Frankfurt

3.94

Milan

3.32

Seoul

5.68

16

Beijing

3.78

Rome

3.15

Zurich

5.41

17

Sao Paulo

3.70

Dublin

3.10

San Francisco

5.30

18

Singapore

3.53

Luxembourg

2.82

Osaka

5.25

19

Sydney3.12

Washington

2.65

Mumbai

4.97

20

Geneva3.04

Sydney2.60

Frankfurt

4.92

Note: 1、The city incell is European city, incell is American city, incell is the Asia Pacific or African city. Tables from 21 to 24 are showed in the same way; 2、The“Proportion” in the table is the ratio of the number of respondents who believe the city isoutstanding to the total number of respondents in each continent. The proportions in the tablefrom 21 to 24 are calculated in the same way.
As China’s unique economic Freeport, Hong
Kong is always in the top 20 according to its
perfect infrastructure and environment.

5. Evaluations from interviewees in different
regions on the indicator of generalenvironment
Ranking on general environment issimilar to that on service in which Americanand European interviewees haven’t given a
better evaluation to the cities in Asia-Pacificregion.
Cities that come out looking good arethose capitals like Beijing, Tokyo and Sydney.

24

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

Table 24 Valuations of the country’s general environment by respondents from various
regions
Ranking

America

EuropeAsia Pacific and Africa

City

Ratio

City

Ratio

City

Ratio

1

New York

30.32

London

19.90

New York

29.02

2

Toronto16.35

New York

15.53

Hong Kong

24.48

3

London14.13

Frankfurt

9.95

London

20.55

4

San Francisco

12.65

Paris

8.62

Singapore

16.61

5

Washington

12.08

Zurich

8.51

Tokyo

15.14

6

Chicago10.85

Brussels

5.97

Sydney11.86

7

Vancouver

9.29

Amsterdam

5.36

Shanghai

10.55

8

Boston

9.20

Tokyo

4.92

Paris

8.69

9

Tokyo

8.71

Geneva

4.48

Melbourne

8.42

10

Paris

6.33

Madrid4.31

Washington

8.09

11

Montreal

5.67

Stockholm

4.09

Beijing

7.16

12

Hong Kong

4.60

Vienna3.92

Taipei

6.78

13

Buenos Aires

3.86

Hong Kong

3.92

Dubai

6.61

14

Sao Paulo

3.86

Munich

3.48

Chicago5.85

15

Zurich

3.62

Washington

3.04

San Francisco

5.68

16

Frankfurt

3.37

Copenhagen

2.99

Shenzhen

5.25

17

Geneva3.37

Luxembourg

2.87

Seoul

5.14

18

Sydney

3.29

Milan

2.82

Frankfurt

5.08

19

Beijing

3.12

Sydney2.82

Zurich5.03

20

Amsterdam

2.96

Dublin2.71

Geneva4.70

Note: 1、The city incell is European city, incell is American city, incell is the Asia Pacific or African city. Tables from 21 to 24 are showed in the same way; 2、The“Proportion” in the table is the ratio of the number of respondents who believe the city isoutstanding to the total number of respondents in each continent. The proportions in the tablefrom 21 to 24 are calculated in the same way.

25

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013as sample to conduct special investigation intodeveloping confidence and development
conditions of elements related to finance of
BRICS countries’ financial centers.

III. Special Analysis on theDevelopment of Financial（I）Confidence analysis

Centers in BRICS Countries

Confidence analysis mainly investigatesinterviewees’ confidence for the mostrepresentative cities in the BRIC countries
becoming international financial centers.
Scores of 5 expressed fully confident; 4expressed somewhat confident; 3 represent
neither; 2 represents not that confident; 1
represents have no confidence at all.

In the year of 2013, our research group
continues to regard Shanghai, Johannesburg,
Sao Paulo, Moscow and Mumbai as
representative cities of BRICS countries’
financial centers, and we take these five cities

Table 25 Comparisons of Confidence Index of the Financial Centers in BRICS countries
Comprehensive

Ranking

Rankingscores2013

2012

24.28%

3.80

1

1

27.25%

8.64%

3.09

2

5

36.55%

27.25%

7.78%

3.08

3

2

22.30%

32.02%

27.39%

8.58%

3.03

4

4

22.86%

29.04%

26.96%

9.82%

3.01

5

3

City

Score 1

Score 2

Shanghai

3.11%

8.26%

Johannesburg

7.36%

Sao Paulo

Score

Score 4

Score 518.45%

45.90%

20.87%

35.88%

6.26%

22.16%

Moscow

9.72%

Mumbai11.32%

3

Note: The percentage in the second column refers to the ratio of the number of respondents,
who believe the confidence score of the city is 1, to the total number of respondents who arefamiliar with the city. The percentages in the second column to the sixth column are calculated in
the same way. If sum of the percentages are not equal to 100%, it is because of round-off error.
Comprehensive scores are weighted average. The weight is the percentage. The Comprehensivescores and percentages in the table from 26 to 32 are calculated in the same way.
Based on table 25, we can conclude thatthe confidence scores received by the
respondents for the BRICS countries have thefollowing features:

between Shanghai and the other four cities.
With the second place, Johannesburg lagging
behind by 0.71, yet the score difference isnegligible between other cities.

First and foremost, Shanghai still stands
out this year, ranking first and followed by
Johannesburg, Sao Paulo, Moscow andMumbai. Compared with 2012, Johannesburg
is raising faster, while Sao Paulo and Mumbai
have drops in both.
Secondly, there is a large confidence gap

Thirdly, the scores Shanghai gets mainly
alternate between 4 and 5 percent, with thetotal percentage 70.18, while the rest end up
with more percent scores of 2 and 4.
（II）Investments attraction analysis

26

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

Investments attraction will compare thecapital attracting powers between the 5 cities.

5 represents very good and 1 represents very
bad.

Table 26 Capital attraction index comparison of the BRICS countries
Comprehensive

Ranking

Rankingscores2013

2012

22.07%

3.83

1

1

33.28%

11.55%

3.35

2

2

42.38%

30.20%

9.10%

3.26

3

3

16.02%

44.04%

27.89%

9.36%

3.25

4

4

17.73%

36.49%

30.77%

10.05%

3.23

5

5

City

Score 1

Score 2

Score 3

Score 4

Score 5

Shanghai

1.41%

5.66%

23.15%

47.71%

Moscow

3.43%

14.92%

36.82%

Johannesburg

3.59%

14.72%

Sao Paulo

2.69%

Mumbai

4.97%

From table 26, we can see that financial
centers in BRICS countries attract investments
in following pattern:

Moscow,
Mumbai,
Sao
Johannesburg lagging behind.

Paulo

and

Thirdly, the scores Shanghai gets mainly
alternate between 4 and 5 percent, with thetotal percentage 69.78, while the rest end up
with more percent scores of 3 and 4.

Firstly, Shanghai on the whole takes thelead in terms of the capital attraction among
the whole five by achieving a higher score,with the next in ranking order being Moscow,
Johannesburg, Sao Paulo and Mumbai.

（III） Analysis of talent attraction
Talent attraction focuses on thecomparisons of the degree of attraction oftalents among the five countries as financial
centers. 5 represents very good and 1
represents very bad.

Secondly, as far as the respondents’
grading in terms of confidence level isconcerned, Shanghai leads the rankings with

Table 27 Comparisons of the talents elements attraction capacity of the financial centers in
BRICS countries
Comprehensive

Ranking

Rankingscores2013

2012

19.86%

3.73

1

1

31.18%

10.68%

3.23

2

5

38.78%

30.43%

8.58%

3.21

3

3

17.67%

39.91%

28.64%

9.21%

3.20

4

4

18.07%

42.40%

28.13%

8.25%

3.20

5

2

City

Score 1

Score 2

Score 3

Score 4

Score 5

Shanghai

1.92%

7.24%

26.83%

44.14%

Mumbai

5.14%

18.82%

34.18%

Johannesburg

4.23%

17.97%

Moscow

4.57%

Sao Paulo

3.16%

Note: The comprehensive score of Moscow and Sao Paulo are 3.2024 and 3.2023.

27

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

From table 27, we can see that: Firstly,
Shanghai is on the whole more attractive totalent than other cities, taking first place
among the five, with the ensuing cities,
Mumbai, Johannesburg, Moscow and Sao
Paulo. Compared with 2012, Mumbai has
raised 3 places while Sao Paulo dropped 3
places.

Paulo following behind.
（IV） Analysis of abundant degree offinancial products

Abundant degree of financial products
focuses mainly on the comparisons of therichness and diversification of financial
products such as bonds, stocks, futures,commodities, foreign exchange, funds in eachcity. 5 represents very good and 1 represents
very bad.

Secondly, as far as the respondents’
grading in terms of the five-score confidence
level is concerned, Shanghai ranks first with
Mumbai, Moscow, Johannesburg and Sao

Table 28 Comparisons of abundant degree of the financial markets in BRICS financial
centers
Comprehensive

Rankingscores2013

15.90%

3.61

1

29.10%

7.83%

3.23

2

44.97%

27.78%

6.90%

3.19

3

18.01%

42.14%

29.16%

7.03%

3.18

4

19.11%

40.53%

28.58%

7.33%

3.15

5

City

Score 1

Score 2

Score 3

Score 4

Score 5

Shanghai

1.75%

8.26%

32.94%

41.14%

Johannesburg

3.59%

14.32%

45.16%

Sao Paulo

2.34%

18.01%

Moscow

3.66%

Mumbai

4.45%

From table 28, we can conclude that therichness of financial products in the BRICS
countries have the following features:（V）Analysis of degree of financial
innovation

Firstly, Shanghai’s scores are on thewhole higher than those of other cities,
ranking the first among the five. The
following ranking is in the order ofJohannesburg, Sao Paulo, Moscow andMumbai.

The degree of financial innovation
focuses mainly on the comparison of thefinancial products creativity, financial systemcreativity, and financial service innovation ineach city. 5 represents very good and 1
represents very bad.

Secondly, as far as the respondents’
grading in terms of the five-score confidence
level is concerned, Shanghai takes the lead,followed by Johannesburg, Mumbai, Moscow
and Sao Paulo.
Table 29 Comparisons of the degree of financial innovation of the financial centers in BRICS
countries

28

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

Comprehensive

Ranking

Rankingscores2013

2012

14.94%

3.59

1

1

27.94%

7.13%

3.18

2

3

45.38%

24.62%

6.96%

3.13

3

2

20.44%

40.01%

27.25%

7.10%

3.11

4

5

21.50%

41.11%

25.96%

6.75%

3.09

5

4

City

Score 1

Score 2

Score 3

Score 4

Score 5

Shanghai

2.04%

9.05%

32.03%

41.94%

Johannesburg

3.30%

17.62%

44.00%

Sao Paulo

2.75%

20.29%

Mumbai

5.20%

Moscow

4.69%

From the table 29, we can see that: firstly,
Shanghai has on the whole higher scores thanother cities, ranking first among the five,
followed by Johannesburg, Sao Paulo,
Mumbai and Moscow.

（VI）Analysis of degree of financing
facilities

The degree of financial facilities focuseson comparisons of the degree of facility offinancing channels and financing policies ineach city. 5 represents very good and 1
represents very bad.

Secondly, as far as the respondents’
grading in terms of the five-score confidence
level is concerned, Shanghai takes the leadwith Johannesburg, Mumbai, Sao Paulo andMoscow following behind.

Table 30 Comparisons of degree of facilities of financial centers in BRICS countries
Comprehensive

Ranking

Rankingscores2013

2012

14.20%

3.53

1

1

28.17%

7.07%

3.19

2

2

46.43%

25.26%

6.67%

3.14

3

3

19.04%

42.54%

26.36%

6.86%

3.11

4

4

20.84%

41.74%

24.77%

7.33%

3.08

5

5

City

Score 1

Score 2

Score 3

Score 4

Score 5

Shanghai

1.98%

10.07%

34.86%

38.88%

Johannesburg

3.88%

15.77%

45.10%

Sao Paulo

3.27%

18.36%

Moscow

5.20%

Mumbai

5.31%

From table 30, we can see that: firstly,
Shanghai scores on the whole higher thanother cities, ranking first among the five,
followed by Johannesburg, Sao Paulo,
Moscow, and Mumbai.

（VII） Analysis of intermediary service
levelIntermediary Service Standard focuses on
the comparisons of the related intermediaryservices degree of the financial center
construction in each city, including credit
rating, investment and financing consultation,
financial information, accounting and auditing
agency, and asset evaluation. 5 represents very
good and 1 represents very bad.

Secondly, as far as the respondents’gratings in terms of the five-score confidence
level are concerned, Shanghai ranks first with
Mumbai, Johannesburg, Moscow and Sao
Paulo following behind.

29

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

Table 31 Comparisons of Intermediary Service Level of financial centers in BRICS
countries

City

Score
1

Score 2

Score 3

Score 4

Score 5Comprehensive

Ranking

Rankingscores

2013

2012

Shanghai

2.21%

10.41%

36.05%

38.37%

12.96%

3.49

1

1

Johannesburg

3.65%

17.39%

44.93%

27.88%

6.14%

3.15

2

2

Sao Paulo

3.10%

19.59%

47.19%

23.45%

6.67%

3.11

3

3

Moscow

4.63%

19.04%

44.83%

24.99%

6.52%

3.10

4

4

Mumbai

5.48%

22.00%

40.47%

24.54%

7.51%

3.07

5

5

From table 31, we can see that: firstly,
Shanghai on the whole scores higher thanother cities, ranking first among the five,
followed by Johannesburg, Sao Paulo,
Moscow, and Mumbai.

（VIII）Analysis of degree of perfection offinancial legal environment

The degree of perfection of the financial
legal environment focuses on the comparisonof the degrees of perfection of the litigation,
arbitration, and legal services environment
related to financial business disputes, caseprocessing, and so on as well as the soundnessof the national and regional financial rules andregulations. 5 represents very good and 1
represents very bad.

Secondly, only as far as the respondents’
grading in terms of the five-score confidence
level is concerned, Shanghai rank the top,followed by Mumbai, Sao Paulo, Moscow and
Johannesburg.

Table 32 Comparison of the degree of perfection of the financial legal environment of thefinancial centers in BRICS countries
Comprehensive

Ranking

Rankingscores2013

2012

10.81%

3.24

1

1

26.32%

6.09%

3.07

2

2

41.58%

23.04%

6.20%

3.01

3

3

24.59%

37.11%

22.07%

6.35%

2.90

4

4

26.91%

36.61%

21.48%

6.29%

2.89

5

5

City

Score 1

Score 2

Score 3

Score 4

Score 5

Shanghai

5.66%

17.60%

35.09%

30.84%

Johannesburg

5.86%

20.12%

41.62%

Sao Paulo

5.03%

24.15%

Moscow

9.89%

Mumbai

8.72%

Secondly, only as far as the respondents’
grading in terms of the five-score confidence
level is concerned, Shanghai ranks first with,
Moscow,
Mumbai,
Sao
Paulo
and
Johannesburg following behind.

From table 32, we can see that: firstly,
Shanghai scores on the whole higher thanother cities, ranking first among the five,
followed by Johannesburg, Sao Paulo,
Moscow and Mumbai.

30

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

（IX）Analysis of degree of currencyinternational recognition

currencies of BRICS countries. 5 means fullyrecognizable,
4
represents
somewhatrecognizable; 3 represent neither; 2 represents
not that recognizable; 1 shows have norecognition at all.

Degree of currency internationalrecognition mainly focuses on the comparisonof interviewees’ recognition about theTable 33 Comparison of the currency international recognition index of BRICS
countries
Currency
City

Score 1

Score 2

Score 3

Score 4

Score 5Knowledge
DegreeRanking

Ranking

2012

2011

RMB(China)

8.75%

17.93%

30.33%

24.73%

18.26%

3.258

1

1

Rupee(India)

11.52%

25.33%

35.33%

19.89%

7.93%

2.874

2

4

Real(Brazil)

12.55%

26.30%

32.61%

18.42%

10.11%

2.872

3

3

RBL(Russia)

12.50%

29.73%

35.11%

16.03%

6.63%

2.746

4

2

13.53%

31.52%

32.34%

14.89%

7.72%

2.717

5

5

Rand
(South Africa)

Note: The percentage in the second column refers to the ratio of the number of respondents，
who believes the internationalization level of the currency is “Score 1”，to the total number of
respondents. The percentages in the second column to the sixth column are calculated in the sameway. If sum of the percentages are not equal to 100%, it is because of round-off error.
From table 33, respondents’ scores on
the currencies of BRICS countries are featuredby:

0.16. The recognition of the RMB is thehighest, which not only has to do with China’s
economic growth momentum but is also
closely related to the Chinese government’s
reform of the exchange rate mechanism of
RMB as well as the promotion of RMB
internationalization.

First of all, the RMB is still the mostrecognizable currency, followed by the Indianrupee, Brazilian real, Russian ruble and South
African rand.

Thirdly, as far as the correspondingscores above 20 percent the five currencies
have got in each column are concerned, the
RMB is within the range of 3-4, the others are
2-4.

Secondly, the difference between the
RMB and the second place ruble is 0.38, andbetween the fifth place rand 0.54. The biggest
difference among the other four currencies is31

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

International Financial Center Development
Index (IFCD Index 2013) continues to adopt
the research roadmaps for the IFCD Index
2012，IFCD Index 2011 and the IFCD Index
2010. The calculation of the IFCD Index isbased on a subjective questionnaire survey
and objective data collection via the global
data collection systems of Xinhua News
Agency and its strategic cooperation partners.
Figure 5 shows the research roadmap for theformation of the IFCD Index. (Figure 5)

IV. Introduction to Research
Approach of IFCD Index(I) General framework

1. Research roadmap
The

2013

Xinhua-Dow

Jones
Theoretical Research of
IFCD Index

The Questionnaire and Interview

The Design ofOutline Design

Objective IndicatorsystemThe Global
Information

Questionnaire Survey

Data Collection andCollection System

Preprocessof Xinhua News
AgencyThe Analysis
Questionnaire Analysis

of Objective IndicatorsystemIntegrated Analysis

Publishing of IFCD Index

Figure 5 Research Route Map of IFCD Index 2013
2. Levels of analysis and analytic framework

all-round analysis on the development
situation of the 45 cities as international
financial centers. The first level is acomprehensive evaluation of the International

In analyzing the index, a multi-level
analytic framework is adopted to conduct an
32

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

Financial Center Development Index based on
the different index scores of each city.

(1) The principle of systematicness. Eachindicator can reflect one of the features of aninternational financial center. Various
indicators jointly constitute the systematic
index system, and try to reflect theconnotation of financial centers from as many
aspects as possible;

The emphasis of the second level
analysis is to analyze the advantages andweaknesses of each financial center by
breaking down the International Financial
Center Development Index and analyzing eachelement.

(2) Representativeness of indicators. The
selection of each indicator strives to reflectfeatures of international financial centers, andavoid overlap between indicators. Eachindicator is distinct from others, so as toguarantee the index is representative and has
comparability;

The third level is to find out the regional
characteristics of these financial centers andexamine regional environment’s impact onrole of international centers.
The last level is a special study on thefinancial centers of the BRICS countries byreviewing these hot-spots of the world's
economic development. The study is based on
global respondents’ evaluation on thedevelopment of the financial centers of thefive BRICS countries by conducting
subjective questionnaire survey and regional
in-depth interviews via Xinhua News
Agency’s global International Financial
Center Development Index survey system.

(3) Relatively independence of indicators.
Each indicator has clear connotation and isrelatively independent. One indicator does notoverlap with another, and indicators do notpossess reciprocal causation relations;(4) The principle of operability. The
design of the index system gives fullconsideration to the stability of data sources,
the standardization and continuity of data, andunified standards in order to ensure
convenience in data collection and calculation,and clarification of the appraisal indicator’s
connotations.

(II)Construction of objective indicatorsystem

1. Design principles of objective indicatorsystem

2. Structure of indicator system
The design of the indicator system takes
the following principles into consideration inorder to evaluate the competitiveness ofvarious international financial centers in an
objective and fair way:33

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

Based on the above principles, theXinhua-Dow Jones International Financial
Center Development Index is formed by athree-level indicator system. The first-levelindicator is made up by five aspects, including
financial market, growth and development,
industrial support, service standard andgeneral environment of a country. Of the fiveelements, financial market is the measure ofcore development ability of an international

financial center; growth and development is ameasure of impetus origin of an international
financial center; industrial support is ameasure of an international financial center’sdevelopment channel; service standard is ameasure of international financial center’sdevelopment ability; and the generalenvironment is a measure of theenvironment’s impact on the development of
an international financial center.

FinancialMarketGeneralEnvironment

GeneralEnvironment

Industrial Support

Growth andService
Level

Development

GeneralEnvironment

Figure 6 Indicator System of IFCD Index 2013
capability from three aspects, namely the

The first-level indicator of financial
market includes four secondary indictors and
16 third-level indicators, mainly reflecting thescale, stability and maturity of capital market,
forex market, banking market, and insurance
market.

growth potential of the capital market, growthpotential of the economy, and innovation
potential reserves. Compared with the IFCD
Index 2012, taking data availability into
consideration, IFCD Index 2013 merges thesecondary indicators of “Innovation Outputs”

The first-level indicator of growth anddevelopment includes three secondaryand “Innovation Potential” into the secondary

indicators and 12 third-level indictors,

indicator of “innovation potential reserves”;Asevaluating a city’s growing and development

for third-level indicators, the indicators of34

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

“Added Value of High-tech Products to Added

Index 2012, IFCD Index 2013 shifts the“urban infrastructure”, regarded as theindicator of city service level, into the “service
standard” system so as to embody the basic
service level of financial centers; “government
service” is replaced by “social management”
which includes “unemployment rate index”
and “crime statistics” in order to embody theservice level of social administration in
financial centers; “urban living conditions” isreplaced by “working and living” so that it canembody the level of service which financial
centers supply to people’ working and living;in the third-level indicators, “working
environment” is got by means of the “8c”
subject(appendix III) in the questionnaire.

Value of Manufacturing”, “Employment in
High-Tech Services per 1,000 inhabitants” and“Per Capita Expenditure on R&D performed
by Government” into one indicator, technicalinnovation, whose data is got by the means of
the “8b” subject(appendix III) in thequestionnaire; the rest third-level indicators
are consistent with those in IFCD Index 2012.

The first-level indicator of industrial
support is made up by two secondary
indicators and 10 third-level indicators,
evaluating the capability of a financial
supporting system from two aspects, namely
the commercial environment of a region andintellectual capital. Compared with the IFCD
Index 2012, IFCD Index 2013 uses theindicator of “intellectual capital”, regarded as
the talents element support of financial
industry, as the secondary indicator of“industrial support” in order to demonstratehuman capital’s support to financial industry.
In the third-level indicators, “multinational
index”, incorporated into the “commercial
environment”, and other five indicators
embody industrial support environment offinancial centers; the indicator of “Financial
Services
employment
percentage”
in“intellectual capital” is replaced by “talent
accumulation” which evaluates financial
centers’ attractiveness to talents is got bymeans of “8d” subject in the questionnaire; therest indicators are consistent with those in
IFCD Index 2012.

The first-level indicator of generalenvironment
includesfour
secondaryindicators and 15 third-level indicators,
evaluating the region’s general development interms of economic environment, politicalenvironment, the degree of opening to theoutside and physical environment. Comparedwith IFCD Index 2012, taking completenessinto consideration, “geographical location”
and “city population density” are combined as“physical environment” which is incorporated
into the “general environment” system; “percapita GDP” is absorbed into “economic
environment”; the rest third-level indicators
are consistent.
3. Weight of indicators
Three consecutive years’ surveys embody
interviewees’ acknowledge of the importanceof the five first-level indicators is stable
although every year’s sample size differs, thisshows that the weights of Xinhua-Dow Jones
International Financial Centers Development
Index are of science and stability. So, IFCD
Index 2013 uses the last two years’ weights offirst-level indicators, which is calculated via

The first-level indicator of service
standard includes three secondary indicatorsand 11 third-level indicators, evaluating theservice ability of a region’s financial
development from three aspects, namely
Urban Infrastructure, social management andworking and living. Compared with the IFCD
35

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013questionnaire survey. In the survey, therespondents give scores to five aspects,
including the financial market, growth anddevelopment, industrial support, service
standard and a country’s general environment,in terms of importance in order to measure thecompetitiveness of the financial centers. Score
one indicates “not important”, and the score
five indicates “very important”. By calculating
valid questionnaires, the weights of the five
first-level indicators can be worked out, whichis shown in the Table 34.

Table 34 Weights of the first-level indicators in IFCD Index 2013
Financialmarket0.21

Growth andDevelopment
0.21

Industrial
Support
0.19

Servicestandard
0.20

Generalenvironment
0.20

Note: If sum of weighted value of five indicators is not equal to 1, it is because of round-off error.
Within the IFCD Index 2013 indicatorsystem, the secondary indicators and thethird-level indicators are given equal weight,that is to say, each secondary indicator undereach first-level indicator is given equal weight,
and each third-level indicator under eachsecondary indicator is also given equal weight.
By doing so, each element’s influence on thedevelopment of each international financial
center can be reflected in a comprehensive,
objective and fair way.

Generally speaking, the data of the IFCD
Index 2013 indicator system are authoritative,
objective, stable and reliable. At the same time,
the objective data are mostly adopting average
figures in the recent three years to reduce theinfluence of incomparable interference factors.

(III) Subjective survey approaches

1. Global questionnaire survey
4. Data collection

XinhuaNews
Agency’s
globalinformation collection network mainly survey
the following details:

Data of the objective indicators in the
IFCD Index 2013 come from the following
channels:(1) Subjective scores on 45 sample cities
in five aspects, including the financial market,
growth and development, industrial support,
service standard, and the general environmentof a country;(1) Data released by international
authoritative institutions, such as reports
released by the World Bank, the World
Economic Forum, and the International
Monetary Fund;(2) Data released by world well-known
companies, stock exchanges and authoritative
websites;(3) Data from the global surveys by
Xinhua News Agency and its strategiccooperation partners;(4) Research data published bywell-known research institutions.

(2) Subjective evaluation on theimportance of the five aspects, namely thefinancial market, growth and development,
industrial support, service standard and thegeneral environment of a country;(3) Confidence survey on thedevelopment of financial centers in BRICS
countries.
36

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

the comparable data for each indicator, that is,
to provide the function values in normal
distribution after standardized original data, so
as to describe the data properly and avoid
impact from extreme values.

2. In-depth interviews with experts
By using Xinhua News Agency’s vast
global information collection network, thein-depth interviews can measure the softstrength of an international financial center in
a comprehensive and scientific way. The
in-depth interviews include the following
aspects:

Secondly, an element evaluation index
and a comprehensive evaluation index are
calculated via two-level summarizing at equal
weight supported by symmetric design. The
score value of each secondary indicator isfrom the summarization and calculation of thescore value of third-level indicators by thesame weight. Equal weight calculation is also
adopted when summarizing and calculating
the secondary indicators into first-levelindicators. The objective score of eachfirst-level indicator is from the summarizationand calculation of the secondary indicators by
the same weight.

(1) The economy and financial
development situation of the city where theinterviewee locates;(2) Interviewee’s understanding andevaluation on major international financial
centers;(3) Interviewee’s evaluation on theinternational financial centers of the BRICS
countries;(4) Interviewee’s outlook for the future
development of international financial centers.

Thirdly, the final score for eachfirst-level indicator is obtained by calculating
the arithmetical average of the score for the
first-level indicator by using the objective data
and the score for the first-level indicator byusing data from the subjective questionnaire
survey.

(IV) Comprehensive analysis approach of
IFCD Index indicators

The calculation of the IFCD Index 2013isadoptedasymmetric
designcompetitiveness model, which highlights the
direct and concise information integration andthe scientific nature of the evaluation structure.
The model establishes a data processing
platform with unified standards, combines
both the subjective survey data and theobjective indicator data, and calculates theoverall index which can comprehensively
reflect the development of the international
financial centers.
First, based on the positive and negative
attributes of the indicators, data will beprocessed to be comparable so as to work out

Finally, the total score for each city is
obtained by calculating the weighted averageof the scores of first-level indicators on thebasis of the weights obtained from thequestionnaire survey. Then the ranking foreach city is based on the total score for each
city.

37

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

International Financial Centers Development Index

Survey System

Financial

Objective Indicator System

Financial
0.5

Market0.5

0.21

MarketGrowth andIndustrial

0.5

Development

Industrial

Environment

0.5

SupportIndustrial

0.19

Support

0.5
Service

Service
Level

0.5
Service
Level

0.20
0.5
General

64 level-3 indicators

4 level-2 indicators

16 level-3 indicators哦哦

3 level-2 indicators

12 level-3 indicators哦哦

2 level-2 indicators

10 level-3 indicators哦哦

3 level-2 indicators

11 level-3 indicators哦哦

4 level-2 indicators

15 level-3 indicators哦哦

Growth andDevelopment

SupportGeneral

0.5

0.21
0.5

16 level-2 indicators

FinancialMarketGrowthGrowth andDevelopment
Development

5 level-1 indicators

0.5

GeneralEnvironment

Environment
0.20

Figure 7 Construction Structure of IFCD Index 201338

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index - 2013

Appendix I:

Figures and Tables of IFCD Index 2013

Attached Figure 1

Results of IFCD Index 201339

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index – 2013

Attached Table1 Ranking Comparison of IFCD Index 2013and IFCD Index 2012
Financial Market

Growth and Development

Industrial Support

Service Level

General Environment

IFCD

ChangeCITY

in rankABS ofchange in

2013

2012

2013

2012

2013

2012

2013

2012

2013

2012

2013

2012

New York

1

1

4

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

0

0

London

2

2

3

3

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

0

0

Hong Kong

4

4

2

4

4

5

4

4

3

3

3

4

1

1

Tokyo

3

3

7

6

3

3

3

3

4

5

4

3

-1

1

Singapore

5

7

5

7

6

6

5

6

5

6

5

5

0

0

Shanghai

6

6

1

1

5

4

14

12

13

16

6

6

0

0

Paris

7

8

9

9

8

9

6

5

6

8

7

8

1

1

Frankfurt

8

5

15

10

10

7

9

7

8

4

8

7

-1

1

Chicago

9

10

14

13

9

10

10

9

12

13

9

10

1

1

Sydney

10

12

12

15

12

14

8

10

10

12

10

12

2

2

Beijing

12

11

6

5

7

8

19

35

26

27

11

11

0

0

San Francisco

14

13

11

12

11

13

11

14

11

19

12

13

1

1

Zurich

11

9

13

11

15

12

7

8

7

7

13

9

-4

4

Toronto

13

14

16

20

13

18

12

15

9

11

14

16

2

2

Shenzhen

17

20

8

8

14

17

27

40

31

36

15

19

4

4

Washington

19

17

23

19

17

19

13

16

15

20

16

17

1

1

Dubai

15

16

10

17

16

16

21

27

30

32

17

18

1

1

Boston

16

19

21

23

18

29

15

17

18

28

18

20

2

2

Geneva

18

15

18

22

28

27

16

11

14

9

19

15

-4

4

Amsterdam

21

18

22

21

20

11

17

13

16

10

20

14

-6

6

Munich

25

27

20

25

22

21

20

26

20

22

21

21

0

0

Vancouver

23

33

24

24

24

26

18

24

17

23

22

25

3

3

Seoul

27

22

19

14

19

15

36

37

36

35

23

24

1

1

40

rank

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index – 2013

Financial Market

Growth and Development

Industrial Support

Service Level

General Environment

IFCD

ChangeCITY

in rankABS ofchange in

2013

2012

2013

2012

2013

2012

2013

2012

2013

2012

2013

2012

Brussels

29

21

26

28

33

35

25

22

22

21

24

22

-2

2

Stockholm

33

28

28

29

35

34

24

18

19

17

25

23

-2

2

Melbourne

39

36

31

26

30

23

22

23

21

26

26

29

3

3

Mumbai

20

23

17

18

23

22

38

39

42

41

27

30

3

3

Moscow

30

25

25

16

21

20

37

41

35

43

28

31

3

3

Montreal

31

37

29

31

32

38

28

30

24

25

29

32

3

3

Taipei

36

31

32

27

26

33

26

36

29

33

30

36

6

6

Vienna

37

32

35

37

36

31

23

19

23

14

31

26

-5

5

Madrid

28

24

37

30

25

25

33

25

32

30

32

28

-4

4

Osaka

24

30

44

38

27

28

31

34

33

34

33

37

4

4

Copenhagen

40

38

33

34

38

30

29

20

25

15

34

27

-7

7

Milan

32

26

34

33

29

24

35

33

38

39

35

35

0

0

Sao Paulo

22

41

27

39

31

42

41

45

43

44

36

43

7

7

Johannesburg

26

44

30

45

34

45

42

44

41

45

37

45

8

8

Helsinki

44

42

36

36

42

39

32

21

28

24

38

33

-5

5

Oslo

43

35

42

44

41

37

34

32

27

18

39

34

-5

5

Luxembourg

34

34

40

40

40

40

30

28

37

29

40

38

-2

2

Dublin

38

39

38

32

39

36

40

31

34

31

41

39

-2

2

Rome

41

29

39

35

37

32

39

29

39

37

42

40

-2

2

Lisbon

42

40

41

41

45

41

44

38

40

38

43

41

-2

2

Buenos Aires

35

43

43

42

43

43

43

43

45

42

44

42

-2

2

Budapest

45

45

45

43

44

44

45

42

44

40

45

44

-1

1



rank

Note: The colors in last column represent rank fluctuation of International Financial Center in recent two years. Blue represents completely stable. Red represents
somewhat stable.Green represents volatile. Gray represents abnormal fluctuation.

41

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index – 2013

Attached Figure 2 The Financial Market Ranking of IFCD Index 201342

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index – 2013

Attached Figure 3 The Growth and Development Ranking of IFCD Index 201343

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index – 2013

Attached Figure 4

The Industrial Support Ranking of IFCD Index 201344

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index – 2013

Attached Figure 5

The Service level Ranking of IFCD Index 201345

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index – 2013

Attached Figure 6 The General Environment Ranking of IFCD Index 201346

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index – 2013

Secondly, senior executives account for
about 60 percent;Thirdly, the regional distribution of thesamples adopts equal weight for the 45
sampled cities;
Fourthly, the amount of samples meets
professional statistical requirements.

Appendix II: IFCD Index
Survey System(I) About the questionnaires(II) Basic information of questionnaires

The data for index analysis in 2013
comes from the Global Information Survey
System of Xinhua and the AC Nielsen
Global Survey. After examining quality ofdata and deleting questionnaires with data ofpoor quality, we received 4,856valid
questionnaires with high-quality data. The
selection of samples follows the following
standards:
First, professionals of financial industry
account for about 60 percent of the total;

1. Job title
Of the 4, 856 questionnaires, the profile
of jobs of respondents is pyramid shaped.
Survey respondents holding higher positions
account for a lower proportion of total
respondents. Common employees take thehighest share, accounting for 41.3 percent of
the total survey respondents.

6.65%

12.91%

President of a company orcompany partner
Top-level executives

41.33%

Middle Management

Staff

39.11%

Attached Figure 7 Distribution of Respondents’ Job Title
2. Industries worked in by respondents

industries account for 4 to 13 percent.

Some 23.4 percent of survey
respondents are engaged in government
bodies, the highest level among all the
respondents. Aside from regulatory bodies
and the central bank that takes a proportionof less than 2 percent, all the remaining
47

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index – 2013

Attached Table 2 Industries worked in by respondents
Industry

Count

Proportion (%)

Investment Bank

216

4.45

Commercial Bank

361

7.43

Retail Bank

365

7.52

Insurance

412

8.48

Asset Management

362

7.45

Legal Services

285

5.87

Accounting Services

603

12.42

Trade Association

570

11.74

Regulatory Bodies/ Central Bank

59

1.21

Government Bodies

1138

23.43

Scientific & Research Institutions

485

9.99

Others

0

0

Total

4856

100

3. Location of respondents

the location of respondents are as followings,
of which the numbers of Asian-Pacific andNorth America regions are bigger thanothers, the European region is lower thanothers.

The sampling is conducted according to
the principle that the regional distribution of
the samples adopts equal weight for the 45
sampled cities. The numbers of samples in

Attached Table 3 Locations of questionnaires’ respondents
City

SampleAmountProportion
(%)

City

SampleAmountProportion(%)

Mumbai154

3.17

Sao Paulo

103

2.12

Osaka

151

3.11

Madrid96

1.98

New York

148

3.05

Frankfurt

95

1.96

Beijing147

3.03

Moscow94

1.94

London146

3.01

Stockholm

94

1.94

Shenzhen

146

3.01

Lisbon

94

1.94

Paris

145

2.99

Munich91

1.87

Toronto

145

2.99

Seoul

90

1.85

Melbourne

145

2.99

Rome

89

1.83

Sydney

145

2.99

Milan

88

1.81

Chicago143

2.94

Copenhagen

87

1.79

Singapore

142

2.92

Amsterdam

86

1.77

Shanghai

141

2.90

Helsinki

83

1.71

Tokyo

138

2.84

Buenos Aires

83

1.71

Hong Kong

138

2.84

Dubai

83

1.71

Dublin136

2.80

Vienna78

1.61

Taipei134

2.76

Johannesburg

76

1.57

48

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index – 2013

Washington

126

2.59

Brussels61

1.26

San Francisco

126

2.59

Budapest

57

1.17

Vancouver

120

2.47

Oslo

52

1.07

Montreal

116

2.39

Geneva28

0.58

Boston107

2.20

Luxembourg

3

0.06

Zurich

106

2.18

Total

4856

100.004. Number of employees across the worldpercent. Proportion of organizations withstaff account from 100 to 500 ranks the third,
at 16.5 percent. And the other three types oforganizations respectively account for about
11 to 15 percent. It shows that scale ofsurveyed organizations is relatively even.

Of the organizations where the survey
respondents work in, those with more than
5,000 staff take the highest proportion,accounting for 26.1 percent. Organizations
with less than 100 staff account for 19.4

19.40%

fewer than 100

26.07%

100-500
500-1000

16.52%
11.16%

1000-2000

2000-5000
more than 5000
13.10%

13.76%

Attached Figure 8 Distribution of Respondents’ Organization Size

1. Valuation of each factor by respondents
from various industries

non-financial institution staff. We finallyobtained 1,775 questionnaires from financial
cycle and 3,081 questionnaires fromnon-financial respondents.

Altogether 4,856 questionnaires could
be taken as samples are left. In terms ofoccupation classification, we classify survey
respondents engaged in investment banking,commercial banking, retail banking,insurance, asset management, and regulatory
bodies and the central bank into personnel
involved in financial institutions. Other
survey respondents are classified as

Adopting the same analysis methodwith the previous two years, we planned tolist the top 20 cities respectively picked up
by financial and non-financial institution
staff, in order to directly collect thevaluation of survey respondents in various
occupations on the financial center
development indicators of the world’s major
cities.

(Ⅲ) Further analysis

49

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index – 2013

Attached Table 4 Financial and non-financial institution staff’s valuation of financial
markets
Ranking

Financial Staff

Non-financial Staff

City

Proportion (%)

City

Proportion (%)

1

New York

33.07

New York

29.67

2

London28.28

London23.04

3

Hong Kong

19.38

Hong Kong

14.28

4

Tokyo

14.31

Tokyo

13.66

5

Singapore

12.96

Singapore

9.19

6

Shanghai

10.2

Frankfurt

7.82

7

Paris

10.03

Shanghai

7.59

8Frankfurt

9.97

Paris

7.53

9

Chicago8.11

Sydney6.65

10

Zurich7.89

Washington

6.52

11

Washington

7.44

Zurich6.49

12

Beijing

7.15

Toronto6.49

13

Toronto7.04

Chicago6.07

14

San Francisco

6.87

Beijing

5.78

15

Sydney6.7

San Francisco

4.93

16

Geneva

5.18

Dubai

4.74

17

Dubai

5.18

Geneva4.51

18

Boston

4.9

Boston

4.41

19

Milan

4.68

Melbourne

4.02

20

Amsterdam

4.34

Amsterdam

3.99

Note: The “Proportion” in the third column is the ratio of the number of Financial Staff who
believe the city is outstanding to the total number of Financial Staff. The “Proportion” in the fifth
column is the ratio of the number of Non-financial Staff who believe the city is outstanding to thetotal number of Non-financial Staff. The proportions in the Attached table from 5 to 8 are
calculated in the same way.
From attached table 4 we know that,the responses of financial and non-financial
institution staff show no significant
difference when evaluating the top 5 cities’
performance in terms of their financial
markets, which reflects that these cities’importance as international financial centerhas gained great recognition. Financial
staff’s acceptance of Shanghai, Paris,Frankfurt, Chicago, Zurich, Beijing, San

Francisco, Geneva, and Milan is higher thanthat of non-financial staff; their acceptanceof Washington, Toronto, Sydney and Dubai
is lower than that of non-financial staff; theiracceptance of Boston and Amsterdam isalmost the same.

50

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index – 2013

Attached Table 5 Financial and non-financial institution staff’s valuation of growth anddevelopment
Ranking

Financial Staff

Non-financial Staff

City

Proportion (%)

City

Proportion (%)

1

Shanghai

22.54

Shanghai

21.65

2

Hong Kong

17.24

Hong Kong

15.32

3

New York

16.39

New York

12.98

4

London15.15

London12.17

5

Singapore

11.77

Tokyo

10.29

6

Tokyo

10.93

Singapore

9.15

7

Beijing

9.41

Beijing

8.41

8

Paris

7.21

Paris

5.84

9

Dubai

7.21

Sydney5.62

10

Chicago

7.1

Dubai

5.49

11

Frankfurt

6.93

Toronto

5.32

12

San Francisco

6.42

Washington

5.29

13

Sydney6.37

Frankfurt

5.26

14

Zurich

6.31

Zurich5.06

15

Washington

6.31

Chicago5.03

16

Toronto5.69

San Francisco

517Mumbai

5.07

Shenzhen

4.74

18

Shenzhen

4.56

Seoul

4.45

19

Boston

4.17

Melbourne

4.25

20

Vancouver

4.11

Mumbai

3.8

From attached table 5 we know that,both financial and non-financial institution
staffs have highly accepted the performanceof Shanghai in terms of growth anddevelopment, which shows that Shanghai is
generally accepted as international financial
centers
accordingtogrowthanddevelopment. Both show no significant
difference in evaluating the performance interms of growth and development of Hong
Kong, New York, London, Beijing, Parisand Zurich, but major difference when it
comes to other cities. Financial staff’s
acceptance of Singapore, Dubai, Chicago,Frankfurt, San Francisco, Mumbai andVancouver is higher than that of
non-financial staff; their acceptance ofSydney, Washington, Toronto and Shenzhen
is lower than that of non-financial staff.

51

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index – 2013

Attached Table 6 Financial and non-financial institution staff’s valuation of industrial
supportRanking

Financial Staff

Non-financial Staff

City

Proportion (%)

City

Proportion (%)

1

New York

26.42

New York

21.65

2

London19.89

London16.03

3

Hong Kong

15.94

Tokyo

12.37

4

Tokyo

14.37

Hong Kong

10.45

5

Singapore

11.1

Shanghai

7.98

6Shanghai

10.76

Singapore

7.21

7Frankfurt

8.62

Chicago6.88

8

Beijing

8.34

Beijing

6.56

9

Paris

7.89

Frankfurt

6.46

10

Chicago

7.66

Paris

6.36

11

Washington

6.82

Washington

6.17

12

Zurich

6.42

Toronto5.42

13

Toronto

6.2

Sydney5.1

14

San Francisco

6.2

San Francisco

4.71

15

Sydney5.97

Zurich

4.45

16

Dubai

5.52

Amsterdam

4.12

17

Boston5.01

Melbourne

4.09

18

Milan

4.79

Boston3.99

19

Mumbai

4.62

Dubai

3.7

20

Vancouver

4.51

Seoul

3.6

As shown in attached table 6, financial
and non-financial institution staff post small
differences on the recognition of New York,
London, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Shanghai,
Beijing, Paris, Washington, Toronto and San
Francisco in terms of industrial support.
Financial staff show a higher recognition ofsuch cities as Frankfurt, Zurich, Dubai,
Mumbai, Vancouver; while non-financial
staff exhibit higher recognition of Chicago,
Amsterdam, Melbourne and Seoul.

52

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index – 2013

Attached Table 7 Financial and non-financial institution staff’s valuation of service
standard
Ranking

Financial Staff

Non-financial Staff

City

Proportion (%)

City

Proportion (%)

1

New York

26.37

New York

20.32

2

London20.73

London18.53

3

Hong Kong

15.83

Tokyo

13.08

4

Tokyo

13.46

Hong Kong

11.26

5

Singapore

11.66

Paris

8.89

6

Paris

10.2

Singapore

8.15

7Frankfurt

8.28

Washington

7.04

8

Shanghai

7.83

Sydney6.36

9

Washington

7.72

Toronto

6.26

10

Chicago7.1

Frankfurt

6

11

Zurich7.04

Chicago5.97

12

Sydney6.7

Zurich

5.55

13

San Francisco

6.48

Shanghai

5.32

14

Toronto6.08

San Francisco

5.03

15

Beijing

6.03

Melbourne

4.93

16

Dubai

5.18

Vancouver

4.45

17

Boston

5.13

Amsterdam

4.28

18

Geneva4.85

Boston

4.22

19

Milan

4.06

Dubai

4.19

20

Vancouver

4.06

Beijing

4.12

As shown in attached table 7, financial
and non-financial institution staff post small
differences on the recognition of New York,
London, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Paris,
Washington, Zurich, San Francisco.
Financial staff show a higher recognition ofsuch cities as Frankfurt, Shanghai, Beijing,
Dubai,
Mumbai,
Geneva;while
non-financial staff exhibit higher recognitionof Washington, Sydney, Toronto, Vancouver,
Amsterdam.

53

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index – 2013

Attached Table 8 Financial and non-financial institution staff’s valuation of the country’s
general environment
Ranking

Financial Staff

Non-financial Staff

City

Proportion (%)

City

Proportion (%)

1

New York

27.32

New York

22.59

2

London20.06

London17.92

3

Hong Kong

14.48

Hong Kong

10.32

4

Tokyo

10.54

Tokyo

9.25

5

Singapore

9.8

Paris

7.79

6

Paris

8.56

Washington

7.11

7

Frankfurt

8.23

Singapore

6.78

8

Washington

7.38

Sydney6.59

9

Chicago

6.87

Toronto5.97

10

Zurich

6.42

Zurich

5.71

11

San Francisco

6.31Frankfurt

5.45

12

Toronto

6.2

San Francisco

5.42

13

Shanghai

6.2

Chicago4.77

14

Sydney5.92

Melbourne

4.38

15

Boston4.73

Amsterdam

4.25

16

Beijing

4.56

Shanghai

4.22

17

Dubai

4.51

Geneva4.19

18

Geneva4.45

Vancouver

3.96

19

Vancouver

3.89

Beijing

3.6

20

Melbourne

3.83

Boston

3.54

From attached table 8 we know that, theresponses of financial and non-financial
institution staff show no significant
difference when evaluating the top 5 cities’
performance in terms of their generalenvironment, but both exhibit majordifferences as for other cities. Financial staff
exhibit a higher recognition of such cities as
Frankfurt, Chicago, Shanghai, Boston,
Beijing, Dubai; while non-financial staff
exhibit higher recognition of Washington,
Sydney, Toronto, Melbourne Amsterdam.

54

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index – 2013

reasonable result. It will take a few minutes tofinish. Please forgive any inconvenience foryou. Your reply is of great importance for our
project. The information you provide will, ofcourse, be held in the strictest confidence.
Sincerely thank your support!

Appendix III: Questionnaire
Dear Sir/Madam:
We are doing a research on thecompetitiveness of international financial
center. The following questionnaire isdesigned in order to get an objective, fair and
Q1

Which city do you live in usually?
Amsterdam

Milan

Vancouver

ViennaMoscow

Tokyo

Oslo

Munich

Osaka

Paris

GenevaDubai

Budapest

Stockholm

Mumbai

Brussels

ZurichSingapore

DublinBostonBeijingFrankfurt

Buenos Aires

Shanghai

Copenhagen

TorontoShenzhenHelsinki

ChicagoSeoul

LisbonWashington

TaibeiLuxembourg

San Francisco

Hongkong

LondonMontreal

Johannesburg

Rome

New York

Melbourne

MadridSao Paulo

SydneyOthersQ2

What is your job title/main area of responsibility?

President of a company or company partner
Top-level executives
Middle Management
Staff
Q3

Which industry in the following are you working in?
Investment Banking
Commercial Banking
55

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index – 2013

Retail Banking
Insurance
Asset Management
Legal Services
Accounting Services
Trade Association
Regulatory Body/Central Bank
Government
Research Institute
Other - Please Specify

Q4 In which city is the headquarters of your organization located？
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Q5

Approximately how many employees does your organization have worldwide?
Less than 100 .........................................................................................................................
100-500 .................................................................................................................................
500-1000 ...............................................................................................................................
1000-2000..............................................................................................................................
2000-5000..............................................................................................................................
More than 5000 ......................................................................................................................

Q6

Which of the International Finance Centers in the following do you understand? (Multiple
choices allowed)
Amsterdam

Milan

Vancouver

ViennaMoscow

Tokyo

Oslo

Munich

Osaka

Paris

GenevaDubai

Budapest

Stockholm

Mumbai

Brussels

ZurichSingapore

DublinBostonBeijing56

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index – 2013

Frankfurt

Buenos Aires

Shanghai

Copenhagen

TorontoShenzhenHelsinki

ChicagoSeoul

LisbonWashington

TaibeiLuxembourg

San Francisco

Hongkong

LondonMontreal

Johannesburg

Rome

New York

Melbourne

MadridSao Paulo

SydneyQ7

The Evaluation of International Financial Center Development Capability (Multiple
choices allowed):

Q7a

Of the cities you understand, which do they perform well in Financial markets?

Q7b

Of the cities you understand, which do they perform well in Growth and development?

Q7c

Of the cities you understand, which do they perform well in Industry support?

Q7d

Of the cities you understand, which do they perform well in Service levels?

Q7e

Of the cities you understand, which do they perform well in General environment?

Q8

The Evaluation of indicator system (Multiple choices allowed):

Q8a

Of the cities you understand, which do they perform well in terms of insurance services
offered?

Q8a

Of the cities you understand, which do they perform well in terms of Science andtechnology innovation potential?

Q8a

Of the cities you understand, which do they perform well in terms of work and life
environment?

Q8a

Of the cities you understand, which do they perform well in terms of talent attractiveness?

Q9

Please rate your confidence in the key cities in BRICS countries become
International Financial Centers. Please check the appropriate boxes.
Not thatconfidence at all confident
Have noNeither

Somewhat
Confident

Completely
confident

Do notknow

Shanghai

1

2

3

4

5

9

Sao Paulo

1

2

3

4

5

9

Mumbai

1

2

3

4

5

9

Moscow

1

2

3

4

5

9

Johannesburg

1

2

3

4

5

9

57

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index – 2013

Q10-13What is your rating of key cities in the BRICS countries in terms of the following
factors? Please rate.5 represents performs very well,1 represents very poorly.

Q10

Shanghai

Sao
Paulo

How the five cities fare in terms of theireffectiveness in raising capital.

_

_

_

_

_

How the five cities fare in terms of theireffectiveness in attracting human resource
talent.

_

_

_

_

_

Shanghai

Sao
Paulo

Abundant degree of financial products
focuses: richness and diversification offinancial products such as bonds, stocks,
futures, commodities, foreign exchange,
funds in each city.

_

_

_

_

_

Degree to which the city has shown
innovativeness in financial products,
financial system, financial services, etc.

_

_

_

_

_

Shanghai

Sao
Paulo

_

_

Shanghai

Sao
Paulo

_

_

Q11

Q12

Mumbai Moscow JohannesburgMumbai Moscow JohannesburgMumbai Moscow JohannesburgDegree of financial facilities focuses oncomparisons of the degree of facility offinancing channels and financing policies
in each city
Intermediary Service Standard focuses on
the comparisons of the related intermediaryservices degree of the financial center
construction in each city, including credit
rating,investment
andfinancingconsultation,
financialinformation,accounting and auditing agency, and asset
evaluation.
Q13
The degree of perfection of the financial
legal environment focuses on thecomparison of the degrees of perfection of
the litigation, arbitration, and legal services
environment related to financial businessdisputes, case processing, and so on as well

58

_

_

_

Mumbai Moscow Johannesbur
g

_

_

_

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index – 2013

as the soundness of the national andregional financial rules and regulations.
Degree to which policies in areas such as
taxation
Q14

_

_

_

_

_

How well do you understand the currencies of the BRICS countries?[SA]Don't understand Not thatat allunderstand

Neither

Somewhat
understandCompletely
understand

CNY,China

1

1

1

1

1

REAL,Brazil

2

2

2

2

2

INR,India

3

3

3

3

3

RUB,Russia

4

4

4

4

4

ZAR,South Africa

5

5

5

5

5

Q15

Do you have any other comments?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

59

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index – 2013

Appendix IV: Objective indicator system
Level-1 Indicator

Level-2 Indicator

Capital Market

Financial Market

Foreign Exchange
MarketBanking Market

Insurance Market

Level-3 Indicator
Total Value of Share Trading
Total Value of Bond Trading
Total Volume of Commodity
futures Trading
Total Volume of Stock Futures
Trading
Stock Market's Significance in the
National Economy
Internationalization of Securities
Markets
Foreign Exchange Derivatives
TurnoverForeign Exchange Reserves
Exchange Rate Volatility
Number of Major Bank
Major Bank Assets
Central Bank Assets To GDP
Bank Assets To GDP
Insurance Premium
Growth of Insurance Premium
Insurance Services Level

CapitalGrowthMarketGrowthand Development
Economic Growth

Growth Rate of New Bonds
Growth Rate of Listed Companies
Growth Rate of Share Trading
Five Year Average Growth Rateof GDP
Three Year Average Growth Rateof Residential Income
Three Year Average Growth Rateof General Price Index
Growth Rate of Taxes and Social
Security

WFE
WFE

Data Source

Websitehttp://www.world-exchanges.org
http://www.world-exchanges.org

WFE

http://www.world-exchanges.org

WFE

http://www.world-exchanges.org

WFE

http://www.world-exchanges.org

WFE

http://www.world-exchanges.org

WFE

http://www.world-exchanges.org

CIA
WFE
Forbs
Forbs
World Economic Forum
World Economic Forum
World Economic Forum
World Economic ForumThe Global Information Collection System
of Xinhua News Agency
WFE
WFE
WFE

https://www.cia.gov/index.html
http://www.world-exchanges.org
http://www.forbeschina.com
http://www.forbeschina.com
http://www.weforum.org
http://www.weforum.org
http://www.weforum.org
http://www.weforum.org

World Bank

http://data.worldbank.org

UBS

http://www.ubs.com

UBS

http://www.ubs.com

OECD

http://stats.oecd.org/

60

http://www.world-exchanges.org
http://www.world-exchanges.org
http://www.world-exchanges.org

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index – 2013

Level-1 Indicator

Level-2 Indicator

Innovation
Potential reserves

Business
Environment
SupportIndustrial Support

Level-3 IndicatorThree Year Average Growth Rateof Domestic Purchasing Power
scientificandtechnologicalinnovation capacity
Five Year Average Growth Rateof
Government
R&
D
Expenditures
Five Year Average Growth Rateof Government R & D People

Urban
Infrastructuresocial management
Service
Level
Working and Life

UBS

Websitehttp://www.ubs.com

The Global Information Collection System
of Xinhua News Agency
OECD

http://stats.oecd.org/

UNESCO

http://stats.uis.unesco.org/

Innovation index

INSEADhttp://www.globalinnovationindex.org/gii/

Strength of Manufacturers
Strength of Traders and Retailers
Strength of IT Companies
High-technology exports
Strength of Financial Services
ProvidersNumberofMultinational
headquarters

Global Urban Competitiveness Project
Global Urban Competitiveness Project
Global Urban Competitiveness ProjectWorld Bank

http://www.gucp.org
http://www.gucp.org
http://www.gucp.org
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TX.VAL.TECH.MF.ZS

Global Urban Competitiveness Project

http://www.gucp.org

Global Urban Competitiveness Project

http://www.gucp.org

talent attractivenessIntellectual
CapitalData Source

Per Capita Public Expenditures
on Higher Education
Population Education Level
Number of Universities
Cargo Throughput
Airline carriers
IT Infrastructure
Services Employment Proportion

The Global Information Collection System
of Xinhua News Agency
OECD

http://stats.oecd.org/

UNDP
Global Urban Competitiveness Project
Global Urban Competitiveness Project
Airports Council International
World Economic Forum
Global Urban Competitiveness Project

http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/tables/index.html
http://www.gucp.org
http://www.gucp.org
http://www.aci.aero/
http://www.weforum.org
http://www.gucp.org

Regulatory quality

World Bank

http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.asp

Digital Governance

Global E-Government Development Report

http://unpan3.un.org/egovkb/global_reports/12report.htm

Unemployment Rate Index

World Economic Forum

http://www.weforum.org

Crime Statistics
Cost of Living
Quality of Living Index

UNODC
UBS
Mercer HR
The Global Information Collection System
of Xinhua News Agency

http://www.unodc.org/
http://www.ubs.com
http://www.mercerhr.com

work environment

61

Xinhua-Dow Jones International Financial Center Development Index – 2013

Level-1 Indicator

Level-2 Indicator

Level-3 Indicator
Per Capita GDP

World Bank

Data Source
http://data.worldbank.org

WebsiteEase of Doing Business

World Bank

http://www.doingbusiness.org/economyrankings

Total Foreign Trade Volume

World Bank

http://data.worldbank.org/

Consumer Price Index

IMF

http://www.imf.org

Economic Freedom Index
Economic Extrovert Degree
Happiness Planet Index
Political Stability and Absence ofViolence
Corruption Index
Social Globalization Index
Networked Readiness Index
Global Competitiveness Index
Foreign Direct Investment
Geographical Location
City Population Density

Fraser InstituteWorld Economic Forum
NEF

http://www.freetheworld.com/release.html
http://www.weforum.org
http://neweconomics.org/

World Bank

http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.asp

Transparency International
KOF-Index of Globalization
World Economic Forum
World Economic ForumUNCTAD
Global Urban Competitiveness Project
Wikipedia

http://www.transparency.org
http://globalization.kof.ethz.ch
http://www.weforum.org
http://www.weforum.org
http://www.unctad.org
http://www.gucp.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density

Economic
Environment

GeneralEnvironment
Political
Environment

Opennessnaturalenvironment

62