下载文档原格式
国际金融中心排名(doc 10页)作为老牌的国际金融中心城市，伦敦在众多国际金融市场都拥有重要地位伦敦欧洲排名第一，从综合指数得分上看，85.7分的高分与纽约仅有1.5分的差距，两个城市几乎难分伯仲。
伦敦在金融市场和服务水平两个要素上排第一位，综合环境排名第二位，产业支撑排名第三位，成长发展排名第六位。
作为老牌的国际金融中心城市，在跨国银行拆借、国外股票交易、国际债券发行与二次买卖、外币汇兑、海上保险与航空保险等众多国际金融市场都拥有重要地位。
伦敦银行间同业拆借利率（Libor）作为金融行业重要指标，直接影响国际货币市场定价。
并且全球各地又在Libor的基础上衍生出了包括Nibor（纽约）、Sibor（新加坡）、Hibor（香港）、Shibor（上海）等同类产品。
3、东京——领军亚洲东京亚洲区的头号种子东京在“金融市场”、“服务水平”和“综合环境”三方面的排名全都是第三，这也决定了东京在全球金融中心的“三甲”地位。
依靠日本发达的工业产业，东京的“产业支撑”排在第二位，仅次于纽约，唯一拉东京后腿的是“成长发展”，排在该项的第5位。
作为亚洲区的头号种子，东京在亚洲金融中心排名第一，超过香港、新加坡和上海。
除了创新方面落后于上海、香港，其他各项排名中，东京全都是亚洲区的领军者。
4、香港——承东启西地理位置是香港无与伦比的优势。
在这样一个全球市场中，欧洲大陆和美洲大陆之间需要有一个接驳点来连接，香港以其独特的地理优势成为首选。
在发展指数报告中，香港在5个评价要素方面发展均衡，皆名列前茅，尤其是成长发展方面表现突出，排名第二，仅次于上海。
香港成为国际金融中心并且排名靠前与香港政府的不断推动密切相关。
香港财经事务及库务局局长陈家强此前在接受新华社记者专访时，就曾表示，作为国际金融中心，有中国内地良好的经济发展前景做基础，香港定位于和纽约、伦敦的竞争。
5、巴黎——服务至上巴黎以金融服务出名虽然在法国出现了金融界史上最大的违规交易案，虽然有“魔鬼交易员”之称的法国兴业银行(601166)前期货交易员热罗姆?凯维埃以一己之力就给银行带来了几十亿欧元的损失，但是浪漫之都巴黎还是以它的金融服务赢得了选票。
德勤发布2017年全球金融科技中心报告回复“全球金融科技中心”下载报告原文！4月中旬，全球知名咨询机构德勤发布了《连接全球金融科技：2017年全球金融科技中心报告》（Connecting Global FinTech: Interim Hub Review 2017）。
本报告在2016年全球金融科技中心报告基础上新增了24个全球金融科技中心，对全球44个金融科技中心进行了分析。
报告根据全球金融中心指数（GFCI）、全球营商指数和全球创新指数综合得出全球金融科技中心得分，得分较低的金融科技中心说明有利于金融科技的发展。
德勤在报告中指出报告中的金融科技中心指数得分不能用于对各金融科技中心进行排名。
金融科技创新都发生哪里？金融科技已经成为全球现象。
本报告分析了全球主要的金融科技创新中心，这些金融科技创新中心是全球金融科技中心联盟（GLOBAL FINTECH HUBS FEDERATION）的成员。
虽然风险投资金额绝对不是金融科技中心发展的唯一因素，但是这一指标是衡量一个地区金融科技创新的重要指标。
因此，报告中专门分析各个国家和地区风险投资情况，这也让我们清楚地了解全球各地区金融科技领域的投资情况。
本报告分析的金融科技中心中，20个在欧洲，12个在亚太地区，还有12个来自其他地区，并且从广泛的视角来分析全球金融科技发展。
需要说明的是，有一些知名的金融科技中心并没有加入GFHF（全球金融科技中心联盟），因此在本报告中没有进行分析（比如北京）。
此外，我们也意识到东欧，南美和非洲地区有些新兴的金融科技中心并没有在本报告中进行分析。
GFHF 中心新中心旧中心总计非洲 1 2 3亚太7 5 12中南美 1 1 2欧洲12 8 20中东 2 1 3北美 1 3 4总计242044本报告的主要研究发现:本报告将全球金融科技中心分为两类：一类是老的金融科技中心，即德勤2016年全球金融科技中心排名中包括的20个金融科技中心；另一类是新的金融科技中心，即新加入全球金融科技中心联盟（GFHF）的24个金融科技中心。
金融危机以来国际金融市场变动趋势及对我国影响一、金融危机以来国际金融市场变动情况（一）全球股票市场市值大幅缩水，市场活跃程度大幅降低1、全球主要股市市值缩水幅度高达20—40%以上随着全球经济的复苏，全球股市2009年第三季度开始一直到2011年5月初逐渐呈现震荡回暖态势（日本股市因3.11大地震影响除外），美国股市表现较为强劲，1—5月底，道琼斯工业指数上涨4.9%，标准普尔500指数上涨3.3%；德国dax指数到5月底较年初已上涨约2%。
此后，随着欧债危机升级，全球股市开始大幅震荡下调，5月23日，国际评级机构下调希腊、意大利、比利时等欧元区国家信用评级或前景展望，引发市场对欧债危机深化和蔓延的恐慌情绪，全球股市当天均出现超过1%的大幅下跌。
8月8日标准普尔下调美国信用评级、9月22日美联储（fed）对经济前景的悲观展望、11月9日意大利国债收益率飙升以及对欧元区的新一轮担忧等使全球股市多次震荡下行。
与2007年底总市值相比，截至2011年9月底，全球股市市值均大幅缩水，其中欧洲股市市值缩水幅度最大，市值缩水43%，纽交所市值大幅缩水33%，东京交易所和伦敦证交所市值分别缩水18%和19%，而上海和孟买证交所市值缩水分别高达33%和34%，巴西股市市值亦缩水16%。
2、全球股市活跃程度大幅降低从日均交易额看，自2008年金融危机后，股票市场活跃程度一直呈大幅下降态势，其中欧洲证券交易所受损最大。
与2007年相比，截至2011年10月底，伦敦、泛欧、纽约和东京证交所日均成交额分别下降了71%、60%、36%和35%，香港和新加坡证交所分别下跌25%和21%。
新兴市场国家表现差异较大，上海日均交易额基本恢复到2007年平均水平，巴西则比2007年平均水平上升59%，而印度孟买证交所日均交易额则下跌53%。
（二）债券市场大幅震荡进入2011年，全球经济复苏乏力的迹象逐渐显现，信心不足导致投资者将资金更多地配置在安全资产上，美国国债收益率自2月份起逐渐走低。
世界十大金融中心：深圳和迪拜首次进入前十，中国的表现最出色说起世界上知名的金融中心，很多人都数的出几个来，纽约、伦敦、香港是大家都很熟悉的，除此之外，很多金融中心也十分了得，甚至有追赶“纽伦港”的趋势。
最近英国智库更新了“全球金融中心指数”报告，相对来说前10 的变化不大！。
1、纽约（金融指数：790）即使有伦敦和香港这样的劲敌，纽约从未跌出过榜首的位置，这就充分证明了纽约在金融界的地位。
2、伦敦（金融指数：773）伦敦不仅是欧洲的金融中心，也是世界最国际化的金融中心之一，在英国最辉煌的时候，伦敦可能还要比纽约更出色。
3、香港（金融指数：772）1997年之前的150多年里，香港是在英国的治下发展的，这大大促进了香港的国际化程度，也成就了它独一无二的金融地位，香港与伦敦的差距十分微小。
4、新加坡（金融指数：762）新加坡的崛起离不开它得天独厚的地理位置，但是能够发展成为东南亚唯一的发达国家，就证明了它强大的实力。
5、上海（金融指数：761）作为中国内陆最大的金融城市，上海最厉害的就是经济，它在第5的位置上时间也不短了，现在它与新加坡的指数只有1个点的差距了。
6、东京（金融指数：757）东京是亚洲最大的城市，它现在的影响力远远不能和过去相比了，在亚洲的金融地位只能排到第4位。
7、北京（金融指数：748）北京不仅是中国的金融中心之一，在世界上也很有影响力，北京在上次排名中名列第9，这次上升了2位。
8、迪拜（金融指数：740）迪拜，举世闻名的土豪之都，它之所以厉害，不仅仅是因为奢华的建筑和生活，还有它在中东的经济地位，这也是迪拜首次排进金融中心前10榜。
9、深圳（金融指数：739）对于深圳，再多的赞美之词都无法形容它的神奇，深圳的成长速度已将超过了我们的想象，此次的排名它直接上升5位，也是首次进入前十。
10、悉尼（金融指数738）整个大洋洲都离不开澳大利亚的影响，悉尼在大洋洲的经济地位无可撼动事实上它是整个南半球唯一进入金融10强的唯一一座城市，甚至也是南半球首座进入10强的城市。
新加坡何以成为全球最富裕国作者：薛莉清来源：《领导文萃》2024年第04期据财经网站Insider Monkey最新报告，全球最富裕国家排行榜出炉。
新加坡以其2023年人均GDP+PPP估值高达157354美元（约215512新元），成为榜单上的全球最富裕国家。
全球最富裕国家新加坡到底有什么独特魅力？新加坡的经济模式有什么特点？是哪些因素促使新加坡取得今天的成就？未来新加坡又会朝什么方向和模式发展？与中国在未来的经贸领域将有哪些新的合作增长点？针对这些问题，本刊特约记者专访了南京大学中国南海研究协同创新中心高级研究员、江苏省历史学会东南亚研究分会会长、博士生导师成汉平教授。
《领导文萃》：谈起新加坡，有这样一组数据，新加坡在1965年独立时，人均GDP是日本的60%、美国的15%。
令人惊奇的是，新加坡人均GDP 2010年超越日本，2011年超越美国，2023年更是从“亚洲四小龙”中脱颖而出，成为全球最富裕国家，并囊括了多项全球或亚洲第一。
这些数据引起广泛关注，人们在问：新加坡何以成为全球最富裕国？有一个很有意思的现象，就是谈到新加坡的成就人们首先会提及它的地理位置，这是为什么？请问新加坡的地理位置究竟有何战略意义？成汉平：第一，新加坡在地理位置上所处的十字路口具有“咽喉”式战略意义。
这也是世界大国垂青新加坡的重要原因。
从地图上看，新加坡是许多国际重要海上航线必经之处，因为它坐落于亚洲与大洋洲、印度洋与太平洋交通的“十字路口”，直接扼住被称为“海上生命线”的马六甲海峡之“咽喉”，是众多远洋船舶中转经停的国家；它也是泛亚铁路东盟通道的起点，是重要的国际航空枢纽。
无论从经济、贸易还是军事、政治而言，都具有亚洲联通世界之十字中心的地理位置之特点，有着十分重要的战略意义。
第二，新加坡是国际运输中心的天然深水良港，这决定着新加坡早期的炼油、造船的工业形态和重心。
新加坡处于国际海上航线的中心，拥有世界最优良的港湾之一，往来船舶补充燃油、停靠修理等的需求量和市场都很大。
全球金融中心指数The Global Financial Centres Index2009年9月目录一、背景与引言 (1)二、GFCI6要点 (3)三、全球金融中心领袖 (6)四、亚洲金融中心的崛起 (11)五、北美金融中心 (17)六、欧洲金融中心 (19)七、离岸金融中心 (21)八、全球金融中心排名及布局 (23)九、分类行业指数 (27)十、五大关键领域竞争力 (28)十一、总结与结论： (33)附件一：GFCI 6的其它信息 (35)附件二：特征指标 (36)一、背景与引言首期全球金融中心指数（GFCI）由伦敦金融城委托英国咨询公司Z/Yen Group统计制作，并于2007年3月公布第一期GFCI报告, 报告每年发布两次，该指数主要对全球范围内主要金融中心的金融竞争力进行评价。
自公布以来，接受评估城市的数量以及每期版本中数据信息不断更新和增加，这些变化更多的强调了全球金融服务业专业人士优先考虑的主要因素和关注对象的变化。
在2009年的GFCI第六期报告中，接受评估的城市由2008年的62个增加到75个。
2009年的GFCI报告采用了因素评价模型（factor assessment model），综合运用了城市特征指标（instrumental factors）以及对全球金融服务业专业人士进行的网上调查。
（1）城市特征指标（instrumental factors）。
先前的研究表明，影响金融中心竞争力的城市特征指标主要有五个，即人才（People）、商业环境（Business Environment）、市场发展程度（Market Access）、基础设施（Infrastructure）、总体竞争力（General Competitiveness）。
这些城市特征指标所选用的客观数据均来是全球各大评估机构已经公开发布的有关城市竞争力的各种指数。
金融中心的基础设施竞争力指标由物业成本调查和居住成本指数等特征指标得出；公开公正的商业环境指标由贪腐印象指数、不透明指数等特征指标得出。
全球金融中心指数The Global Financial Centres Index2009年9月目录一、背景与引言 (1)二、GFCI6要点 (3)三、全球金融中间领导 (6)四、亚洲金融中间的崛起 (12)五、北美金融中间 (18)六、欧洲金融中间 (20)七、离岸金融中间 (22)八、全球金融中间排名及构造 (25)九、分类行业指数 (27)十、五大年夜关键范畴竞争力 (28)十一、总结与结论： (33)附件一：GFCI 6的其它信息 (35)附件二：特点指标 (36)一、背景与引言首期全球金融中间指数（GFCI）由伦敦金融城托付英国咨询公司Z/Yen Group统计制造，并于2007年3月颁布第一期GFCI申报, 申报每年宣布两次，该指数重要对全球范畴内重要金融中间的金融竞争力进行评判。
自颁布以来，接收评估都市的数量以及每期版本中数据信息赓续更新和增长，这些变更更多的强调了全球金融办事业专业人士优先推敲的重要身分和存眷对象的变更。
在2009年的GFCI第六期申报中，接收评估的都市由2008年的62个增长到75个。
2009年的GFCI申报采取了身分评判模型（factor assessment model），综合应用了都市特点指标（instrumental factors）以及对全球金融办事业专业人士进行的网上查询拜望。
（1）都市特点指标（instrumental factors）。
先前的研究注解，阻碍金融中间竞争力的都市特点指标重要有五个，即人才（People）、贸易情形（Business Environment）、市场成长程度（Market Access）、差不多举措措施（Infrastructure）、总体竞争力（General Competitiveness）。
这些都市特点指标所选用的客不雅数据均来是全球各大年夜评估机构差不多公布宣布的有关都市竞争力的各类指数。
金融中间的差不多举措措施竞争力指标由物业成本查询拜望和栖身成本指数等特点指标得出；公布公平的贸易情形指标由贪腐印象指数、不透亮指数等特点指标得出。
金融危机以来国际金融市场变动趋势及对我国影响一、金融危机以来国际金融市场变动情况（一）全球股票市场市值大幅缩水，市场活跃程度大幅降低1、全球主要股市市值缩水幅度高达20—40%以上随着全球经济的复苏，全球股市2009年第三季度开始一直到2011年5月初逐渐呈现震荡回暖态势（日本股市因3.11大地震影响除外），美国股市表现较为强劲，1—5月底，道琼斯工业指数上涨4.9%，标准普尔500指数上涨3.3%；德国dax指数到5月底较年初已上涨约2%。
此后，随着欧债危机升级，全球股市开始大幅震荡下调，5月23日，国际评级机构下调希腊、意大利、比利时等欧元区国家信用评级或前景展望，引发市场对欧债危机深化和蔓延的恐慌情绪，全球股市当天均出现超过1%的大幅下跌。
8月8日标准普尔下调美国信用评级、9月22日美联储（fed）对经济前景的悲观展望、11月9日意大利国债收益率飙升以及对欧元区的新一轮担忧等使全球股市多次震荡下行。
与2007年底总市值相比，截至2011年9月底，全球股市市值均大幅缩水，其中欧洲股市市值缩水幅度最大，市值缩水43%，纽交所市值大幅缩水33%，东京交易所和伦敦证交所市值分别缩水18%和19%，而上海和孟买证交所市值缩水分别高达33%和34%，巴西股市市值亦缩水16%。
2、全球股市活跃程度大幅降低从日均交易额看，自2008年金融危机后，股票市场活跃程度一直呈大幅下降态势，其中欧洲证券交易所受损最大。
与2007年相比，截至2011年10月底，伦敦、泛欧、纽约和东京证交所日均成交额分别下降了71%、60%、36%和35%，香港和新加坡证交所分别下跌25%和21%。
新兴市场国家表现差异较大，上海日均交易额基本恢复到2007年平均水平，巴西则比2007年平均水平上升59%，而印度孟买证交所日均交易额则下跌53%。
（二）债券市场大幅震荡进入2011年，全球经济复苏乏力的迹象逐渐显现，信心不足导致投资者将资金更多地配置在安全资产上，美国国债收益率自2月份起逐渐走低。
2010国际金融中心排名(IFCD INDEX)城市榜单2010-07-11 11:55:31 阅读262 评论1 字号：大中小订阅IFCD INDEX通过综合66项客观指标、2386份主观调查问卷，对全球45个国际金融中心城市的发展能力进行综合评价，其中客观指标体系主要包括金融市场、成长发展、产业支撑、服务水平和综合环境五个方面。
新华-道琼斯国际金融中心发展指数显示，纽约取代伦敦成为全球排名第一的国际金融中心。
国际金融中心前十名分别是纽约、伦敦、东京、香港、巴黎、新家坡、法兰克福、上海、华盛顿和悉尼。
这份指数报告认为，从整体看来，排在前9位的城市都是世界著名的金融中心，聚集了大量金融机构和相关服务产业，全面集中地开展国际资本借贷、债券发行、外汇交易、保险等金融服务业，认知度较高，影响力较强。
从地域分布上看，欧洲城市最多，达到21个；其次为亚太及非洲地区，达到14个；美洲有10个城市，但有8个分布在北美。
在中国大陆的金融中心中，上海排在第8位，北京排在第13位，深圳排在第22位，均处于一个中上的位次。
1、纽约——全面领先纽约是世界上最主要的商业和金融中心，更被视为都市文明的代表。
有著名的自由女神，帝国大厦，时代广场和百老汇等作为此次排名第一的纽约，其“产业支撑”和“综合环境”在所有参评的45个城市中位于第一位，综合得分87.2。
纽约的“金融市场”和“服务水平”也排在第二高位。
仅有“成长发展”相对薄弱，位列中国三个城市之后，排名第四。
纽约的全面发展是纽约超越伦敦、在国际金融中心发展指数中排名第一的主要原因。
国际上可与纽约抗衡的竞争对手目前只有伦敦。
在成长发展、产业支撑和创新产出方面，纽约的表现优于伦敦;而在市场和服务水平方面则略逊于伦敦。
2、伦敦——老牌劲旅作为老牌的国际金融中心城市，伦敦在众多国际金融市场都拥有重要地位伦敦欧洲排名第一，从综合指数得分上看，85.7分的高分与纽约仅有1.5分的差距，两个城市几乎难分伯仲。
The GlobalFinancial CentresIndex9MARCH2011Financial Centre Futures1–2011The Qatar Financial Centre Authority sponsors Long Finance’s‘Financial Centre Futures’programme.Qatar Financial Centre(QFC)is afinancial and business centre established by the government of Qatar in2005to attract internationalfinancial services and multinational corporations to grow and develop the market forfinancial services in the region.QFC consists of a commercial arm,the QFC Authority;and an independentfinancial regulator,the QFC Regulatory Authority.It also has an independent judiciary which comprises a civil and commercial court and a regulatory tribunal.QFC aims to help all QFC licensedfirms generate new and sustainable revenue streams.It provides access to local and regional investment opportunities.Business can be transacted inside or outside Qatar,in local or foreign currency.Uniquely,this allows businesses to operate both locally and internationally.Furthermore,QFC allows100%ownership by foreign companies, and all profits can be remitted outside of Qatar. The QFC Authority is responsible for the organisation’s commercial strategy and for developing relationships with the globalfinancial community and other key institutions both within and outside Qatar.One of the most important roles of QFCA is to approve and issue licences to individuals,businesses and other entities that wish to incorporate or establish themselves in Qatar with the Centre.The QFC Regulatory Authority is an independent statutory body and authorises and supervises businesses that conductfinancial services activities in,or from,the QFC.It has powers to authorise,supervise and,where necessary,discipline regulatedfirms and individuals.Z/Yen Group thanks the City of London Corporation for its cooperation in the development of the GFCI and for the use of the related data still used in the GFCI.The author of this report,Mark Yeandle,is very grateful to other members of the GFCI team–in particular,Nick Danev,Jeremy Horne and Michael Mainelli.ForewordThe Global Financial Centres Index91Now is an incredibly important time for the future growth and the competitiveness of the UK as a globalfinancial leader.This is a role that the UK has held for many years,however,with the effects of the recession and some public loss of confidence infinancial services,this position is now being challenged by fast developing nations in Asia and the Middle East.In order to restore confidence and promote growth,it is vital that we focus on a few specific areas that are currently hindering the UK.Whilst GFCI9shows London remaining at the top of the index,the research clearly indicates that uncertainty over tax and regulation is a major concern tofinancial institutions based in London or indeed those contemplating being here.We must have effective and proportionate regulation,but without discouraging international businesses from basing or expanding their operations in the UK.There has been much more‘heat’than‘light’on the need for‘more regulation’in the wake of the economic crisis,but I believe it is more important to have regulations and supervisors that focus on macro systemic integrity rather than excessive‘conduct of trade’detail that reduces competitiveness and actually hinders transparent and effective regulation.It is also crucial that we have clarity and certainty on taxation,as well as reducing the top income tax rate,otherwise businesses will not want to operate in the UK and will opt to set up or expand in cities such as Hong Kong, Singapore and Dubai.In summary,in order to maintain our future competitiveness as the world’s leading internationalfinancial centre,I believe it is vital that we take action now in order to keep our lead whilst working closely in partnership with other internationalfinancial centres as well as having easy access to the world’s talent pool.We need to actively look for the opportunities that this crisis has given us to create an even more competitive and innovative environment for ourfinancial and professional and business services for the future.This means that the Government,regulators, professional,financial and trade bodies should be bold and innovative in the measures that are needed to keep the City internationally competitive.Sir Michael SnyderChairman of the UK Government’s Professional and Business Services GroupAnd Senior Partner,Kingston Smith LLPThe GFCI provides profiles,ratings and rankings for75financial centres,drawing on two separate sources of data–instrumental factors (external indices)and responses to an online survey.The GFCI wasfirst produced by Z/Yen Group in March2007and has subsequently been updated every six months.Successive growth in the number of respondents and data has enabled us to highlight the changing priorities and concerns offinancial professionals over this time,particularly sincefinancial crises began to unfold in2007and2008.This is the ninth edition of GFCI(GFCI9).Instrumental factors:previous research indicates that many factors combine to make afinancial centre competitive.These factors can be grouped intofive over-arching‘areas of competitiveness:People,Business Environment, Infrastructure,Market Access and General Competitiveness.Evidence of a centre’s performance in these areas is drawn from a range of external measures.For example, evidence about a fair and just business environment is drawn from a corruption perception index and an opacity index.76 factors have been used in GFCI9,of which37 have been updated since GFCI8(see page37 for full details of external measures used for the purpose of GFCI9).Financial centre assessments:GFCI uses responses to an ongoing online questionnaire completed by internationalfinancial services professionals.Respondents are asked to rate those centres with which they are familiar and to answer a number of questions relating to their perceptions of competitiveness.Overall, 33,751financial centre assessments from1,970financial services professionals were used to compute GFCI9,with older assessments discounted according to age.Full details of the methodology behind GFCI9 can be found on page32.The ratings and rankings are calculated using a‘factor assessment model’,whichcombines the instrumentalfactors and questionnaireassessments.The full list of the75financial centres rated and profiled inGFCI9is shown on pages4and5.The main headlines of GFCI9are:•there remains no significant difference between London,New York andHong Kong in the GFCI9ratings; respondents continue to believethat these centres work togetherfor mutual benefit;•confidence amongstfinancial services professionals has fallen since GFCI8,as shown by lower overall ratings–47centres have lower ratings in GFCI9with only25 centres rated higher(three centres have the same ratings as in GFCI8).Chart1shows the decline in overall ratings.•Asia continues to exhibit enhanced competitiveness with eight centres in the top twenty(against six North American centres andfive European ones).In GFCI1(March 2007)there were just three Asian centres in the top twenty.Seoul was the largest riser moving into16th place,up25points in the ratings;•when questioned about whichfinancial centres are likely to become more significant in the next few years,the topfive centres mentioned are all Asian–Shanghai, Singapore,Seoul,Hong Kong and Beijing. Asian cities alsofill the top six places when respondents indicate where their organisations are most likely to open newoffices;2The Global Financial Centres Index9 Headlines for GFCI9The Global Financial Centres Index 93•despite Dubai’s widely publicised economic problems it still holds top position in the Middle East (and 28th overall),followed by Qatar which has moved up four places.The rating gap between these two centres has halved since GFCI 8and is now only eight points.Bahrain continue to slip,down seven places to 49th (the largest decline this time);•offshore centres (with the exception of the British Virgin Islands)fell further than theaverage,continuing a trend since the financial crises began.Jersey and Guernsey remain the leading offshore centres.•Dublin continues its decline in GFCI.Dublin’s International Financial Services Centre is separate from the domestic banks andrepresents a distinct regulatory agenda for the EU and Irish regulators 1.The trouble that the domestic banks find themselves in has,however,continued to damage Dublin’s reputation.The full set of GFCI 9ranks and ratings are shown in Table 1overleaf19th Interim Staff Report ,IMF ,February 20114The Global Financial Centres Index9Table1|GFCI9Ranks and Ratings1–44The Global Financial Centres Index956The Global Financial Centres Index9Four centres(Abu Dhabi,Calgary,Panama and Cyprus)have been added to the GFCI questionnaire recently but have yet to acquire enough assessments to be rated in the main index.As a result of responses to the GFCI9 questionnaire,Tel Aviv will also be added to the questionnaire for GFCI10.Whilst GFCI9shows a general decline in ratings,this decline is variable,with changes in ratings varying from minus16points(Malta)to plus25(Seoul).Other notable changes include a decline of13points for Dublin and12points for Bahrain.Chart2shows the stability of the three leading centres.Hong Kong is ten points behind New York and 16points behind London.These three centres control a large proportion offinancial transactions(approximately70%of equity trading)and are likely to remain powerfulfinancial centres for the foreseeable future.We continue to believe that the relationships between London,New York and Hong Kong are mutually supportive.Whilst many industry professionals still see a great deal of competition,policymakers appear to recognise that working together on certain elements of regulatory reform is likely to enhance the competitiveness of these centres.However,London must not rest on its laurels.A recent report2says that of thefinancial professionals polled:•43%have considered or are considering leaving London;•11%are definitely departing or are likely to do so soon;•of these,86%of individuals are blaming the cost of living and69%the quality of life for their decision;•25%of senior managers polled thought it likely that their organisation would move operational teams out of the UK over the next few years;•75%of the institutions polled blamed the overall tax burden as a reason for their possible departure.2Not with a Bang but a Whimper,YouGov,December2010The Global Financial Centres Index 97Asian financial centres continue to performwell.Tokyo and Shanghai are both in the top ten centres with Shenzhen,Seoul,Beijing and Taipei also in the top 20.The GFCI questionnaire asks which centres are likely to become more significant in the next few continues to feature very strongly and is where respondents expect to observe the most significant improvements in performance:Table 2|The ten Centres likely to become more significantThe GFCI questionnaire also asks in whichcentres the respondents’organisations are most likely to open offices over the next few years:Table 3|The ten Centres where new offices are likely to be opened“Many Chinese seem to resent the success of Hong Kong and think that Shanghai should be the main Asian hub.I can’t see Hong Kong being overtaken by a Chinese city for many years –but perhaps I’m biased –I’ve worked here for over twenty years now.”Wealth Manager based in Hong KongUsing clustering and correlation analysis we have identified three key measures(axes)that determine afinancial centre’s profile along different dimensions of competitiveness:‘Connectivity’–the extent to which a centre is well known around the world and how much non-resident professionals believe it is connected to otherfinancial centres. Respondents are asked to assess only those centres with which they are personally familiar.A centre’s connectivity is assessed using a combination of‘inbound’assessment locations (the number of locations from which a particular centre receives assessments)and‘outbound’assessment locations(the number of other centres assessed by respondents from a particular centre).If the weighted assessments for a centre are provided by over70%of other centres,this centre is deemed to be‘Global’.If the ratings are provided by over50%of other centres,this centre is deemed to be‘Transnational’.‘Diversity’–the breadth of industry sectors that flourish in afinancial centre.We consider this ‘richness’of the business environment to be measurable in a similar way to that of the natural environment and therefore,use a combination of biodiversity indices(calculated on the instrumental factors)to assess a centre’s diversity.A high score means that a centre is well diversified;a low diversity score reflects a less rich business environment.‘Speciality’–the depth within afinancial centre of the following industry sectors:asset management,investment banking,insurance, professional services and wealth management.A centre’s‘speciality’performance is calculated from the difference between the GFCI rating and the industry sector ratings.In Table4,‘Diversity’(Breadth)and‘Speciality’(Depth)are combined on one axis to create a two dimensional table offinancial centreprofiles.The75centres are assigned a profile on the basis of a set of rules for the three measures: how well connected a centre is,how broad its services are and how specialised it is.The rating for each centre and the range for each profile category are given in brackets for reference. This profile‘map’shows the nine Global Leaders (in the top left of the table)which have both broad and deepfinancial services activities and are connected with many otherfinancial centres.This list includes London,New York and Hong Kong,the leading globalfinancial centres. Tokyo has climbed into this category having been an Established Transnational centre in GFCI8.Paris,Dublin and Amsterdam are Global Diversified centres as they are equally well connected but do not exhibit the same depth in different activities to be considered Global Leaders.Similarly,Geneva,Shanghai,Beijing and Dubai are Global Specialists(specialising primarily in Asset Management)but do not have a sufficiently broad range offinancial services activities to be Global Leaders.The only Global Contender is Moscow which is assigned a global profile because there is widespread awareness of its activities,but itsfinancial services are not currently sufficiently broad and deep for it to be considered a leader.Chart3 shows the profiles mapped against the GFCI9 ranges:8The Global Financial Centres Index9Financial Centre ProfilesConnectivitySpecialityDiversityTable4|GFCI9Financial Centre Profiles“I think if anything,the global leaders of New York,London,Hong Kong andevenSingapore are moving further ahead ofthe chasingpack.”Asset Manager based in New YorkThe GFCI questionnaire asks about the most important factors for competitiveness.The number of times that each area is mentioned is summarised in Table 5:Table 5|Main areas of competitiveness The GFCI questionnaire asks respondents to name the single regulatory change that would improve a financial centre’s competitiveness.Although a large number of possible changes were named,the four mentioned most often are shown in Table 6below:Table 6|Top four single regulatory changesThe GFCI questionnaire also asks respondents how financial centres can best signal their long-term commitment to financial services.Again there were a large number of ‘signals’mentioned but the four most common are shown in Table 7below:Main Areas of CompetitivenessPeople 44Quality of staffTaxation 37Levels of personal taxation Infrastructure 27IT and transport infrastructure Cost Competitiveness 25Property costs (including staff costs)Market Access19Dispersion of tradingTransparency andpredictability of regulation 35Predictability Economic and business freedom34A ‘level playing field’Regulatory simplification29“It’s getting too complicated”Table7|Best signals of commitment tofinancial servicesregulationInvestment in28infrastructureTax rates27Improving the quality24of life for expatriates“The UK must fight the EU–stable regulation is a must for us and we will not be bullied–we will move if we have to.”Investment Banker based in LondonEuropean CentresTable8shows the top20Europeanfinancialcentres.Ten of the top20centres have risen andeight have declined.Edinburgh and Moscowremain on the same ratings as in GFCI8.Thetwo notable improvements are in EasternEurope with Warsaw up21points and StPetersburg up13points:Table8|The Leading20European Centresin GFCI9London is,however,facing several threats to its position.Recent government attempts to curb bonuses forfinancial professionals and the imposition of profit taxes on banks are making the UK less cost competitive.London is also becoming a more expensive city from which to operate as office rents increased by almost20% last year.The lack of certainty about future regulatory conditions still worries many professionals in London.Examining the assessments given to each major centre is a useful means of assessing the relative strength and weakness of their reputations in different regions.It is important to note that assessments given to a centre by people based there are excluded from the GFCI model to eliminate‘home preference’.The charts below show the difference between overall mean assessments by region.The additional vertical line shows the mean if all assessments from the whole of the home region are removed:Despite the concerns over London’s competitiveness,it maintains its predominance over other leading European centres.Chart4 illustrates this clearly:London’s overall average assessment is819.The chart indicates that London is well regarded in North America but less well rated by offshore centres.Assessments from Europe and Asia are fairly close to the mean.Zurich’s overall average assessment is695, slightly down from GFCI8.Assessments of Zurich show a more‘balanced’pattern than assessments of London with regional responses closer to the mean.Frankfurt’s overall average assessment is693. Like London,Frankfurt is given lower assessments by people based in offshore locations than elsewhere.“I’m glad to be based here right now–business is booming and we are picking up more clients all the time.They are coming here because of reputation for stable and sensible regulations.”Pension Fund Manager based in ZurichGFCI9ratings have,on average,declined slightly since GFCI8.Ratings in Asia have also shown a small decline.As can be seen in Table9 below,of the top ten Asian centres,three have shown rating improvements,particularly Seoul:Singapore was32points behind Hong Kong in GFCI8and there is now a37point gap.Seoul has risen in the ratings more than any other centre in GFCI9.The rise is attributed to higher average assessments than in the past.It would appear that the promotion of the city as afinancial centre is starting to pay off.This rise in the ratings is shown clearly in Chart8:Asian CentresTable9|The Leading ten Asian Centres in GFCI9In general,fellow Asian centres are particularly well-supported by Asian respondents in both the number of assessments and the average assessment given.This is shown in Chart 9below by the mean without Asian assessments being well to the left of the overall mean.Outside Asia,the North American responses are more positive than average about Hong Kong and Shanghai but less positive than average about Beijing.The number of assessments given to Asian centres by European basedrespondents is fairly low,suggesting that Asian centres are less well known and,probably as a consequence,less highly regarded than from within Asia.Respondents from the offshore centres also rate Asian centres less positively than average.This pattern can be seen in the following charts:“Hong Kong,Singapore and Shanghai are all vital centres now and we are likely to expand our presence in Seoul very shortly.”Investment Banking President based in ParisNorth American Centres have shown stability with GFCI9ratings very similar to those in GFCI 8:Chicago retains its position in the GFCI9top ten and remains the second North Americanfinancial centre,after New York.Toronto has risen from12th place to equal10th with Sydney and continues to be the clear leader in Canada, 32points above Vancouver.Calgary was recently added as a newfinancial centre to our online survey–it will be included in the listings when it has obtained a sufficient number of assessments.Chart12below shows New York maintaining its leadership in North America:North American CentresTable10|The Leading North American Centres in GFCI9The difference between regional assessments for some of the major North American centres is shown below.The overall average assessment for New York is 808.New York benefits from strong North American support.Offshore centres assess New York less positively,possibly due to US clampdowns on offshore activities.European and Asian assessments are both close to the overall mean:Chicago has an overall average assessment of 697and shows a similar pattern to New York with regard to the offshore and North American assessments–the former being lower than average and the latter higher.A high number of assessments from Asian respondents is notable, although assessments given were lower than average.Toronto is the only North American centre to receive a higher than average score from the offshore centres;it is also well regarded by respondents based in London,although less so by the rest of Europe.Middle Eastern CentresOf the four Middle Eastern centres in the GFCI,Dubai has maintained a lead since the GFCI began.However,Qatar is closing the gap in ratings and is now only 8points behind Dubai having been 135points behind in GFCI 2.Bahrain and Riyadh are still a fair way behind the two Middle Eastern leaders.Table 11|The Middle Eastern Centres in GFCI 9The pattern of assessments reveals that the Middle Eastern centres are particularly well supported by North American respondents.Respondents from Europe and the offshore centres rate Dubai less positively than average.Respondents from offshore centres are far more positive about Qatar.Nearly half of theassessments given to Qatar are from Asia and the average of these assessments is less than the overall mean:“Dubai is still experiencing difficulties and is being overtaken by a number of Asian centres at the moment –I hope it will get better soon.”Asset Manager based in DubaiThe offshore centres continue to come under scrutiny during the financial crisis.Many offshore centres are still regarded as ‘taxhavens’and there has been significant pressure applied to these centres by many national regulators as well as international bodies such as the OECD.The rankings (with the exception of the British Virgin Islands)and ratings of the offshore centres continue to decline in GFCI 9:Jersey and Guernsey remain the only two offshore centres with ratings over 600.The decline of the offshore centres is demonstrated clearly in Chart 19below.Offshore CentresTable12|Top ten Offshore Centres in GFCI 9A significant proportion of the assessments of offshore centres are coming from other offshore centres.However,Jersey and Guernsey are now very close to achieving the wider global awareness that would move them up to theprofile of Global Specialists.Both these centres are working to change perceptions and to‘rise above’the status of offshore specialist centres by being seen as more diversified,although the following charts of average assessment by region suggest that they still have some way to go with changing global perceptions.All the top offshore centres achieve higher than average assessments from other offshore centres and,generally,lower responses from elsewhere,particularly from n responses were particularly low for Jersey and Guernsey.“I left the Caymans recently–business was going through the floor–and I’m happy to be working back on the mainland.”Trust Fund Manager based in New YorkThe GFCI WorldEstablished transnationalEstablished playersTransnational diversifiedLocal diversifiedTransnational specialistsLocal nodesTransnational contendersEvolving centresIndustry sector sub-indices are created by building the GFCI9statistical model using only the questionnaire responses from respondents working in the relevant industry sectors.The GFCI9dataset has been used to produce separate sub-indices for the Banking,Asset Management,Insurance,Professional Services, Government&Regulatory and Wealth Management&Private Banking sectors.London appears at the top of four of the six sub-indices.New York tops the Banking sub-index and Hong Kong appears at the top of the Insurance sub-index where London is down in fourth place.Table13below shows the top ten rankedfinancial centres in the industry sector sub-indices.Thefigures in brackets show how each centre has moved in these sub-indices since GFCI8:The topfive positions in each of the sub-indices are mostly occupied by thefive top GFCI9 centres.The Asian centres are well placed in the Insurance and Banking sub-indices taking four of the top six spots in both sub-indices.The Wealth Management sub-index was only introduced in GFCI8.It is not surprising to see two of the leading global wealth management centres(Geneva in2nd place and Zurich in7th) so high up the list.Industry SectorsTable13|Industry sector sub-indices(changes from GFCI9in brackets)The instrumental factors used in the GFCI 9model are grouped into five key areas ofcompetitiveness (People,Business Environment,Market Access,Infrastructure and GeneralCompetitiveness).The GFCI 9factor assessment model is run with one set of instrumental factors at a time.Table 14shows the top ten ranked centres in each sub-index (the figures in brackets show how the centre has moved in the sub-index rankings since GFCI 8):The top four financial centres in GFCI 9–London,New York,HongKong and Singapore –also share the top four places in each of these sub indices (as they did in GFCI 8and GFCI 7).This indicates that they are very strong in all five areas of competitiveness.The Five Key Areas of CompetitivenessTable 14|Sub-indices by areas of competitiveness (changes from GFCI 7in brackets)It is useful to look at how the leading centres are viewed by respondents working for different sizes of organisation.Size of OrganisationThe reputation of a financial centre is another indicator of potential success.In the GFCImodel,one way to look at this is to examine the difference between the average assessment given to a centre and its overall rating (the average assessment adjusted to reflect the instrumental factors).If a centre has a higher average assessment than the GFCI 9rating this indicates that respondents’perceptions of a centre are more favourable than thequantitative measures alone would suggest.Table 15below shows the 20centres with the greatest difference between average assessment and the GFCI rating:It is notable that three of the top four centres by reputational advantage are Asian.It should be stressed that for Shanghai,Hong Kong and Singapore a large proportion of favourable assessments came from other Asian centres rather than from non-Asian centres.Their positions help to explain the strong performance of Asia in GFCI 9.The Global Financial Centres Index 929ReputationTable 15|Top 20Centres assessments &ratings –reputational advantage“I think the rise of the Asian centres is a lot to do with reputation. Places likeShenzhen and Seoul were not on most people’s radar ten years ago. Now they are everybody’s favourite – did they hire a PR agent that I didn’t hear about?”Asset Manager based in Frankfurt。
从世界三大湾区看湾区经济的四大特征陈佳旻浙江省发展规划研究院“湾区”一词多用于描述围绕沿海口岸分布的众多海港和城镇所构成的港口群和城镇群，三大特征是拥海、抱湾、合群，其衍生的经济效应称为湾区经济。
湾区经济具有开放的经济结构、高效的资源配置能力、强大的集聚外溢功能和发达的国际交往网络，这又是世界一流城市的显著特点。
1湾区经济的特征及其指标湾区经济的特征包括创新性、开放性、区域性和生态性。
创新性指的是科技水平、科研能力、人才数量等，常见指标有研发投入占GDP的比重、发明专利数量、新产品出口总额、创新力企业（家）、大学（研究机构）等。
开放性指的是对外开放的经济结构，包容的文化氛围及发达的国际交往网络，常见指标有外贸依存度、跨国公司数量、外资吸收数量、对外基础通达度、跨国公司总部和国际性机构的数量等。
区域性指的是对内高效的资源配置能力，具有强大的集聚外溢功能，常见指标有经济联系强度、投资联系、旅游联系、经济影响范围、交通通达度和区域管治水平等。
生态性指的是生态环境水平，从另一个角度而言，“大湾区”应该具有“大花园”的特征。
1.创新性纽约湾区的主要产业是金融保险业、专业和科技服务业、医疗保健业、批发零售业、房地产业，其中，新兴产业对创新的要求较高，反过来，这些产业支撑着整个湾区的创新性。
纽约湾区拥有全美最大的500家公司的1/3强。
另外，纽约及其附近有56所大学，拥有世界级的大学和人才，就近为纽约湾区的科技创新提供了源源不断的新血，激活大中小企业的活力。
东京湾区的主要产业是制造业、金融保险业和通信传媒业、服务业、批发零售业、不动产业，其中高端制造业，尤其是智能化方面在全世界具有领先地位。
东京湾区总部创新能力强，三菱、丰田、索尼等一大批世界五百强企业总部在科研方面的投入巨大，成效显著。
另外，东京湾区大学的数量和实力同样客观，拥有全日本80%的大学。
旧金山湾区主要产业是信息产业和医疗保健业、专业和科技服务业、金融保险业、制造业、批发零售业、房地产业。
