Read the news attached below. Hong Kong Chief wants population to go from 7 million to 10 million to increases competitiveness. He cited “ For the optimum level, look at the size of Manhattan, of New York and London,” as a Financial centre. Is there a direct relation between population count and the competitiveness of a city as a Financial Centre ???

#######################
Hong Kong chief wants population rise
By Victor Mallet and Tom Mitchell in Hong Kong

Published: June 14 2007 22:02 | Last updated: June 14 2007 22:02

Hong Kong should increase its population by more than 40 per cent to 10m to match the power of New York and London as global financial centres, according to Donald Tsang, its chief executive.

“We must not allow the population to age and then shrink. We must grow in order to be competitive,” Mr Tsang said in an interview with the Financial Times. “We have the fundamentals, like New York and London, to create a global financial centre and a reasonably good living for 10m people here.”

Hong Kong, with just under 7m people, is already one of the most densely populated places on the planet. It depends almost entirely on imports from mainland China and abroad for food, water and fuel.

The proposed increase in population, which Mr Tsang stressed was a long-term vision, is likely to be criticised by environmentalists. Speaking before the 10th anniversary of Hong Kong’s return to China by Britain, Mr Tsang said the territory needed to boost immigration and education and invest in infrastructure for the sake of its status as a financial centre.

“For the optimum level, look at the size of Manhattan, of New York and London,” said Mr Tsang, who will be sworn in for a final five-year term on July 1. “It’s not only merchant bankers and the Financial Times. You need art, you need the West End, you need Wimbledon. They all need the Yankee Stadium and Broadway – that’s all in the make-up of a good city.”

Mr Tsang said Hong Kong had to “move up the governance scale so that we are in the same rank as New York and London, distancing ourselves completely from the likes of Singapore or Shanghai or everybody else where they are still very much a territorial market”.

Earlier this year, the government of Singapore, said it wanted to increase its population by a similar percentage from 4.5m to 6.5m over the next decade.

He was frank about the difficulties of implementing his vision – Hong Kong’s fertility rate is one of the lowest in the world – and said he would be happy to maintain a population of 7m-7.5m by the end of his term.

“Where success will lie is in an adequate stock of human re-sources of the right quality to sustain and build a financial centre . . . We need an injection of new blood from all nationalities, particularly from the mainland [of China] to grow our market in the mainland.”

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

No it is not. Luxembourg, Amsterdam and Zürich prove that a large population is not necessarily.

Those remarks have stirred up a controversy here in Hong Kong. The key is to attract quality professionals. Having a large population base doesn't help if the professional base is not adequate.

No it is not. Luxembourg, Amsterdam and Zürich prove that a large population is not necessarily.

Hong Kong apparantly wants to be on the same level as New York and London, those cities you mentioned come nowhere close. And Luxembourg as a global financial centre? :weird:

Hong Kong apparantly wants to be on the same level as New York and London, those cities you mentioned come nowhere close. And Luxembourg as a global financial centre? :weird:

You are correct when you say that Luxembourg isn't a global financial centre. Nevertheless it is still a very important banking city and only surpassed by cities like Zürich, New york and London.
Although not a real big city, Frankfurt comes a littlebit close. During the '90's this city was regarded as the most serious rival of London. And that was'nt about a large population!

Hong Kong apparantly wants to be on the same level as New York and London, those cities you mentioned come nowhere close. And Luxembourg as a global financial centre? :weird:

I would not be so sure. Amsterdam is part of the Randstad, also if conurbations around added to it, it has a population of 10 millions... it is indeed one of largest of Europe, and with such an high density of population in Netherlands, it looks not strange. Amsterdam is considered one of best town to invest in the world !

Amsterdam, Luxembourg City, Zürich and we can add Frankfürt are part of the rhenanian region, the most powerful region of the world (inside every aspect, Brussels is also part of rhenanian region and is the second most powerful political heart of the world), it can explain why those cities are so powerful, along with Strasbourg and Geneva either, Rhenania (if we can call it like this) have nearly the size of Germany with 100 millions inhabitants and is a permanent streaming engine, an example is the ruhr area, while this area was and is under recovery of its former industries, some other parts of Rhenania took the lead in technology and so on ... But it goes always very quickly, unemployement in ruhr area falled pretty quickly because other innovative regions around invested in it.

For me, It doesn't. Definately, Luxembourg City is the perfect example. It's pop is under half a million, yet it's per capita is over $100.000. Definately, important for the Benelux region.

Global Financial Centres:

1- NYC (North America)
2- London (Great Britain)
3- Tokyo (Japan)
4- Paris (France)
5- Frankfurt (Germany)
(6-10) Hong Kong, Zurich, Chicago, Singapore, Sydney

Amongst the 5 cities in 6-10th place, Hong Kong has the largest population both in the metro area (include the Pearl Delta region) and the city itself. Chicago comes second in both.

It's not a requirement but it certainly helps a bit. More people means more money slushing around. And often more connections to other parts of the global economy.

Global Financial Centres:

1- NYC (North America)
2- London (Great Britain)
3- Tokyo (Japan)
4- Paris (France)
5- Frankfurt (Germany)
(6-10) Hong Kong, Zurich, Chicago, Singapore, Sydney

Amongst the 5 cities in 6-10th place, Hong Kong has the largest population both in the metro area (include the Pearl Delta region) and the city itself. Chicago comes second in both.

http://www.mastercard.com/us/company/en/wcoc/the_index.html


MasterCard Worldwide Centres of Commerce Index: Top 10 Rankings

(scores out of a possible 100 points):

London 77.79

New York 73.80

Tokyo 68.09

Chicago 67.19

Hong Kong 62.32

Singapore 61.95

Frankfurt 61.34

Paris 61.19

Seoul 60.70

Los Angeles 59.05

Amsterdam 57.30

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=80bf05ca-cf9e-4f34-93dc-94aab30cbec5&k=0

http://citymayors.com/economics/financial-cities.html

http://uk.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUKHKG8089220070613?pageNumber=2

more people->more educated workforce->more people who can work in financial industry.

Global Financial Centres:

1- NYC (North America)
2- London (Great Britain)
3- Tokyo (Japan)
4- Paris (France)
5- Frankfurt (Germany)
(6-10) Hong Kong, Zurich, Chicago, Singapore, Sydney

Amongst the 5 cities in 6-10th place, Hong Kong has the largest population both in the metro area (include the Pearl Delta region) and the city itself. Chicago comes second in both.

Finance is not only stock market.

Global Financial Centres:

1- NYC (North America)
2- London (Great Britain)
3- Tokyo (Japan)
4- Paris (France)
5- Frankfurt (Germany)
(6-10) Hong Kong, Zurich, Chicago, Singapore, Sydney

Amongst the 5 cities in 6-10th place, Hong Kong has the largest population both in the metro area (include the Pearl Delta region) and the city itself. Chicago comes second in both.

Global Financial Centres Index (GFCI)

1) London



Most key success areas are excellent - London is in the top quartile in over 80% of its instrumental factors. Especially strong on people, market access and regulation. The main negative comments concern corporate tax rates, transport infrastructure and operational costs.

2) New York


Most areas are very strong - New York is also in the top quartile in over 80% of its instrumental factors. People and market access are particular strengths. Our respondents cited regulation (particularly Sarbanes-Oxley) as the main negative factor.

3) Hong Kong



Hong Kong is a thriving regional centre. It performs well in all of the key competitiveness areas, especially in regulation. Headline costs are high but this does not detract from overall competitiveness. Hong Kong is a real contender to become a genuinely global financial centre.

4) Singapore


Most areas are very good and banking regulation is often cited as being excellent. It performs well in four of the key competitiveness areas but falls to 9th place on general competitiveness factors alone. Definitely the second Asian centre just behind Hong Kong.

5) Zurich


A very strong niche centre. Private banking and asset management provide a focus. Zurich performs well in three of the key competitiveness areas but loses out slightly in people factors and in general competitiveness.

6) Frankfurt


Despite a strong banking focus, suffers from inflexible labour laws and skilled staff shortages. Market access, infrastructure and business environment are strong but Frankfurt falls outside the top ten GFCI rankings for people and general competitiveness.

7) Sydney


A strong national centre with good regulation, offering a particularly good quality of life. Sydney is strong in four of the key competitiveness areas but falls outside the top ten for people - many financial professionals leave for larger English-speaking centres.

8) Chicago


Number two centre in the US. Hampered by the same regulatory regime as New York. It scores highly for people but is let down by its infrastructure and market access rankings. Unlikely to overtake New York, it remains a powerful regional and specialist centre.

9) Tokyo


Does not fare well in terms of regulation and business environment, but the size of the Japanese economy means Tokyo has good liquidity. It fares poorly on people but has good infrastructure and market access.

10) Geneva


A strong niche centre similar to Zurich. Private banking and asset management continue to thrive. Geneva is strong in business environment and general competitiveness but let down by infrastructure.

As indicated by previous individuals, London is now the #1 Financial City :cheers:

HK's size itself is not critical. It just needs to placate Beijing to ensure that it -- not Shanghai -- receives China's support as the Chinese business city. It would help, however, if the city improves its museums, theatre, cultural life, etc. I was disappointed by HK. I thought that it would be the Asian equivalent of NY or London, but it's not.

As indicated by previous individuals, London is now the #1 Financial City :cheers:

No. NYC is and will remain the financial capital of the world. I still heaven't seen a single study that shows the whole financial power of each city. All I'm saying is that not only growth and attractiveness count. I mean come on. Wake up people.

No. NYC is and will remain the financial capital of the world. I still heaven't seen a single study that shows the whole financial power of each city. All I'm saying is that not only growth and attractiveness count. I mean come on. Wake up people.

Why don't we just agree that it's a tie. Otherwise, this thread will be closed. Anyway, this thread is unrelated to that issue.

I think this thread had gone off topic quite a bit !!!

In any case, I think what Hong Kong Chief meant is that Hong Kong should increase the head counts of "wealthy individuals" and "talented individuals" to boost its Financial Services industry ie. More money in & more talents in. How to do that ?? of course it has to be thru immigration from abroad.

While one can not be sure the increase in population will be on the targeted group, the increase in population will definately increase the chances of attracting the targeted group. Particularly if you are talking about increasing thru immigartion since you choose who you let in.

I think it helps, but it's not a prerequisite. As hkskyline said, it's the quality of the population, not quantity that counts.

more people->more educated workforce->more people who can work in financial industry.

That's completely false. Look at Mexico City, Sao Paulo, even Asian cities like Hong Kong and Shenzhen, and I can guarantee that you'll find a much much lower educated workforce per capita than you would in many European and North American cities.

While Seattle is not a population center like many mentioned above, it is home to some pretty notable companies...Microsoft, Boeing (factories only), Amazon, and Starbucks, among others. While Seattle's metro population is significant (3+ million), sometimes it just doesn't matter. The geographic position, the educational system, and the simple organic and intellectual properties of an area make more of a difference.

While Seattle is not a population center like many mentioned above, it is home to some pretty notable companies...Microsoft, Boeing (factories only), Amazon, and Starbucks, among others. While Seattle's metro population is significant (3+ million), sometimes it just doesn't matter. The geographic position, the educational system, and the simple organic and intellectual properties of an area make more of a difference.

Well said...I couldn't agree any more.

While Seattle is not a population center like many mentioned above, it is home to some pretty notable companies...Microsoft, Boeing (factories only), Amazon, and Starbucks, among others. While Seattle's metro population is significant (3+ million), sometimes it just doesn't matter. The geographic position, the educational system, and the simple organic and intellectual properties of an area make more of a difference.

but Hong Kong wants to be Asia's NY or LDN, not Asia's Seattle

I do believe that a large pop. is certainly needed. It is not just an advantage, but an absolute need.

The following quote from the HK Chief Exec really struck me:

"...create a REASONABLY good living for 10m people here"

It sounds as if HK is willing to settle for merely a "reasonable" quality of life as a trade-off. HK is a great great city as it is now, despite the numerous problems it faces with pollution, quality of life etc. But im not sure if the people can tolerate the strain of a declining quality of living if they are tested further.

population isnt a prerequisite however it wouldnt hurt. I guess it depends on the general population; educated vs uneducated.

I do believe that a large pop. is certainly needed. It is not just an advantage, but an absolute need.

The following quote from the HK Chief Exec really struck me:

"...create a REASONABLY good living for 10m people here"

It sounds as if HK is willing to settle for merely a "reasonable" quality of life as a trade-off. HK is a great great city as it is now, despite the numerous problems it faces with pollution, quality of life etc. But im not sure if the people can tolerate the strain of a declining quality of living if they are tested further.

Increasing population doesn't necessarily mean decreasing living space, since there is enough land out there to build the same quality of housing stock for a huge number of immigrants. However, the government doesn't like to flood the market with supply to crash the housing market. The plan is not to increase the population to 10 million immediately. That alone doesn't make sense, but rather a sustained increase over time so the local market can absorb it.

Pollution is a regional problem, so having more or less people won't help if factories in mainland China don't cooperate. Similarly, Singapore won't improve air pollution if Indonesia doesn't curb its forest fires regardless of how big or small the local population gets.

That's completely false. Look at Mexico City, Sao Paulo, even Asian cities like Hong Kong and Shenzhen, and I can guarantee that you'll find a much much lower educated workforce per capita than you would in many European and North American cities.

if two cities have the same development level (and hence the same proportion of people who are educated) then the city with larger population will have more educated work force.

Hong Kong's development level is quite high, it can't increase much, the only thing they can do is to increase population.

if two cities have the same development level (and hence the same proportion of people who are educated) then the city with larger population will have more educated work force.

Hong Kong's development level is quite high, it can't increase much, the only thing they can do is to increase population.

I'll agree with that.

Frankfurt is often ranked over Hong Kong and the city has less than one million people.
Hong Kong doesn`t need more people.

I bumped into this Webpage of Indian Express and noted how one can choose to focus on one part of a Worldwide Survey and ignore or omit the rest of a survey to present a "different perception".

See http://www.indianexpress.com/story/33961.html

The full survey of the Worldwide Center of commerce by Mastercard is available here http://www.mastercard.com/us/company/en/wcoc/downloads.html

Isn't that amazing on the power of media and its reporting ?