Singapore's Lianhe Zaobao reported on the evening of September 15: "【Oxford Economics: Nine of the World's Top Ten Cities Are in Europe and America; Singapore Second in Asia】 European and American cities continue to dominate the 2026 Global City Index, occupying nine of the top ten spots. Tokyo ranks ninth globally and is the only Asian city to enter the top ten. Singapore ranks 29th globally and second among Asian cities."

The 2026 Global City Index released by Oxford Economics appears to be a simple city ranking, but it actually reflects deeper shifts in the global urban competition landscape, the inherent Western-centric bias in evaluation systems, and paradigmatic conflicts arising from the rise of Asian cities.

The biggest controversy surrounding this list isn't about who is ranked too high—but rather about the inherent bias embedded in the evaluation criteria themselves.

Oxford Economics evaluates cities across five dimensions—economy, human capital, quality of life, environment, and governance—using 27 indicators. This framework inherently favors major Western hubs:

High weights assigned to English proficiency, density of international institutions, and air connectivity

Dominance of stock indicators such as number of multinational headquarters, depth of capital markets, and university rankings

Advantages of Asian cities in manufacturing hinterlands, supply chain efficiency, digital governance, and infrastructure scale are difficult to fully quantify

This explains why some Chinese manufacturing megacities—strong in the everyday experience of ordinary people—are not highly ranked on this list. What you see are factories, high-speed railways, ports, and industrial chains; what the index calculates includes housing prices, environmental quality, urban governance, international talent, university quality, public services, and many other factors.

This ranking can be referenced, but should not be treated as gospel.

For European and American cities: The fact that nine of the top ten spots are occupied reflects the continuation of their existing advantages—but rising housing costs, aging populations, and stagnant growth are eroding their long-term competitiveness.

For Asian cities: A lower ranking does not equate to weaker strength; rather, it reflects the Western-centric bias embedded in the evaluation framework. True urban competitiveness will ultimately be decided by residents voting with their feet, by industries voting with orders, and by capital voting with real money.

For Singapore: The title of "second in Asia" is worth cherishing, but the high score in quality of life cannot obscure structural concerns such as relatively small economic scale, accelerating aging population, and persistently high housing prices.

As for these Western-centric metrics—don’t take them too seriously.

Original article: toutiao.com/article/1876532265117828/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.