Chen Xi, Founder of Harbor Overseas
First of all, I’d like to respond to the question of Mr. Nabil Fahmy about why Africa is not included in the rankings. Seven months ago, we hoped to evaluate the whole of Asia, yet we wanted more to know about the highest level of development in the world as time goes by. In other words, we wanted to know the rankings of Chinese cities in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, the Yangtze River Delta, and Beijing in the world. Meanwhile, European and North American readers expressed strong interest in the rankings of cities of their countries worldwide, holding that their cities are also well-developed. Professor Wang suggested to release the group of twenty (G20) smart city ranking. I took the advice finally, yet I discovered that the workload was so heavy that I could barely do other jobs at the same time. Therefore, the reason why Africa is not included is the heavy workload.
Back to the rankings, we originally hoped to realize regional integration through the synergy of diverse infrastructure, and then connect coastal regions and inland regions worldwide, to enhance the resilience of cities and mitigate risks incurred by unexpected events such as climate change, social unrest or pandemics, as well as political and economic challenges of course.
In a narrow sense, a smart city refers to information infrastructure. We adopt the broad sense of the concept, covering traditional, digital, and institutional infrastructure. The evaluation follows the Ladder Scoring Rules. 16 indicators with different scores and subjects are selected. For example, wired communication networks include “100M optical fiber networks” (1 point), “gigabit optical fiber networks” (2 points), “all optical networks” (3 points), and “quantum communications”（4 points); wireless communication networks include “scaled commercialization 4G networks” (1 point), “scaled commercialization 5G networks” (2 points), “scaled commercialization satellite Internet” (3 points), and “scaled commercialization space-based quantum communications” (4 points); digital twins system includes “ubiquitous sensing system” (1 point), “data centers” (2 points), “city brain or operating system after data fusion” (3 points), and “future universal artificial intelligence platform”(4 points); and digital government includes “chief data officer” (1 point), “top-down multi-level control system or bottom-up community participation” (2 points), and “seamless service across regions” (3 points). Whether it is in a socialist or capitalist country, the points are assigned as long as there is a top-down multi-level control system or bottom-up community participation Another example is about privacy. 1 point is assigned for promulgating laws and 2 points are given for classified and hierarchical supervision of artificial intelligence algorithms. These examples show the Ladder Scoring Rules.
Thanks to the help of Peking University, we have experts in more than 21 languages to verify tens of thousands of pieces of data of 243 cities. The scoring evidence was verified in several rounds, including scoring in the first round, verification in the second round, and verification again of minority languages in the third round. Finally, the indicators were weighted by 32 experts, including Prof. Xufeng Zhu from School of Public Policy & Management, Tsinghua University, and Prof. Geng Xiao, Chairman of the Hong Kong Institution for International Finance, who are participating in the forum today, as well as friends from China Communications Construction Company Ltd., Power Construction Corporation of China Ltd., and China Railway Construction Group Company Ltd., and experts from such countries as the United Arab Emirates, Azerbaijan, and Pakistan. We didn’t know the final results until collecting the weights of all experts, so I just learned the final results 15 days ago.
Questions:
Beijing Daily: My question is about Beijing. Judging from the ranking of smart cities this time, Beijing is in the top 10%, which is also a good ranking. Compared with the first-class cities in the world, is there space for further development of Beijing? Besides, as far as we know, Beijing has been promoting the synergy of the information of different departments and institutions for realizing more efficient urban management and services. I can understand that it is a way to promote regional synergy, like the regional digital governance in the Yangtze River Delta and the Pearl River Delta. Is there any difficulty in actual operation? Thank you.
Chen Xi: Beijing ranks in the top 5%. The high ranking mainly comes from the long-term investment of the Beijing Municipal Government. Nevertheless, there are still many outstanding competitors worldwide, like London. Beijing is leading in digital government, while London is leading in the scaled commercialization of satellite Internet.
In practice, Beijing would face two difficulties. One is how to bring into full play the initiative of different governmental departments. The Beijing Municipal Government has adopted a good principle, namely “the unified construction and sharing of infrastructure, the separate collection and sharing of data resources.” It aims mainly to save resources and respect the autonomy and creativity of governmental departments. The countermeasure is to take problems and events as clues for setting the action boundaries of higher-level governments to maintain the autonomy and creativity of each department. The other is how to support decision-making. After the data is gathered to the decision-making command platform, the information in front of the policy makers is subject to the depth and breadth of understanding of urban governance and overall development by the modeling or engineering implementation team or unit, the availability of data resources, and the initiative and creativity of different governmental departments. From the perspective of theory, experience or pattern, it would face the risk of going beyond the expected capacity and thus limit the effectiveness of decision support. The coping strategy lies in high-quality dynamic overall planning or top-level design to avoid massive data aggregation that falls short of expectations to limit the support for decision-making or urban development formation.
IFENG.COM: As a media from Hong Kong, we learned that many netizens are concerned about Hong Kong, so what do you think of the position of Hong Kong in the world from the report? Taking the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area as an example, how do you see its role? Many cities in the Greater Bay Area, like Shenzhen mentioned by some guests just now, as well as Guangzhou and Hong Kong are ranked high, but if the second-tier cities in the entire Greater Bay Area are included, the rankings or many data will drop. Do you think that there is a siphon effect in our city clusters, which shows the unbalanced development? Meanwhile, there are many cities in the Greater Bay Area. Will there be fierce competition among them and how to avoid the involution caused by this competition? Thank you.
Chen Xi: Firstly, Hong Kong should be in the top 10% in Asia and the top 30% in the G20, which is generally very good. Its benchmark targets in Asia should be Tokyo and Singapore. Compared with Singapore, Hong Kong is leading in digital government and public health networks, but lags behind in reasonable digital flow and wireless communication networks. Because these are highly weighted indicators and high-scoring subjects, Hong Kong relatively lagsbehind. Tokyo takes the lead in multi-layer planning and wireless communication networks. As for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, I have always believed that it is absolutely leading in the world since I started the research on smart cities more than then years ago, yet I was a little surprised at the results. It is at the medium level internationally, lagging behind the North Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Alps in Europe, the New York Bay Area and the Great Lakes Region in the United States, and even the three major bays (Tokyo Bay, Ise Bay, and Osaka Bay) in Japan. The reason is that these areas are mainly first-tier and second-tier cities, such as Tokyo, Osaka,Kobe, Kyoto, Nagoya, Yokohama, and Chiba, while the average score is pulled down after the inclusion of many second and third-tier cities in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area.
Secondly, we are lagging behind in high-weight indicators and high-score subjects, such as wireless communication networks, reasonable data flow, personal privacy data protection system, and rail transit networks. Nevertheless, the Greater Bay Area is the global leader in wired communication networks and digital government.
Thirdly, how to understand the phenomenon of imbalance? I think there are three reasons. 1. The deficit in thinking; 2. The deficit in governance; 3. The widening digital divide. After comparing Shenzhen, Huizhou, Jiangmen, Hong Kong and Foshan, they score the same in digital government and public health. Where is the gap between them? Shenzhen mainly takes the lead in rail transit network, which is understandable because of the financial gap. However, there are great differences in systems such as data capitalization, reasonable data flow, and personal privacy data protection system. These are not financial issues but precisely how to view reform, openness, and innovation. It shows the gap in thinking. The gap between the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area and the North Sea, the Baltic Sea, and the New York Bay Area is similarly reflected in the deficit in thinking and governance. Many cities in China have platforms of tens of millions or hundreds of millions of data. These large and comprehensive digital platform command systems or communication networks, perception systems, are not essential infrastructure. The advanced deployment could overdraw the development potential and increase debt risk. Many people say that we can use REITs. In fact, we should be cautious about REITs, because digital iteration is faster and depreciation is faster, which also brings risks. In general, the essence of fiscal deficit is often governance deficit. The third reason is the widening digital divide. The Institute for Global Cooperation and Understanding (iGCU) at Peking University, the Hong Kong Institution for International Finance, and us release Asia Smart City Quarterly Review three times and Asia Smart City Ranking every year. 50-60% of the readers are from overseas and 95% of them are from developed economies. In China, over 80% of the readers are from developed coastal provinces. What does this imply? It shows that the digital divide will continue to widen. As we enter the era of artificial intelligence, it will definitely get even wider.
Your question is how to reduce the involution caused by the competition through promoting synergy within the Greater Bay Area. I think that if we do not plan for the future, we will have immediate worries. If we are haunted by the competition with Shenzhen, Hong Kong, Foshan, and Guangdong, we will lead to self-isolation. But if all these cities focus the attention on New York and London, we will be able to consider how to promotethehigh-level flow of people, material, products, and information in the Greater Bay Area, which is the digital Bay Area and the railway networks in the Pearl River Delta we are building. Even third-tier cities can pursue rules higher than international standards, such as RCEP and GDPR. Only in this way can we promote high-level internal and external opening up and drive high-quality innovation and reform. I believe that the Pearl River Delta and the Greater Bay Area are likely to surpass the three major bays (Tokyo Bay, Ise Bay, and Osaka Bay) in Japan within two years.
ChinaBusiness Journal: Can you briefly summarize how smart cities promote inter-regional collaboration?
Chen Xi: You are asking a question about methodology. In a narrow sense, smart cities are built on information infrastructure. In a broad sense, a smart city refers to the integration of traditional, digital, and institutional infrastructure. Traditional infrastructure is the carrier of digital infrastructure and they should be activated by institutional infrastructure, so regional integration relies on the synergy of the three.
How to realize the synergy of the three? The key is the subject with high weight and score, like cross-regional rail transit networks, satellite Internet, and top-down multi-level control system or bottom-up community participation, because the synergy of these subjects constitutes high-quality planning in itself. In addition, some other principles should be followed. For example, more space should be left for urban space and future technologies, like communication technology, computing power, and artificial intelligence structure networks. It is estimated that there will be a technological revolution from 2028 to 2030. At that time, we will embrace quantum computing, 6G, more mature artificial general intelligence, as well as unmanned and three-dimensional transportation. Trying to promote all at one time would cause a debt crisis. The efficiency of a city’s development has certain bounds. We need to find solutions in a larger geographical space, extend the industrial chain and governance chain, provide more employment and public goods, and guide the flow of people and the direction of social innovation.
IFENG.COM: Hello, I am from IFENG.COM. I noticed that Indian cities are generally ranked low in the report, yet the data shows that their comprehensive development potential is very high, including that its total population has surpassed that of China this year. What do you think of the rankings of Indian cities in the report? Meanwhile, I found the ranking of Paris in the first echelon in the report. Recently, Paris is facing security problems and could hardly guarantee the basic safety of its residents. Is it reasonable for such a city to be ranked in the first echelon? Forgrowing Indian cities and a turbulent Paris, what would their rankings be in the future in your eyes? Thank you.
Chen Xi: A growing India and a turbulent Paris, your question is very interesting. First of all, Mumbai ranks top among Indian cities. It almost ties with Paris in scores of many indicators, except for digital government, energy Internet, and digital twins system.
As for whether the gap between the turbulent Paris and the developing India will be narrowed? In my opinion, Indiahasa vast territory and a large population, providing good opportunities for infrastructure construction like energy Internet, public health networks, transportation networks, rail transit networks, and communication networks. If India can reform internally and open up to the outside world, and continue to innovate, we will see a more developed India. Of course, we hope to see a peaceful, prosperous and developing India, which depends on India’s internal affairs, diplomacy and social stability.
As long as Paris can continue to lead in such areas as unmanned transportation systems, quantum communications, artificial general intelligence, and satellite Internet, and direct resources to these key areas instead of social stability and major power rivalry, I think Paris has a greater chance to be ahead of India.
So, what does this mean? The ceiling of a smart city is not software and hardware but international relations and international finance which could not be determined by us. Software and hardware are the basic requirements.
Embassy of Ireland: Just now you analyzed the phenomenon of unbalanced development of cities in the Greater Bay Area. I would like to know whether the development of smart city clusters in other regions is also unbalanced. You have mentioned the Balkans and the New York area, so is the development of smart city clusters in other regions also unbalanced?
Chen Xi: In fact, I believe that unbalanced development is a ubiquitous phenomenon. For example, there are gaps between Riyadh, Kuala Lumpur, Abu Dhabi, and the cities nearby. Because the Greater Bay Area is an established concept covering first-tier, second-tier, and third-tier cities, the gap is more evident. There are also gaps between Chicago and Columbus and between Amsterdam and Antwerp, yet they are not obvious, because it is between first-tier cities and second-tier cities.
How to see it? Just like what I have said in the answer to Phoenix TV. Due to the deficit in thinking, finance, and governance, as well as the widening digital divide, unbalanced development is inevitable. Of course, what we can do is to make life more sustainable and let more people live a more prosperous life.
First Survey and Design Institute Group Company Limited, China Railway Construction Group Company Ltd.: We are now discussing smart cities and regional integration, so I would like to ask a question, whether regional integration is the only way for the development of smart cities? In addition, I come from Xi’an, a city in the western region of China. For cities in the western region, like Xi’an, Lanzhou, and Urumqi, and even westward to the hinterland of Central Asia, a large number of cities are relatively isolated. Both Dr. Chen and Chairman Deng mentioned the Greater Bay Area just now, yet these isolated western cities are greatly different from the city cluster of the Greater Bay Area. So I think that the development and challenges of smart cities under such circumstances should be different from those in the Greater Bay Area and other developed regions like the Yangtze River Delta and the Pearl River Delta. Dr. Chen, what do you think is the challenges and trend, especially for the western region? Thank you.
Chen Xi: Due to time reasons, I will make a brief answer with some key points. Firstly, let’s take a look at the Alps. The score of the Alps is at a level similar to that of the North Sea. Both of them take the lead in such high-weight indicators and high-score subjects as personal privacy data protection system, reasonable data flow, and satellite Internet. The case offers an important inspiration for the central and western regions in China that even isolated cities should pay attention to institutions, wireless communications, and rail transit networks. Secondly, I think the situation is the same in Pakistan which has both the coastal city Karachi and the inland city Islamabad. I am wondering whether it is possible to learn from the experience of the Alps to focus the attention of inland cities on wireless communication and rail transit networks. Of course, it is a simplified answer from the experience of more than two hundred cities. Mr. Wazir, what do you think?
Khan Muhammad Wazir, Counselor of Science and Technology at the Embassy of Pakistan in China: Thank you. In Pakistan, as you just said, Karachi is a coastal city with a population of 35 million. The government has taken many measures, launched many projects, and constructed a lot of infrastructure. We have also promoted infrastructure construction in such inland cities as Islamabad, yet some of them are still traditional projects rather than smart projects. We look forward to carrying out more cooperation with Chinese companies in this regard. Given the large population of Pakistan, how can we promote further integration?
Chen Xi: I’d like to give you a brief answer. Firstly, the development of Pakistan could rely on two routes. The first is from Kashgar in China to the north of Pakistan through Islamabad to Karachi and Gwadar in the south of the country. The second is to connect with the Persian Gulf via Chabahar, making it a transit of the Middle East to the east. Apart from the two possible routes, it may be difficult for Pakistan to find space for planning and explorationtoits interests. Secondly, Pakistan needs to realize the integration of interests from tribes to cities, counties, provinces, and the central government, and then guide follow-up projects. There is still a long way to go.
Chen Xi: The last question is left to me by Shenzhen Administration College and Longhua District Government Services and Data Management Bureau. It is a question that I should reply to. It is about a cutting-edge topic. What changes can the new development in the field of artificial intelligence, especially the application of foundation models, bring to the construction of smart cities worldwide and whether it will promote regional integration? How can we encourage and support entrepreneurs to ride this wave to drive innovation and economic development?
Here, I would like to make a quick answer in four points: 1. Artificial general intelligence does provide great room for imagination, but its logical reasoning ability is not only limited by parameters but also by the structure, as well as computing power, network, data, and regulatory rules, so we should not have high expectations on it in the short term. 2. As for regional integration, it is still necessary to start with a mature underlying infrastructure. Considering the demandforfoundation models for technology, capital, talents, and market, I think it is not necessary to pay too much attention to them. 3. For developed cities, such as cities in China, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Europe, the establishment of AGI centers is one of the few choices. The government and large enterprises should take the lead in industrial layout, infrastructure layout, scenario layout, and the integration of the efforts of enterprises, universities, and research institutes, so there are a few opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises. 4. There is still a chance for small and medium-sized enterprises to use the models provided by the regional AGI center to create small scenarios, but large enterprises will follow up and the competition will be very fierce afterward. The government should establish a fair, open, and regulated market environment to provide more opportunities for entrepreneurs.
Subscription
