Ranking Asia-Pacific cities: Economic performance of multinational corporations and the regional urban hierarchy

ISSN 1732–4254 qua e lyISSN 1732–4254 qua e ly jou nal homepages: h p://www.bulle ino geog aphy.umk.pl/ h p://wydawnic woumk.pl/czasopisma/index.php/BGSS/index h p://www.deg uy e .com/ iew/j/bog Bulle in o GeoG aphy. Socio–economic Se ieS © 2014 Nicolaus Cope nicus Uni e si y P ess. All igh s ese ed. Bulle in o Geog aphy. Socio–economic Se ies No. 25 (2014): 69–80 anking asia-paci ic ci ies: economic pe o mance o mul ina ional co po a ions and he egional u ban hie a chy Gyö gy csomós1, CDFMR, Ben De udde 2, CDMR 1Uni e si y o Deb ecen, Depa men o Ci il Enginee ing, O eme o u. 2-4. H-4028 Deb ecen, Hunga y; phone: +3 652 415155, ax: +3 652 418643, e-mail: [email protected] (co esponding au ho ); 2Ghen Uni e si y, Depa men o Geog aphy, K ijgs- laan 281/S8, B9000 Gen , Belgium; e-mail: ben.de udde @ugen .be How o ci e: Csomós, G. and De udde , B., 2014: Ranking Asia-Paci ic ci ies: Economic pe o mance o mul ina ional co po a ions and he e- gional u ban hie a chy. In: Szymańska, D. and Ś oda-Mu awska, S. edi o s, Bulle in o Geog aphy. Socio-economic Se ies, No. 25, To uń: Nicolaus Cope nicus Uni e si y P ess, pp. 69–80. DOI: h p://dx.doi.o g/10.12775/BGSS.2014.030 abs ac . O e he pas decade he wo ld economy has unde gone signi ican changes wi h an impac no only on na ional economies bu also on he key ci - ies om which ha wo ld economy is la gely being con olled. In his s udy, we use Fo bes’ ‘Global 2000’ da a on he headqua e loca ion and size o he wo ld’s leading mul ina ional co po a ions in o de o examine he shi ing ela i e posi- ion o leading Asia-Paci ic ci ies as command and con ol cen es in his inc eas- ingly impo an pa o he wo ld economy. Compa ing ci ies’ posi ions in 2006 and 2011, we p esen ha Tokyo, which assumed a leading ole in he egion o decades, has seen a majo decline in i s command and con ol unc ion, while Beijing now ep esen s almos as much as command and con ol as he Japanese capi al. Beijing’s as g ow h in command and con ol is also ound o Chinese ci ies, albei ha Beijing clea ly domina es he o he Chinese ci ies. In addi ion, we p esen ha shi ing pa e ns o command and con ol also hinge on he sec- o s domina ing he Fo bes 2000 anking. con en s: 1. In oduc ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 2. Asia-Paci ic ci ies in he global ci ies li e a u e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 3. Command and con ol cen es in he Asia-Paci ic egion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 4. Discussion............................................................................. 76 No es.................................................................................... 78 Re e ences ............................................................................... 78 a icle de ails: Recei ed: 23 Ap il 2014 Re ised: 03 June 2014 Accep ed: 10 June 2014 Key wo ds: Wo ld ci ies, command and con ol, mul ina ional co po a ions, headqua e s ci ies, Asia-Paci ic. © 2014 Nicolaus Cope nicus Uni e si y P ess. All igh s ese ed. Gyö gy Csomós, Ben De udde / Bulle in o Geog aphy. Socio-economic Se ies 25 (2014): 69–80 70 1. in oduc ion Since he 1970s, i has become inc easingly popula o analyse geog aphical pa e ns in he global econo- my h ough he me ageog aphical lens o majo ci - ies (e.g. F iedmann, 1986; Bea e s ock e al., 1999; Taylo , 2004; Sassen, 2006; Taylo e al., 2013). This moun ing ocus on majo ci ies a he han ‘ egions’ o ‘s a es’ can be mo e b oadly amed in he as li e a u e dealing wi h he ela ed upsu ge in u ban- iza ion and economic globaliza ion h oughou his pe iod. Fo ins ance, in he now-classic book The Global Ci y, Sassen (1991: 4) e aces aspeci ic pa o he globaliza ion/u baniza ion-nexus o he ob- se a ion ha ‘changes in he unc ioning o ci ies ha e had a massi e impac upon bo h in e na ion- al economic ac i i y and u ban o m: ci ies con- cen a e con ol o e as esou ces, while inance specialized se ice indus ies ha e es ic ed he u - ban social and economic o de . Thus a new ype o ci y has appea ed. I is he global ci y. Leading ex- amples now a e New Yo k, London, Tokyo, F ank- u , and Pa is.’ Al hough Sassen’s (1991) book con inues o be abenchma k s udy in he esea ch on globalized u - baniza ion, his esea ch agenda has a longe his o- y. In spi e o he ac ha he exac s a ing poin o his li e a u e can be deba ed, i is clea ha Pe e Hall’s (1966) The Wo ld Ci ies has been miles one in he analysis o he posi ion o ci ies in he glo- bal economy. In his book, Hall p o ided a de ailed lis o he ac o s ha cha ac e ize he wo ld’s lead- ing ci ies, which a he ime o w i ing we e mainly loca ed in he ‘Wes e n Wo ld’. Hall he eby poin - ed o he deg ee o which a ci y was a majo cen- e o poli ical powe , a sea o he mos powe ul na ional go e nmen s, a widely known in e na ion- al o ganiza ion, a anspo a ion cen e o an in e- g al pa o global comme ce. In addi ion, he also conside ed whe he a gi en ci y was he si e om which he global economy was a icula ed, o in- s ance as e lec ed in he size o i s p oduc ion and he ci y being an impo an headqua e loca ion o mul ina ional co po a ions (al hough hese s ill had o ake hei high ligh back in 1966). Hall’s esea ch con inues o be an impo an miles one in his li e a u e as i clea ly posi s wo ld ci ies as he scale om which he global economy is o ganized, and which is p ima ily isible h ough he concen- a ion o he headqua e s o he wo ld’s leading mul ina ional co po a ions. Acco dingly, since he beginning o he 1970s, a numbe o pape s ha e de e mined he global signi icance o a ci y based on he numbe o headqua e s and he ela i e size o mul ina ional companies (see Hyme , 1972; Heenan, 1977; Cohen, 1981; F iedmann, Wol , 1982; F ied- mann, 1986; Glickman, 1987, Alde son, Beck ield, 2004; Wall, Vande Knaap, 2011. Since hen, he size and ole o mul ina ional co po a ions has g own exponen ially, and he u ban geog aphy o he head- qua e loca ion o hese i ms is in cons an lux. Howe e , he in oduc ion o Sassen’s (1991) no- ion o a global ci y was ex emely impo an . Since hen, wo ld ci ies ha e been in es iga ed in a di e - en manne , wi h ad anced p oduce se ices a he o e on o a en ion. Fo example, Taylo (2004: 24–25) indica es ha ‘Sassen’s pu pose is no hing less han o seek o displace he ocus o a en ion om he amilia issues o he powe o la ge co - po a ions. Global ci ies a e mo e han “command cen es”, hey a e he i s “global se ice cen es” in u ban his o y. Thus, he global ci y app oach as- se s ha command and con ol is no hing mo e han a dec easingly impo an componen o hose ac o s ha de e mine global ci ies. Since Sassen’s book was i s published he Asia-Paci ic economy has been a ec ed by nume ous economic and i- nancial c ises, including he inancial c ises o 1997- 1998 (Hagga d, 2000) and 2007-2008 (Kawai e al., 2012). These c ises along wi h some na u al disas- e s, such as he Fukushima Daiichi nuclea disas- e , had a nega i e impac on he g ow h o Japan, which had long been he leading economy in he e- gion. As a esul o hese p ocesses, and hanks o he massi e g ow h o he Chinese economy, Chi- na has become he mos signi ican egional econ- omy, su passing he dec easing Japan. And ye , i seems ha he global ci y posi ion o Tokyo (wi h New Yo k and London on he op) emains s able. By con as , om 2006 Beijing has p esen ed he wo ld’s g ea es g ow h ega ding he command and con ol unc ions, since i hos s he la ges s a e- owned co po a ions in China. Thus, he luc ua ion o command and con ol unc ions in ci ies shows qui e clea ly he cu en economic p ocesses o e- s uc u ing. Gyö gy Csomós, Ben De udde / Bulle in o Geog aphy. Socio-economic Se ies 25 (2014): 69–80 71 The p ima y pu pose o his pape is o gauge and map hese changes o he Asia-Paci ic egion. Mo e speci ically, we assess he shi ing command and con ol posi ion o Asia-Paci ic’s ci ies in he pe iod 2006-2011. To his end, we use da a on he size, pe o mance and headqua e loca ion o ma- jo mul ina ional co po a ions (MNCs), one o he mos popula empi ical app oaches in his li e a- u e (e.g. Sho e al., 1996; God ey, Zhou, 1999; Alde son, Beck ield, 2004; Taylo , Csomós, 2012). The unde lying assump ion o his app oach is, o cou se, ha he o e all size and pe o mance o ma- jo MNCs headqua e ed in a ci y e lec he le el o esou ces ha a e being managed om i . As a co - olla y, a compa a i e analysis in space and ime o he le el o esou ces con olled om ci ies can in- o m us on how hese a e a ing in he global ci y sys em. The emainde o his pape is o ganized as ol- lows. We begin wi h a b ie discussion o he di - e en empi ical app oaches used in his li e a u e, and he posi ion o Asia-Paci ic ci ies in key w i - ings on global ci ies. We hen in oduce ou da a- se , explain how he da a a e ans o med o de ise a measu e o ci ies’ command and con ol posi ion, and explo e some o he majo changes ha ha e occu ed in he pe iod 2006-2011. We speci ically examine how he command and con ol unc ion o Tokyo and Beijing changed o e ime, and explo e he p ocesses behind his. We conclude wi h a dis- cussion and an o e iew o some possible a enues o u he esea ch. 2. asia-paci ic ci ies in he global ci ies li e a u e The i s s udies iden i ying he s a egic posi ion o ci ies in he global economy paid li le a en ion o he Asia-Paci ic egion. Fo ins ance, in The Wo ld Ci ies Hall (1966) was i mly conce ned wi h Eu- ope, as i only ocused on Tokyo alongside New Yo k and he Eu opean me opolises o London, Pa is, Rands ad, Rhine-Ruh , and Moscow. Howe - e , he ising in ol emen and powe o Asia-Paci ic in he global economy ul ima ely led o he consid- e a ion o o he ci ies in he egion. In a highly ci - ed pape en i led The Wo ld Ci y Hypo hesis, o ins ance, F iedmann (1986) included bo h Sydney and Singapo e as seconda y ci ies in addi ion o To- kyo. Meanwhile, in he i s edi ion o The Global Ci y, Sassen (1991: 174) an icipa ed he ising ole o Chinese ci ies in gene al and Hong Kong in pa - icula by poin ing ou ha Hong Kong has long been ‘a key in e sec ion o di e en wo lds, o e e a s a egic exchange node o i ms om China o he es o he wo ld and om he es o he wo ld o China, as well as among all he o e seas Chinese communi ies.’ Howe e , i was no un il he la e 1990s, when sys ema ic, la ge-scale empi ical analyses o ci ies’ posi ion in he global u ban sys em became mo e popula , ha he (inc easingly) impo an posi ion o Asia-Paci ic ci ies became i mly acknowledged. D awing on an analysis o he loca ion s a egies o globalized business se ices i ms – key agen s in he p oduc ion o ci ies’ capabili y o global con- ol – Bea e s ock e al. (1999) iden i ied Tokyo, Hong Kong and Singapo e as being pa o a selec g oup o 10 ‘Alpha’ global ci ies. Abou a decade la - e , d awing on simila da a, De udde e al. (2010) iden i ied 5 Asia-Paci ic ci ies as pa o he op 10, wi h Shanghai and Sydney joining Tokyo, Hong Kong and Singapo e. In addi ion, o he Asia-Paci ic ci ies now also ea u e qui e high in ecen ankings, no ably Beijing, Kuala Lumpu , Seoul, Mumbai, Ja- ka a, Taipei, Melbou ne, New Delhi and Bangkok. O he longi udinal analyses o he global u ban sys em d awing on di e en da a sou ces equal- ly poin o a shi owa ds Asia-Paci ic: Smi h and Timbe lake (2001), Taylo e al., 2007, and Mahu - ga e al. (2010), o ins ance, illus a e his h ough an examina ion o changing connec i i y pa e ns in ai passenge ne wo ks; Alde son e al. (2010) based an assessmen o he shi ing posi ion o ci ies in he co po a e ne wo ks o Fo une 500 compa- nies; and De udde e al. (2011) based on an anal- ysis o he impac o he global inancial c isis on ci ies in hei ole as in e na ional banking cen es. Such empi ical assessmen s ha e been accompanied by quali a i e app aisals o he p ospec o global ci y o ma ion in his egion, such as in Toh and Ng (2002), Yulong and Hamne (2002), Ng and Hills (2003), Sim e al. (2003), Olds and Yeung (2004), Ton s and Taylo , 2010, and Lai (2012) (1). Agains his backd op, his pape p o ides an upda e o how Asia-Paci ic ci ies ha e a ed as command and con ol cen es in he wake o he Gyö gy Csomós, Ben De udde / Bulle in o Geog aphy. Socio-economic Se ies 25 (2014): 69–80 72 se ies o inancial and economic c ises ha s a - ed un olding in la e 2006. As indica ed in he in- oduc ion, we he eby d aw on wha is pe haps he mos s aigh o wa d p oxy indica o o command and con ol: he le el o esou ces ‘con olled’ om a ci y as e idenced by he size and pe o mance o MNCs headqua e ed in ha ci y. Ou analysis is based on da a con ained in he well-known ‘Fo bes Global 2000’ ankings. These yea ly ankings lis he wo ld’s 2000 la ges companies, and he eby gi e in- o ma ion on ou pa ame e s o he i ms in ol ed: e enue, asse s, p o i and ma ke alue. Such an analysis has been p esen ed in he hough ul wo k o Lee e al. (2012), in which he au ho s also iden- i y command and con ol cen es on he basis o he headqua e s loca ions o MNCs as indica ed in he Fo une Global 500 Ranking. He e we e- ine hei app oach by cons uc ing a sub le index ha conside s he dynamic inancial pe o mance o co po a ions. Table 1 summa izes some key in o ma ion o he agg ega ed size and pe o mance o co po a- ions included in he Fo bes 2000 lis o 2006 and 2011, including a p elimina y geog aphical di e en- ia ion o he Asia-Paci ic egion. The able shows ha , in gene al, he e enue, asse s, p o i s and ma - ke alues o he wo ld’s 2000 leading companies ha e inc eased be ween 2006 and 2011. Howe e , i is di icul o in e p e his o e all end as i may ha e di e en causes, anging om an imp o ed i m pe o mance o inc eased co po a e concen a- ion due o me ge s and acquisi ions. Howe e , he da a a e in e p e able in a compa a i e con ex . And om his pe spec i e, i is clea ha he ela i e impo ance o i ms headqua e ed in Asia-Paci ic has isen much as e han elsewhe e in he wo ld (see also Taylo , Csomós, 2012; Csomós, De udde , 2013). Fo ins ance, while he asse s and ma ke al- ues o he wo ld’s leading 2000 companies ha e on a e age isen by 56.1% and 19.2% espec i ely, o i ms headqua e ed in Asia-Paci ic hese igu es a e 104.9% and 64.8% espec i ely. Howe e , his huge g ow h in Asia-Paci ic hides majo di e ences: o he Fo bes 2000 i ms headqua e ed in Japan o ins ance, he e has on a e age been a mo e mod- es g ow h in asse s (+32,4%) in he ace o a de- cline in ma ke alue (-17,9%), while he agg ega ed alues o i ms headqua e ed in China ha e seen g ow h o 567.5% in asse s and 280.5% in ma ke alue espec i ely. able 1. Fo bes 2000 indica o s o Asia-Paci ic in 2006 and 2011 numbe o hQs e enues (billion uSD) asse s (billion uSD) p o i s (billion uSD) ma ke alues (billion uSD) 2006 2011 2006 2011 2006 2011 2006 2011 2006 2011 Aus alia 36 41 286 489 1,425 3,181 34 55 538 957 China 64 166 393 2,044 1,695 11,314 67 249 1,008 3,835 India 33 57 162 466 503 1,681 18 50 291 817 Indonesia 7 11 16 33 76 165 3 7 33 114 Japan 320 260 3,417 4,036 11,183 14,806 122 89 3,249 2,666 Malaysia 14 19 31 80 213 493 5 11 76 217 New Zealand 1 0 3 0 5 0 1 0 7 0 Philippines 1 4 2 18 5 38 1 2 6 31 Singapo e 14 20 66 148 355 769 8 18 123 243 Sou h Ko ea 50 61 559 961 1,283 2,319 39 46 429 635 Taiwan 41 40 175 385 775 1,138 23 24 304 439 Thailand 13 17 45 138 185 378 6 11 62 141 Asia-Paci ic 594 696 5,155 8,798 17,703 36,282 327 562 6,126 10,095 Res o he Wo ld 1,406 1,304 18,976 23,548 70,788 101,856 1,385 1,799 24,905 26,898 WORLD 2,000 2,000 24,131 32,346 88,491 138,138 1,712 2,361 31,031 36,993 Sou ce: Fo bes ‘The Global 2000’ (2006/2011) Gyö gy Csomós, Ben De udde / Bulle in o Geog aphy. Socio-economic Se ies 25 (2014): 69–80 73 3. command and con ol cen es in he asia-paci ic egion To examine he shi ing posi ion o indi idual ci - ies in he Fo bes 2000 da a in g ea e de ail, we look a he da a summa ized in Table 1 h ough he p ism o me opoli an a eas, he eby combining in o ma ion on e enue, asse s, p o i s and ma ke alues in o a single measu e. Fi s , we de ine ou uni s o analysis as me opoli an a eas as dema - ca ed by he espec i e na ional s a is ical o ices. Fo ins ance, in ou amewo k ‘Tokyo’ co esponds wi h he so-called ‘Tokyo U ban Employmen A ea’, which includes he ci ies o Chiba, Kawasaki and Yokohama. Second, a he han me ely coun ing he numbe o Fo bes 2000 headqua e s in me - opoli an a eas we combine in o ma ion on he key indica o s o i m size and pe o mance. Ac- co ding o Sassen (2006: 107), a numbe o a ia- bles de e mine which headqua e s concen a e in majo in e na ional inancial and business cen es. Fi s , how we measu e o simply coun headqua - e s makes a di e ence. F equen ly, he key measu e is he size o he i m in e ms o employmen and o e all e enue. The numbe o hose employed is i ele an om he pe spec i e o command and con ol. Tu no e by i sel is no indica i e o any- hing ei he : a comme cial company may ha e a big u no e and alow ma ke alue, while a pha ma- ceu ical company may be e y aluable despi e ha - ing a smalle u no e . Also, he asse s o a bank, whose balance is nega i e in a gi en yea , may ex- ceed he asse s o any p oducing company. Since Fo bes 2000 uses ou c ucial inancial pa ame e s o companies — on which i s anking is based —, we combined hese ou pa ame e s in o a single measu emen . The le el o command and con ol CACx,y o a gi en ci y x in a gi en yea y is he eby calcula ed as ollows: , , , , , , , , , 14 n x y x y x y x y x y R A P MW CAC = + + + =∑ Whe e: R ,x,y = he p opo ion o e enues in he o al da ase ; A ,x,y = he p opo ion o asse s in he o al da ase ; P ,x,y = he p opo ion o p o i in he o al da ase ; MV ,x,y = he p opo ion o ma ke alue in he o al da ase ; = i m; n = o al numbe o i ms headqua e ed in ci y x in yea y. The me hodology (also used by Csomós, 2013) ha we use he e has wo impo an ad an ages: On he one hand, he numbe o companies ha Fo bes ook in o accoun is s able (2000) and hus he calcula ions can be compa ed. On he o h- e hand, since CAC is an index wi hou a uni o measu emen , in la ion can be dis ega ded. These in u n allow us o compa e eliable da a om 2006 and 2011 (o any o he yea ). The Fo bes Global 2000 classi ies co po a ions in o 80 indus- y ca ego ies on he basis o hei ac i i y p o iles. In he analysis, we ha e eclassi ied he co po a- ions ope a ing in hese indus ies in o he basic sec o s (Consume Disc e iona y, Consume S a- ples, Ene gy, Financials, Heal h Ca e, Indus ials, In o ma ion Technology, Ma e ials, Telecommuni- ca ion Se ices, and U ili ies) o he Global Indus- y Classi ica ion S anda d (GICS) de eloped and used by MSCI (h p://www.msci.com/p oduc s/in- dexes/sec o /gics/gics_s uc u e.h ml) and S and- a d & Poo ’s. Table 2 p esen he 20 mos impo an ci ies in Asia-Paci ic in e ms o hei le el o CAC in bo h 2006 and 2011. Table 3 anks he 20 ci ies ha ha e gained and los mos CAC in absolu e e ms in his pe iod. Reade s a e e e ed o he ables o an o e iew o he a ious changes; he e we p o ide a b ie o e iew o he key shi s. Gyö gy Csomós, Ben De udde / Bulle in o Geog aphy. Socio-economic Se ies 25 (2014): 69–80 74 able 2. Top 20 ci ies by CAC in 2006 and 2011 ank ci y coun y cac 2006 ank ci y coun y cac 2011 1 Tokyo Japan 37.71 1 Tokyo Japan 23.15 2 Seoul Sou h Ko ea 8.43 2 Beijing China 18.68 3 Beijing China 6.45 3 Hong Kong Hong Kong/China 8.11 4 Osaka Japan 5.90 4 Seoul Sou h Ko ea 7.16 5 Hong Kong Hong Kong/China 5.66 5 Melbou ne Aus alia 3.88 6 Melbou ne Aus alia 4.06 6 Sydney Aus alia 3.57 7 Sydney Aus alia 3.55 7 Mumbai India 3.28 8 Taipei Ci y Taiwan 3.21 8 Osaka Japan 2.70 9 Toyo a Japan 2.71 9 Taipei Ci y Taiwan 2.55 10 Singapo e Singapo e 1.94 10 Shanghai China 2.49 11 Mumbai India 1.88 11 Singapo e Singapo e 2.36 12 Nagoya Japan 1.33 12 Shenzhen China 1.77 13 Bangkok Thailand 1.18 13 Delhi India 1.60 14 Delhi India 1.15 14 Kuala Lumpu Malaysia 1.56 15 Kuala Lumpu Malaysia 1.15 15 Bangkok Thailand 1.50 16 Kyo o Japan 1.02 16 Toyo a Japan 1.24 17 Hsinchu Ci y Taiwan 0.92 17 Nagoya Japan 0.78 18 Ka iya Japan 0.73 18 Kyo o Japan 0.67 19 Shanghai China 0.63 19 Pe h Aus alia 0.63 20 Fukuoka Japan 0.54 20 Hsinchu Ci y Taiwan 0.62 Sou ce: Fo bes ‘The Global 2000’ (2006/2011) able 3. 20 ci ies wi h la ges posi i e and nega i e CAC change be ween 2006 and 2011 ank ci y coun y posi i e cac 11-06 ank ci y coun y nega i e cac 11-06 1 Beijing China 12.23 1 Tokyo Japan -14.56 2 Hong Kong Hong Kong/China 2.46 2 Osaka Japan -3.20 3 Shanghai China 1.85 3 Toyo a Japan -1.47 4 Mumbai India 1.40 4 Seoul Sou h Ko ea -1.27 5 Shenzhen China 1.33 5 Taipei Taiwan -0.66 6 Delhi India 0.45 6 Nagoya Japan -0.54 7 Singapo e Singapo e 0.42 7 Kyo o Japan -0.35 8 Kuala Lumpu Malaysia 0.41 8 Hsinchu Ci y Taiwan -0.30 9 Pe h Aus alia 0.35 9 Ka iya Japan -0.28 10 Guangzhou China 0.33 10 Hi oshima Japan -0.27 11 Kolka a India 0.32 11 Fukuoka Japan -0.22 12 Bangkok Thailand 0.32 12 Hamama su Japan -0.19 13 Changsha China 0.16 13 Melbou ne Aus alia -0.19 14 Manila Philippines 0.16 14 Pohang Sou h Ko ea -0.18 15 Ulsan Sou h Ko ea 0.14 15 Nagano Japan -0.16 16 Jaka a Indonesia 0.14 16 Sendai Japan -0.11 17 Hyde abad India 0.13 17 Mailiao Taiwan -0.11 18 Taoyuan Ci y Taiwan 0.13 18 Welling on New Zealand -0.10 19 Kobe Japan 0.13 19 Okayama Japan -0.10 20 Foshan China 0.12 20 Toyama Japan -0.10 Sou ce: Fo bes ‘The Global 2000’ (2006/2011) Gyö gy Csomós, Ben De udde / Bulle in o Geog aphy. Socio-economic Se ies 25 (2014): 69–80 75 As Table 2 shows Tokyo emains Asia-Paci - ic’s leading CAC cen e be ween 2006 and 2011, al hough i loses much o i s s a u e (i.e. a 40% d op). I is clea ha his spec acula decline is a mo e gene al ea u e o Japanese ci ies: he agg e- ga ed le el o CAC o Tokyo, Osaka, Toyo a, Nagoya and Kyo o has hal ed o e his pe iod (Fig. 1). The opposi e end can be obse ed o Chinese ci ies: Beijing’s CAC ises wi h abou 300% o a le el close o ha o Tokyo. Meanwhile, o he Chinese ci ies equally a e well, wi h Hong Kong, Shanghai, Shen- zhen, Guangzhou, Changsa and Foshan also ea- u ing amongs he ci ies wi h he la ges gains in CAC. Howe e , al hough we a e clea ly wi nessing a quasi-gene al ise o Chinese ci ies in hei le - el o CAC, i is also clea ha his g ow h is i mly ocused on a limi ed se o ci ies, wi h especial- ly Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Guangzhou and Shenzhen eme ging as ‘ he big 5’ (wi h pa icula ly he i s h ee ci ies domina ing) (see also Zhao e al., 2004; Zhao e al., 2005). Seoul also loses some o i s CAC, albei ha his decline is a less d ama ic han o o Japanese ci - ies. None heless, because o he quick ise o Chi- nese ci ies, Seoul declines om second o ou h posi ion in he Asia-Paci ic egion. Taiwanese ci - ies also lose ou , wi h Taipei, Hsinchu and Mailiao ea u ing amongs he 20 Asia-Paci ic ci ies showing he la ges decline in CAC. Meanwhile, Indian ci ies gene ally pos inc eases in CAC, albei less ma ked han is he case o Chinese ci ies. And inally, Aus- alian ci ies emain mo e o less s able, albei ha – d i en by he esou ce bubble – Pe h displays in- c eased le els o CAC. 4. Discussion Figu e 1 sugges s ha , agains he backd op o he o e all ising impo ance o ci ies he Asia-Paci ic egion, he e is a majo shi in command and con- ig. 1. Geog aphical loca ion o ci ies wi h he la ges posi i e and nega i e CAC change Sou ce: Fo bes ‘The Global 2000’ (2006/2011) Gyö gy Csomós, Ben De udde / Bulle in o Geog aphy. Socio-economic Se ies 25 (2014): 69–80 76 ol om Japanese ci ies o Chinese ci ies, pa ic- ula ly epi omized by he decline o Tokyo and he upsu ge o Beijing. Al hough he apid ise o Chi- nese ci ies may no be a big su p ise gi en ecen eadings o a Wes - o-Eas shi in he global econ- omy (Logan, 2002; Yulong, Hamne , 2002; Zhao e al., 2003; Lin, 2004; De udde e al., 2011; Li e al., 2012), i is wo h emphasizing ha China’s g ow h in CAC is no me ely a ma e o ‘ca ching up’ wi h he likes o Tokyo, Osaka, Seoul and Taipei – he la e lose ou , so ha we a e also obse ing siz- able in a- egional dynamics in he gene al con- ex o Asia-Paci ic’s moun ing impo ance. This in a- egional dynamism makes he Asia-Paci ic as a whole one o he mos dynamic egions o his kind o analyses and ela ed esea ch agendas: nei- he in No h Ame ica no in Eu ope – whe e he longs anding dominance o New Yo k o London is no eally challenged – do we obse e a deg ee o change and dynamism ha comes anyway close o ha o he Asia-Paci ic egion (Taylo , Csomós, 2012; Csomós, De udde , 2013). Al hough i can be expec ed ha Beijing will soon o e ake Tokyo as leading command and con ol cen e in Asia- Paci ic when ocusing on his pa icula measu e- men me hodology, hese esul need o be pu in pe spec i e o a numbe o easons, he wo mos impo an ones being (a) he di e en ial g ow h a- jec o ies o speci ic economic sec o s and (b) he impac o he s a e on he command and con ol pa e ns o Chinese ci ies. Fi s , a close look a he s uc u e o he a ious indus y sec o s o he ci ies shows ha he o e - all pic u e u ns ou o be much mo e complex. Amongs he Asia-Paci ic ci ies examined he e, To- kyo has he mos ‘balanced’ s uc u e ac oss sec- o s – he e is a leas one headqua e ac oss all 10 GICS sec o s; New Yo k, London and Pa is a e he h ee only o he ci ies ha ha e headqua e s ac oss all sec o s. The MNCs headqua e ed in Beijing a e associa ed wi h only eigh sec o s, wi h he Con- sume S aples and he Heal h Ca e sec o s missing. Table 4 shows ha be ween 2006 and 2011 he CAC o all he sec o s o Tokyo dec eased, wi h he inan- cial and indus ial sec o s, which we e mos a ec ed by he economic c isis, su e ing he mos signi i- can losses. On he o he hand, in Beijing, i is only he Telecommunica ion se ices sec o ha showed a small dec ease, while he o he sec o s exhibi ed g ow h. In he pe iod examined he e, he inancial sec o showed he as es expansion: he g ow h a e in 2006–2011 (+9.19%) was la ge han he absolu e CAC o he Financials sec o in Tokyo in 2011. As a consequence, he inancials sec o ’s con ibu ion o he combined CAC o he Chinese capi al now almos s ands a 50%, while in he case o Tokyo his a e is only 35%. In addi ion, in he case o Be- ijing he CAC o he second- anking ene gy sec o is only one- hi d o he inancial sec o ’s CAC, wi h he o me sec o ’s g ow h dynamics being smalle , and in he o he sec o s hese a e i ually negligi- ble (see Table 4). In a 2011 a icle in he New Yo k Times, Paul K ugman, sugges ed ha oday China is going h ough wha Japan wen h ough in he la e 1980s, and he Uni ed S a es in he mid-2000s, since one o he main sou ces o i s GDP g ow h is he o e hea ed in es men boom in he eal es a e sec o ( eal es a e in es men has oughly doubled as a sha e o Chinese he GDP since 2000). Such a eal es a e bubble may easily lead o an econom- ic c isis ha abo e all shows in he inancial sec- o , as clea ly exempli ied by Japan’s ‘los decade’ o he inancial c isis ha s a ed in he Uni ed S a es in 2007 and which o ced he global economy in o c isis. Such a inancial c isis would cause se ious damage o he Chinese banking sys em, and – gi - en he dominance o inance in Beijing’s command and con ol s a u e - o Beijing’s posi ion. Second, as ou measu e pu s a lo o emphasis on a speci ic kind o p owess, i.e. he command and con ol exe cised om la ge MNCs, i ends o ‘ a- ou ’ Beijing o e o he Chinese ci ies (see Zhao e al., 2005). Gi en he p ominen in luence o he Chi- nese s a e and he associa ed need o go h ough a lo o go e nmen channels, Beijing’s posi ion is p obably exagge a ed. Al hough o he s udies ha e equally poin ed o he e y une en in ol emen o Chinese ci ies in he global ci y sys em wi h Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong assuming he majo posi- ions (Gu, Tang, 2002; Zhao e al., 2003; De udde e al., 2010; Chu, 2008; Zhao, 2010; Wang e al., 2011.; Lee e al., 2012; Zhao e al., 2012), he dominance o Beijing is nowhe e nea he le els sugges ed he e. Indeed, ou empi ical pe spec i e p obably a ou s Beijing gi en he di ision o labou be ween Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong in he Chinese space- economy (see Lai, 2012), whe eby ‘majo ’ companies will o en be headqua e ed in Beijing gi en hei li- Gyö gy Csomós, Ben De udde / Bulle in o Geog aphy. Socio-economic Se ies 25 (2014): 69–80 77 aisons wi h my iad go e nmen channels (Zhao e al., 2004); hus al hough a ocus on globalized busi- ness se ices i ms as in Bea e s ock e al. (1999) and De udde e al. (2010) o on ai line connec i i- y as in Ma sumo o (2007) and Ma and Timbe lake (2012) would p obably sugges s simila pa e ns, he e would likely be a mo e balanced dis ibu ion be ween Shanghai, Beijing and Hong Kong. able 4. Changes o Tokyo’s and Beijing’s combined CAC in di e en GISC sec o s, 2006–2011 GicS Sec o s cac, okyo 2006 cac, okyo 2011 change o cac, okyo cac, Beijing 2006 cac, Beijing 2011 change o cac, Beijing Consume Disc e iona y 4.24 2.25 - 1.98 0.00 0.05 + 0.05 Consume S aples 2.10 1.36 - 0.73 0.00 0.00 + 0.00 Ene gy 1.03 0.91 - 0.12 2.97 4.41 + 1.44 Financials 12.88 8.07 - 4.81 2.14 11.33 + 9.19 Heal h Ca e 0.79 0.70 - 0.09 0.00 0.00 + 0.00 Indus ials 8.25 4.80 - 3.44 0.19 1.19 + 1.00 In o ma ion Technology 2.61 1.77 - 0.84 0.00 0.17 + 0.17 Ma e ials 2.95 1.27 - 1.68 0.37 0.82 + 0.45 Telecommunica ions Se ices 1.87 1.43 - 0.45 0.54 0.36 - 0.19 U ili ies 1.00 0.58 - 0.42 0.23 0.37 + 0.14 Sou ce: Fo bes ‘The Global 2000’ (2006/2011) The implica ions o Lai’s (2012) hough ul wo k on he possible impac o he di e se unc ions o Chinese ci ies on ou esul s leads us o a concluding o e iew o some a enues o u he esea ch. Fi s , i is clea ha he emi o ou analysis needs o be ex ended h ough quali a i e esea ch (e.g. Lai, 2012) and/o o he ypes o quan i a i e esea ch (e.g. Li e al., 2012). Fo ins ance, Al s am e al. (2009: 206) obse e ha Chinese companies ha e ecen ly s a - ed o become mo e ac i e in he global economy in e ms o buying o eign compe i o s and/o po en- ial echnology pa ne s, and his p ocess con ib- u es o ou obse a ion o he egional and global s eng hening o he CAC posi ion o Chinese ci - ies o he de imen o Japanese ci ies (2). In addi- ion, acco ding o The Wall S ee Jou nal (2011) his g owing in ol emen o Chinese MNCs in FDI p ocesses has been accele a ing in pa allel wi h he inancial/economic c ises in he Eu opean Union, as his has made Eu opean companies mo e likely a - ge s o po en ial acquisi ion mo es. The ecen ise in ma ke alue and asse s o Chinese i ms, hen, is ela ed o hei inc eased in ol emen in FDI, and inco po a ing and making sense o hese e olu ions is an ob ious ex ension o he esul s p esen ed he e. Second, i is clea ha when he globaliza ion/ /u baniza ion-nexus is na owed down o he spe- ci ic a ea o ‘command and con ol’ we may lose sigh o my iad o he p ocesses. Wu and Ma (2006: 192), o ins ance, ha e a gued ha when he a - en ion is shi ed owa ds he ‘ on ie o globali- za ion’ whe e many ci ies in de eloping coun ies o newly indus ializing economies a e compe ing o global ci y s a us, indica o s such as MNC head- qua e s become less impo an . Ra he , wha ma - e s is he essence and scale o ci ies’ ans o ma ion a he han hei s a us pe se, and much mo e wo k needs o be done in his ega d. Thi d, i is also possible o ex end and e ine ou speci ic app oach, o ins ance by inco po a - ing anumbe o in e ac ing dynamics. Fo ins ance, ap elimina y analysis o ou da ase sugges s ha he ise o Beijing and Pe h is abo e all con ined o hei ole in speci ic sec o s, i.e. inancials and mining e- spec i ely. The changes in global CAC desc ibed he e, hen, do no only e lec he shi ing posi ion o bo h ci ies, bu also he ising inancializa ion o he economy and he asse bubble in China on he one hand and he mining boom on he o he hand. Adding a sec o ial elemen o his kind o analysis would hus lend mo e analy ical weigh o he esul s. And ou h and inally, i migh be sugges ed ha he gene al di ide be ween Japan/Taiwan on he one hand and China/India on he o he hand