Here is some of the criteria that was used, according to the acticle. It seems to easily answer your question.

"To create this year's rankings, we analyzed 65 cities with more than 1 million people across every region of the globe, using definitive sources to tally everything from a city's business activity, human capital, and information exchange to its cultural experience and political engagement. Data ranged from how many Fortune Global 500 company headquarters were in a city to the size of its capital markets and the flow of goods through its airports and ports, as well as factors such as the number of embassies, think tanks, political organizations, and museums"

This does indeed easily answer my question. It's a study based on creating a data-set with such unambiguously quantifiable inputs as "cultural experience" and "political engagement".

Whatever happened to qualitative data? Or common sense?

Wouldn't these particular conclusions signal a need to reevaluate the methodology used to compile the results, as opposed to the compulsion to simply chuck them into a finished product and slap a bow on it?

Well, to get back to cody, Shanghai has its fair share of Fortune 500 companies, the second-busiest port after Singapore, large concentrations of consulates, academic think-tanks, sixth largest stock market, and a fast-growing large economy.

So, I am a little confused too why would Madrid, Berlin, Vienna, and Boston would be placed so high. Of these 4, only Boston beats Shanghai in GDP size (according to the rank, which I suppose neglects PPP value of the yuan). Other than GDP size, Boston pretty much has nothing to offer, really. Port? International organizations? I suppose MIT and Harvard University can be counted in, but I thought they are in Cambridge, MA, which technically ain't Boston proper.

Ok Cody, your list of criteria cannot possibly explain how Buenos Aires is at 22 while São Paulo is at 35. Do you even know the two cities and their business community?

Plus, São Paulo may not be top 10, or even top 20. But would anyone think it has less global influence than Munich? Vienna? Geneva, for Christ's sake?

I definitely agree with songshu: the list must have been assembled by monkeys throwing darts. Not that the world should stop on its tracks due to that. But ATK and FP should be ashamed.

As a New Yorker, I'm perhaps biased in thinking we were appropriated ranked. Otherwise, this list seems about as arbitrary as throwing darts.

However, in defense of Boston -- it exerts a lot of soft influence. Excluding all other factors, simply as the home of Harvard (Cambridge), the most influential University in the world, it is worthy.

Consider the conduit of power that runs through that one institution to international power-centers in both the public and private sector in every international city on the map. How many movers and shakers in Hong Kong and Shanghai have a degree from Harvard? I'll answer that: A Lot. There is a "Harvard Club," serving the alumni in every major city in the world, including both Shanghai and Hong Kong (HC of HK boasts a membership of 1800 alumni on their website). How many relationships are nurtured within those walls? By extension, that's the type of influence Boston has around the world. Every one of those alumni is a connection back to Boston, many of whom are power players in their sphere, and their relationships with their former classmates are a backdoor to the halls of power in every city in the world.

But I agree, the list is certainly heavily Western centric.

My 2¢

which kind of discussion style is that as initiated above (Monkeys). Every ranking can be critized, but there is no need to personally attack the people doing it - what can be attacked is not to publish the detailed methodology.

Influence might be valued different, the political capital of China is Beijing while Shanghai is the economical capital, New York might not be the political capital of the U.S.A, but has the (factual) HQ of the United Nations (Geneva might be the nominal one) while being a econimic and cultural hub in the U.S. From a Shanghai perspective- as outlined here - why is Beijing ranked higher (guess the economic aspect was not the single deceisive)? Frankfurt is the economic centre of the mainland european banking and stock market and HQ to the European Central Bank. Vienna has the the HQ of OPEC and the third one of the United Nations, including the IAEO. As stated the ranking gives an idea of the city's influence on and integration with global markets, culture, and innovation. So, don't forget e.g. the cultural part (opera houses, muesuems etc) and that politics play a big part in influence.

I don't think it would be very easy to make a case for any city other than New York if one were giving out a title for the "Commercial and Cultural Capital of the World". Beijing is simply not in the same league - politically important for China, perhaps, but not particularly economically powerful, especially globally, and hardly diverse.

Thanks for pointing out the mistake. It has been corrected.

It is true that not many people take trains in Los Angeles, but the multilingual nature of the city is arguably best appreciated on public transit. Take any bus down Wilshire Boulevard and you will find people readings newspapers in Farsi, Korean, Russian, Spanish ...

The caption reads "Passengers ride a Metro Link train at a station near high-rise loft buildings under construction on Dec. 14, 2006 . . . "

First of all, it is a Metro Rail Blue Line train. Metrolink is a commuter train service to the suburbs while Metro Rail is a rail rapid transit system.

Secondly, LA's future as a world city is contingent on achieving two of the things that the caption mentions - building more rail transit and increasing density.

The former will likely get speeded up via the Mayor's 30/10 initiative which will use an infrastructure bank type process to build a large amount of rail transit (perhaps the largest amount built in the US since NYC early last century) in 10 years.

The later is happening apace in Downtown and Hollywood and is expected to follow the Westside subway extension.

If either of these initiatives fail LA will not be a world city but just a cooler version of Dallas or Phoenix. Thus, the picture is quite prescient.

Los Angeles future as a world city is really not that much in jeopardy.
Examine the facts: Los Angeles remains a top notch Research & Development center in the area of BioTech, communications/media and Aerospace (still to the day). Los Angeles has great universities it is among a handful of US Metro area with 3 top 25 US universities in it's mist (UCLA, USC, CAL Ins of Tech). No other US city has more museums. Many innovative business concepts & trends are hatched in the greater Los Angeles area. The city is the largest on the west coast and remains the most strategic business gateway/interface to China and many other Asian and Pacific Rim nations. Los Angeles is a vastly diverse city. The city represents an enormous amount of human capital in terms of ideas, culture and influence. Los Angeles biggest challenge is also one of its main assets: Hollywood. Hollywood's star shines so brightly that it covers many other things up. Additionally, as mentioned already,Los Angeles should continue to speed it's move into higher density/ rapid transit/ bicycle forms of living and transportation.

You kidding? Dubai? A bunch of sheiks with (formerly) more cash than sense throwing money around the desert in riduculous vanity projects does not a global city make. If they are successful in turning Dubai into a regional hub, it might make the top 50 in 10 years.

Shanghai is an important export and manufacturing center for China, and it certainly is vibrant and international - for China. But, let's face it, China still has no globe trotting multiantionals. Maybe someday.

Singapore seems to be about correctly ranked - since it is independent it is likely a better candidate than Hong Kong for 'Asia's Global City.'

"But, let's face it, China still has no globe trotting multiantionals. Maybe someday."

Sir, I just checked the Fortune Global 500 list, and I discovered that 3 of the top 10 in this year's list are Chinese (they got 46 total vs. 139 for the US). I don't think Shanghai should be in the top 5, because the city's financial market is, well, closed to the outside world thanks to Chinese capital control. But, given its achievement so far and further potential to grow, it deserves somewhere to be between rank 10 to 15, imo.

Thanks for pointing out the mistake about the city hall. It has been corrected. Although Mozart was born in Salzburg, he did spend many years in Vienna.

Brussels = capital of European Union.

Chicago = ..., well I guess that's where Obama comes from, so it must be very important.

As a Chicagoan who has visited Shanghai, Beijing, New Delhi and Mumbai within the last 5 years, I have to say that this list is not at all FUBAR or is blatantly western.

Chicago is a transportation, communications, and industry hub with dozens of Fortune 500 companies like Boeing based here. It's one of the largest convention centers in the world and has a massive economy with 12 million people in Chicago's metro area. I can tell you that Chicago deserves to be higher than any of the cities you listed.

In any case, nobody could make a list like this that everyone agrees with. I think Washington should be higher, but I don't work at FP, so I don't get a vote.

Boeing may be based in Chicago but that is only its headquarters. The majority of their operations (Engineering R&D, final assembly, flight testing) is still done in Seattle. Picking a city because of the tax credits it offers, does not a global city make. Chicago does have a larger economy than Shanghai, although that lead drops when PPP is taken into account. Chicago is more an economic focal point for America whereas Shanghai is China's central economic gateway to the world (Hong Kong lost this attribute recently).

Ugh, the EU. Just because Brussels is the capital of that unwiedly, oft ineffectual extra-national entity, does not vault it past capitals like Beijing or Moscow, both of which have larger economies than Brussels (not to mention COMPLETE control over their global-affecting nations).

And yes I definitely agree Washington D.C. should have been ranked far higher.

Again this listing needs extra work. Too many intangibles and far too much focus on Western resources.

Here are a few hints as to why Chicago is ranked so highly.
(1) In FP's table, "The Global Cities Index 2010," note the "Rank by GDP" column.
(2) Note FP's page on the methodology of their ranking, "Global Cities Index Methodology."
(3) There is a ranking of cities in MasterCard's "Worldwide Centers of Commerce Index" (which can be google'd). The top 15 cities in MasterCard's ranking of 75 cities in 2008 (the latest published) are:
(1) London; (2) NewYork; (3) Tokyo; (4) Singapore; (5) Chicago; (6) HongKong; (7) Paris; (8) Frankfurt; (9) Seoul; (10) Amsterdam; (11) Madrid; (12) Sydney; (13) Toronto; (14) Copenhagen; (15) Zurich.
See the body of the document for extensive detail on the methodology used for this ranking.
(Hope this helps.)

Here's a little more background on Chicago's position in the FP ranking.
Chicago's strengths for the ranking include: the presence of major capital markets, a highly educated work force, an ability to attract international students to its universities, the presence of a number of Fortune 500 company headquarters, and the size and diversity of its immigrant population.
Chicago moved up to #6, from #8 in FP's previous ranking, due to: increases in major corporate headquarters, increases in business and international conferences, and improved rankings in air freight and in visual and performing arts. Regarding the arts,...
On the front page of London-based Timeout's "worldwide" website, there are links to separate websites for 61 different cities. Seven of those links are shown in bold font, and four of those seven are shown in enlarged bold font. Those four are links to Timeout's websites for these cities: London, New York, Chicago and Sydney.

Chicago is also the only American city to have won championships in all four of America's major professional sports during the past quarter century.

Thanks for pointing out the mistake. It has been corrected.

Here's a little more background on Chicago's position in the FP ranking.
Chicago's strengths for the ranking include: the presence of major capital markets, a highly educated work force, an ability to attract international students to its universities, the presence of a number of Fortune 500 company headquarters, and the size and diversity of its immigrant population.
Chicago moved up to #6, from #8 in FP's previous ranking, due to: increases in major corporate headquarters, increases in business and international conferences, and improved rankings in air freight and in visual and performing arts. Regarding the arts,...
On the front page of London-based Timeout's "worldwide" website, there are links to separate websites for 61 different cities. Seven of those links are shown in bold font, and four of those seven are shown in enlarged bold font. Those four are links to Timeout's websites for these cities: London, New York, Chicago and Sydney.

Chicago is also the only American city to have won championships in all four of America's major professional sports during the past quarter century.

It's cause Chicagans can unnerstand youse Australians when youse say Sydney, but not when youse say Melbourne :)

For the most part, your list seems to be "important intellectual, financial, and political stuff happened here in the past" for the most part. Under that criteria, I would have to place Athens, Rome, Cairo, Xi'an, Baghdad, etc. Because they have at least 3000 more years of such important things having happened in them than Boston has.

Hell, if you want to pick the nexus of important intellectual, financial, and political activity, I would pick Jerusalem.

And as a fellow East Coaster, it is only people from Boston who think that "modern democracy" was invented there.

For the most part, your list seems to be "important intellectual, financial, and political stuff happened here in the past" for the most part. Under that criteria, I would have to place Athens, Rome, Cairo, Xi'an, Baghdad, etc. Because they have at least 3000 more years of such important things having happened in them than Boston has.

Hell, if you want to pick the nexus of important intellectual, financial, and political activity, I would pick Jerusalem.

And as a fellow East Coaster, it is only people from Boston who think that "modern democracy" was invented there.

For the most part, your list seems to be "important intellectual, financial, and political stuff happened here in the past" for the most part. Under that criteria, I would have to place Athens, Rome, Cairo, Xi'an, Baghdad, etc. Because they have at least 3000 more years of such important things having happened in them than Boston has.

If you want to pick the nexus of important intellectual, financial, and political activity, you might want to pick Jerusalem.

And as a fellow East Coaster, it is only people from Boston who think that modern democracy was invented there.

My mistake. The article states that it is the biggest ring in Spain, which it is, not in the world.

My apologies