A number of reports have recently been carried in the news media about international and domestic studies of Chinese cities.

These studies placed major cities under scrutiny in terms of their competitiveness, liveability, charm, cost of living, healthcare, attractiveness to foreign investment and average per capita housing space.

For instance, Beijing is considered the most attractive to foreign investment and comes third in terms of its average per capita housing.

As far as the cost of living is concerned, Beijing is the 14th most expensive city in the world, according to a report by Mercer Human Resource Consulting, which is based in the United States.

However, another study, the result of collaborative research between the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and an American university, placed Beijing 70th in the world in terms of competitiveness.

Others are more elaborate in their research. For instance, "A Study of Liveable Cities in China" collected more than 10,000 questionnaires from residents in Beijing, who gave a score of 63.8 as their level of satisfaction with life in the Chinese capital.

The studies have generated heated discussions on the Internet and in the media, with people raising questions about the priorities of those running cities such as Beijing.

Some people have gone as far as to criticize Beijing for favouring the rich while neglecting the poor and the vulnerable.

The studies offer a broad range of perspectives to appraise the capabilities of urban administrators, but the public has yet to know how much these studies sway the policy-makers in terms of their decisions and blueprints.

We cannot say that our current city administrators are ill informed.

Many have travelled abroad. It is said that public servants above a certain level in Shanghai have the chance to go on publicly funded overseas study tours every year.

Chinese cities have no lack of international experts, who have come in droves to give their opinions on various subjects.

However, the performance of officials and experts does not always correspond with public expectations, as these studies seem to indicate.

It goes without saying that all Chinese urban administrators, those in Beijing included, have more daunting tasks than their international counterparts, as they have to deal with the complex problems that exist in both developing and developed countries.

They still have to feel their own way about, as they tackle the problems of a huge population, an ageing society, the lack of a social safety net, as well as the wealth gap and disparities between urban and rural residents, among many others.

No other cities in the world provide ready references.

It has been even more difficult to avoid others' mistakes, as cities, even growing rural towns and villages are grappling with the problems of environmental pollution.

That is why these studies, as well knowledge and suggestions from overseas, are so important.

They remind us that urban development and the people's well-being should not be judged solely by the city's revenue, how many new roads or buildings are constructed, or the growth of the city's GDP.

As Ecorys Research and Consulting, a European-based economics consulting firm, shows in its studies, a city's competitiveness is like a tree.

While its talents, innovation, connectivity and entrepreneurship serve as the roots, its industrial structure and productivity as its trunk and employment, income, profits and investment, taxes and contributions as its main branches, it must be able to bear leaves and fruit for welfare, social inclusion and sustainability.

Email: lixing@chinadaily.com.cn

(China Daily 07/06/2006 page4)