A city’s brand positioning plays a significant role in attracting international organizations. Photo: TUCHONG

In contemporary international relations, international organizations are not only a key force in addressing global public issues, but also a stage for strategic competition between nations. From a national perspective, striving for hosting an international organization can demonstrate a country’s comprehensive national strength and international standing. Moreover, the host country enjoys the inherent advantage of proximity, allowing it to exert influence over the organization in areas such as system governance, knowledge, personnel and so on. From a city’s perspective, attracting international organizations enhances its international image and influence, while also driving the comprehensive development of its economy and culture. For these reasons, attracting international organizations has become an important focus.

With the support from the Chinese government, major cities represented by Beijing and Shanghai are actively promulgating policies to attract international organization headquarters, as well as regional and functional institutions. Broadly speaking, the choice of a city for an international organization is influenced by certain political and economic logic. The national power of the host country, the city’s ability to provide conducive conditions for the operation of the international organization, the compatibility between the city’s brand positioning and the international organization’s mission, and the cross-border networks that the city can offer all influence the choice by the international organization.

National power

International organizations consider the national power of member states when choosing a host city, particularly those with significant political weight. After World War II, the selection of New York as the headquarters for the United Nations (UN) is a clear example of how the influence of major countries shaped the decision. Initially, the United Kingdom proposed Geneva as the site for the UN headquarters, but the Soviet Union opposed placing it in a traditional European city and was unwilling to bear the operational costs. As the world’s most powerful country at the time, the United States was both able and willing to support the UN, making it the only country recognized by all parties as a suitable host. Additionally, European countries pressured the United States to place the headquarters on the east coast of the United States, closer to Europe, which ultimately influenced the decision.

Under certain conditions, developing countries, too, can take collective actions to secure the establishment of international organizations within their borders. For instance, when the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) was founded, it was during a peak period of cooperation among developing countries. Although the United States and European countries preferred cities like Geneva, London, and Vienna, which enjoyed better general conditions, Kenya successfully united developing nations and championed the cause of “promoting geographical equity in the distribution of UN agencies” at the UN General Assembly. This led to the Assembly approving Nairobi as the headquarters of the UNEP by an overwhelming majority.

Additionally, the founding countries of international organizations naturally enjoy greater influence in determining the location of the organization’s headquarters. For example, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, both initiated by China, ultimately established their headquarters in major Chinese cities.

The factor of national power typically only directly affects the location of major international organizations. In today’s world, there are thousands of intergovernmental organizations and tens of thousands of international non-governmental organizations (NGO), many of which deal with specific and specialized “low politics” issues. For these types of organizations, a state is unlikely to prioritize influencing their locations on its diplomatic agenda. In fact, while cities such as Brussels, Paris, London, Washington, and New York—known for their high international political standing—attract the most international organizations, many organizations are also based in cities such as Geneva, Vienna, Copenhagen, Stockholm, and Montreal, where the international political influence of the host countries is relatively lower. These choices clearly reflect not only the power of the host countries but also the attributes of the cities themselves.

Urban functions

International organizations are autonomous global actors that naturally consider cities offering the most favourable conditions when choosing locations for their headquarters and key institutions. These cities are evaluated based on both hard infrastructure, such as residential land, transportation facilities, medical services, and office environments, and soft factors, including talent supply, job security, tax incentives, and legal protections. The cities favored by international organizations generally possess three key functional advantages: first, a social-level advantage in talent training, reserves, and mobility; second, an organizational-level advantage in fostering collaboration, disseminating information, and promoting innovation through the concentration of multiple international organizations; and third, an environmental-level advantage in infrastructure and work atmosphere.

To achieve these advantages, cities require support from governments at all levels, various departments as well as private groups. Take Geneva as an example: after World War II, the Swiss government passed laws and established foundations to provide funding and office space for organizations such as the headquarters of the UN in Europe, along with other international organizations. It also offered various conveniences for international civil servants, NGO workers, lobbyists, journalists, researchers, and students. As a result, Geneva attracted many talented individuals, which facilitated the exchange of diverse ideas and enhanced cooperation among organizations. The growing number of organizations created a clustering effect, attracting even more organizations to the city. This same logic applies to international organizations in developing countries. When the New Development Bank was established, the Chinese government proposed locating its headquarters in Shanghai, a city with a more developed capital market, better financing conditions, superior infrastructure, and easier international connections. This choice aimed to improve the efficiency of the organization, with China promising a variety of infrastructure supports and policy incentives.

In addition to functionality, a city’s brand positioning plays a significant role in attracting international organizations. These organizations operate based on moral authority and professional influence, making them inclined to choose cities whose values align with their own, enhancing the organization’s international authority. The closer a city’s brand positioning is to an international organization’s priorities, the more it can highlight the organization’s unique features, attracting similar organizations and generating a clustering effect.

Transnational policy network

While the functional elements and branding of a city are critical, we must also examine the city’s proactive engagement with international organizations. For a city to attract international organizations, it must not only refine its internal capabilities but also actively leverage a broad transnational policy network. The more diverse and influential the members of this network are, the greater the likelihood of attracting international organizations. This network typically includes central and local governments, foreign ambassadors, relevant NGOs, and policy-influencing experts and advisors.

Benchmarked against factors influencing the site choice of an international organization, international metropolises such as Beijing and Shanghai have achieved significant progress in infrastructure, parks, buildings, transportation, and policy support.

Moving forward, it is essential to strengthen the training of international organization personnel and the research conducted by universities and research institutes on global governance issues, thus supporting international organizations in recruiting staff and conducting research locally. Cities should also develop global city brands tailored to their positioning, focusing on attracting international organizations in a structured and prioritized manner, paying particular attention to the leading roles of key organizations. Furthermore, continued support for the involvement of NGOs and experts in global governance will help mobilize civil society and local governments, furthering the goal of attracting international organizations.

Yu Bowen is an associate professor from the School of International Relations and Public Affairs at Fudan University.