Global experts at SMU City Dialogues Vienna: Urban resilience requires trust, equity and 'smart enough' solutions
City Dialogues Vienna welcomed over 100 attendees from 20 countries; with representation from more than 20 universities and over 30 private and public organisations – a testament to the diversity and dynamism of our global community, and the urgency and relevance of the dialogue topic of urban resilience.
The event opened with a welcome address by SMU Provost, Professor Alan Chan, followed by remarks from Mr Melvyn Ong, Permanent Secretary (Development) at the Ministry of National Development, Republic of Singapore. The keynote address was delivered by Mr Jürgen Czernohorszky, Executive City Councillor for Climate, Environment, Democracy and Personnel of the City of Vienna.
Centered around the guiding question 'What is the value of urban resilience?', the event brought together urban leaders, policymakers and academics from Europe, Asia and beyond to exchange actionable insights towards resilient, inclusive and future-ready cities.
The programme featured three thematic tracks, each addressing a core dimension of urban resilience:
These parallel discussions concluded with a joint key takeaway session led by SMU professors Winston Chow and Orlando Woods, alongside UIV's Johannes Lutter. Their insights made one thing clear: urban resilience is not a buzzword, but a lived responsibility which requires trust, participation, and context-sensitive action.
Professor Winston Chow, Co-Chair of the IPCC Working Group II and Professor of Urban Climate at SMU, said, 'Resilience isn't just about surviving, it's about thriving. We need to align financial systems with social goals, build trust through good governance, and empower communities to shape their own future.'
Prof Chow also cautioned against over-reliance on public-private partnerships, noting that 'public-private partnerships can be powerful tools, but they are not universal solutions. They require competent, stable governments, extensive due diligence and clear alignment of interest.'
SMU Professor of Geography Orlando Woods, who is also Director of the SMU Urban Institute, reflected on the limitations of digital solutions in addressing complex urban challenges. While his group was tasked with exploring innovation and technology, much of the discussion shifted toward the structural problems that technology alone cannot resolve.
'It's not about being a smart city. It's about being a smart enough city. Smart enough relative to the context, the specific problem we are trying to solve with the technology that we have.' He emphasised that overreliance on data and digital tools often leads to oversimplified responses, while masking deeper systemic issues like inequality, mental health, or infrastructural neglect.
Dr Johannes Lutter Senior Urban Planner at Urban Innovation Vienna, outlined three key messages on how resilience can be made more socially inclusive and locally grounded. 'Given our limited resources, it is essential that we take targeted action—focusing in particular on those who are most vulnerable. To do so effectively, we must have a clear understanding of who is at risk.'
'We must restore agency to communities—not by shifting responsibility onto them and stepping back, but by fostering a structured dialogue between governments and communities, ensuring genuine collaboration between public institutions and the people they serve,' he added.
About SMU City Dialogues
Initiated in 2019 by Singapore Management University, the City Dialogues series fosters candid exchange among policymakers, academics and business leaders. It aims to generate actionable recommendations for sustainable and inclusive urban development. Previous editions held in Singapore and Bangkok successfully brought together leaders from government, industry, and academia to engage in honest, action-oriented conversations. City Dialogues | City Perspectives
View original content to download multimedia: https://www.prnewswire.com/apac/news-releases/global-experts-at-smu-city-dialogues-vienna-urban-resilience-requires-trust-equity-and-smart-enough-solutions-302498044.html
SOURCE Singapore Management University
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Investors head into Trump tariff deadline benumbed and blase
By Vidya Ranganathan and Suzanne McGee SINGAPORE/NEW YORK (Reuters) -Global investors are heading into U.S. President Donald Trump's Wednesday deadline for trade tariffs palpably unexcited and prepared for a range of benign scenarios that they believe are already priced in. Just days before the end of a 90-day pause he announced on his April 2 "Liberation Day" tariffs, Trump said the first batch of letters outlining the tariff levels they would face on exports to the United States would be sent to 12 countries on Monday. Investors who have been tracking this date for months expect more details to emerge in the coming days and protracted uncertainty too, anticipating Trump will not be able to complete deals with all of America's trading partners in the coming week. And they are not overly concerned. 'The market has gotten much more comfortable, more sanguine, when it comes to tariff news,' said Jeff Blazek, co-chief investment officer of multi-asset at Neuberger Berman in New York. 'The markets think that there is enough 'squishiness' in the deadlines – absent any major surprise – to not be too unsettled by more tariff news and believe that the worst-case scenarios are off the table now.' Both the tariff levels and effective dates have become moving targets. Trump said on Friday that tariffs ranging up to 70% could go into effect on August 1, levels far higher than the 10%-50% range he announced in April. So far, the U.S. administration has a limited deal with Britain and an in-principle agreement with Vietnam. Deals that had been anticipated with India and Japan have failed to materialize, and there have been setbacks in talks with the European Union. World stocks are meanwhile at record highs, up 11% since April 2. They fell 14% in three trading sessions after that announcement but have since rallied 24%. "If Liberation Day was the earthquake, the tariff letters will be the aftershocks. They won't quite have the same impact on markets even if they are higher than the earlier 10%," said Rong Ren Goh, a portfolio manager in the fixed income team at Eastspring Investments in Singapore. "This financial system is so inundated with liquidity that it is hard to cash up or delever at the risk of lagging the markets, with April serving as a painful reminder for many who derisked and were then forced to chase the relentless recovery in the subsequent weeks." TAXES AND THE FED Investors have also been distracted by weeks of wrangling in Congress over Trump's massive tax and spending package, which he signed into law on Friday. Stock markets have celebrated the passage of the bill, which makes Trump's 2017 tax cuts permanent, while bond investors are wary the measures could add more than $3 trillion to the nation's $36.2 trillion debt. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq indexes closed at record highs on Friday, notching a third week of gains. Europe's STOXX 600 benchmark is up 9% in three months. But the risks of tariff-related inflation have weighed on U.S. Treasuries and the dollar, and jostled expectations for Federal Reserve policy. Rate futures show traders no longer expect a Fed rate cut this month and are pricing in a total of just two quarter-point reductions by year-end. The dollar has suffered a knock to its haven reputation from the dithering on tariffs. The dollar index, which reflects the U.S. currency's performance against a basket of six others, has had its worst first half of the year since 1973, declining some 11%. It has fallen by 6.6% since April 2 alone. "The markets are discounting a return to tariff levels of 35%, 40% or higher, and anticipating an across-the-board level of 10% or so,' said John Pantekidis, chief investment officer at TwinFocus in Boston. Pantekidis is cautiously optimistic about the outlook for U.S. stocks this year, but the one variable he is watching closely is interest rate levels. For now he expects to see interest rates dip in the second half, 'but if the bond market worries about the impact of the bill and rates go up, that's a different scenario.' Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Investors head into Trump tariff deadline benumbed and blase
By Vidya Ranganathan and Suzanne McGee SINGAPORE/NEW YORK (Reuters) -Global investors are heading into U.S. President Donald Trump's Wednesday deadline for trade tariffs palpably unexcited and prepared for a range of benign scenarios that they believe are already priced in. Just days before the end of a 90-day pause he announced on his April 2 "Liberation Day" tariffs, Trump said the first batch of letters outlining the tariff levels they would face on exports to the United States would be sent to 12 countries on Monday. Investors who have been tracking this date for months expect more details to emerge in the coming days and protracted uncertainty too, anticipating Trump will not be able to complete deals with all of America's trading partners in the coming week. And they are not overly concerned. 'The market has gotten much more comfortable, more sanguine, when it comes to tariff news,' said Jeff Blazek, co-chief investment officer of multi-asset at Neuberger Berman in New York. 'The markets think that there is enough 'squishiness' in the deadlines – absent any major surprise – to not be too unsettled by more tariff news and believe that the worst-case scenarios are off the table now.' Both the tariff levels and effective dates have become moving targets. Trump said on Friday that tariffs ranging up to 70% could go into effect on August 1, levels far higher than the 10%-50% range he announced in April. So far, the U.S. administration has a limited deal with Britain and an in-principle agreement with Vietnam. Deals that had been anticipated with India and Japan have failed to materialize, and there have been setbacks in talks with the European Union. World stocks are meanwhile at record highs, up 11% since April 2. They fell 14% in three trading sessions after that announcement but have since rallied 24%. "If Liberation Day was the earthquake, the tariff letters will be the aftershocks. They won't quite have the same impact on markets even if they are higher than the earlier 10%," said Rong Ren Goh, a portfolio manager in the fixed income team at Eastspring Investments in Singapore. "This financial system is so inundated with liquidity that it is hard to cash up or delever at the risk of lagging the markets, with April serving as a painful reminder for many who derisked and were then forced to chase the relentless recovery in the subsequent weeks." TAXES AND THE FED Investors have also been distracted by weeks of wrangling in Congress over Trump's massive tax and spending package, which he signed into law on Friday. Stock markets have celebrated the passage of the bill, which makes Trump's 2017 tax cuts permanent, while bond investors are wary the measures could add more than $3 trillion to the nation's $36.2 trillion debt. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq indexes closed at record highs on Friday, notching a third week of gains. Europe's STOXX 600 benchmark is up 9% in three months. But the risks of tariff-related inflation have weighed on U.S. Treasuries and the dollar, and jostled expectations for Federal Reserve policy. Rate futures show traders no longer expect a Fed rate cut this month and are pricing in a total of just two quarter-point reductions by year-end. The dollar has suffered a knock to its haven reputation from the dithering on tariffs. The dollar index, which reflects the U.S. currency's performance against a basket of six others, has had its worst first half of the year since 1973, declining some 11%. It has fallen by 6.6% since April 2 alone. "The markets are discounting a return to tariff levels of 35%, 40% or higher, and anticipating an across-the-board level of 10% or so,' said John Pantekidis, chief investment officer at TwinFocus in Boston. Pantekidis is cautiously optimistic about the outlook for U.S. stocks this year, but the one variable he is watching closely is interest rate levels. For now he expects to see interest rates dip in the second half, 'but if the bond market worries about the impact of the bill and rates go up, that's a different scenario.'
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Cost of living: Which are the cheapest and most expensive countries in Europe?
Prices vary significantly between countries in Europe. Significant differences exist even between neighbouring countries such as Austria and Hungary — or Germany and Poland. But how can we best compare prices across Europe? And what are the most expensive and cheapest countries across the continent? Price level indices are a good way to help us understand how expensive or cheap goods and services are in each country. They compare national price levels to the EU average and are calculated using Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs). According to Eurostat, PPPs act like an artificial common currency, as they show how much people can buy with the same amount of money across countries. The results are based on price surveys covering more than 2,000 consumer goods and services, conducted across 36 European countries. There are several price level indices that compare the cost of different goods and services — such as food, drink, clothing, hotels, and more. In addition to these individual or group indices, there are two main indicators that show the 'overall' price level of consumer goods and services: One is actual individual consumption (AIC), which measures all goods and services actually consumed by households. It includes consumer goods and services purchased directly by households, as well as services provided by non-profit institutions. The indicator also includes services provided by the government for individual consumption such as health and education services. Another indicator is household final consumption expenditure (HFCE), which studies total spending on individual goods and services by resident households. In other words, AIC looks at what households use — including services they don't directly pay for — and HFCE shows what they spend money on. Eurostat notes that AIC is often used in international comparisons, as it captures more than the narrower concept of household consumption. Euronews has therefore used AIC figures for comparisons, although consumption data is also included in the chart. As of 2024, out of 36 countries, Switzerland is the most expensive, with prices at 184% of the EU average — 84% higher than the average. Turkey is the cheapest, with prices at 47% of the EU average, meaning they are 53% lower than the EU average. This makes Switzerland 3.9 times as expensive as Turkey, revealing the sharp contrast in price levels across Europe. A price level above 100 means a country is more expensive than the EU average; below 100 means it's cheaper. In the EU, Luxembourg is the most expensive country, with prices 51% higher than the EU average. Bulgaria and Romania are the cheapest members, at 57% of the EU average. This means Luxembourg is about 2.7 times as expensive as Bulgaria and Romania, showing a significant but smaller gap compared to the difference between Switzerland and Turkey. Ten EU countries have prices above the EU average. Denmark (143%) and Ireland (141%) follow Luxembourg as the most expensive. Among the EU's four largest economies, Germany (109%) and France (108%) are slightly above average, while Italy (98%) and Spain (91%) are below. Western and Northern European countries tend to have high price levels. Switzerland, Iceland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Ireland, Norway, and Finland all show significantly above-average prices. These are generally high-income countries with strong currencies and higher living costs. All five Nordic countries— Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Iceland — also consistently rank near the top. In contrast, Central and Eastern European countries generally have lower price levels. Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, and the Baltic States — Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia — are all below the EU average. These regions typically record lower labour costs. Price levels are also lower in the EU candidate countries. They included Turkey, North Macedonia, Albania, Serbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Two European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries — Switzerland and Iceland —rank first and second in 2024, with Norway in sixth place. In a 2018 analysis based on 2017 figures, Lars Svennebye of the EFTA Statistical Office explained that high workforce productivity and corresponding high salaries were key factors behind the high price levels in EFTA countries. Individual or household incomes are not included in price level comparisons. 'These figures are pure price comparisons of goods and services. They do not take the level of wages, salaries or other measures of personal income into account,' Lars Svennebye told Euronews Business. This means that someone living in a country with a high price level may still be able to buy more goods and services than someone in a country with a lower price level, depending on income. Price levels vary significantly across different categories. For example, the price level for alcohol and tobacco in the EU was nearly three times higher in Ireland (205%), the most expensive country, than in Bulgaria (69%), the cheapest. Restaurants and hotels showed the second-largest gap. Denmark had the highest prices at 148% of the EU average, while Bulgaria again recorded the lowest, at 53%. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data
