2026年IMD智慧城市指数：追寻信任与透明

The quest for trustand transparency World CompetitivenessCenter Table of contents IMD Smart City Index2026 A three-way alignment:Institutions, trust, and infrastructure Christos CabolisChief Economist & Head of OperationsIMD World Competitiveness Center A three-way alignment:Institutions, trust, and infrastructure Fabian GrimmResearch SpecialistIMD World Competitiveness Center Cities are often judged by their technological sophistication,particularly if they self-labelas “smart.”And yet, the 2026IMDSmart City Index (SCI) suggests that urban performancerests on a deeper set of relationships–namely,mutuallyreinforcinginteractionsbetween institutions,residents, and theinfrastructure thatemergesfrom themboth. There is atension between city planners, who require abundantdata to make efficient decisions, andcitizens, whodemand datasovereignty. Thishighlights the critical role of governance andtrust in creating inclusive and ethical cities. The focus must shiftfrom “what can we measure?” to “what should we measure?”–asmall but consequential distinction thatcoulddeterminewhethertechnological progress truly enhances citizenwell-being. expectations.Seen this way, smartness does not arisesolelyfromtechnology. Itemergeswhen governmentstructure, infrastructureinvestments, and public values evolve together. The data behind the Index reveals something more precise.Across the 148 cities surveyed, scores in theStructurespillarare a stronger and more consistent predictor of overallsmart performance thanscoresin the Technology pillar.Tellingly, almost every city among the bottom twenty ofthe 2026 ranking has a higher averageTechnologyscorethana Structuresscore. The inverse is true at thetop:Zurich,Oslo(second),Geneva(third),andCopenhagenalllead oninstitutions,infrastructure,and structures-relatedindicators, with technology-related indicators faring less strongly. Trust in the institutions that manage increasingly complex urbansystems–often built on personal data–is not a given. Theconundrum is telling; never has information been so abundant andgranular for policymakers and urban planners. But still,publicconfidence in local governments and regulatorsremainsfragile.In 2026, the central question around urban planning is nolonger “can webuild aSmartCity?” but rather “should we trustthe ones being built?” Urban policy is no longer a backwaterof public administration; it is the operating system of nationalcompetitiveness, shaping whether cities attract the talent, capital,and creativity necessary to drive growth and prosperity. In this context, the SCI offers a valuable toolforunderstandinghow top-performing cities suchasZurich(first),Copenhagen(fifth),Singapore(ninth),andAbuDhabi(10th)succeed notonlybecause oftheirtechnologicalinnovation butalsobecause they maintainalignment betweenpolicy priorities, technological development,and public The SCI provides a unique perspective on this challengebyfocusingon how residents experience their cities. Ratherthan measuring infrastructure in isolation, the SCI captureshow citizens perceive the effectiveness of the services andsystemsaroundthem,and in particular,whethertechnologyhelps address the challenges they face in everyday life.Theseperceptionsoffer an important signal for policymakers.They reveal whether investments in infrastructure anddigital systems translate into tangible improvements in dailylife, or whether a gap persists between policy ambitionsandresidents’lived experience.Cities that perform well in theIndex tend to be those where governance, infrastructure,andcitizen expectations are broadly aligned. Trust in the institutions that manageincreasingly complex urban systems— often built on personal data —is not a given. essay builds on the conceptual framework developed byArturoBris in his 2025 publication The Smart City Playbook: Lessons fromUrban Pioneers, which establishes six pillars that define the trustarchitecture of intelligent urbanism in 21st-century cities.Governance qualityis the starting point for any successfultransformation. Cities need more than ambitious plans orcharismatic leadership. Theyrequireinstitutional frameworkscapable of coordinating across the fragmented landscape ofmodern urban administration, where ministries, agencies, utilities,and private actors must align their efforts. The best-performingcities have discovered that effective governance is lessaboutcentralizingpower and more aboutfacilitatingcooperation.They create platforms and processes that allow differentstakeholders to share information, coordinate investments, andpursue common goals without sacrificing the flexibility neededfor local innovation. This pattern suggests an important dynamic:cities with strongerinstitutions and infrastructuretend to report higher levels ofcitizen trust. The results also highlight an important limitation oftechnology-led approaches to urban development. Technologyalone does not produce better outcomes. Infrastructure anddigital services generat