Skip to main content

Ahmedabad doesn't figure in list of most attractive cities in Ernst & Young survey

 
Latest survey by top international consultants Ernst & Young, “EY’s attractiveness survey: India 2014 – Enabling the prospects”, based on interview with 502 representatives of international and local opinion leaders and decision-makers, has said that 51.2 per cent of the global investors say that Mumbai is the “most attractive” city of India, followed by Bengaluru (37.8 per cent), New Delhi (37.4 per cent), Chennai (14.6 per cent), Pune (13.1 per cent) and Chandigarh (10.7 per cent). Significantly, the EY survey does not find Ahmedabad in the company of these “most attractive cities”.
The survey underlines, “When asked about the most attractive investment destinations in India, Chandigarh was the only non-metropolitan city named by respondents.” As for Ahmedabad, the FY survey finds, 20.7 per cent of the investors find it the best “emerging city” which has potential for growth – but is still not “attractive” enough where investments could be made. The cities that follow Ahmedabad are Jaipur 8.9 per cent, Coimbatore 6.1 per cent, Surat 5.9 per cent, Kochi 5.8 per cent, and Aurangabad 4.4 per cent.
Further, Ahmedabad does not figure in the report among the top six cities attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) between 2007 and 2012 either. The highest investment was attracted by New Delhi ($29.9 billion), followed by Chennai $25.1 billion, Bengaluru $24.5 billion, Mumbai $15.3 billion, Pune $11.1 billion and Hyderabad $ 10.8 billion.
Released in early January, the EY’s attractiveness survey claims to be “widely recognized” by its “clients, investors, the media and major public stakeholders as a key source of insight on FDI.” The survey, it points out, examines “the attractiveness of a particular region or country as an investment destination”, and is “designed to help businesses to make investment decisions and governments to remove barriers to future growth.” 
EY says, “Actual FDI performance and our survey results both show that metropolitan cities, such as Mumbai, Bengaluru, the National Capital Region (NCR), Chennai and Pune, remain key attractions.” As for the non-metropolitan cities, it adds, “there is a significant awareness gap” about rest of the cities, including Ahmedabad, which is considered as the most “preferred choice in emerging cities, followed by Jaipur, Coimbatore and Surat”.
EY says, “63 per cent of projects initiated in 2012 were in metropolitan areas — New Delhi, Bengaluru, Mumbai, Chennai and Pune.” Giving a few examples, the survey underlines, logistics, distribution and transportation industry has attracted “significant investor” attention in the past few years. “While capital investment increased from US$1.1b to US$2.6b”, and “the US and Germany are the top two investors in the sector”, Maharashtra was “the favorite destination for logistics projects.”
Pointing out that “India’s education sector is still developing”, and “it requires as much attention and investment from private and foreign players as it does from the government”, the survey emphasizes, “Between 2011 and 2012, the number of projects in education and training increased from 17 to 26, while capital investment decreased from US$246.8m to US$206.8m (INR13.3b to INR11.1b).8 The US is the top investor and Bengaluru, Mumbai and Pune are the top destinations for education projects”.
“When asked about the most attractive investment destinations in India, Chandigarh was the only non-metropolitan city named by respondents”., EY says, advising the Government of India, “To sustain its economic development, it is critical that India builds awareness of these cities. Benefiting from differential factors such as large catchment areas, low attrition, cost arbitrage and the availability of a fresh talent pool, they can become destinations of choice for setting up R&D, TMT or outsourcing centers.”

Comments

TRENDING

A Hindu alternative to Valentine's Day? 'Shiv-Parvati was first love marriage in Universe'

The other day, I was searching on Google a quote on Maha Shivratri which I wanted to send to someone, a confirmed Shiv Bhakt, quite close to me -- with an underlying message to act positively instead of being negative. On top of the search, I chanced upon an article in, imagine!, a Nashik Corporation site which offered me something very unusual.  I don't know who owns this site, for there is nothing on it in the About Us link. It merely says, the Nashik Corporation  site   "is an educational and news website of the municipal corporation. Today, education and payment of tax are completely online." It goes on to add, "So we provide some of the latest information about Property Tax, Water Tax, Marriage Certificate, Caste Certificate, etc. So all taxpayer can get all information of their municipal in a single place.some facts about legal and financial issues that different city corporations face, but I was least interested in them."  Surely, this didn't interest...

Beyond the 'plum' posting: Why the caste lens still defines bureaucratic success

Following my recent blog on former IAS bureaucrat Atanu Chakraborty’s sudden exit as non-executive chairman of HDFC Bank, a few colleagues from the Gujarat cadre — mostly those I interacted with during my Gandhinagar stint (1997–2012) as the Times of India representative — reacted rather sharply. Most of them sent their responses directly on WhatsApp, touching upon on the merits and demerits of Chakraborty’s controversial move. One former IAS officer, a Dalit, however, went further, raising a broader question: why do some officials like Chakraborty secure plum post-retirement assignments, while others are overlooked?

Blaming RTE, not underfunding: Education groups hit back at NITI Aayog working paper

A preliminary working paper by Arvind Virmani, economist and member of the Government of India think tank NITI Aayog, has concluded that the Right to Education (RTE) Act — enacted to guarantee free and compulsory schooling for children between six and fourteen — has actually worsened learning outcomes rather than improved them. The paper, published in March 2026 and reported by The Print on 16 April, has drawn sharp pushback from education rights advocates, who argue it builds a politically motivated narrative against constitutionally guaranteed entitlements.