An Agency for the rating of towns and territories was launched in France in 2003. Its purpose is to answer to the demand of representatives, economic agents or citizens regarding a performance measurement/evaluation of the city or territory where they live and work or where they might settle. By performances we mean the whole range of outputs a city or territory may offer to its users.

The founders of the Rating Agency are three high-profile professionals with experiences as executives, politicians and consultants:

  • Alain GENEL, former Executive Vice President at EDF,
  • Claude NEUSCHWANDER, well known consultant in local and regional management
  • Jacques ROGER-MACHART, former M.P., Mayor and member of local and regional councils in the Toulouse surroundings

They thus combine a culture of the corporate management and of the territorial governance.

While the Rating Agency is a completely private company, a partnership was set up with the French Association of the Larger Cities (AMGVF).

The Agency controls the general process of the rating, the relationship with the clients, the external communication and has the full responsibility of the final report. It subcontracts parts of the analysis to three University Laboratories: the first in sociology (CERAL, Paris XIII), the second in political sciences (CERVL, IEP Bordeaux), the third in economy and management (IVT, ESSEC), and all the three being additionally specialized in local and regional studies. The benchmark with other cities is made by a European consulting company (Ramboll Management Brussels.)



The rating has been developed for urban territories. These should be as large as possible, yet be subject to a single governance authority. Hence, the municipal level would not be eligible as it is too small and the conurbation level would not be eligible because it does not have single governing authority. Therefore in the French local organization, the targets groups are ‘Communautés d’Agglomérations’ or ‘Communautés Urbaines’.

Such an evaluation has to fulfil a number of criteria. First of all, it should be as objective as possible. Moreover, it should refer to the dynamics of a city (rather than being solely static). It should also comprise a comparison of the targeted city or territory with other cities in France or in Europe. However, the analysis will be made with empathy for the client providing him with an external opinion based on facts, arguments and expertise. It should provide results useful for decision makers and administrators to define actions of progress; actions aiming on improving the city’s or territory’s performance.

This rating is based upon a global diagnosis of all the services and facilities offered by the city. The diagnosis consists of both quantitative and qualitative part, the results of which will be illustrated in a photography where the prominences, notably qualitative factors, time and motion as well as tendencies, must appear with appropriate comments.

The rating should be repeated every few years (three or four years) in order to capture evolutions, trends and changes and moreover to assess the impact of actions of progress undertaken.

The analysis tends to evaluate three dimensions:

  • The objective reality: number of crime, level of noise, etc.
  • The reality perceived: insecurity feeling, discomfort due to the noise, etc.
  • The opinion people have on the subject: insecurity, noise, etc.

In the course of the analysis, differences between these dimensions shall be revealed. The analysis will also refer to potential gaps between the objectives of the policy-makers and the demand of the citizens.

As a result, the rating will present useful benchmarks for the city managers, without disgracing them by means of giving good or bad marks for their performance.

Having identified the major sources of concern, a benchmarking with other European cities meeting similar problems tend to find out what process they have use to treat them, how they have acted, what are the best practices one can consider.



The rating report comprises 4 sections:

1. Evaluation of twelve fields :

  • Urban environment: air quality, noise, waste, water, energy …
  • Day to day life: public amenities, shops, public security …
  • Education, sport and culture: location of the schools, programs and facilities dedicated to sport and culture
  • Surroundings: architecture quality, urban balance (housing, industries, services location), social housing and social mix, gardens …
  • Social: social aid and equipments, public health, associations …
  • Governance, leadership and local democracy
  • Urban dynamics: demography, employment,
  • Economic potential: weight of the graduates, services to people and companies, set of activities, specializations, cluster, entrepreneurship
  • Commercial dynamics: down town commerce vs. suburbs super markets, marks …
  • Internal Communication: daily migrations, public transportation, traffic congestion …
  • External Communication: Highways, airport & railways facilities, international links …
  • Finance & taxes: level of local taxes, public debt, financial health, investment capacity …

The six last fields can be totally or partially quantified. The results for the town rated are compared to the statistical average for the group of similar towns. For this purpose 140 towns in France have been classified in 10 groups:

  • Large regional city with international attractiveness
  • University regional city with limited international attractiveness
  • Large towns with diversified economic activities
  • Large ports with limited international attractiveness
  • Large industrial towns
  • Towns specialized in high quality services and leading technologies
  • Medium size towns with diversified activities
  • Medium size administrative towns
  • Medium size tourist towns
  • size industrial towns

An exception is made for towns in the Parisian conurbation which are considered separately.

2. Assessment of projects: while the fields are evaluated at time t, the purpose of this second chapter is to assess the provisional impact of urban projects on these fields. The management of the city is asked to list 3 or 4 major projects (“hard”) or policies (“soft”) on which a particular assessment will be conducted. This assessment will cover the coherence prevailing between these projects as well as their coherence with the global planning of the city, opportunities or risks factors, provisional impacts … In case the city plans a “global project” , the analysis will also refer to this project, its strategic vision, the way is has been prepared, the public support it gets, is there general agreement on its objectives ...

3. European benchmarking: The Agency will identify and propose six European cities having similar characteristics as the client city. From these six, the client will chooses three for an in-depth comparison, which means that they will be analysed with regard to the policy areas, which are of particular importance for the client city. Best practices will be identified and described in detail.

4. A final report (40 pages) will be delivered to the client, which will illustrate the results gained in the course of the rating process. In particular, attention will be given to the main policy issues important for the client city as well as the assessments of the major projects and policy developments in the City the assessment. This final report will be public.



The urban rating is about to enter its second stage. The first stage was dedicated to the engineering and testing of the methodology. The French cities – Angers, Dunkerque and Reims – volunteered in this first stage. The respective rating reports were presented to these Cities in May and June 2005.

The Agency is now offering its rating to the main French cities.

The next stage will consist of approaching cities in other European countries. The idea is not to exactly duplicate the methodology as each country has specific urban and local/regional regulations and management organisations. One must adapt the concept to national culture and practices. The idea is therefore to set up Rating Agencies in some countries (Germany, Belgium, UK …). These Agencies will adopt the methodology that has been tested in France and will adapt it to the circumstances prevailing in the respective countries practices. The development of such Agencies will considerably contribute to the benchmarking between European cities and to the marketing of this rating approach.

In the meantime, the Agency will work with AFNOR in order to reach an agreement with organizations concerned by the evaluation of territories, and to get certification.