The Global Risks Report 2026

Insight Report: Key Findings (4)
Global Risks In-Depth: Anticipating Tomorrow’s Challenges Today.
 
An Underlying Context of Structural Change.
The underlying set of conditions and parameters that influence the global risks landscape, referred to in this report as structural forces, are set to continue their convergence and acceleration. Global in scope, the significant influence of structural forces in amplifying disorderly trends across technological, climatic, geostrategic and demographic domains is expected to deepen over the next decade. The four structural forces, introduced in the Global Risks Report 2024 are technological acceleration, geostrategic shifts, climate change and demographic bifurcation. While all four forces have global ramifications, some, such as the changing climate, are more multi-directional in their development, which could allow for several potential futures. Similarly, while all represent longer-term shifts to the structural landscape, some have the potential to manifest more quickly due to underlying variables. 
 
Geostrategic shifts refers to evolving sources and concentration of geopolitical power. Longstanding geopolitical alliances are being reshaped as global rules and norms are increasingly contested. Technological acceleration relates to development pathways of emerging technologies and the expected significant, accelerated changes over the next 10 years. Technological developments are driving positive transformations across many domains, but new risks are also emerging. Climate change encompasses the range of possible trajectories of global warming and its consequences to Earth systems. Climate change is a systemic shift, with 2024 confirmed as the warmest year on record at over 1.5°C above the pre-industrial level.1 Demographic bifurcation refers to changes in the size, growth and structure of populations around the world. Demographic divides are widening, and this will have material implications for related socioeconomic and political systems. 
 
Against this backdrop of structural transformations, this year’s report examines in-depth six sets of risks and how they may evolve in the years to come: 
 
Multipolarity without multilateralism: With multilateralism facing ever stronger headwinds and rising evidence of the decline of the rules-based international order, there is greater risk of cross- border economic and military conflicts and inaction on global challenges. 
 
Values at war: As societal and political polarization deepens and technology becomes more embedded in daily life while geopolitical tensions persist, this section assesses what values conflicts mean for social inclusion and climate action within and across countries. 
 
An economic reckoning: This section explores some of the key risks facing the global economy over the next years, as it grapples with high debt refinancing needs, possible asset price and/or industrial bubbles, and the risks of boomerang inflation. 
 
Infrastructure endangered: This section examines how failing legacy infrastructure is exacerbating risks – especially as more frequent and intense extreme weather events are likely to overwhelm it. The section also explores how infrastructure could become a new front in warfare, contributing to social and economic crises. 
 
Quantum leaps: This section analyses how this field is likely to accelerate over the next decade and potentially transform risks to cryptography, as well as elevate geoeconomic rivalries and economic and business imbalances to new levels. 
 
AI at large: This section explores the long-term risk landscape that could potentially unfold as AI itself develops and is used in new ways, across labour markets and societies, and in military applications. 
 
Multipolarity Without Multilateralism.
Geoeconomic confrontation tops the Global Risks Perception Survey 2025-2026 (GRPS) ranking this year over both the immediate-term and the two-year time horizon, rising eight positions compared to last year in the latter ranking. A related risk, State-based armed conflict, which topped the immediate-term risk list last year, is in second place in the GRPS this year, and at #5 in the two-year outlook. These two risks are closely interlinked, with escalation in the severity of one also affecting the other. 
 
In the Global Risks Report 2025, we highlighted the risk of geoeconomic tensions escalating, pointing to a specific set of risks around trade and tariffs, but also noting that these should be regarded as part of a broader divergence between West, East and South, albeit with many countries forging their own pathways and balancing relationships with the different sides. It was clear that a trend of global geoeconomic fragmentation was taking hold. Today, this trend is firmly in place, despite moments in which tensions appear to ease temporarily.
 
Looking ahead over the next two years, a wider range of economic levers may be used by governments worldwide within the broader objectives of building national security and advancing geopolitical interests. While the actions of China and the United States are most closely watched, all countries are affected by the changes underway. In turn, transformation of the global order will continue to be shaped by the strategic interests of many countries and regions. 
 
Heightened geoeconomic confrontation is both a cause and a consequence of the growing vacuum being left by the weakening of multilateral institutions. As a unipolar world shifts towards a more multipolar one, a new competitive order is emerging. With fewer multilateral constraints on unilateral action, rising national barriers and clashing interests could have negative economic and social repercussions across the globe. 
 
In the Executive Opinion Survey 2025 (EOS), which provides a national risk perspective by business executives, 16 countries rank Geoeconomic confrontation within their top five risks, including several export-oriented economies. This illustrates the extent to which geoeconomic uncertainty is now shaping national risk perceptions.
 
The uncertainties surrounding commercial, diplomatic and military relationships will complicate the operating environment for all stakeholders. Collaboration on shared, cross-border challenges risks becoming more difficult, and as some governments try to turn newly created ambiguities around international rules and norms to their advantage, those countries that are least able to back up pursuit of their objectives with credible threats of economic, diplomatic or, ultimately, military retaliation could increasingly lose out. This zero-sum power politics manifests itself not only between but also within countries. Declining adherence to the rule of law may create the conditions for deepening social and political instability.
 
This section looks at three sets of interconnected risks. First, the rise of Realpolitikon the global stage and its knock-on effects. Second, the consequences of multilateralism eroding further. Third, how this may impact countries locally and exacerbate the forces that led to economic nationalism and geopolitical fractures. 
 
Realpolitik Logic Meets Weltpolitik Ambition.
Trade and global value chains continue to experience their most significant disruption in decades, and trade policy uncertainty is high. Among the worst- case scenarios, governments could impose tariffs not only on those countries/blocs imposing tariffs on them, but on all their trading partners. Such across- the-board tariffs globally would lead to a substantial contraction in global trade.
 
Geoeconomic confrontation is already spreading well beyond tariffs. Indeed, governments appear to be losing faith in the legal framework underpinning global trade. The World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) dispute system, crucial to the peaceful resolution of trade disputes, is becoming marginalized; the number of cases brought to it has fallen to about one-third of the level prior to when its Appellate Body – a key component of that system – was disabled in 2019.
 
At the same time, investment screening policies are becoming more widely implemented by G20 countries. They are driven by more considerations around strategic realignment and national security than in previous years. Countries not aligned with either China or the United States could face pressure to comply with sanctions regimes. The number of sectors considered “strategic” to national security and affected by sanctions, including export controls and investment bans, is rising. Sectors that have recently been targeted with sanctions include AI, chips, biotech, quantum, drones and rare earths. 
 
These trends are reflected in the GRPS, where Disruptions to a systemically important supply chain (#19) has risen three positions in the two-year time horizon ranking. Country-level results from the EOS reinforce this pattern: economies that place Geoeconomic confrontation high in their national risk rankings tend also to report concerns about Disruptions to systemically important supply chains. Geoeconomic confrontation and the risk of military conflicts are exacerbating risks to supply chains across the world, with massive economic implications. 
 
In part because of the precarious fiscal positions of many leading economies, access to capital and control over capital flows could become a fresh front of geoeconomic confrontation. Governments could turn to more aggressive policies to shape the global monetary system to their advantage. Key financial infrastructure, such as payments systems, could be targeted by denying or constraining access. More frequent recourse to asset seizures or freezing of foreign reserves cannot be excluded. And governments and central banks are already expressing concern about how flows into foreign currency-pegged stablecoins could weaken their financial systems and jeopardize monetary sovereignty. Emerging market countries with soft currencies are especially vulnerable. Accumulated purchases of stablecoins from developing economies could amount to $1.22 trillion by the end of 2028, compared to about $173 billion as of October 2025.
 
Efforts to bolster geopolitical positions through economic levers could go further still. Physical disruptions to critical infrastructure and key supply chains – for example by targeting satellite networks, damaging undersea communication cables, blocking or slowing transit through key waterways or ports, or disrupting energy pipelines – could become more frequently used physical or cyber- physical tools, in addition to cyberattacks.
 
In response to these threats, more governments are likely to seek to protect their economies by building larger reserves of energy products and key manufacturing inputs, and by stockpiling food, metals and minerals. Efforts to acquire large quantities of the critical minerals needed for the energy transition could lead to price spikes and to intense commercial, diplomatic or even military pressures being placed on the governments of countries where these commodities can be sourced from. Direct and indirect interventions by major powers or conflicts between major global powers in resource-rich parts of the world are a rising risk. 
 
GRPS respondents point to these potential impacts: Disruptions to a systemically important supply chain, Concentration of strategic resources and technologies, Natural resource shortages, Economic downturn, and State- based armed conflict are the risks most impacted by Geoeconomic confrontation in the next two years.
 
In a worst-case scenario, more intense decoupling between Eastern and Western blocs would have profoundly negative implications on global economic growth. Non-aligned countries face particular risks if they do not find a new balance. Even partial decoupling, in trade, investment, finance and technology ecosystems, could significantly raise costs for businesses and slow global economic activity. 
 
Multilateral Coordination Frays Further 
Geoeconomic confrontation is already contributing to a loss of trust affecting international relations. But the reverse is also happening: governments are more likely to take hostile actions on trade, investment and other geoeconomic issues when they feel that the rules-based international system is weakening and they have less to lose than before. This vicious cycle looks set to continue over the next two years. 
 
As multilateral institutions become weakened by unilateral actions from some governments, others are unable or unwilling to counter them. Deep funding cuts at many international institutions are leading to a retrenchment of development and aid activities. At the same time, newly emerging multilateral entities are being developed by governments that do not subscribe to the institutions of the unipolar world order as a platform for pursuing their own national interests and to re- write the rules of the game. 
 
In this fractured global landscape, transnational threats – from climate change to combating pandemics and organized crime – are becoming more difficult to manage. A vacuum in global governance is building, and it could take years before it is clear how deep it runs and what could take its place. 
 
Many governments view strategic autonomy as a necessary response to this building vacuum and are expanding their countries’ defence capabilities. Wholly new weapons, including those enabled by AI, are also creating new risks. 
 
In this unfolding environment, which is both less predictable and more militarized, there is likely to be a heightened risk of conflicts, with less powerful countries especially vulnerable. According to the 2025 Global Peace Index, there are more state- based armed conflicts ongoing than at any time since World War II; key conflict-risk indicators are at their worst levels since World War II; and several dozen countries are experiencing a worsening in relations with neighbouring countries.

Local Polarization Amid Global Fractures 
Geopolitical instability is deeply intertwined with domestic state fragility and social instability. According to the Fund for Peace Fragile States Index report, country-level fragility is worsening and becoming more widespread. Previously stable democracies are not exempt from this trend. Drivers of increasing fragility include climate-change impacts, weak governance and conflict, all of which are linked to the retreat from multilateralism and loss of faith in a rules-based global order.
 
In a manifestation of this rising country-level fragility, protests led in part by the youth and organized on social media, may be gathering momentum. In much the same way that global trade and economic collaboration has been seen as the domain of elites in recent years, the new posture towards economic nationalism may in due course also elicit public backlash. As more people are feeling excluded from political decision-making and losing hope for improved livelihoods, protests have led to recent political change in Nepal (in 2025), Bangladesh (2024) and Sri Lanka (2022), for example.
 
As societal polarization rises globally in tandem with misinformation and disinformation, reactions by some governments are pointing towards more authoritarian rule. Evidence is building that, within countries, the rule of law is deteriorating.18 In the Global Risks Report 2025 we highlighted that the world had entered a “geopolitical recession.” This is now contributing to what the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2025 has termed an accelerating “global rule of law recession,” in which 68% of 143 countries and jurisdictions surveyed saw their rule of law decline in 2025. 
 
Of particular concern is that the pace of decline in 2025 was sharp, demonstrating that typically slow and painstaking progress in establishing the rule of law can be reversed quickly.
 
Actions for Today 
Recognizing today’s climate of geoeconomic confrontation, governments can nonetheless find ways to collaborate and identify areas of consensus. Where global progress is not attainable in the short term, “coalitions of the willing” can move forward in specific areas of trade and investment. Economic inducements that foster mutual gains should be prioritized over those that are designed to cause economic pain to other countries. The ability of the private sector to engage with stakeholders across the political spectrum, domestically and abroad, should be safeguarded. Public-private consultation mechanisms can help to support transparency around decision-making, clarifying the business environment in an era of intensifying economic and financial statecraft.
 
Coalitions of the willing can also play a pivotal role in strengthening support for existing multilateral institutions. It is critical for public, private and civil society stakeholders to continue to work together to support existing multilateral institutions wherever feasible. 
 
Fostering resilience at the local level by strengthening community-driven structures can be another area of focus amid concerns around weakening multilateralism. More focus needs to be given to community-led governance, ensuring equitable access to resources, and empowering local actors to mitigate and respond to crises. 
 
In parallel, international frameworks, including mini-lateral treaties and agreements, remain critical to help promote flexible, local solutions.
 
World Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland.