Global powers prepare for a new era of economic warfare as WEF flags 2026’s top risk
Economic confrontation between major powers has moved to the forefront of global threats, overtaking many traditional security concerns and reshaping how governments and corporations think about risk. According to the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2026, released this week, geoeconomic conflict and great‑power rivalry now dominate the short‑term risk horizon, while disruptive advances in artificial intelligence emerge as a deeper, structural challenge.
Economic conflict eclipses other near‑term threats
The report, published annually, surveys global experts, policymakers and business leaders on what they see as the most pressing dangers over the next two years. For the 2026 edition, roughly half of respondents pointed to economic warfare and intensifying competition between leading states as their primary concern.
This marks a notable shift in the global risk map. Instead of conventional military clashes or purely domestic crises, respondents now see cross‑border economic coercion, sanctions, trade restrictions and financial weaponization as the most likely triggers of instability. The report suggests that economic tools are increasingly being used in ways once reserved for traditional military power, blurring the line between commerce and conflict.
From globalization to fragmentation
The findings underscore how far the world has moved from the optimism of hyper‑globalization. Where previous decades focused on trade liberalization and just‑in‑time supply chains, the new focus is on resilience, redundancy and national security.
The report indicates that governments are more willing to restrict exports of critical technologies, impose tariffs and use financial regulations as instruments of pressure. Supply chains are being re‑routed for strategic reasons, not just cost efficiency, and companies are having to plan for sudden disruptions in markets that once felt stable and predictable.
This geoeconomic turn is not limited to one region. Respondents highlighted systemic rivalry between major powers, growing tensions over resource access, and new blocs forming around technology standards, energy policy and digital infrastructure.
Great‑power competition reshapes global priorities
The WEF survey shows that rivalry between leading economies is no longer just a background concern—it is now shaping decisions on trade, investment, security and innovation. The competition spans multiple domains:
– Technology and data: States are racing to control next‑generation technologies, from semiconductors to quantum computing, often tying access to national security concerns.
– Energy and resources: Control over critical minerals, rare earths and energy routes is increasingly politicized, with export controls and long‑term supply deals used as leverage.
– Finance and currency: Sanctions regimes, asset freezes and debates over reserve currencies have made financial systems a battlefield in their own right.
The report frames this as a “geoeconomic confrontation,” where the tools of trade and finance are systematically deployed to achieve geopolitical goals. That, in turn, raises the probability of miscalculation, retaliatory measures and long‑lasting fragmentation of the global economy.
AI disruption emerges as a structural risk
Alongside immediate tensions between states, the report flags artificial intelligence as a major structural risk that will shape the coming decade. While the near‑term threat ranking is dominated by interstate tensions and economic disruption, AI‑driven upheaval sits close behind as an emerging fault line.
Experts warn that the disruptive effects of AI extend far beyond productivity gains or routine automation. The report highlights several interlinked concerns:
– Labour market upheaval: Widespread automation could displace large segments of the workforce faster than economies can retrain or absorb them, sharpening social divides.
– Information integrity: AI‑generated content, including deepfakes and hyper‑personalized propaganda, risks undermining trust in media, institutions and even basic facts.
– Security vulnerabilities: AI‑powered cyberattacks, automated hacking tools and AI‑assisted espionage could magnify existing security challenges.
– Regulatory gaps: Rapid deployment of advanced systems without clear safeguards may create legal, ethical and safety dilemmas that governments are not prepared to manage.
In this sense, AI is not just another technology; it is a cross‑cutting factor that can amplify other risks, from economic inequality to geopolitical tension.
A shifting hierarchy of global risks
Compared with previous editions, the latest Global Risks Report points to a reordering of what the international community fears most. Environmental and health‑related threats remain serious over the long term, but in the two‑year window respondents were asked about, the immediate spotlight has swung toward geoeconomic shock.
Interstate tensions and economic weaponization now sit at the top of the list, followed closely by technological disruptions such as AI. The picture that emerges is one where classic geopolitical rivalries are being fought with new instruments, while a fast‑moving technological revolution complicates efforts to build common rules.
Methodology and purpose of the Global Risks Report
The WEF’s Global Risks Report is designed as a barometer for global unease. Each year, the organization consults a wide cross‑section of stakeholders—ranging from corporate executives and risk officers to academics and public officials—to map out perceived threats over different time frames.
Participants are asked to assess both the likelihood and impact of various scenarios, from economic shocks and social instability to environmental disasters and technological breakdowns. The 2026 edition continues this approach, but what stands out is the convergence of views around geoeconomic confrontation as the core near‑term danger.
The report’s role is not to predict specific events, but to identify where vulnerabilities are accumulating so that governments, companies and institutions can prepare accordingly.
Limited policy guidance so far, but expectations are high
While the headline findings are clear, detailed policy recommendations and the full analytical breakdown have not yet been fully publicized. Traditionally, the WEF uses the report to set the agenda for discussions among political and business leaders during its annual gathering in Davos, where these themes are explored in depth.
Observers expect this year’s discussions to center on how to prevent economic rivalry from spiraling into full‑scale fragmentation, and how to build minimum guardrails for emerging technologies like AI. There is growing pressure for coordinated frameworks on export controls, data governance, AI safety standards and crisis communication between major powers.
What economic warfare looks like in practice
The term “economic warfare” can sound abstract, but the report implies that its tools are already clearly visible:
– Sanctions and export bans targeting key sectors, companies or technologies.
– Tariffs and trade barriers used not only for protectionism, but as leverage in broader disputes.
– Financial restrictions, including limits on capital flows, delistings and the use of payment systems as political instruments.
– Subsidy races and industrial policy packages designed to onshore or “friend‑shore” strategic industries.
For businesses, this means that market access can change abruptly based on political decisions rather than commercial logic. For smaller states, it raises the risk of being caught in the crossfire between larger rivals.
How businesses and governments are responding
In light of the risks outlined by the WEF, both public and private sectors are rethinking their strategies:
– Diversifying supply chains: Companies are spreading production and sourcing across more countries to avoid being overly dependent on any one jurisdiction.
– Building strategic reserves: Governments are stockpiling critical resources such as semiconductors, medical supplies and key minerals.
– Stress‑testing portfolios and operations: Financial institutions and multinationals are modeling scenarios involving sanctions, capital controls or abrupt regulatory shifts.
– Investing in cyber resilience: With AI and digital infrastructure highlighted as vulnerable, there is renewed focus on cybersecurity and data protection.
These measures are costly and complex, but the report suggests that failing to prepare for geoeconomic shocks could be even more expensive.
The AI factor: multiplier of risk or engine of resilience?
The Global Risks Report does not treat AI solely as a hazard; it also acknowledges its potential to strengthen resilience if harnessed responsibly. AI‑driven analytics can improve early warning systems for financial instability, supply‑chain bottlenecks or cyber intrusions. Advanced modeling can help policymakers understand the ripple effects of sanctions or trade disruptions before they are imposed.
However, the same capabilities that enable better forecasting can be weaponized for manipulation or attack. The key question raised by the report is whether governance, oversight and ethical frameworks can keep pace with the speed of innovation.
Navigating a world of contested interdependence
A central message of the 2026 report is that the world is not heading toward simple decoupling, but toward contested interdependence. Economies remain tightly linked, yet those links are increasingly used as instruments of pressure. AI accelerates this dynamic by making economies more digital, more connected—and potentially more vulnerable.
For leaders in government and business, the challenge is to operate in a landscape where cooperation and competition coexist uneasily. The report’s emphasis on geoeconomic confrontation and AI disruption is a warning that the next few years will test the resilience of both institutions and markets.
As the global community looks toward 2026, the WEF’s analysis suggests that the ability to manage economic rivalry, build guardrails for emerging technologies and maintain channels for dialogue will be crucial in preventing today’s tensions from hardening into tomorrow’s crises.