The Global Risks Report analyses global risks over one-, two- and 10-year horizons to support decision-makers in adopting a dual vision that balances short- and longer-term risks. This chapter addresses the outlook for the first two time frames and examines selected risks that are likely to heighten by 2026. Chapter 2 addresses the 10-year outlook and how evolving risks may interact to create four potential high-risk outlooks for the world. The third and final chapter examines the concept of cooperation, showcasing different approaches to address global risks.

The aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing Russia-Ukraine war has exposed cracks in societies that are being further strained by episodic upheaval. Yet the global system has thus far proved surprisingly resilient. A widely anticipated recession failed to materialize last year, and financial turbulence was quickly subdued, but the outlook remains uncertain.[i] Political strife and violent conflicts, from Niger and Sudan to Gaza and Israel, have captured the attention and apprehension of populations worldwide in some cases while attracting little focus in others. These developments have not yet led to wider regional conflicts – nor have they created globally destabilizing consequences such as those seen at the initial outbreak of the war in Ukraine or the COVID-19 pandemic – but their long-term outlook could bring further shocks.

As we enter 2024, results of the Forum’s Global Risks Perception Survey 2023-2024 (GRPS) highlight a predominantly negative outlook for the world over the short term that is expected to worsen over the long term (Figure 1.1). Surveyed in September 2023, the majority of respondents (54%) anticipate some instability and a moderate risk of global catastrophes, while another 27% expect greater turbulence and 3% expect global catastrophic risks to materialize in the short term. Only 16% expect a stable or calm outlook in the next two years. The outlook is markedly more negative over the 10-year timeframe, with 63% of respondents expecting a stormy or turbulent outlook and less than 10% expecting a calm or stable situation.

GRPS results for 2024, 2026 and 2034 highlight current crises that corrode resilience, as well as new and rapidly evolving sources of risk that will reshape the next decade. For the one-year time frame, respondents were asked to select up to five risks that they feel are most likely to present a material crisis on a global scale in 2024. Results are summarized in Figure 1.2.

After the hottest Northern Hemisphere summer in recorded history in 2023,[ii] two-thirds of respondents selected Extreme weather (66%) as the top risk faced in 2024. El Niño, or the warming phase of the alternating El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, is expected to strengthen and persist until May this year.[iii] This could continue to set new records in heat conditions, with extreme heatwaves, drought, wildfires and flooding anticipated.

AI-generated misinformation and disinformation (53%) and Societal and/or political polarization (46%) follow in second and third place. Many countries are still struggling to regain lost years of progress that arose from the COVID-19 pandemic, creating fertile ground for misinformation and disinformation to take hold and polarize communities, societies and countries.

Mirroring the previous year’s survey results, the Cost-of-living crisis (42%) and Cyberattacks (39%) remain major concerns in the outlook overall and appear as a top-three concern for government and private-sector respondents, respectively. The Cost-of-living crisis is ranked higher by younger age groups: it was selected by 55% of respondents aged 39 or below, compared to just 28% of those aged 60 or over.[iv]

Although energy and food crises ranked among the top risks of 2023, this year less than one-fifth of respondents selected Disrupted supply chains for food (18%) or Disrupted supply chains for energy (14%) as core concerns for 2024. The survey was conducted in September of 2023, thus the outlook may have since shifted given the conflict in the Middle East, particularly if hostilities escalate. Climate pressures may yet drive prices higher;[v] however, a warmer winter in the Northern Hemisphere, for example, followed by the easing of the El Niño cycle over the summer, could partially alleviate further energy price spikes resulting from any escalation of the Israel-Gaza or Russia-Ukraine conflicts.

Notably, while the survey was conducted before the outbreak of the former conflict, a quarter of respondents rank the Escalation or outbreak of interstate armed conflict(s) (25%) as among the top five risks for 2024, pointing to a broader set of concerns. At more than 200,000 deaths in 2022, conflict deaths are at the highest level in decades, driven predominantly by state-based armed conflict.[vi]

Risks relating to the financial, tech and real-estate sectors are towards the bottom of respondents’ concerns for 2024.

Weakened systems only require the smallest shock to edge past the tipping point of resilience. In the second time frame covered by the survey, respondents were asked to rank the likely impact of risks in the next two years. The results suggest that corrosive socioeconomic vulnerabilities will be amplified in the near term, with looming concerns about an Economic downturn (Chapter 1.5), resurgent risks such as Interstate armed conflict (Chapter 1.4), and rapidly evolving risks like Misinformation and disinformation (Chapter 1.3).

As discussed in last year’s Global Risks Report, less predictable and harder-to-handle inflation heightens the risk of miscalibration of efforts to balance price stability and economic growth (Chapter 1.5: Economic uncertainty). Economic risks are notable new entrants to the top 10 rankings this year, with both Inflation (#7) and Economic downturn (#9) featuring in the two-year time frame (Figure 1.3). Economic risks are prioritized in particular by public- and private-sector respondents (Figure 1.5). Geoeconomic confrontation (#14) is a marked absence from the top 10 rankings this year (Figure 1.4) and has decreased in perceived severity compared to last year’s scores. However, like related economic risks, it features among the top concerns for both public- and private-sector respondents (at #10 and #11, respectively) as a continuing source of economic volatility.

Misinformation and disinformation has risen rapidly in rankings to first place for the two-year time frame, and the risk is likely to become more acute as elections in several economies take place this year (Chapter 1.3: False information). Societal polarization is the third-most severe risk over the short term, and a consistent concern across nearly all stakeholder groupings (Figures 1.5 and 1.6). Divisive factors such as political polarization and economic hardship are diminishing trust and a sense of shared values. The erosion of social cohesion is leaving ample room for new and evolving risks to propagate in turn. Societal polarization, alongside Economic downturn, is seen as one of the most central risks in the interconnected “risks network”, with the greatest potential to trigger and be influenced by other risks (Figure 1.7).

Interstate armed conflict (#5) rises in the rankings for the two-year horizon, across nearly all stakeholder groups, except for government respondents. This divergence may simply reflect different views around defining conflict: interstate armed conflict in the strict definition has remained relatively rare thus far, but international interventions in intrastate conflict are on the rise (Chapter 1.4 Rise in conflict).

Extreme weather events, a persistent concern between last year and this year, is at #2, Cyber insecurity at #4, Involuntary migration at #8 and Pollution at #10, rounding out the top 10 concerns in respondents’ risk perceptions through to 2026. Overall, global risks have lower severity scores compared to last year’s results.[vii] Further down in the two-year time frame rankings, Critical change to Earth systems comes in at #11, Debt in 16th place, and Adverse outcomes of AI technologies and other frontier technologies in 29th and last place, respectively.

The following sections explore some of the most severe risks that many expect to play out over the next two years, focusing on three entrants to the top 10 risks list over the short term: Misinformation and disinformation (#1), Interstate armed conflict (#5) and Economic downturn (#9). We briefly describe the latest developments and key drivers for false information, a rise in conflict and economic uncertainty, and consider their emerging implications and knock-on effects.

– Misinformation and disinformation may radically disrupt electoral processes in several economies over the next two years.

– A growing distrust of information, as well as media and governments as sources, will deepen polarized views - a vicious cycle that could trigger civil unrest and possibly confrontation.

– There is a risk of repression and erosion of rights as authorities seek to crack down on the proliferation of false information – as well as risks arising from inaction.

The disruptive capabilities of manipulated information are rapidly accelerating, as open access to increasingly sophisticated technologies proliferates and trust in information and institutions deteriorates. In the next two years, a wide set of actors will capitalize on the boom in synthetic content,[viii] amplifying societal divisions, ideological violence and political repression – ramifications that will persist far beyond the short term.

Misinformation and disinformation (#1) is a new leader of the top 10 rankings this year. No longer requiring a niche skill set, easy-to-use interfaces to large-scale artificial intelligence (AI) models have already enabled an explosion in falsified information and so-called ‘synthetic’ content, from sophisticated voice cloning to counterfeit websites. To combat growing risks, governments are beginning to roll out new and evolving regulations to target both hosts and creators of online disinformation and illegal content.[ix] Nascent regulation of generative AI will likely complement these efforts. For example, requirements in China to watermark AI-generated content may help identify false information, including unintentional misinformation through AI hallucinated content.[x] Generally however, the speed and effectiveness of regulation is unlikely to match the pace of development.

Synthetic content will manipulate individuals, damage economies and fracture societies in numerous ways over the next two years. Falsified information could be deployed in pursuit of diverse goals, from climate activism to conflict escalation. New classes of crimes will also proliferate, such as non-consensual deepfake pornography or stock market manipulation.[xi] However, even as the insidious spread of misinformation and disinformation threatens the cohesion of societies, there is a risk that some governments will act too slowly, facing a trade-off between preventing misinformation and protecting free speech, while repressive governments could use enhanced regulatory control to erode human rights.

Mistrust in elections

Over the next two years, close to three billion people will head to the electoral polls across several economies, including the United States, India, the United Kingdom, Mexico and Indonesia (Figure 1.9).[xii] The presence of misinformation and disinformation in these electoral processes could seriously destabilize the real and perceived legitimacy of newly elected governments, risking political unrest, violence and terrorism, and a longer-term erosion of democratic processes.

Recent technological advances have enhanced the volume, reach and efficacy of falsified information, with flows more difficult to track, attribute and control. The capacity of social media companies to ensure platform integrity will likely be overwhelmed in the face of multiple overlapping campaigns.[xiii] Disinformation will also be increasingly personalized to its recipients and targeted to specific groups, such as minority communities, as well as disseminated through more opaque messaging platforms such as WhatsApp or WeChat.[xiv]

The identification of AI-generated mis- and disinformation in these campaigns will not be clear-cut. The difference between AI- and human-generated content is becoming more difficult to discern, not only for digitally literate individuals, but also for detection mechanisms.[xv] Research and development continues at pace, but this area of innovation is radically underfunded in comparison to the underlying technology.[xvi] Moreover, even if synthetic content is labelled as such,[xvii] these labels are often digital and not visible to consumers of content or appear as warnings that still allow the information to spread. Such information can thus still be emotively powerful, blurring the line between malign and benign use. For example, an AI-generated campaign video could influence voters and fuel protests, or in more extreme scenarios, lead to violence or radicalization, even if it carries a warning by the platform on which it is shared that it is fabricated content.[xviii]

The implications of these manipulative campaigns could be profound, threatening democratic processes. If the legitimacy of elections is questioned, civil confrontation is possible – and could even expand to internal conflicts and terrorism, and state collapse in more extreme cases. Depending on the systemic importance of an economy, there is also a risk to global trade and financial markets. State-backed campaigns could deteriorate interstate relations, by way of strengthened sanctions regimes, cyber offense operations with related spillover risks, and detention of individuals (including targeting primarily based on nationality, ethnicity and religion).[xix]

Societies divided

Misinformation and disinformation and Societal polarization are seen by GRPS respondents to be the most strongly connected risks in the network, with the largest potential to amplify each other. Indeed, polarized societies are more likely to trust information (true or false) that confirms their beliefs. Given distrust in the government and media as sources of false information,[xx] manipulated content may not be needed – merely raising a question as to whether it has been fabricated may be sufficient to achieve relevant objectives. This then sows the seeds for further polarization.

As identified in last year’s Global Risks Report (Chapter 1.2 Societal polarization), the consequences could be vast. Societies may become polarized not only in their political affiliations, but also in their perceptions of reality, posing a serious challenge to social cohesion and even mental health. When emotions and ideologies overshadow facts, manipulative narratives can infiltrate the public discourse on issues ranging from public health to social justice and education to the environment. Falsified information can also fuel animosity, from bias and discrimination in the workplace to violent protests, hate crimes and terrorism.

Some governments and platforms, aiming to protect free speech and civil liberties, may fail to act to effectively curb falsified information and harmful content, making the definition of “truth” increasingly contentious across societies. State and non-state actors alike may leverage false information to widen fractures in societal views, erode public confidence in political institutions, and threaten national cohesion and coherence. Trust in specific leaders will confer trust in information, and the authority of these actors – from conspiracy theorists, including politicians, and extremist groups to influencers and business leaders – could be amplified as they become arbiters of truth.

Defining truth

False information could not only be used as a source of societal disruption, but also of control, by domestic actors in pursuit of political agendas.[xxi] Although misinformation and disinformation have long histories, the erosion of political checks and balances, and growth in tools that spread and control information, could amplify the efficacy of domestic disinformation over the next two years.[xxii] Global internet freedom is already in decline and access to wider sets of information has dropped in numerous countries.[xxiii] Falls in press freedoms in recent years and a related lack of strong investigative media, are also significant vulnerabilities that are set to grow.[xxiv]

Indeed, the proliferation of misinformation and disinformation may be leveraged to strengthen digital authoritarianism and the use of technology to control citizens. Governments themselves will be increasingly in a position to determine what is true, potentially allowing political parties to monopolize the public discourse and suppress dissenting voices, including journalists and opponents.[xxv] Individuals have already been imprisoned in Belarus and Nicaragua, and killed in Myanmar and Iran, for online speech.[xxvi]

The export of authoritarian digital norms to a wider set of countries could create a vicious cycle: the risk of misinformation quickly descends into the widespread control of information which, in turn, leaves citizens vulnerable to political repression and domestic disinformation.[xxvii] GRPS respondents highlight strong bilateral relationships between Misinformation and disinformation, Censorship and surveillance (#21) and the Erosion of human rights (#15), indicating a higher perceived likelihood of all three risks occurring together (Figure 1.10).

This is a particular concern in those countries facing upcoming elections, where a crackdown on real or perceived foreign interference could be used to consolidate existing control, particularly in flawed democracies or hybrid regimes. Yet more mature democracies could also be at risk, both from extensive exercises of government control or due to trade-offs between managing mis- and disinformation and protecting free speech. In January last year, Twitter and YouTube agreed to remove links to a BBC documentary in India.[xxviii] In Mexico, civil society has been concerned about the government's approach to fake news and its implications for press freedom and safety.[xxix]

– Escalation in three key hotspots – Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan – is possible, with high-stakes ramifications for the geopolitical order, global economy, and safety and security.

– Geographic, ideological, socioeconomic and environmental trends could converge to spark new and resurgent hostilities, amplifying state fragility.

– As the world becomes more multipolar, a widening array of pivotal powers will step into the vacuum, potentially eroding guardrails to conflict containment.

The world has become significantly less peaceful over the past decade, with conflict erupting in multiple regions last year.[xxx] Active conflicts are at the highest levels in decades, while related deaths have witnessed a steep increase, nearly quadrupling over the two-year period from 2020 to 2022 (Figure 1.12), largely attributable to developments in Ethiopia and Ukraine. While difficult to attribute to a single cause, longer-term shifts in geopolitical power, economic fragility and limits to the efficacy and capacity of international security mechanisms have all contributed to this surge.

Interstate armed conflict (#5) is a new entrant to the top 10 risk rankings this year. Specific flashpoints could absorb focus and split the resources of major powers over the next two years, degrading global security and destabilizing the global financial system and supply chains. Although war between two states in the strict definition remains relatively rare (Figure 1.12), this could contribute to conflict contagion, leading to rapidly expanding humanitarian crises that overwhelm the capacity to respond.

High-stakes hotspots

Over the next two years, the attention and resources of global powers are likely to be focused on three hotspots in particular: the war in Ukraine, the Israel-Gaza conflict and tensions over Taiwan. Escalation in any one of these hotspots would radically disrupt global supply chains, financial markets, security dynamics and political stability, viscerally threatening the sense of security and safety of individuals worldwide.

All three areas stand at a geopolitical crossroads, where major powers have vested interests: oil and trade routes in the Middle East, stability and the balance of power in Eastern Europe, and advanced technological supply chains in East Asia. Each could lead to broader regional destabilization, directly drawing in major power(s) and escalating the scale of conflict. All three also directly involve power(s) reckoned to possess nuclear capabilities.

Over the next two years, the war in Ukraine could sporadically alternate between intensifying and refreezing. Despite sanctions, Russia has continued to benefit from energy profits and commodity exports – and this could increase further if the conflict in the Middle East widens.[xxxi] Pro-Russian or neutral sentiment in Eastern and Central Europe could soften support from Ukraine’s European allies[xxxii] while support in the United States could wane under domestic pressures, other international priorities, or under a new government. Global divisions with respect to the Middle East conflict may also complicate efforts by Ukraine to maintain unity with Western allies, while also garnering support from the Global South.[xxxiii] If the conflict intensifies, it is still more likely to do so through conventional rather than nuclear means, but it could also expand to neighbouring countries. While post-conflict scenarios for both Ukraine and Russia are difficult to predict, the war could ‘refreeze’ into a prolonged, sporadic conflict that could last years or even decades.[xxxiv]

Proximate developments in the Middle East are a source of considerable uncertainty, risking further indirect or direct confrontation between global powers. If the Israel-Gaza conflict destabilizes into wider regional warfare, more extensive intervention by major powers is possible, including Iran and the West.[xxxv] Beyond potentially seismic shocks to global energy prices and supply chains, escalation could split the attention and resources of the EU and the United States between Ukraine and Israel.[xxxvi] The scale of Gulf countries’ or Western intervention is uncertain; it’s likely to continue to be deeply polarizing domestically and hold significant political sway.

Numerous GRPS respondents also cited Taiwan and disputed territories in East and South-East Asia as areas of concern. In contrast to Russia, which doubled its defense spending target to more than $100 billion in 2023, and the United States, which allocated over $113 billion in assistance relating to the war in Ukraine alone,[xxxvii] China has largely acted as a non-interventionist power in both the Ukraine and Middle East conflicts, avoiding the risk of overstretch.[xxxviii] While there is no evidence to suggest that escalation is imminent, there remains a material possibility of accidental or intentional outbreak of hostilities, given heightened activity in the region.[xxxix]

Conflict contagion

As high-stakes hotspots undermine global security, a wider set of trends may fuel a combustible environment in which new and existing hostilities are more likely to ignite. As conflicts spread, guardrails to their containment are eroding and resolve for long-term solutions have stalled.[xl] In parallel, the internationalization of conflicts by a wider set of alternate powers will accelerate ‘multipolarity’ and the risk of inadvertent escalation.

First, simmering tensions and frozen conflicts that are proximate to existing hotspots could heat up. For example, spillover impacts from a high concentration of conflicts, such as in Asia and Africa (Figure 1.13), could range from more readily available arms trafficking to conflict-driven migration. Other states could also deliberately stoke tensions in neighbouring countries to divert attention and resources, through disinformation campaigns or the deployment of state-backed militia groups, for example. Frozen conflicts at risk could include the Balkans, Libya, Syria, Kashmir, Guyana, the Kurdish region and Korean peninsula.[xli] These risks are well-recognized by business leaders: Interstate armed conflict features as a top-five risk in 20 countries (18%) surveyed in the Forum’s Executive Opinion Survey (Appendix C: Executive Opinion Survey: National Risk Perceptions), including Egypt, Iraq, Kazakhstan and Serbia, and is the top risk in Armenia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and Japan.

Second, resource stress, economic hardship and weakened state capacity will likely grow and, in turn, fuel conflict.[xlii] There may also be a rise of ‘ungoverned countries’, where non-state actors fight for control over large swathes of territory, or where parties not recognized by the international system gain full control. For example, resource-rich countries could become caught in a battleground of proxy warfare between multiple powers, including neighbouring economies, organized crime networks and paramilitary groups (Chapter 2.6 Crime wave).[xliii]

Third, with instant information networks and reinforcing algorithms, the symbolism of high-stakes hotspots could trigger contagion beyond conflict geographies. Deeply ingrained ideological grievances are in some cases driving hostilities, and these divisions are resonating with communities and political parties elsewhere. This expands beyond religious and ethnic divisions to broader challenges to systems of governance. National identities, international law and democratic values are coming into question, contributing to civil unrest, threatening human rights, and reigniting violence, including in advanced democracies and between the Global North and South.

North-South rift

Dissatisfaction with the continued political, military and economic dominance of the Global North is growing, particularly as states in the Global South bear the brunt of a changing climate, the aftereffects of pandemic-era crises and geoeconomic rifts between major powers. Historical grievances of colonialism, combined with more recent ones regarding the costs of food and fuel, geopolitical alliances, the United Nations and Bretton Woods systems, and the loss and damage agenda, could accelerate anti-Western sentiment over the next two years. In conjunction with more thinly spread resources and tighter economic conditions, military power projection by the West could fade further, potentially creating power vacuums in parts of Africa, the Middle East and Asia. France, for example, has withdrawn troops on request from Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger over the past two years.[xliv]

As the dominance of long-held power centres wanes, alternate powers will compete for influence in interstate and intrastate conflicts, potentially leading to deadlier, prolonged proxy warfare and overwhelming humanitarian crises.[xlv]

There are a number of incentives to this involvement, from access to raw resources, such as minerals and oil, to the protection and promotion of trade, investment and security interests. Pivotal powers will also increasingly lend support and resources to garner political allies, taking advantage of this widening rift between the Global North and the Global South.

As a new set of influences in global affairs takes shape, political alliances and alignment within the Global South will also shape the longer-term trajectory of internationalized conflicts. A deep divide on the international stage could mean that coordinated efforts to isolate ‘rogue’ states may be increasingly futile, while international governance and peacekeeping mechanisms shown to be ineffective at ‘policing’ conflict could be sidelined.

– The near-term outlook remains highly uncertain due to domestic factors in some of the world's largest markets as well as geopolitical developments.

– Continued supply-side pressures and demand uncertainty could contribute to persistent inflation and high interest rates.

– Small- and medium-sized companies and heavily indebted countries will be particularly exposed to slowing growth amid elevated interest rates.

According to one narrative, the global economy has shown surprising resilience in the face of the most aggressive global tightening of monetary policy in decades. Despite widespread predictions of a recession in 2023 (Figure 1.15),[xlvi] the perception of a ‘softer landing’ appears to be prevailing. Inflation is falling amid tight labour markets and stronger-than-anticipated consumer spending and growth, particularly in the United States.[xlvii] In another version, persistently elevated inflation in many countries and high interest rates are weighing heavily on economic growth, particularly in export- and manufacturing-led markets. An already visible economic downturn is likely to spread, with a risk that new economic shocks would be unmanageable in such fragility and debt passes the tipping point of sustainability.

These contrasting narratives encapsulate the highly uncertain economic outlook. Fears of an Economic downturn are widespread among private-sector respondents, featuring as a top-five risk in 102 countries (90%) surveyed in the EOS, a significant uptick from 2022 (Figure 1.16). A slowdown in global growth is already occurring, but it is taking place under a different set of economic parameters than previous cycles, heightening uncertainty. Over the next two years, there may be a lack of coherence in forward projections within and between economies, particularly with respect to inflation, interest rates and growth rates. With contrasting views about the future, the risk of miscalibration by central banks, governments and companies will rise accordingly, potentially deepening and prolonging economic risks. Additionally, continued trade conflicts and geoeconomic rifts between the United States, European Union and China add to the significant economic uncertainty ahead.

Supply-driven price pressures

Markets are already anticipating interest rate cuts in key economies in the first half of this year.[xlviii] However, there are several inflationary pressures that may stymie expectations and present a less-smooth path to inflation targets. If price pressures continue, central banks could be hesitant to cut rates in response to signals of weaker growth, resulting in higher-for-longer inflation and interest rates.

Reflecting tighter financial conditions, both headline and core inflation have dropped in the United States and the Eurozone (Figure 1.17).[xlix] In parallel, there has been a slowdown in economic growth in key industries and markets. The global economy had been propped up by continued strength in services throughout 2023, which is now flagging, while manufacturing has already been in contraction for over a year (Figure 1.18).[l] Economic growth is stagnant in the European Union, at 0.6% last year, with estimates suggesting that the economic powerhouse of Germany contracted by 0.3% in 2023.[li] Profits of the S&P 500, excluding the ‘Magnificent 7’ tech stocks, were estimated to contract by 8.6% last year.[lii]

Yet even as inflation has been partially tamed through higher interest rates, it has not reached central bank targets of two percent and there remains a material risk of largely supply-side price pressures over the next two years. For example, El Niño-impacts to food production and logistics could drive inflation and costly disruptions to supply chains. Any amplification of the Middle East conflict could trigger price spikes in energy and further disrupt shipping routes, compounding continued impacts from the war in Ukraine.[liii] The cost-of-living impact of persistent inflation, perceived to be declining in 2024, could resurge as the continued impact of elevated prices persists. A wage-price spiral is still possible, with EOS respondents anticipating labour shortages in key sectors and economies over the next two years (Chapter 2.5: End of development?). Stronger industrial policies and trade controls emanating from advanced economies, targeting the green transition and advanced technology, could also remain a persistent inflationary trend over this period.

Uncertainty within global powerhouses

The outlooks for the two largest economies – China and the United States – are highly complex, and these two key sources of uncertainty could lead to unanticipated, and possibly divergent, implications for the trajectory of the global economy.

China’s economy is widely expected to slow this year, with the weakening of the property market and local and external demand generally cited as primary causes.[liv] . Despite retaining its ‘A1’ long-term credit rating, the outlook for China’s government debt was recently downgraded from ‘neutral’ to ‘negative’, reflecting risks relating to ‘structurally and persistently lower medium-term economic growth’.[lv] Yet investment in both manufacturing and energy infrastructure have been key drivers of growth in recent years, replacing lost construction demand to a degree.[lvi] Although challenges remain, in the absence of further shocks, there is room for an upside surprise – local consumption may revive, growth may be less sluggish and the slowdown shallower than pervasive market expectations. In addition, in the absence of further geoeconomic backlash, excess capacity in advanced manufacturing, particularly in green technologies, could help counteract global price pressures, lending momentum to the green transition and global demand.[lvii]

There is similar uncertainty in the United States. Some forecasts are already pricing in up to 2.4% economic growth for 2024, and others predict rate cuts in the early half of the year.[lviii] Fiscal policy has remained loose even as monetary policy tightened, with the United States running a $1.7 trillion deficit in 2023, effectively doubling the deficit in the past year alone.[lix] This could continue to keep demand-driven price pressures high. The correlation between consumer sentiment and spending is also adding to uncertainty: economic pessimism may be widespread, but it is not necessarily dampening demand – yet.[lx] On the other hand, debt servicing hit over $981 billion in Q3 2023 – an increase of over $753 billion compared to the same period in 2022, a sum similar to the budgetary spend on defense.[lxi] Any fiscal consolidation in the United States – or a political stand-off relating to debt loads – could have a profound effect on global markets and trade, while any overestimation of the slowdown could lead to earlier or sharper intervention on interest rates and re-spark demand-side price pressures. The outcome of the US presidential elections in November creates additional uncertainty for the country’s economic outlook, depending on the policy choices of the next government.[lxii]

Debt distress

Higher interest rates amid slowing growth will strain debt loads for the public and private sector alike. The corporate debt default rate remains far lower than peaks hit during the 2008-09 Global Financial Crisis (Figure 1.19).[lxiii] The majority of corporate debt is also years from maturity. Less than 14% of S&P 500 debt is set to mature in the next two years, with nearly half to mature after 2030.[lxiv] In essence, the world’s largest companies will be effectively insulated from higher interest rates for more than half a decade.

However, small and medium-sized companies, that form the backbone of many domestic markets, will be particularly sensitive to slowing economic growth and persistently high interest rates. As struggling companies cut costs, unemployment may rise, reducing consumer spending and creating a negative feedback loop that can contribute to a deeper economic downturn. This could also contribute to heightened market concentration, as start-ups struggle and larger, more financially robust corporations consolidate their position, including in the tech sector (Chapter 2.4: AI in charge).

Heavily indebted countries are also exposed to these economic conditions. The risk of sovereign debt defaults is rising but notably, even with a strong US dollar, larger emerging economies such as Mexico and Brazil have largely avoided debt distress to date.[lxv] This has been attributed to structurally different conditions in these markets than in the past, including central bank independence and the accumulation of large foreign-exchange reserves.[lxvi] In other parts of the world, like in Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Lebanon, Pakistan, and Tunisia, the risks are much higher. The impacts of tighter financial conditions will build over time, and pressures on fiscal balances will rise. Given historically high debt loads, many governments might be unable or unwilling to help cushion economic impacts to the same degree as they have in recent years, sharpening the slowdown for companies and individuals.

These results point to a global risks landscape where economic, geopolitical and societal vulnerabilities will continue to build. Worrying developments emerging today have the potential to become chronic global risks over the next decade.

As constant upheaval becomes the norm, decades of investment in human development – and human resilience – are slowly being chipped away, potentially leaving even comparatively strong states and individuals vulnerable to rapid shocks from novel and resurgent sources. The impacts of extreme weather may deplete available economic resources to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Increasing vulnerabilities, brought about by resource stress, conflict and increasing polarization, could expose societies and whole economies to crime and corruption. Exponential technology growth may leave the next generation without a clear path to improve human potential, security and wellbeing.

How these global risks evolve will reflect the global conditions that are slowly taking shape across multiple spheres: geostrategic, environmental, demographic and technological. Chapter 2 discusses a world that is being stretched beyond its limit, highlighting a series of emergent risks that are arising in the context of these structural regime shifts. A multiplicity of futures are conceivable over the next decade. While the next chapter explores the most concerning potential outcomes, Chapter 3 explores how a more positive path can be shaped through acting today.