They are articulated by more than 2,000 experts in the Visualcapitalist.com Global Forecast 2026.
Fragmentation of the global economic order
For decades, companies have built supply chains primarily to minimize costs. This logic is now being displaced by a number of factors: geopolitical risk management; tariffs and sanctions; and industrial policy changes such as “friendly outsourcing” agreements.
This shift represents a fundamental alteration of long-standing norms governing global trade.
Under pressure from a variety of factors, supply chains are often optimized for political security rather than economic efficiency. New trade agreements are increasingly being negotiated outside traditional multilateral institutions, forming coalitions of the willing that strike bilateral or regional deals rather than working within established rules.
At the same time, trade interventions have increased significantly. The share of G20 imports subject to duties has grown the most in the history of WTO trade monitoring.
Duties are a widely used tool of geo-economic confrontation, which, according to a recent report by the World Economic Forum, has become the top global risk for 2026.
Existing agreements are also under pressure: The US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) faces growing uncertainty amid increasing political pressure in all three countries.
However, new agreements continue to emerge that will further alter the trade situation. For example, the free trade agreement between the EU and MERCOSUR, which has been negotiated for more than two decades. Canada and China have also entered into a new trade agreement focused on electric vehicles, under which duties on Chinese electric vehicles will be reduced from 100% to 6.1% for the first 49,000 vehicles imported annually.
Such developments suggest that trade will not collapse, but it will face a long and difficult period of adjustment as the global economic order realigns itself with new political realities.
Geopolitical escalation involving major powers
Armed conflict between major powers remains a constant risk that, when it materializes, could cause serious and lasting damage to the world economy.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has amply demonstrated this: the war has caused energy price shocks across Europe, disrupted global food supplies, accelerated the fragmentation of trade networks, and forced governments to divert hundreds of billions in defense spending. The conflict is now in its fifth year, with no clear solution in sight, and a 2026 Council on Foreign Relations expert survey rated the intensification of the Russia-Ukraine war as a highly likely and highly consequential scenario.
The economic consequences go well beyond the immediate theater of war: volatile energy prices, disruptions in supply chains of critical resources, and opportunity costs associated with increased defense spending (NATO members are aiming for a target of 5% of GDP for military spending). In addition, the general climate of uncertainty is causing businesses to postpone capital investments and investors to demand higher risk premiums.
There are several potential flashpoints to watch out for in 2026.
The Taiwan Strait remains a source of concern as China continues to exert military, economic, and political pressure on Taiwan, and experts estimate the likelihood that this will lead to a major crisis involving the United States and regional powers to be approximately 50%.
In the Middle East, there is the prospect of renewed conflict between Iran and Israel as Tehran attempts to rebuild its nuclear program and revive its regional mediation networks.
“Gray areas” of Russian provocations against NATO members, including cyberattacks, drone incursions, and infrastructure sabotage, have intensified and could escalate into direct confrontation.
North Korea has become a major source of risk after conducting its most powerful intercontinental ballistic missile test ever.
In the Western Hemisphere, U.S. military operations against transnational criminal groups could escalate into direct action in Venezuela.
None of these scenarios is guaranteed to materialize, but each represents a potential source of significant economic disruption. The main risk is that geopolitical tensions need not lead to open warfare to cause damage; sustained uncertainty alone is enough to inhibit investment, trade, and economic growth.
Energy market volatility and the failure of the energy transition
The growing gap between electricity demand and available supply creates a structural constraint on economic growth, which Moldovan businesses are also experiencing. AI-driven loads, data centers, electric vehicles, and broader electrification initiatives are driving a significant increase in demand at precisely the moment when power systems are facing aging infrastructure, protracted permitting processes, and the complex economics of energy transition.
The result is not just an infrastructure problem, but a potential bottleneck for industries and technologies that many economies are counting on to increase productivity in the coming years.
The scale of the mismatch is significant. U.S. electricity demand is projected to increase by 662 terawatt-hours by 2030, roughly equivalent to the combined electricity generation of Texas and California.
However, the infrastructure to meet this demand cannot be built quickly: transmission projects take more than five years to complete, gas turbines take three to four years to deliver, and nuclear power plants take more than a decade to build.
Data center vacancy rates have fallen to 1-2%, with 75-100% of new capacity leased years before it goes live. The timing mismatch between growing demand and slow-moving supply creates a limiting factor that cannot be addressed by capital investment alone.
The economic impact manifests itself through several channels:
Electricity prices rise in regions where demand exceeds supply. Wholesale prices in areas near data centers have already risen sharply compared to five years ago.
Businesses dependent on reliable power face higher operating costs and may postpone or defer investments. Microsoft is restarting the mothballed reactor at Three Mile Island at about twice the normal contract price for electricity because there is no cheaper option. When one of the world’s largest companies cannot secure an affordable basic power supply, smaller firms face even more difficult choices.
The boom in artificial intelligence, which should drive productivity and growth, may itself be constrained if physical infrastructure cannot keep up with computing ambitions. The energy transition and the development of digital infrastructure face physical and regulatory constraints.
