Global GDP is expected to grow approximately 3.1% in 2026, but that headline figure masks rising strain beneath the surface.
Inflation is cooling in some regions while remaining persistent in others. Governments have less fiscal and monetary flexibility to respond to shocks than they did several years ago, and the long-standing framework of open trade and integrated supply chains is being fundamentally restructured.
Drawing on 2,000+ expert predictions, the 2026 Global Forecast Report identifies three economic risks that warrant close attention this year.
① Fragmentation of the Global Economic Order
For decades, companies constructed supply chains primarily to minimize cost. That logic is now being supplanted by a number of factors:
- Geopolitical risk management
- Tariffs and sanctions
- Shifting industrial policy such as “friend-shoring” arrangements
This shift represents a fundamental change in long-standing norms governing global trade.
Faced with a variety of pressures, supply chains are often optimizing for political safety rather than cost efficiency. New trade agreements are increasingly being negotiated outside traditional multilateral institutions, forming coalitions of the willing that strike bilateral or regional bargains rather than working through established frameworks.
At the same time, trade interventions have proliferated. The share of G20 imports covered by tariffs has seen the largest increase in the history of WTO trade monitoring.
Tariffs are a commonly used tool of geoeconomic confrontation, which emerged as the top global risk for 2026, according to the World Economic Forum’s latest Global Risks Report.
Existing agreements are also under strain: the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) faces growing uncertainty as political pressures mount in all three countries.
That said, new agreements continue to emerge and will further alter the trade landscape. The EU-Mercosur free trade agreement, after more than two decades of negotiations, appears finally close to ratification. Canada and China also forged a new EV-focused trade deal that will see levies on Chinese EVs from 100% to 6.1% for the first 49,000 vehicles imported each year.
Such developments suggest that trade will not collapse, but it faces a prolonged and awkward period of adaptation as the global economic order reconfigures around new political realities.
Expert Opinions: The Fragmenting Global Order
② Geopolitical Escalation Involving Major Powers
Armed conflict between major powers remains an evergreen risk that, when it materializes, can impose severe and lasting costs on the global economy.
Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine demonstrated this vividly: the war triggered energy price shocks across Europe, disrupted global food supplies, accelerated the fragmentation of trade networks, and forced governments to redirect hundreds of billions toward defense spending. The conflict persists into its fifth year with no clear resolution in sight, and the Council on Foreign Relations’ 2026 survey of experts rated the intensification of the Russia–Ukraine War as a high-likelihood, high-impact contingency.
The economic consequences extend far beyond the immediate theater of war: energy price volatility, supply chain disruptions for critical inputs, and the opportunity costs associated with increasing defense expenditures (NATO members are ramping to a 5% target of GDP for military spending). As well, the broader climate of uncertainty causes businesses to delay capital expenditures and investors to demand higher risk premiums.
Several potential flashpoints warrant monitoring in 2026.
- The Taiwan Strait remains a source of concern as China continues military, economic, and political pressure on Taiwan, a contingency that experts rate as having a roughly even chance of precipitating a severe crisis involving the United States and regional powers.
- The Middle East faces the prospect of renewed conflict between Iran and Israel as Tehran attempts to reconstitute its nuclear program and rebuild its regional proxy networks.
- Russia’s “gray-zone” provocations against NATO members, including cyberattacks, drone incursions, and infrastructure sabotage, have intensified and could escalate into direct confrontation.
- North Korea has risen to a top risk following its most powerful intercontinental ballistic missile tests.
- In the Western Hemisphere, U.S. military operations targeting transnational criminal groups could escalate to direct action in Venezuela.
None of these scenarios are certain to materialize, but each represents a potential source of significant economic disruption. The key risk is that geopolitical tension does not need to produce open warfare to impose costs; sustained uncertainty alone functions as a drag on investment, trade, and growth.
Expert Opinions: Geopolitical Confrontation
③ Energy Market Volatility and Transition Failure
A widening gap between electricity demand and available supply is creating a structural constraint on economic growth. Artificial intelligence workloads, data centers, electric vehicles, and broader electrification initiatives are driving substantial increases in demand at precisely the moment when grids are contending with aging infrastructure, protracted permitting processes, and the complex economics of the energy transition.
The result is not merely an infrastructure challenge but a potential chokepoint for the industries and technologies that many economies are counting on to drive productivity gains in the years ahead.
The scale of the mismatch is considerable. U.S. electricity demand is projected to increase by 662 terawatt-hours by 2030, roughly equivalent to adding the combined output of Texas and California to the grid.
However, the infrastructure to meet that demand cannot be built quickly: transmission project backlogs exceed five years, natural gas turbines require three to four years for delivery, and nuclear plants take over a decade to construct. Data center vacancy rates have fallen to 1-2%, with new capacity 75-100% pre-leased years before it comes online. The timeline mismatch between surging demand and slow-moving supply creates a binding constraint that no amount of capital alone can solve.
The economic consequences flow through several channels:
- Electricity prices rise in regions where demand outstrips supply. Wholesale prices in areas near data center hubs are already up sharply compared to five years ago.
- Businesses that depend on reliable power face higher operating costs and may delay or relocate investments. Microsoft is restarting a mothballed reactor at Three Mile Island at roughly double the typical power contract price because no cheaper option is available. When one of the world’s largest companies cannot secure affordable baseload power, smaller firms face even starker choices.
- The AI boom that is supposed to drive productivity and growth may itself be constrained if the physical infrastructure cannot keep pace with computational ambitions. The energy transition and digital infrastructure buildout are running up against physical and regulatory constraints.
Expert Opinions: Risks in the Electricity Build-Out
The 2026 Global Forecast Report
These three risks are only part of a much broader picture.
The 2026 Global Forecast Report, presented by Inigo, looks at how economic, geopolitical, technological, and societal forces intersect, and where tensions are building.
This article highlights just a small selection of the insights in the report. The full analysis, along with additional visuals and supporting data, is available exclusively to VC+ members.