Closing Remarks
We are living in uncertain times. Successive shocks accumulate, gradually undermining the fragile balances painstakingly established in the aftermath of the Second World War. More than ever, economists have a crucial role to play. Today, science is not only contested but even targeted by the authorities of the world’s leading power. Rationality struggles to make itself heard in public discourse, as if we had collectively chosen to privilege our emotions. Yet, we are in urgent need of intellectual rigor, honesty and creativity. It is precisely in moments of profound upheaval that human reasoning proves its greatest value and potential. To our fellow citizens who distrust economic science, we must once again demonstrate our relevance and utility.
To support these concluding reflections, we have drawn upon three key sources: the discussions among members of the Cercle des économistes, the exchanges with the 33 international think tanks convened in Aix this year, and the reports from the 80 sessions of Les Rencontres, including the Agoras Jeunesse(s).
These three inputs, from diverse perspectives, have enabled us to identify 6 critical fault lines at every scale. These divisions foreshadow a deterioration of the global situation by 2030 and have led us to outline 4 possible trajectories for the world economy in the coming years. This meticulous work of mapping these divisions and quantifying potential pathways has culminated in the proposal of 5 credible avenues for détente, which must be pursued without delay.
6 fault Lines
1. The Issue of Rearmament
The world is rearming. In 2024, global military budgets increased by 9.4 % compared to 2023, reaching 2.718 trillion dollars —the largest annual rise since the end of the Cold War. At the Hague summit, the Allies committed to dedicating 5% of their GDP by 2035 to defense (3.5%) and security (1.5 %). In Europe, some countries, such as Spain, express concern over this global rearmament at the expense of other priorities, while others, including Hungary, downplay the Russian threat. These divergences are reflected in national debates, where trade-offs arise between security priorities, social issues, and fiscal sustainability.
2. The West vs. Global South Divide
The dollar is losing its preeminence. In 2025, the dollar experienced an unprecedented decline in value since 1973. The United States appears increasingly reluctant to uphold its role as guarantor of global stability, while the Global South, led by China, is rising in influence and demanding a greater role in the international order.
The Global South agrees on one point: the end of the Western-dominated global economic system, as evidenced by the expansion of the BRICS+ coalition. In the North, many fear this division of the world —or even its fragmentation into disparate regional blocs.
3. The Energy Divide
Several competing energy models are clashing. U.S. think tanks close to the White House, such as the Heritage Foundation, advocate for fossil fuels, with the United States being the world’s leading exporter. Meanwhile, China champions renewables, controlling the entire production chain. These fault lines are visible in national public debates, for example in Germany and France, particularly around the issue of nuclear energy. Given the scale of investments required, decisive choices must be made, and, above all, owned.
4. AI: Opportunity or Risk?
Two opposing visions emerge. Some emphasize expected productivity gains, potentially exceeding those of the digital revolution, and call for massive investments amid fierce international competition. Others fear the social and political consequences of AI development, its potential impact on employment, and advocate for regulation capable of managing this technological upheaval.
5. The Challenge of Migration Flows
Migration flows are heightening tensions within Western societies. Their increase fuels growing polarization in public debate. Discourses highlighting the economic benefits of immigration —especially in aging societies — clash with increasingly identity-based positions. This divide may deepen as migration intensifies, particularly from the African continent, which faces demographic explosions and severe climate pressure.
6. Distrust in Democracy
The traditional democratic model is in crisis. The radicalization of political alternatives, citizens’ preference for more authoritarian regimes, challenges to the rule of law, and election manipulation —including foreign interference—are all facets of this phenomenon. This process is interpreted variously as either a reassertion of popular sovereignty against elites or as the beginning of the end for democracy worldwide. This widespread distrust, amplified by social media algorithms, finds its roots primarily in deep and enduring social fractures.
These 6 dividing lines offer crucial insights into understanding the world as it is, and especially as it is becoming. The intensity of debates surrounding each identified fault line has enabled us to envision 4 possible trajectories for the global economy by 2030. Naturally, these scenarios are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, it is likely that unforeseen events will arise over the next five years —the current level of uncertainty is estimated by Stanford researchers to be three times higher than during the Covid crisis — disrupting what might be considered predictable. Nonetheless, this approach remains valuable for thinking about the future with precision and, above all, for preparing accordingly.
4 Possible Trajectories
1. Conflagration
By 2030, escalating geopolitical tensions, if they culminate in conventional conflicts, could heavily burden the global economy. A severely degraded peace scenario could cost up to 26% of global GDP. A Russia-NATO war in a Baltic state would cost approximately 1.5 trillion dollars in its first year. China–United States conflict over Taiwan could reach 10 trillion dollars , while a blockade – arguably the more likely scenario – would impose costs of around 10% of GDP on both Taiwan and China, and 3% on the United States. Even a temporary, albeit unlikely, blockage of the Strait of Hormuz would cause quarterly growth to fall by nearly 1%.
2. Rearmament
Raising NATO countries’ defense and security budgets to 5% of GDP by 2035 would require an additional investment of 1.35 trillion dollars—, an increase of nearly 3 percentage points of GDP from current levels. An increase of 1.5% of GDP devoted to defense could stimulate growth in Europe (+0.5 to +1.5%), if supported by reduced imports and industrial upgrading driven by France, Germany, Poland and the United Kingdom. However, in a context of rising debt —projected to increase by 20% globally by 2027—and persistent budgetary pressures (climate change, aging populations), rearmament must be coordinated to avoid fragmentation (for instance, there are 17 main battle tanks models in the EU versus 1 in the U.S) duplication, and to strengthen interoperability. The EU, constrained by internal rules (no debt issuance, unanimity requirements) and the absence of the United Kingdom, cannot serve as the framework to achieve this. A “coalition of the willing” is therefore necessary, and need to be properly regulated, so as to embody a strategic awakening rather than a resurgence of nationalism.
3. Fragmentation
Trump-era policies could accelerate the slowdown in global trade growth, which has already been underway since 2008 (falling from 6% per year to 3 %). Furthermore, if U.S. tariffs persist through 2026, global growth would decline from 3.3% in 2024 to 2.9 % by 2025 . The EU would be particularly affected (–0.35% of GDP, equivalent to 189 billion dollars in lost exports). However, the greater risk lies in a further increase in U.S. tariffs, which could provoke retaliatory measures, intensify protectionism, and fuel inflation. A 10 percentage points rise in U.S. tariffs would lead to a 0.3% decline in global output over two years and increase global inflation by 0.5 percentage point. Protectionism has already intensified sixfold since 2017, threatening to trigger a generalized retreat. The EU faces a critical choice: succumb to protectionism or defend a reimagined, strategic, and coordinated free trade framework.
4. Détente
Although unlikely, a détente scenario cannot be ruled out. Contained rearmament would limit inflationary pressures, result in less explosive public debt, and ease tensions among great powers. Should tariffs stabilize around +10%, global growth would slow but without a sustained collapse of value chains. This climate of relative stability could still pave the way for international cooperation on common challenges. On climate, for example, the gap between a non-cooperative trajectory (–1 percentage point annual growth) and a cooperative one (+0.5 point) is substantial. On the monetary front, global rules must also be revamped to enhance stability: revaluing the yuan, strengthening Europe’s capacity to provide liquidity, and containing the U.S. deficit.
5 Paths Towards Détente
By 2030, the world will undergo an evolution whose tone remains uncertain. Amid the possibilities of widespread conflagration, an arms race, or economic fragmentation, these trajectories are varied but far from predetermined. Here, we outline 5 avenues for reflection on the future.
1. Promote Reasonable Rearmament and Protectionism
We advocate for a trajectory of détente, which entails a global de-escalation of military tensions alongside a firm yet responsible European stance. As a spearhead of European strategic autonomy, France remains a pillar of the continent’s defense. To meet its NATO commitments, France should raise its defense spending to €100 billion by 2030 — an annual effort of €45 to 50 billion. This is an ambitious, perhaps challenging target, particularly as the national audit office calls for €105 billion in savings by 2029 to bring the public deficit below 3%. Within Europe, France must become the voice of responsible, sustainable, and reasonable rearmament. On trade tensions, France’s position must also balance firmness with responsibility. It should advocate for an agreement capping tariffs at 10%, while firmly resisting extraterritorial U.S. pressures —directly threatening the integrity of European digital regulations, notably the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act— within ongoing negotiations.
2. Reinvent Forms of Cooperation
The new global order weakens the post-1945 international system but also opens pathways for multiple targeted cooperations. The cards are being reshuffled. The fracturing of the Western bloc should encourage Europeans, particularly France given its historic position, to decisively turn toward countries in the Global South. Let us place a broad climate cooperation agreement between China and the EU on the agenda, accelerate trade negotiations with India, and engage pragmatically with all countries in Latin America, Central Asia, and beyond that, like us, reject a return to imperialism and are ready to cooperate on shared interests.
This flexibility must also operate within Europe itself. We should not wait for unanimity among the 27 member states to address urgent challenges. Some issues, whether regarding tarde or climate change, require common approaches. Others primarily concern certain member states and call for “coalitions of the willing,” modeled on what has been done for Ukraine with the United Kingdom. African development is chiefly a priority for Mediterranean countries; defense is an urgent matter for Eastern European states. We must organize ourselves with the necessary flexibility in a world undergoing recomposition.
3. Start from Youth
Global détente will only be achievable if tensions within our societies are reduced. The future depends on what young people decide to make of it —provided they are empowered to do so. We must listen to what they have to say. The Agoras Jeunesse(s) at the Rencontres, informed by a broad consultation of over 127,000 young people across France, have charted a path forward.
Youth socio-economic difficulties are worsening. 1.3 million young people are neither in education nor employment. For those in the labor market, the prospect of homeownership outside inheritance is fading. 54% of surveyed youth believe they will not receive a retirement pension, while current retirees are, on average, wealthier than active workers. Not to mention climate disruption, which darkens their future considerably. An intergenerational solidarity contribution is necessary, potentially in the form of a fund financed by retire wealth savings and earmarked for youth housing and education.
4. Address Democratic Distrust
Détente requires reshuffling the cards of democratic participation. The gap between institutions and citizens continues to widen, fueling anger, abstention, and authoritarian temptation. New, more horizontal forms of representation must be invented. Why not imagine, at the French level, a mechanism inspired by the European Citizens’ Initiative, which allows one million signatures from seven countries to oblige the European Commission to examine a citizen-driven issue? Unlike France’s current Referendum of Shared Initiative, this proposal would rest entirely on citizens without requiring parliamentary backing. A living democracy is not afraid of being challenged. Only on this condition can it become desirable again.
5. Innovate in Dialogue
Let us be inventive. At our scale, by giving voice to youth and convening 33 think tanks worldwide this year in Aix, we believe we have charted a promising path. Alternative formats to traditional forums, open to all currents of thought, are necessary. We seek to deepen and institutionalize this dialogue with think tanks, aiming to expand to 50 participants in Aix next year. We call on other institutions, forums, and events to follow suit, in order to sustain an exchange of perspectives from all continents, which ordinarily never confront one another.
