Florence Gaub on reading the future: War, weak signals, and wild scenarios
NATO futurist Florence Gaub on war, weak signals, Gen Z, and why leaders need not only foresight, but also science fiction to future-proof their organizations...
Geopolitics
Artificial intelligence
From the J Curve to the L Curve: Can we avoid an ‘AI-tocracy’?
World competitiveness is shifting from open markets to controlled systems, where power lies in mastering technology – with the risk that efficiency gains come at the expense of democracy itself, argues Arturo...
World competitiveness is shifting from open markets to controlled systems, where power lies in mastering technology – with the risk that efficiency gains come at the expense of democracy itself, argues Arturo Bris.
At first glance, a Swiss referendum on population growth, extraordinary bonuses for Samsung memory-chip employees, and China’s decision to block Meta’s $2bn acquisition of AI startup Manus appear unrelated.
Taken together, however, they are weak signals of a deeper transformation in the global order where technological capability is becoming a primary source of economic and political power. In this environment, competitiveness is no longer defined by openness or integration, but by control over data, talent, capital, and critical technologies.
For the past two decades, globalization followed the logic described by American political scientist and author Ian Bremmer’s J Curve. Countries could achieve stability either through openness and integration or through control and isolation. That framework is now losing relevance. We are entering a new era, what I call an L Curve or Leviathan Curve, where stability and power depend on the ability to develop, deploy, and govern advanced technologies, especially artificial intelligence.
The signals we see today – from shifting social expectations to the erosion of global governance – point to this transition. They also reveal a growing tension between technological power and democratic systems.
Social fracture: Rising inequality
The first signal is Switzerland’s June 2026 referendum on capping the population at 10 million. Although rejected, the close result reflects rising concern that economic growth no longer delivers broadly shared prosperity.
In advanced economies, the focus is shifting from the quantity of growth to its quality. The central questions are who benefits, how wealth is distributed, and whether living standards can be sustained
Economic fracture: The rise of strategic talent
This shift is mirrored in labor markets. Samsung Electronics recently offered bonuses averaging €350,000 (approximately $401,000) to employees in its memory-chip division to avert a strike, as AI-driven demand fuels profits. This points to a structural change. Strategic talent – individuals with scarce and high-value expertise – is becoming more important than routine labor. As AI reshapes work, societies are fragmenting into owners of capital, strategic talent that captures disproportionate value, workers whose roles are commoditized or automated, and those excluded altogether. The defining economic tension is shifting away from labor versus capital toward capital versus strategic talent.
Institutional fracture: Weakening global governance
The third signal is the erosion of global governance. Multilateral rules are giving way to ad hoc deals and economic nationalism. China’s decision to block Meta’s acquisition of Manus, alongside United States restrictions on advanced AI technologies, shows how critical technologies are becoming strategic assets that shape geopolitical power.
Across many countries, democratic systems face internal pressure, with rising support for far-right parties among younger generations in Europe.
Political fracture: Weakening global democracy
The fourth signal is the growing contestation of democracy. Across many countries, democratic systems face internal pressure, with rising support for far-right parties among younger generations in Europe. At the same time, competitiveness and democracy are diverging. In the 2026 World Competitiveness Ranking, two of the top five economies – Hong Kong and the United Arab Emirates – are not liberal democracies, yet deliver strong economic performance and effective governance.Technology is concentrating not only wealth, but also political power.
Technology as the force connecting everything
Technology is concentrating not only wealth but also political power. What connects these signals is a deeper transformation in how power is created, distributed, and exercised. Artificial intelligence is at the center of this shift. It is reshaping how we work, how societies are organized, and what we value.
It is also becoming a geopolitical instrument. Its use in surveillance, information control, and security applications illustrates how AI can reinforce state power. China’s surveillance systems, including those deployed in Xinjiang, demonstrate the potential for AI-enabled control, while concerns in Europe over dependence on US-controlled technologies – from military intelligence to advanced chips – highlight the strategic vulnerabilities created by technological dependence.
At the same time, capital is concentrating around AI. Technology-related stocks account for 32% of the MSCI All Country World Index. The infrastructure needed to support AI, especially data centers and energy, is gobbling up vast resources. The race is no longer just about building better models, but about controlling the inputs required to scale them.
The contest between ‘AI-tocracy’ and democracy
If technological control becomes the organizing principle of competitiveness, the risk is that we will move toward systems where power follows technology, not citizens.
The J Curve assumed that openness or control could both deliver stability. That logic is breaking down. In the emerging L Curve, countries that dominate AI capabilities are gaining strategic advantage and reshaping the relationship between technology and the state.
The risk is the rise of AI-enabled systems where technological dominance reinforces political control. At the same time, democracies that prioritize rights, transparency, and regulation risk falling behind unless they can combine innovation with trust.
A new model of competitiveness is emerging. Governments are playing a stronger role in shaping technological ecosystems, while capabilities in capital, talent, and technology become decisive.
The question is no longer whether technology will transform society. It already has. The real question is whether it will strengthen democracy or undermine it.
Can we avoid an ‘AI-tocracy’?
The question is no longer whether technology will transform society. It already has. The real question is whether it will strengthen democracy or undermine it.
Avoiding an ‘AI-tocracy’ will require democracies to stop competing on the same terms as autocracies and start building their own model of technological leadership.
First, trust must become a product. Organizations and citizens need confidence in the systems they use. AI models that are censored, manipulated, or opaque will struggle to earn the trust required for critical applications in healthcare, finance, and public services.
Second, rules are a strategic asset. Regulation should not be viewed only as a constraint on innovation. The countries that shape the rules of technology will influence how that technology develops globally. Europe has an opportunity to demonstrate that responsible innovation can be competitive innovation.
Third, build or be ruled. Without compute, models, infrastructure, and talent, countries will have little influence over the future of AI.
Fourth, defend democracy itself. Deepfakes and AI-driven manipulation do not require tanks to destabilize societies. Democracies must protect elections and public trust without becoming the very systems of control they seek to prevent.
Finally, alone we lose. No democracy can match the scale advantages of the US or China by acting alone. Countries that believe technology should serve citizens, not simply power, must collaborate, pool resources, and create an alternative model of technological leadership.
The latest World Competitiveness Ranking reinforces how trust and strong institutions are becoming strategic assets. The ultimate competition of the 21st century will not simply be between technologies. It will be between different visions of what technology is for – and who it should serve.
Authors
This article is inspired by a keynote session at IMD’s signature Orchestrating Winning Performance program, Lausanne (2026), which brings together executives from diverse sectors and geographies for a week of intense learning and sharing with IMD faculty and business experts.
Related
Jake Sullivan on power, production, and the remaking of the global order
Former U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan on why the post-Cold War world is over – and who is shaping the new rules of global business...
For future success, banks must respond strategically to these six shifts
A new report on the future of banking identifies six structural, powerful shifts affecting a bank’s ability to operate successfully over the coming decades. Bank leaders cannot afford to ignore them....
Kati ter Horst on being a first-time CEO when the old rules are gone
Outokumpu CEO Kati ter Horst on steel, free trade, Europe’s competitiveness, AI, sustainability, and leading when the old rules are gone....