AI, work, and the future of global competitiveness
Chatham House | 2026-04-27 | economy
Topics: Indo-Pacific, Economy
Visit original source
ThinkTankWeekly provides a curated entry and summary only. Full text and PDF remain on the publisher's website.
English Summary
AI adoption is identified as the primary driver of global economic competitiveness, shifting the focus from model development to effective, widespread deployment across sectors. While AI holds massive productive potential—estimated at up to $6.6 trillion across major economies—this potential is hampered by existing skills gaps and labor market rigidity. Therefore, the key policy imperative is coordinated action: governments, businesses, and educational institutions must collaborate to create responsive labor markets. This strategy is essential to rapidly upskill the global workforce, ensuring that talent can match economic opportunity and build a resilient, productive economy in the AI era.
中文摘要
AI的導入已被認定為全球經濟競爭力的主要驅動力，這使得政策焦點從模型開發轉向跨行業的有效、廣泛部署。儘管AI擁有巨大的生產潛力——預計在主要經濟體中可達六.六兆美元——但此潛力受到現有的技能缺口和勞動市場僵化所限制。因此，關鍵的政策重點是協調行動：政府、企業和教育機構必須合作，共同建立具應變能力的勞動市場。此策略對於快速提升全球勞動力技能至關重要，確保人才能夠匹配經濟機會，從而在AI時代建立一個有韌性、高生產力的經濟體。
Related Entries
-
1.
Despite MOUD being the standard of care for opioid use disorder, access remains severely limited in Community Mental Health Centers (CMHCs), which serve the primary population with co-occurring disorders. A Design Lab pilot identified payment limitations and regulatory complexity as the chief barriers to implementation. The most feasible and high-impact strategy identified was establishing a structured learning exchange between CMHC leaders and insurers to improve reimbursement understanding. Policymakers and payers are therefore advised to pilot this learning exchange model to initiate broader payment reform and expand evidence-based care for this vulnerable population.
Read at RAND
-
2.
The analysis argues that contemporary warfare is marked by a return to great power competition, often fueled by strategic hubris and historical overconfidence. A key failure across modern conflicts is the 'short-war fallacy'—the assumption that overwhelming military force guarantees a quick, decisive victory. This mindset blinds policymakers to the need for sustained resource mobilization and complex political outcomes. Consequently, effective strategy requires linking military objectives with clear, comprehensive political goals, rather than pursuing rapid, decisive regime changes or military victories in isolation.
Read at Foreign Affairs
-
3.
Qatar aims to establish itself as a global hub for RDI, recognizing human capital as foundational to a knowledge-based economy. While the nation has launched numerous initiatives—including the Mustaqel Visa and specialized parks—the report finds that Qatar's RDI ecosystem faces structural gaps, evidenced by R&D expenditure remaining significantly below the OECD average and a workforce heavily reliant on expatriates. To achieve its 2030 goals, the study argues that Qatar must deepen the 'Triple Helix' collaboration between academia and industry, diversify private sector funding, and overhaul retention policies. Sustained policy coordination and strengthening career pathways for both local and international talent are critical for transforming potential into long-term economic capability.
Read at RAND
-
4.
The RAND report assesses Qatar's RDI progress, finding that while national strategies are ambitious, systemic gaps limit the country's full potential. Key weaknesses include low domestic STEM engagement, fragmented support for early-career researchers, and limited knowledge transfer between academia and the private sector. To accelerate economic diversification, the report recommends comprehensive policy reforms, such as implementing a coordinated national STEM action plan and standardizing researcher support. Furthermore, Qatar must enhance international talent retention through labor policy reforms and establish clear national frameworks to boost industry-academia collaboration.
Read at RAND
-
5.
The article argues that the U.S.-China relationship is structurally adversarial and cannot be resolved by high-level summits between leaders like Trump and Xi. Historically, breakthroughs required nuanced diplomacy and mutual trust, elements that are currently absent, as both leaders are ill-suited for the complex bargaining demanded by the rivalry. The analysis notes that China continues to assert its strategic independence, exemplified by its focus on partners like Russia, thereby limiting the efficacy of U.S. diplomatic efforts. Policymakers must temper expectations for a sudden breakthrough and prepare for a sustained, managed rivalry that addresses deep structural issues rather than relying on personal chemistry.
Read at Foreign Affairs