Journal for Policy & Market Research

I. Executive Synthesis: The End of Equilibrium and the Rise of Geotechnomic Competition

The global system has transitioned definitively from the era of the “Great Moderation”—a period defined by stable, low-volatility growth predicated on open trade and shared international rules—to a fragmented landscape characterized by complexity, volatility, and explicit geoeconomic competition.[1] This regime shift, termed the Geotechnomic Nexus, demands analytical frameworks capable of integrating non-linear dynamics, institutional heterogeneity, and robust feedback loops, moving beyond the limitations of traditional, linear economic modeling.[2]

I.1. The Structural Shift from Globalization to Fragmentation

Under the prior consensus, globalization was centered on efficiency, maximizing opportunity through investment abroad and technology transfers, assuming shared interests and regulatory stability.[1] Today, economic decisions are increasingly conditioned by local constraints and domestic geopolitical drivers.[1] This structural transformation is evident in official forecasts: while the near-term global growth outlook saw modest upward revisions, projections remain subdued and reflect a structural downward shift relative to pre-policy-shift forecasts.[3] Global growth is projected to slow incrementally from 3.3 percent in 2024 to 3.2 percent in 2025 and 3.1 percent in 2026.[3]

This simultaneous existence of decelerating aggregate growth rates and persistently elevated inflation suggests that the structural costs associated with geopolitical fragmentation—namely, protectionism and the resurgence of domestic industrial policies—are now embedded within the global economy.[1] This phenomenon creates a geopolitical stagflationary shadow, wherein policies aimed at reducing geopolitical risk (e.g., tariffs, supply chain de-risking) act as persistent supply-side constraints, structurally raising the cost of global goods and hindering a return to the low-volatility, low-inflation dynamics of the past. Global inflation is projected to average 4.0% in 2025 and 3.9% in 2026, remaining well above target levels in many advanced economies.[4, 5]

I.2. Defining Geotechnomics: The Tri-Sectoral Nexus

At the heart of this new framework lies the critical intersection of geopolitics, technology, and economics.[6] This intersection is not merely coincidental but forms a complex system where strategic competition is increasingly waged using economic and technological instruments.[7] Advanced technology, specifically cutting-edge artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities and the control of semiconductor manufacturing, has emerged as the definitive playing field for great power competition, determining future economic supremacy and security environments.[8] Technology is thus simultaneously a source of unprecedented economic growth, a means of geopolitical leverage, and the primary conduit for translating state-based conflict into domestic systemic risk.[6, 7]

I.3. The Imperative of Resilience

In response to the volatile environment, the primary strategic organizational goal has shifted from optimizing purely for cost efficiency to ensuring reliability and resilience.[9] The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2024 highlights resilience as a core organizational priority for the next decade.[10] Global supply chains, particularly in strategically vital technologies, are undergoing a dramatic re-evaluation, driven by factors such as the rise of revisionist states, global pandemics, and rapid technological churn.[9] For regulated financial institutions operating in an increasingly digitized environment, demonstrating technology resilience across the entire digital supply chain is no longer merely about surviving disruption but about gaining a competitive edge and maintaining operational continuity in a world defined by constant cyber and financial crime threats.[10]

II. The Global Economic Outlook: Subdued Growth and Policy Tension

The macroeconomic environment for 2025 and 2026 is characterized by structurally subdued growth expectations and persistent inflationary pressures rooted, in part, in shifting global trade policy and domestic industrial strategy.

II.1. Global Growth and Inflation Trajectories (2025-2026)

Global growth projections remain modest, slowing to 3.2 percent in 2025 and 3.1 percent in 2026, marking a continued downward trajectory relative to pre-policy-shift forecasts.[3] Advanced economies face slow projected growth, expected to hover around 1.5 percent.[3] Conversely, emerging market and developing economies (EMDEs) are projected to grow just above 4 percent, indicating a potential divergence in regional performance.[3]

Inflation, while declining globally, remains elevated compared to historical norms. The global average inflation rate is projected to be 4.0% in 2025 and 3.9% in 2026, with the risk profile tilted to the upside, particularly in the United States.[3, 4] The persistence of inflation, anticipated by various expert surveys, requires policymakers to address fiscal vulnerabilities and restore predictability.[5]

II.2. Monetary Policy Conflict: Tariffs and the Dove-Hawk Divide

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) executed a significant policy shift in December 2025, lowering the federal funds rate by 25 basis points (bps) to a range of 3.5–3.75%.[11] Crucially, the Federal Reserve also concluded its quantitative tightening (QT) policy, which had been in place for over three and a half years, initiating purchases of shorter-term Treasury securities to maintain an ample supply of reserves.[11] This pivot toward easing signals increasing concern about downside risks to the economy and potentially a softening labor market.[12]

A central conflict in the macroeconomic policy environment stems from the impact of trade policy. Tariffs have become a core macroeconomic variable, explaining a meaningful and persistent share of recent inflation.[13] Analysis of price dynamics indicates that tariffs account for approximately 10.9% of headline PCE annual inflation for the 12 months ending August 2025.[13] This measurable inflationary effect has intensified the “dove-hawk” divide within the FOMC.[12] While some policymakers suggest that the effects of tariffs on inflation will be relatively short lived, representing only “a one-time shift in the price level” [14], the magnitude of the impact and the ongoing trend toward greater protectionism and geoeconomic confrontation [15] challenge this assumption, suggesting the inflationary effects are more structural and persistent.

II.3. Emerging Markets (EM) as a Decoupled Opportunity

Emerging Market (EM) equities have shown strong performance in 2025, with returns exceeding 30% year-to-date as of early October.[16] This performance suggests the market recovery is in its early stages, reinforced by appealing valuations relative to developed markets.[16]

The favorable environment for EM is supported by several factors. Structural growth drivers, including advancements in technology and favorable demographic trends, support long-term prospects.[16] Furthermore, the cyclical environment created by the US monetary pivot is highly beneficial. The explicit end of Quantitative Tightening (QT) in December 2025 directly supports this positive outlook.[11]

This confluence of factors creates a direct policy-to-market feedback loop. The reduction in US monetary tightening decreases global financial strain, potentially leading to a stable or depreciating US dollar.[16] A lower dollar environment structurally benefits EM economies by reducing US-denominated debt servicing costs and fostering improved investor sentiment, which encourages foreign capital flows that enhance investment performance and economic growth.[16]

Global Macroeconomic Forecast and Policy Environment (2025-2026)

Economic Indicator/Policy	2024 Projection	2025 Projection	Key Nuance/Risk
Global GDP Growth Rate	3.3%	3.2%	Projections are subdued, reflecting structural policy shifts and downside risks.[3]
Global Inflation Expectation (Median)	N/A	4.0%	Inflation is persistent, with upside risks tied to high tariffs and geopolitical tensions.[4, 5]
US Federal Funds Rate (End 2025)	N/A	3.5%–3.75% (Cut by 25bps)	FOMC shifted to easing, ending QT on Dec 1, 2025.[11] Policy divergence is high.[12]
Impact of Tariffs on US Inflation	N/A	∼10.9% of Annual Headline PCE (as of Aug 2025)	Tariffs contribute meaningfully to inflation, challenging the assumption that they are ‘one-time shifts’.[13, 14]

III. The Geopolitical Risk Matrix: Systemic Instability and the Multipolar Order

The 2025 geopolitical landscape is defined by an unprecedented level of violent conflict and the acceleration of a shift toward a multipolar, confrontational world order.

III.1. Tier I Conflict Contingencies (2025): An Unprecedented Peril

Foreign policy experts assessed that 2025 presents a moment of “great peril,” with the Preventive Priorities Survey (PPS) identifying an unprecedented five contingencies rated as “high likelihood/high impact” on U.S. interests.[17]

The leading area of concern is the Middle East, where a further deterioration of ongoing conflicts is highly likely.[17] This includes the continuation of the Israel-Hamas war, deepening the humanitarian crisis through the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and increased conflict in the West Bank fueled by Israeli settlement construction and political rights disputes.[17] An escalation of hostilities between Iran and Israel, including potential attacks on critical energy and nuclear facilities, presents a high-likelihood, high-impact risk of wider instability and deeper U.S. military involvement.[17] State collapse and sectarian conflict in Lebanon are also assessed as highly likely.[17]

Second only to the Middle East are risks stemming from aggressive great power behavior. Major Russian military gains in Ukraine, potentially leading to a cease-fire favorable to Moscow due to decreasing foreign assistance, are rated as high likelihood/high impact.[17] In Eastern Europe, increased Russian military provocations and influence operations in countries like Georgia and Moldova are highly likely to foment political instability.[17] In the Asia-Pacific theater, risks stemming from China are judged moderately likely but carry high impact, including intensified military and economic pressure leading to a severe cross-strait crisis involving Taiwan, and aggressive actions in the South China Sea toward the Philippines resulting in potential armed confrontation.[17]

Finally, non-kinetic and domestic threats have risen to Tier I criticality. A highly disruptive cyberattack on U.S. critical infrastructure by a state or nonstate entity is assessed as moderately likely but having a high impact.[17] Furthermore, heightened political antagonism domestically, potentially following the election cycle, could lead to acts of domestic terrorism and political violence.[17]

III.2. The Shift to Multipolarity and Geoeconomic Confrontation

The transition from a unipolar, U.S.-dominated system to a multipolar framework is accelerating, characterized by the emergence of new economic powers such as China, India, and Brazil, and the establishment of strategic alliances like BRICS+.[18] This shift entails a profound restructuring of trade patterns and a re-evaluation of established international norms.[18]

This instability manifests as “Geoeconomic confrontation,” listed as a primary global risk.[15] Geopolitics now explicitly embodies the balance of power and the game of alliances, altering the parameters economists previously relied upon.[1] The prioritization of industrial policy, exemplified by measures such as the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and targeted tariff regimes, illustrates this trend toward domestic factors shaping international economic decisions.[1] This leverage of economic interdependency for geopolitical advantage means that a savvy adversary can target a single weak link or chokepoint to create cascading effects through a supply chain.[19]

III.3. The Technology-Geopolitics Symbiosis

Technology has cemented its role as a decisive factor in geopolitical struggles, driving global technological rivalries between nations promoting liberal governance models and those employing technology to support authoritarianism.[7] The intensifying Sino-American tech rivalry, particularly over pivotal sectors like AI and semiconductors, is a key case in point.[7]

This rivalry directly fuels fragmentation through strategic technological export restrictions. The U.S. has implemented limits on the export of advanced telecommunications equipment and cutting-edge semiconductors, extending these restrictions globally to foreign-made chips using American technology, thereby explicitly reshaping the global tech sector based on national security concerns.[20]

The proliferation of high-impact non-traditional conflicts, such as disruptive cyberattacks and the prevalence of “Misinformation and disinformation”—the latter ranked as the number one risk over a two-year time frame by the WEF [21]—demonstrates that technology is now the dominant pathway for translating kinetic geopolitical conflict into economic and societal systemic risk. The low visibility and high leverage afforded by cyber warfare and information operations allow state actors to achieve strategic objectives at low cost. Because sophisticated digital technologies are integrated into critical infrastructure (energy grids, telecommunication networks) [6], a successful cyberattack provides a direct, immediate, and high-impact route for geopolitical tension to generate domestic economic disruption.[17]

Tier I Global Conflict and Contingency Risks (2025)

Conflict Scenario	Location/Target	Likelihood	Impact on U.S. Interests
Continuation of Ongoing Wars (Israel-Hamas, Russia-Ukraine)	Middle East, Ukraine	High	High (Deepened humanitarian crisis, geopolitical instability, military gains favorable to adversaries).[17]
Iran-Israel Escalation	Middle East	High	High (Wider instability, risk of deeper US military involvement).[17]
Cyberattack on Critical Infrastructure	U.S. Infrastructure	Moderate	High (Highly disruptive, systemic risk to economy).[6, 17]
Cross-Strait Crisis and South China Sea Confrontation	China toward Taiwan/Philippines	Moderate	High (Armed confrontation involving US and regional allies).[17]
Political Antagonism and Domestic Violence	United States	Moderate	High (Acts of domestic terrorism).[17]

IV. Supply Chain Restructuring and Resilience Imperatives

Geopolitical volatility has forced a fundamental transformation in global commerce, leading to measurable fragmentation and a radical shift in corporate prioritization from pure efficiency to systemic resilience.

IV.1. The Erosion of Globalization and The Geometrical Shift in Trade

The established consensus favoring globally distributed, lean supply chains has ended, replaced by a strategic preference for reliable and resilient networks adapted to geopolitical uncertainty.[9] This shift is not merely qualitative; it is quantitatively measurable. The most robust evidence of fragmentation is the decline in the “geopolitical distance” of trade, which decreased by about 7 percent between 2017 and 2024, confirming a material trend toward trade with more aligned geopolitical partners.[22]

This trend is evident in specific trade flows involving the United States. The share of U.S. goods trade with China has declined significantly from 21.2% in 2018 to 13.9% in 2023.[23] Concurrently, Mexico has overtaken China to become the lead U.S. trading partner, accounting for a 15.4% share, reflecting increasing nearshoring activity.[23]

IV.2. The Efficiency-Resilience Trade-off

For industrial manufacturers, the defining characteristic of strategy in 2025 is the willingness to sacrifice cost optimization for operational reliability.[9, 23] Following major disruptions like the COVID-19 pandemic and intensifying geopolitical challenges, 86.2% of industrial manufacturers surveyed have worked to de-risk their supply chains.[23] This involves proactive strategies such as expanding operations to locations closer to end consumers (nearshoring to Mexico and Canada) or reshoring options within the United States.[23]

The semiconductor industry, given its centrality to technological supremacy, is serving as the precedent for this strategic re-evaluation, setting the tone for future norms of global economic cooperation.[9]

The decline in the geopolitical distance of trade [22], coupled with the specific trade flow shifts (Mexico surpassing China) [23], demonstrates the efficacy of state-backed geoeconomic tools in engineering physical fragmentation and regionalization. For companies to move production away from previously established lowest-cost centers, they must accept structurally higher costs. The fact that de-risking actions are widely adopted implies that the policy incentives (e.g., subsidies and tax breaks associated with the U.S. IRA [1]) or the perceived reduction in geopolitical risk are substantial enough to override pure cost-based calculus, thereby validating the premise that domestic geopolitical strategy now dictates corporate supply chain structure.

IV.3. Engineering Resilience through Complexity and Technology

The structural solution to geopolitical volatility involves engineering resilience directly into the supply chain architecture. This requires adopting decentralized models and multi-source procurement strategies to ensure operational continuity, especially during crises.[24]

Technology plays a vital role in executing this resilience strategy. Machine learning (ML) applications are becoming crucial for optimizing supply chain operations, providing capabilities to forecast disruptions and improve real-time agility.[25] Leveraging ML for supply chain risk management allows networks to survive and recover from disruptions more effectively, enabling navigation of the complex geopolitical and economic environment.[25]

Strategic Trade Shifts: From Efficiency to Resilience (2017–2025)

Dimension	Pre-2017 Dominant Paradigm (Washington Consensus)	2025 Emerging Paradigm (Geotechnomics)	Supporting Data/Trend
Primary Driver	Efficiency, Lowest Cost Sourcing	Resilience, Geopolitical Reliability	Manufacturers prioritize robust, decentralized networks over cost.[9, 23]
Trade Dynamics	Globalization and Increasing Interdependence	Fragmentation and Geopolitical Alignment	Fall in “geopolitical distance” of trade (7% decline 2017-2024).[22]
Sourcing Strategy	Lean, Single-source, Globalized	Multi-source, Regionalized (Nearshoring/Reshoring)	Mexico surpasses China as lead US trading partner (15.4% share).[23]
Technology Flow	Open Trade, Technology Transfer	Strategic Competition and Export Controls	US restrictions on advanced chips/telecoms to specific nations.[20]

V. The S&T Battleground: Disruptive Innovation and Governance Deficit

Technological advancement continues at an accelerated pace, particularly in fields of strategic importance, simultaneously driving immense potential economic value and creating profound governance challenges that amplify systemic risk.

V.1. Strategic Technological Frontiers (2025)

2025 is marked by groundbreaking developments across several strategic domains:

• Quantum Computing: A significant milestone was achieved in stabilizing qubits, the fundamental units of quantum information, extending their coherence by a factor of ten.[26] This addresses one of the most persistent challenges in quantum technology—decoherence—and moves practical applications in fields such as cryptography and drug discovery closer to commercial viability.[26]

• Autonomous Biotechnology and AI: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) launched the Anaerobic Microbial Phenotyping Platform (AMP2) as part of the “Genesis Mission”.[27] This AI-enabled, autonomous platform is designed for anaerobic microbial experimentation, dramatically reducing the timeline for identifying, growing, and optimizing microbes from years to weeks.[27] This platform is crucial for securing American leadership in autonomous biological discovery and boosting biotech manufacturing.[27]

• Applied AI in Healthcare: AI continues to demonstrate immediate utility in critical sectors. Automatic, multi-modal approaches utilizing learned knowledge bases and multi-modal alignment are being successfully deployed to generate radiology reports from chest x-rays.[28, 29] This technology significantly alleviates the heavy and time-consuming burden on radiologists while improving report quality through knowledge enhancement.[28, 29]

The establishment of autonomous scientific platforms like AMP2 [27] signifies that strategic competition is moving beyond optimization via AI to autonomous discovery and manufacturing. If R&D cycles are reduced from years to weeks, the rate of capability accumulation increases exponentially. This acceleration suggests that failure to master this autonomous innovation feedback loop could lead to structural technological dependence and irreversible geopolitical disadvantage within a decade, reinforcing the zero-sum nature of the “second wave of digital innovations”.[8]

V.2. Technology as an Instrument of Great Power Competition

The development of technology is inherently linked to geopolitical power struggles.[7] The US has actively imposed limits on the export of cutting-edge semiconductors and chip-manufacturing equipment to specific nations, a policy that extends to foreign-made chips that utilize American technology, fundamentally reshaping the global semiconductor industry.[20]

The intensifying rivalry, particularly between the U.S. and China, is centered on achieving technological supremacy, which includes determining who sets the global governance and ethical standards for emerging technologies.[7] The world is increasingly fracturing along these technological governance models—between those advocating liberal, human-centric approaches and those deploying technology to support authoritarianism.[7]

V.3. The Governance Deficit and Ethical Liabilities

The rapid, disruptive pace of technological developments, particularly AI, has strained existing governance mechanisms and institutions, which experts note are struggling to keep up.[30] This institutional lag introduces a systemic risk that must be addressed through adaptive policy.[31]

In response, governments are showing increased urgency and scale of regulatory action and investment.[32] In 2024, U.S. federal agencies introduced more than double the number of AI-related regulations compared to 2023, while legislative mentions of AI surged globally.[32] Global governance cooperation, involving organizations like the OECD, EU, and UN, has intensified, focusing on frameworks that ensure trustworthiness, transparency, and core responsible AI principles.[31, 32] The OECD framework explicitly guides governments to adopt context-appropriate, risk-based guardrails and flexible strategies to anticipate and respond to future changes before adverse trends become locked in.[31]

However, the governance deficit extends beyond technical frameworks to critical societal vulnerabilities. Academic research highlights that algorithmic bias can perpetuate and amplify existing social inequalities, and unequal access to technology exacerbates the digital divide.[33] These societal liabilities are not just domestic issues; the failure of ethical governance creates geopolitical risks, as demonstrated by the ranking of “Misinformation and disinformation” as the number one short-term risk by the WEF.[21]

VI. Complexity and Strategic Intersections: The Geotechnomic Feedback Loops

Analyzing the global system solely through linear economic models fails to capture the dynamic interactions between geopolitics, economics, and technology. Complexity economics, which models the economy from the bottom up and explicitly incorporates feedback loops, is essential for understanding current out-of-equilibrium dynamics.[2]

VI.1. Modeling Non-Linear Dynamics and Systemic Risk

Complexity economics emphasizes that economic interdependency, while beneficial for aggregate gains, also creates vulnerabilities that can be leveraged for geopolitical control.[19] The rise of protectionism, the shift back to industrial policy, and the fragmentation of supply networks are all manifestations of states acting to reduce this vulnerability by seeking domestic resilience, even at the cost of traditional efficiency.[1] The resulting system is characterized by non-linear dynamics where a disturbance in one area can generate cascading consequences far beyond the initial source.[19, 25]

VI.2. Technology as an Amplifier of Geopolitical Vulnerability

The integration of sophisticated digital technologies into critical national infrastructure—including transportation systems, energy grids, and telecommunication networks—exposes societies to security threats such as cyberattacks and espionage.[6] This ubiquitous integration means that geopolitical conflict, regardless of its physical location, can be instantaneously translated into domestic economic disruption via cyber means.[6, 17]

Furthermore, these interactions create critical macroeconomic feedback loops. The Geopolitical-Inflation Feedback Loop illustrates this dynamic: Heightened geopolitical confrontation leads to protectionism and higher tariffs.[1, 15] These tariffs cause trade fragmentation and supply chain restructuring [22], which, in turn, structurally increase supply costs and consumer prices.[13] This persistent inflation then drives monetary policy uncertainty and internal division within central banking institutions regarding the appropriate policy response.[12] Tariffs alone account for a significant portion (∼10.9%) of core inflationary pressure.[13]

VI.3. Technological Resilience and Financial Stability

The complexity of managing multi-cloud environments, coupled with the growth of cyber risks, indicates that financial stability is now fundamentally reliant on technological resilience.[10] For financial institutions, compliance must be viewed not as a cost center, but as a driver of resilience and scalability.[10] Regulators now expect real-time risk management, requiring compliance systems to be as fast and interconnected as the financial infrastructure they protect.[10]

The failure to upgrade compliance and operational technology—with many anti-money laundering (AML) functions remaining constrained by legacy systems—is no longer a simple inefficiency.[10] It represents a catastrophic systemic risk that can be leveraged by hostile state actors, linking financial fragility directly to geopolitical conflict. A state-sponsored, highly disruptive cyberattack on critical financial infrastructure (a Tier I risk [17]) could exploit such technical weaknesses, leading to cascading financial instability. Therefore, resilience must be engineered directly into compliance technology, including secure, scalable, and real-time operations, to mitigate this geopolitical liability.[10]

VII. Strategic Policy Imperatives and Long-Term Recommendations

Navigating the volatile Geotechnomic Nexus requires simultaneous action across macroeconomics, geopolitics, and technology governance, prioritizing resilience and predictability.

VII.1. Macroeconomic and Fiscal Stabilization

To mitigate the pervasive downside risks (prolonged uncertainty, increased protectionism, and fiscal vulnerabilities) [3], policymakers must pursue stabilization and reform:

• Restore Confidence and Predictability: Policymakers are urged to restore confidence, predictability, and sustainability through credible and transparent policies.[3, 5]

• Fiscal Prudence: Rebuilding fiscal buffers is a critical requirement to address fiscal vulnerabilities and ensure stability in a high-risk environment.[3]

• Sustainable Trade Management: Trade diplomacy should be actively paired with macroeconomic adjustment measures to strategically reduce the policy uncertainty that continues to fuel supply chain fragmentation and structural inflation.[3]

VII.2. Navigating Geopolitical Competition

The shift toward a multipolar, confrontational world necessitates deliberate strategies for mitigating exposure and strengthening alliances:

• Strategic De-Risking: Corporations must actively pursue multi-source procurement and decentralized supply chain models (nearshoring and reshoring) to reduce reliance on geopolitical chokepoints.[23, 24] The acceptance of the trade-off—higher costs for increased reliability—is a necessary strategic investment in operational continuity.

• Alliance Fortification: To safeguard multilateral order and shared values in the face of technological rivalry, countries promoting liberal, human-centric governance models must strengthen ties with like-minded allies and strategically engage the Global South.[7]

VII.3. Closing the Technology Governance Gap

Given the rapid, non-linear acceleration of AI and quantum technology, the regulatory response must become equally adaptive:

• Agile and Adaptive Governance: Governments must move beyond linear policymaking [34] by implementing agile, adaptive strategies and flexible regulatory frameworks.[31] This approach ensures that timely interventions can guide technological trajectories before adverse trends become irreversibly locked in.

• Investment in Trustworthy AI: Long-term public investment, combined with encouragement of private sector funding, is required for research and development focused on trustworthy AI.[35] This investment must specifically address challenging technical issues, as well as the social, legal, and ethical implications, ensuring the development of open, representative, and privacy-respecting datasets free of inappropriate bias.[35]

• Ethical Integration and Equity: Technology governance cannot be divorced from broader societal concerns regarding power, equity, and inclusion.[33] Addressing issues like algorithmic bias and the digital divide is essential not only for achieving sustainable development goals [36] but also for preventing internal societal vulnerabilities from being translated into high-impact geopolitical liabilities.

——————————————————————————–

1. Integrating Geopolitics into Economic Analysis, https://internationalbanker.com/finance/integrating-geopolitics-into-economic-analysis/

2. Complex systems approaches to 21st century challenges: Introduction to the Special Issue, https://www.inet.ox.ac.uk/publications/complex-systems-approaches-to-21st-century-challenges-introduction-to-the-special-issue

3. World Economic Outlook, October 2025: Global Economy in Flux …, https://www.imf.org/en/publications/weo/issues/2025/10/14/world-economic-outlook-october-2025

4. Economic Experts Survey: Experts Expect Inflation to Remain High – ifo Institut, https://www.ifo.de/en/facts/2025-08-18/economic-experts-survey-experts-expect-inflation-remain-high

5. Global Economics Intelligence executive summary, August 2025 – McKinsey, https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/global-economics-intelligence

6. Geotechnomics: The interaction of geopolitics, technology, and economics, https://horizons.service.canada.ca/en/2023/05/16/geotechnomics/

7. The geopolitics of technology: Charting the EU’s path in a competitive world | Think Tank, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2024)762384

8. Unpacking the geopolitics of technology – Atlantic Council, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/unpacking-the-geopolitics-of-technology/

9. The Great Rewiring: How Global Supply Chains Are Reacting to Today’s Geopolitics – CSIS, https://www.csis.org/analysis/great-rewiring-how-global-supply-chains-are-reacting-todays-geopolitics

10. Building resilient tech for AML success, https://fintech.global/2025/12/10/building-resilient-tech-for-aml-success/

11. The Federal Open Market Committee Acts, https://seekingalpha.com/article/4852262-the-federal-open-market-committee-acts

12. Fed December Decision: Not So Clear Cut – The Conference Board, https://www.conference-board.org/research/global-economy-briefs/fed-meeting-preview-december-2025

13. How Tariffs Are Affecting Prices in 2025 | St. Louis Fed, https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2025/oct/how-tariffs-are-affecting-prices-2025

14. FOMC Decision: Fed ends 2025 with a cut but dissent reflects growing divide – RBC, https://www.rbc.com/en/economics/us-analysis/us-data-flashes/fomc-decision-fed-ends-2025-with-a-cut-but-dissent-reflects-growing-divide/

15. The Global Risks Report 2025 20th Edition – World Economic Forum: Publications, https://reports.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risks_Report_2025.pdf

16. Under the Radar: Why now is the time for emerging markets, https://www.franklintempleton.com/articles/2025/clearbridge-investments/under-the-radar-why-now-is-the-time-for-emerging-markets

17. Conflicts to Watch in 2025 – Council on Foreign Relations, https://www.cfr.org/report/conflicts-watch-2025

18. The Future of Global Trade in a Multipolar World: Evaluating How Emerging Economic Powers and Shifting Alliances Are Reshaping Global Trade Patterns – TRENDS Research & Advisory, https://trendsresearch.org/insight/the-future-of-global-trade-in-a-multipolar-world-evaluating-how-emerging-economic-powers-and-shifting-alliances-are-reshaping-global-trade-patterns/

19. The Economics of Geopolitics – American Affairs Journal, https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2025/11/the-economics-of-geopolitics/

20. Trade Wars, Tech Rivalry and Geopolitical Tensions – Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2024/sep/trade-wars-tech-rivalry-geopolitical-tensions

21. Global Risks Report spells out top risks for 2025 and beyond – Zurich North America, https://www.zurichna.com/knowledge/articles/2025/02/global-risks-report-spells-out-top-risks-for-2025-and-beyond

22. Geopolitics and the geometry of global trade: 2025 update – McKinsey, https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/our-research/geopolitics-and-the-geometry-of-global-trade-2025-update

23. Restructuring the supply base: Prioritizing a resilient, yet efficient supply chain – Deloitte, https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/manufacturing-industrial-products/global-supply-chain-resilience-amid-disruptions.html

24. Navigating 2025’s Geopolitical Supply Chain Landscape – Maersk, https://www.maersk.com/insights/resilience/2025/02/28/geopolitical-supply-chain-landscape

25. Complexity to Resilience: Machine Learning Models for Enhancing Supply Chains and Resilience in the Middle Eastern Trade Corridor Nations – MDPI, https://www.mdpi.com/2079-8954/13/3/209

26. 2025 Tech Breakthroughs: Quantum, AI, Biotech, and Sustainable Energy, https://www.webpronews.com/2025-tech-breakthroughs-quantum-ai-biotech-and-sustainable-energy/

27. DOE launches breakthrough AI-driven biotechnology platform at PNNL, https://ethanolproducer.com/articles/doe-launches-breakthrough-ai-driven-biotechnology-platform-at-pnnl

28. arXiv:2112.15011v2 [eess.IV] 1 Jun 2022, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.15011

29. Chest Radiology Report Generation with General and Specific Knowledge – arXiv, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.15009

30. AI in regulatory design and delivery: Governing with Artificial Intelligence | OECD, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2025/06/governing-with-artificial-intelligence_398fa287/full-report/ai-in-regulatory-design-and-delivery_128691e6.html

31. Governing with Artificial Intelligence – OECD, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2025/06/governing-with-artificial-intelligence_398fa287.html

32. The 2025 AI Index Report | Stanford HAI, https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2025-ai-index-report

33. Ethical Technology Governance → Term – ESG → Sustainability Directory, https://esg.sustainability-directory.com/term/ethical-technology-governance/

34. Global Risks – The World Economic Forum, https://www.weforum.org/stories/global-risks/

35. AI principles – OECD, https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/ai-principles.html

36. Technology and Corporate Ethical Standards – World Bank Enterprise Surveys (WBES), https://www.enterprisesurveys.org/content/dam/enterprisesurveys/documents/research-1/WP11068.pdf