While 123 million people were forcibly displaced in 2024—the highest number on record—global cooperation metrics held remarkably steady. This paradox lies at the heart of the World Economic Forum’s Global Cooperation Barometer 2026, a comprehensive analysis that challenges our assumptions about international collaboration in an age of rising tensions.
The third edition of this landmark report, developed in partnership with McKinsey & Company, reveals a nuanced truth: global cooperation isn’t collapsing—it’s transforming. Traditional multilateral frameworks may be straining under geopolitical pressures, but smaller, more agile coalitions are emerging to fill critical gaps in trade, technology transfer, climate action, and even security.
This evolution represents what UN Secretary-General António Guterres calls “hard-headed pragmatism”—the recognition that cooperation makes sense when it delivers tangible mutual benefits, even in a fragmented world.
What is the Global Cooperation Barometer 2026?
The Global Cooperation Barometer is an annual assessment by the World Economic Forum and McKinsey & Company that measures international collaboration across five key areas: trade and capital, innovation and technology, climate and natural capital, health and wellness, and peace and security. Using 41 metrics indexed to 2020, the 2026 edition finds overall cooperation held steady despite geopolitical tensions, but its composition shifted dramatically—from large multilateral frameworks toward smaller, flexible coalitions based on aligned interests and pragmatic problem-solving.
After analyzing 41 distinct metrics across five essential pillars—trade and capital, innovation and technology, climate and natural capital, health and wellness, and peace and security—the report’s central finding is clear: cooperation is adapting to new realities rather than disappearing entirely.
The 2026 Global Cooperation Barometer tracks international collaboration from 2012 through 2024, with all data indexed to 2020 as a baseline. This methodology, endorsed by OECD economists, allows researchers to isolate trends that emerged before the COVID-19 pandemic and those accelerated by it.
The topline finding? Overall cooperation levels in 2024 remained virtually unchanged from 2023, despite an environment characterized by:
According to Børge Brende, President and CEO of the World Economic Forum, “The paradox is that, at a time of such rapid change, developing new and innovative approaches to cooperation requires refocusing on some of the basics—notably, doubling down on dialogue.”
The barometer’s rigor lies in its comprehensive approach. Each of the five pillars comprises two indices:
Data is normalized to account for economic growth and population changes, ensuring that trendlines reflect genuine cooperation shifts rather than simple expansion. For example, trade metrics are measured as a percentage of global GDP, while migration data is normalized to global population levels.
This methodology, reviewed by International Monetary Fund economists, provides an apples-to-apples comparison across vastly different domains—from pharmaceutical R&D cooperation to peacekeeping deployments.
While aggregate cooperation held steady, the composition of that cooperation shifted dramatically. Metrics tied to global multilateral institutions—those large-scale frameworks involving most of the world’s nations—declined sharply:
Simultaneously, cooperation flourished in areas where flexible, interest-based partnerships could operate:
This divergence reveals a fundamental shift: from universal frameworks to tailored coalitions. As McKinsey’s research demonstrates, cooperation increasingly follows geopolitical alignment, with partners choosing collaborators based on shared interests and values rather than institutional membership alone.
The trade and capital pillar reveals perhaps the most complex story in the entire report. On the surface, cooperation appears flat—neither advancing nor retreating significantly. But beneath this stability, tectonic plates are shifting.
According to World Trade Organization data analyzed in the report, global goods trade grew slightly slower than overall GDP in 2024, leading to a marginal decline in trade intensity. More revealing than the volume, however, is the geographic redistribution underway.
McKinsey Global Institute research finds that the average “geopolitical distance” of global goods trade fell by approximately 7% between 2017 and 2024. Countries are trading more with geopolitically aligned partners and less with distant ones—particularly between the United States and China.
The numbers tell a stark story:
“We’re witnessing not deglobalization but reglobalization,” explains Dr. Richard Baldwin, Professor of International Economics at the Graduate Institute Geneva. “Trade relationships are being rewired along lines of trust and strategic alignment.”
While goods trade reconfigured, less visible but equally important flows accelerated. Services trade—encompassing IT services, professional services, travel, and digitally delivered offerings—continued climbing throughout 2024.
According to UNCTAD data, services trade growth was driven primarily by:
Foreign direct investment told a similar story. While overall FDI flows remained complex (influenced by “phantom FDI” in tax havens), greenfield investment announcements—representing real productive capacity—surged in future-shaping industries.
FDI Markets data reveals a striking trend: newly announced greenfield projects concentrated heavily in:
These investments flowed predominantly between geopolitically aligned partners. Advanced economies, particularly the United States, attracted the lion’s share, while China’s portion of announced FDI inflows dropped from 9% (2015-19 average) to just 3% (2022-25).
The sharpest decline in the trade and capital pillar came in Official Development Assistance. According to OECD tracking, ODA fell 10.8% in 2024, with only four donor countries exceeding the UN target of 0.7% of gross national income.
The 2025 outlook appears even bleaker. The OECD projects an additional 9-17% decline in ODA, driven by:
This trend has profound implications for low and middle-income countries that depend on international assistance for health systems, education, and infrastructure development.
Despite these challenges, innovative cooperation frameworks are sprouting. The Future of Investment and Trade (FIT) Partnership, launched in September 2025, brings together 14 economies—including Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the UAE—to pilot practical trade cooperation mechanisms.
According to Brookings Institution analysis, such “minilateral” arrangements offer several advantages over traditional multilateral treaties:
Other examples include the EU-Mercosur trade agreement (after a decade of negotiations), the ASEAN Digital Economy Framework Agreement, and bilateral critical minerals deals between the US and allies like Australia and Canada.
The innovation and technology pillar registered a 3% year-over-year increase—one of the strongest performances across all five domains. Yet this growth masks growing tensions over technology transfer, particularly in areas deemed strategically sensitive.
International bandwidth capacity quadrupled between 2019 and 2024, according to International Telecommunication Union statistics. Cross-border data flows—measured as a percentage of total internet traffic—continued their upward trajectory, fueled by:
Cisco’s annual internet report projects that global IP traffic will reach 4.8 zettabytes per year by 2027, with a growing share crossing international borders.
This digital connectivity enabled a corresponding rise in IT services trade. Software development, cloud services, and AI consultation increasingly operate as global markets, with talent and expertise flowing across borders despite physical restrictions.
Even as general technology cooperation flourished, restrictions tightened on specific advanced technologies. The United States expanded export controls on:
According to McKinsey research on export controls, these restrictions primarily target China but ripple across global supply chains, affecting companies and research institutions worldwide.
The paradox? Cooperation in cutting-edge technologies continues—but increasingly within aligned blocs. Examples include:
US-Aligned Technology Partnerships:
China-Led Technology Initiatives:
Foreign Affairs magazine describes this as “technological bifurcation”—not complete decoupling, but the emergence of parallel ecosystems with limited interconnection.
One concerning trend threatens long-term technology cooperation: declining international student mobility. After reaching record highs in 2024 (up 8% from 2023), international student flows appear to be contracting in 2025.
Data from major destination countries shows:
According to the Institute of International Education, this reversal could have long-term consequences for innovation. Historically, international students have contributed disproportionately to research breakthroughs, entrepreneurship, and cross-border knowledge networks.
Dr. Mary Sue Coleman, President of the Association of American Universities, warns: “When we restrict the flow of talent, we don’t just hurt international students—we diminish our own innovative capacity.”
Despite increases in most innovation metrics, one crucial outcome measure remained stubbornly flat: total factor productivity growth. The Conference Board’s data shows global productivity growth has stagnated for over a decade, raising questions about whether current cooperation patterns effectively translate into tangible economic benefits.
However, McKinsey Global Institute research suggests this may change. Generative AI could increase global productivity growth by 0.1 to 0.6 percentage points annually through 2040, but only if cooperation enables:
The question isn’t whether technology cooperation will matter—it’s whether current cooperation patterns will be sufficient to realize these gains.
The climate and natural capital pillar demonstrates both the promise and limitations of current cooperation patterns. Investment and deployment reached record levels, yet environmental outcomes continue deteriorating.
Solar and wind capacity additions doubled between 2022 and 2024—from 300 to 600 gigawatts—according to the International Renewable Energy Agency. In the first half of 2025 alone, installations were 60% higher than the same period in 2024.
Remarkably, in the last 18 months, the world installed more solar capacity than in the previous three years combined.
International Energy Agency analysis attributes this acceleration to:
China accounted for two-thirds of solar, wind, and electric vehicle additions, but developing economies showed strong momentum. India became the world’s second-largest solar installer, while Brazil accelerated wind and solar deployment significantly.
While energy transition metrics improved, natural capital indicators stagnated or worsened:
The UN’s High Seas Treaty, reaching the required 60 ratifications in late 2025, offers hope. Entering force in January 2026, it creates the first legally binding framework for protecting two-thirds of the ocean beyond national jurisdiction.
Yet implementation remains uncertain, and the treaty faces the same multilateral pressures affecting other global agreements.
Despite record clean energy deployment, global greenhouse gas emissions continued rising in 2024. Global Carbon Project data shows fossil fuel emissions reached approximately 37.8 billion tonnes of CO2 in 2024, up from 37.3 billion tonnes in 2023.
According to McKinsey Global Institute research, the energy transition is progressing at roughly half the speed needed to meet Paris Agreement goals of limiting warming to 1.5°C.
There is one encouraging trend: emissions intensity (emissions per unit of GDP) continues declining, demonstrating that economic growth can occur alongside emissions management—even if absolute reductions remain elusive.
As comprehensive global agreements prove challenging, regional cooperation is filling gaps:
European Union Initiatives:
ASEAN Cooperation:
COP30 Outcomes: The UN climate conference in Brazil produced several commitments:
Climate Policy Initiative analysis notes that while these commitments are significant, the critical challenge remains implementation—translating pledges into deployed capital and measurable emissions reductions.
One area of cooperation that significantly underperformed expectations: the Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs). These international financing mechanisms aim to assist emerging economies in transitioning to low-emission energy systems.
Despite commitments totaling $50 billion, only $7 billion had been delivered by June 2025—a 86% shortfall. According to World Resources Institute analysis, delays stemmed from:
This underperformance illustrates a broader challenge: while climate cooperation shows resilience in some areas (financing, trade, technology deployment), translating commitments into action remains difficult in the current geopolitical environment.
The health and wellness pillar presents perhaps the most deceptive picture in the entire barometer. Overall cooperation appears stable—but this masks a dangerous erosion of the foundational support systems that enable positive health outcomes.
All major health outcome metrics improved in 2024, according to the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation:
These improvements reflect long-term developmental trends, post-pandemic normalization, and the cumulative effect of previous investments in global health systems.
However, health experts warn these improvements may prove temporary if current trends in health cooperation continue.
Development Assistance for Health fell 6% to $50 billion in 2024—continuing a three-year downward trend. IHME projections suggest an additional $11 billion decline in 2025, largely due to expected cuts from US funding agencies (approximately $9 billion).
Major donor reductions include:
According to World Health Organization officials, this creates a dangerous dynamic: bilateral health assistance increasingly focuses on direct service delivery (medicines, diagnostics, frontline care) while reducing support for health system infrastructure, training, and governance.
Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General, describes this as “robbing Peter to pay Paul—we’re treating today’s patients while dismantling the systems needed to care for tomorrow’s.”
A significant trend emerged in 2024: funding through multilateral channels (WHO, Global Fund, multilateral development banks) fell by approximately 20%, while bilateral country-to-country funding declined only 3%.
This shift toward bilateral assistance has several implications:
Potential Benefits:
Significant Risks:
The WHO Pandemic Agreement, adopted in May 2025 after three years of challenging negotiations, represents both an achievement and a disappointment in health cooperation.
On one hand, the agreement marks the first binding global framework for pandemic response, addressing lessons from COVID-19 around:
On the other hand, the United States—the world’s largest economy and historically the leading contributor to global health—did not participate in the agreement. This absence raises questions about the framework’s practical effectiveness.
Dr. Jennifer Nuzzo, Director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University School of Public Health, notes: “Treaties create obligations on paper, but pandemic preparedness requires sustained investment, trust, and coordination—all of which are in short supply in the current environment.”
As global multilateral frameworks face pressure, regional cooperation showed promising developments:
Africa:
Caribbean:
Latin America:
The Lancet, in a November 2025 editorial, described these developments as “pragmatic regionalism”—a recognition that health security increasingly depends on strong regional capacity rather than solely on global institutions.
One troubling trend that demands attention: while life expectancy continues rising, “health-adjusted life expectancy” (years lived in good health) lags behind. According to research published in JAMA Network Open, this means people are living more years with illness and disability.
This “healthspan-lifespan gap” varies significantly by geography and socioeconomic status, but it’s widening in most regions—suggesting that current health cooperation patterns, while extending life, may be less effective at ensuring those additional years are healthy and productive.
No pillar declined as sharply as peace and security. Every single metric tracked in this domain fell below pre-pandemic levels, reflecting an intensification of conflict and a weakening of multilateral conflict resolution mechanisms.
The number of active conflicts increased in 2024, according to Uppsala Conflict Data Program. Major conflicts include:
Battle-related deaths remained near 2023 levels, with the Russia-Ukraine conflict accounting for over 40% of total fatalities.
Forcibly displaced people reached a record 123 million globally by the end of 2024, according to UNHCR. This represents an increase from 117 million in 2023 and 108 million in 2022.
The Sudan conflict alone displaced approximately 11.5 million people—the largest single-year displacement since Syria’s civil war peaked in 2013-2015.
Refugee flows strained hosting countries, particularly:
According to Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, the costs of supporting displaced populations fall disproportionately on middle-income countries neighboring conflict zones—countries that often lack the resources for adequate support.
The decline in multilateral peace and security cooperation manifested in several metrics:
UN Security Council:
Peacekeeping Operations:
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute attributes these declines to:
Beyond traditional kinetic conflict, 2024 saw intensification of cyberattacks and “grey-zone” activities—actions that fall below the threshold of open warfare but still inflict significant damage.
Verizon’s 2025 Data Breach Investigations Report documents surging cyber incidents across Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. High-profile attacks in 2024-25 included:
Physical infrastructure also came under attack through grey-zone operations:
Center for Strategic and International Studies analysis suggests these grey-zone activities are becoming the preferred tool for state and non-state actors seeking to achieve strategic objectives while avoiding direct military confrontation.
Countries responded to deteriorating security with increased defense budgets:
NATO:
Asia-Pacific:
European Union:
According to International Institute for Strategic Studies, global military expenditure reached approximately $2.4 trillion in 2024, representing roughly 2.2% of global GDP—the highest level since the early post-Cold War period.
Despite the decline in UN-led multilateral operations, regional bodies stepped up:
African Union:
ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States):
Arab League and GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council):
United States Institute of Peace research suggests regional organizations often have advantages in peacekeeping:
However, these operations also face significant challenges, including limited resources, potential conflicts of interest among regional powers, and questions about impartiality.
Despite the overall decline, some successful examples of cooperation emerged in 2024-25:
Türkiye’s Mediation:
Armenia-Azerbaijan Progress:
Israel-Hamas Ceasefire:
These examples underscore a theme throughout the barometer: while large-scale multilateral frameworks struggle, tailored diplomatic efforts by committed mediators can still yield results.
The single most important trend across all five pillars is the shift from universal, rules-based multilateralism toward smaller, flexible, interest-based coalitions.
Multilateralism traditionally involved:
Minilateralism (sometimes called “plurilateralism”) instead features:
According to Council on Foreign Relations analysis, minilateralism offers several advantages in the current environment:
Trade and Capital:
Innovation and Technology:
Climate and Natural Capital:
Health and Wellness:
Peace and Security:
McKinsey Global Institute research identifies a clear pattern: cooperation increasingly occurs within geopolitical blocs defined by shared values, security concerns, and economic interests.
Three broad clusters are emerging:
Western-Aligned Bloc:
China-Aligned Bloc:
Non-Aligned/Swing States:
Critically, these clusters are not rigid or exclusive. Many countries maintain relationships across boundaries, and cooperation patterns vary by issue area. India, for example, partners with the US on technology and security (Quad) while maintaining trade relationships with Russia and China.
For this new cooperation landscape to function effectively, dialogue becomes more—not less—important.
As UN Secretary-General António Guterres emphasized in his September 2025 address to the General Assembly: “Taking steps forward to address global priorities can only happen if parties first talk with one another to find commonality.”
Yet dialogue quality has deteriorated. Too often, international engagements feature:
Effective dialogue in the minilateral era requires:
Harvard Negotiation Project research emphasizes that successful minilateral cooperation depends on participants separating people from problems, focusing on interests rather than positions, and generating options for mutual gain before deciding on specific approaches.
The transformation in global cooperation patterns has profound implications for multinational corporations, investors, and business leaders navigating an increasingly complex environment.
The Global Cooperation Barometer survey of approximately 800 executives across 81 economies revealed a striking divergence in perceptions:
This split suggests that business impacts depend heavily on:
According to Harvard Business Review analysis, companies successfully navigating this environment share several characteristics:
While some business leaders focus on cooperation’s decline, others see opportunity in its transformation. McKinsey research identifies several emerging opportunities:
New Trade Corridors:
Strategic Industry Positioning:
Services and Digital Growth:
Climate Transition Opportunities:
McKinsey research on geopolitical risk management recommends companies establish a dedicated “geopolitical nerve center”—a cross-functional team responsible for:
Monitoring and Intelligence:
Scenario Planning and War-Gaming:
Strategic Coordination:
Capability Building:
Companies that invested in these capabilities earlier are now outperforming. According to Boston Consulting Group analysis, firms in the top quartile of geopolitical preparedness showed 3-5 percentage points higher return on invested capital during 2022-24 compared to bottom-quartile peers.
As global cooperation evolves, leaders in both public and private sectors must adapt their approaches. Three strategies emerge from the barometer’s findings:
Not all challenges require universal, multilateral solutions. Leaders should strategically choose cooperation formats based on:
Issue Characteristics:
Partner Alignment:
Time Sensitivity:
The key is strategic flexibility—maintaining participation in multiple cooperation formats simultaneously, activating different partnerships for different challenges.
Both governments and businesses must build capabilities to thrive in a more fragmented cooperation landscape:
For Governments:
Intelligence and Foresight:
Diplomatic Agility:
Policy Coordination:
For Businesses:
Geopolitical Intelligence:
Operational Flexibility:
Strategic Relationships:
According to McKinsey & Company research, companies that systematically built these capabilities showed higher revenue growth (2-4 percentage points annually) and lower volatility (15-25% lower earnings variance) compared to peers during 2020-24.
Cooperation need not flow only through governmental channels. Innovative partnership models can accelerate progress:
Public-Private Coalitions:
These partnerships leverage complementary strengths:
Successful examples include:
Minerals Security Partnership:
Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI):
Private-Private Coalitions:
When public policy moves slowly, businesses can self-organize:
The Resilience Consortium (World Economic Forum/McKinsey):
Industry-Specific Standards Bodies:
According to World Economic Forum research, effective public-private partnerships share common characteristics:
As we move deeper into 2026, several trends deserve close attention:
US Policy Direction:
China’s Strategic Choices:
European Union Cohesion:
Emerging Economy Agency:
Multilateral Institution Reform:
Despite significant challenges, several factors suggest cooperation’s resilience:
Economic Incentives Remain Strong:
Technology Enables New Forms:
Shared Challenges Demand Collective Action:
Pragmatic Leaders Understand Value:
The central message of the Global Cooperation Barometer 2026 is neither pessimistic nor naively optimistic. Instead, it offers a realistic assessment: cooperation is under pressure but adapting.
The question isn’t whether countries and organizations will cooperate—they will, because they must. The question is whether they’ll adapt quickly and effectively enough to address urgent challenges while managing tensions.
As Børge Brende of the World Economic Forum notes: “Cooperative approaches are vital for advancing corporate, national and global interests. The barometer finds that, in the face of strong headwinds, cooperation is still taking place, albeit in different forms than in the past.”
The path forward requires:
The 2026 Global Cooperation Barometer paints a nuanced picture of international collaboration in an era of geopolitical fragmentation. While traditional multilateral frameworks face unprecedented strain, cooperation persists and evolves through smaller, more flexible coalitions.
Across trade, technology, climate, health, and security—the five pillars of global cooperation—we see common patterns:
For business leaders, this environment demands new capabilities: geopolitical intelligence, supply chain flexibility, strategic relationship management, and scenario planning. Companies that proactively adapt can find opportunity in reconfiguration rather than merely managing decline.
For government officials and diplomats, success requires matching cooperation formats to specific challenges, building diverse partnership portfolios, and maintaining dialogue even—especially—with those with whom disagreement runs deep.
For all stakeholders, the fundamental truth remains: many of today’s most pressing challenges cannot be solved by any country or organization alone. Climate change, pandemic preparedness, economic prosperity, technological innovation, and peace all require cooperative effort.
The shape of that cooperation may look different from the post-World War II multilateral order. It may be more fragmented, more pragmatic, more selective about participants and more focused on concrete outcomes. But cooperation itself—the human capacity to work together toward shared goals—endures.
As we navigate 2026 and beyond, the barometer’s message is clear: cooperation isn’t dying. It’s evolving. And our collective ability to adapt will determine whether that evolution leads to a more resilient, prosperous, and peaceful world—or to continued fragmentation and missed opportunities.
The choice isn’t between cooperation and isolation. It’s between rigid adherence to fading frameworks and creative adaptation to new realities. The data suggests pragmatic optimism: cooperation is down but not out, strained but not shattered, adapting even as it’s tested.
In this era of transformation, the question each leader must answer is not “should we cooperate?” but “how shall we cooperate most effectively?” The Global Cooperation Barometer 2026 provides essential data for answering that question wisely.
Methodology Note: This article draws primarily from the World Economic Forum’s Global Cooperation Barometer 2026 Third Edition, produced in partnership with McKinsey & Company. All statistics are sourced from the report’s 41 tracked metrics unless otherwise noted. Additional reporting includes interviews with policy experts, analysis of supplementary data sources, and review of academic literature on international cooperation.
Trump's Kharg Island threat, oil at $116, and the Strait of Hormuz crisis send PSX…
By the time the U.S. Mint strikes the first 24-karat gold Trump commemorative coin later…
Investors are aggressively snapping up debt for Electronic Arts' historic $55bn take-private, signaling resilient credit…
It is a move that initially appears as a study in industrial asymmetry: a northern…
Oil shock Southeast Asia | Strait of Hormuz disruption | Stagflation risk Philippines Thailand |…
At 2:30 a.m. Eastern time on February 28, 2026, President Donald Trump appeared on Truth…
View Comments
Can you be more specific about the content of your article? After reading it, I still have some doubts. Hope you can help me.
Can you be more specific about the content of your article? After reading it, I still have some doubts. Hope you can help me.
Can you be more specific about the content of your article? After reading it, I still have some doubts. Hope you can help me.