Geopolitics

Global Cooperation Barometer 2026: Why International Collaboration Isn’t Dead—It’s Just Evolving [WEF Report Analysis]

Published

2 days ago

January 8, 2026

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 Surprising Resilience of Global Cooperation

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:

Escalating trade barriers and protectionist policies
Multiple active military conflicts across three continents
Heightened mistrust between major economic powers
Record levels of forced displacement
Increasing restrictions on technology transfers

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.”

Understanding the Methodology

The barometer’s rigor lies in its comprehensive approach. Each of the five pillars comprises two indices:

Action Index: Measures concrete cooperative behaviors (trade flows, knowledge exchange, financial transfers)
Outcome Index: Tracks results of cooperation (life expectancy, emissions levels, conflict casualties)

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.

The Composition Shift That Matters

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:

UN Security Council resolutions fell from 50 in 2023 to 46 in 2024
Multilateral peacekeeping operations dropped by 11% year-over-year
Official Development Assistance plummeted 10.8% in 2024
International Health Regulations compliance weakened

Simultaneously, cooperation flourished in areas where flexible, interest-based partnerships could operate:

Cross-border data flows surged, with international bandwidth now 4x larger than pre-pandemic levels
Services trade continued its five-year growth trajectory
Climate finance reached record levels, approaching $1 trillion annually
Foreign direct investment in strategic sectors (semiconductors, data centers, EV batteries) accelerated

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.

Trade and Capital: Reconfiguration Over Retreat

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.

The Great Trade Rearrangement

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:

US imports from China fell 20% in the first seven months of 2025 compared to the same period in 2024
Developing countries’ share of manufacturing exports rose by 5 percentage points in 2024
China represented over half of this growth, adding $276 billion in exports
Trade concentration (measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index) declined by about 1%, indicating slight diversification

“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.”

The Silent Surge in Services and Capital

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:

Digitally delivered services: IT consulting, cloud services, software development
Business services: R&D, engineering, professional services
Travel services: Rebounding from pandemic lows, though not yet at 2019 levels

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:

Semiconductors: $89 billion in announced projects globally
Data centers and AI infrastructure: $370 billion (up from $190 billion in 2024)
EV battery manufacturing: $67 billion
Critical minerals processing: $34 billion

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 Multilateral Casualty: Foreign Aid

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:

Reduced humanitarian aid budgets
Decreased refugee spending in donor countries
Lower aid to Ukraine as military assistance shifts
Domestic political pressures in major donor nations

This trend has profound implications for low and middle-income countries that depend on international assistance for health systems, education, and infrastructure development.

New Coalition Models Emerge

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:

Speed: Smaller groups reach consensus faster
Flexibility: Tailored agreements address specific needs
Resilience: Less vulnerable to any single member’s withdrawal
Pragmatism: Focus on mutual gains rather than universal principles

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.

Innovation and Technology: The AI Race Drives Selective Cooperation

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.

The Data Flow Explosion

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:

Cloud computing adoption accelerating globally
Remote work normalizing post-pandemic
Streaming services expanding internationally
AI model training requiring distributed datasets

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.

The Strategic Technology Paradox

Even as general technology cooperation flourished, restrictions tightened on specific advanced technologies. The United States expanded export controls on:

Advanced semiconductors and chipmaking equipment
AI training systems above certain computational thresholds
Quantum computing components
Certain biotechnology applications

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:

US-India Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technology (iCET)
US-EU Trade and Technology Council advancing AI safety standards
US-Japan semiconductor research collaboration
US-UAE framework on advanced technology cooperation

China-Led Technology Initiatives:

5G infrastructure partnerships across Southeast Asia and Africa
AI research centers in Gulf states
Data center investments in emerging markets
Technology transfer agreements with Belt and Road countries

Foreign Affairs magazine describes this as “technological bifurcation”—not complete decoupling, but the emergence of parallel ecosystems with limited interconnection.

The Student Visa Squeeze

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:

United States: F-1 and M-1 student visas down 11% in Q1 2025
United Kingdom: Student visa grants fell 2% year-over-year
Australia: International student approvals dropped 64% (driven by new policy restrictions)
Canada: Study permits declined amid new caps on international students

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.”

The Productivity Question

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:

Cross-border data access for model training
International talent mobility for AI development
Shared safety standards and governance frameworks
Collaborative research on frontier applications

The question isn’t whether technology cooperation will matter—it’s whether current cooperation patterns will be sufficient to realize these gains.

Climate and Natural Capital: Deployment Rises, Outcomes Lag

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.

The Clean Energy Deployment Surge

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:

Dramatic cost reductions: Solar module prices fell 90% over the past decade
Global supply chains: Chinese manufacturing scale drove affordability
Policy alignment: Domestic energy security goals converged with climate objectives
Climate finance flows: Both public and private investment reached near $1 trillion annually

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.

The Natural Capital Challenge

While energy transition metrics improved, natural capital indicators stagnated or worsened:

Marine protected areas: Growth stalled during 2023-24
Terrestrial protected areas: Expansion slowed after steady progress
Ocean Health Index: Continued gradual decline
Biodiversity loss: Accelerated despite international commitments

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.

The Emissions Reality Check

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.

Regional Climate Coalitions Take the Lead

As comprehensive global agreements prove challenging, regional cooperation is filling gaps:

European Union Initiatives:

The Clean Industrial Deal (February 2025) aims to make decarbonization a competitive advantage
The Net-Zero Industry Act accelerates manufacturing of clean technologies in Europe
The Critical Raw Materials Act secures strategic inputs for the energy transition
The EU-Central Asia Hydrogen Partnership (September 2025) creates new clean energy corridors

ASEAN Cooperation:

The LTMS-PIP (Laos-Thailand-Malaysia-Singapore Power Integration Project) enables cross-border clean power trading
Progress toward an integrated ASEAN Power Grid enhances energy security while enabling renewable deployment
The ASEAN Community Vision 2025 and Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity both reached target dates with mixed implementation

COP30 Outcomes: The UN climate conference in Brazil produced several commitments:

Tripling of adaptation finance by 2035
Launch of the Tropical Forests Forever Facility to boost investment in protected areas
New mechanisms for loss and damage funding

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.

The Just Energy Transition Shortfall

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:

Bureaucratic complexity in mobilizing multilateral funds
Competing domestic priorities among donor nations
Difficulty coordinating between multiple financial institutions
Recipients’ concerns about sovereignty and conditionality

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.

Health and Wellness: Resilient Outcomes, Eroding Support

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.

The Outcome Resilience

All major health outcome metrics improved in 2024, according to the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation:

Life expectancy continued its post-pandemic recovery
Child mortality (under-five) declined further
Maternal mortality decreased in most regions
Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) improved globally

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.

The Development Assistance Crisis

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:

United States: PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) facing budget pressures; USAID tightening cost-sharing requirements
United Kingdom: Continued retrenchment in global health spending amid domestic fiscal pressures
Germany: ODA cuts affecting health assistance

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.”

The Multilateral-Bilateral Shift

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:

More direct accountability between donor and recipient
Faster deployment to specific needs
Reduced bureaucratic overhead
Clearer metrics for impact assessment

Significant Risks:

System-level costs (training, governance, infrastructure) go unfunded
Recipients face increased burden on domestic budgets
Coordination between different bilateral programs weakens
Political considerations may override health priorities
Smaller countries with less strategic importance receive less support

Pandemic Preparedness in Limbo

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:

Equitable access to vaccines and therapeutics
Information sharing during outbreaks
Research collaboration and pathogen surveillance
Capacity building in low-resource settings

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.”

Regional Health Cooperation Gains Ground

As global multilateral frameworks face pressure, regional cooperation showed promising developments:

Africa:

The African Medicines Agency held its second session in Kigali (June 2025), advancing pharmaceutical regulatory harmonization
The Accra Compact aligned African governments on health sovereignty priorities
South Africa’s Aspen Pharmacare expanded COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing for the continent

Caribbean:

The Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States scaled a model to reduce insulin prices region-wide
Negotiations advanced on a Caribbean pharmaceutical procurement alliance

Latin America:

Brazil’s Butantan Institute partnered with other regional manufacturers on vaccine development
The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) strengthened regional disease surveillance

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.

The Healthspan-Lifespan Gap

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.

Peace and Security: The Pillar Under Greatest Strain

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 Conflict Surge

The number of active conflicts increased in 2024, according to Uppsala Conflict Data Program. Major conflicts include:

The ongoing Russia-Ukraine war (continuing into its third year)
Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza (beginning October 2023)
Israel-Hezbollah hostilities (escalating in 2024)
Civil war in Sudan (displacing 11.5 million people)
Civil war in Myanmar (intensifying since 2021 coup)
Intensified fighting in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo

Battle-related deaths remained near 2023 levels, with the Russia-Ukraine conflict accounting for over 40% of total fatalities.

The Displacement Crisis

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:

Turkey (hosting 3.6 million Syrian refugees plus new arrivals)
Pakistan (hosting Afghan refugees amid economic crisis)
Uganda (hosting over 1.5 million refugees from multiple neighboring conflicts)
Poland and other Eastern European nations (supporting Ukrainian refugees)

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.

Multilateral Mechanisms Under Pressure

The decline in multilateral peace and security cooperation manifested in several metrics:

UN Security Council:

Resolutions decreased from 50 (2023) to 46 (2024)
Vetoes by permanent members blocked action on several major conflicts
The ratio of resolutions to active conflicts declined significantly
Until November 2025, no new peacekeeping operation had been mandated since 2014

Peacekeeping Operations:

The ratio of multilateral peacekeeping operations to conflicts fell by approximately 11% year-over-year
Personnel deployed to multilateral peace operations declined by more than 40% between 2015 and 2024
Budget constraints disrupted operations, with the approved UN peacekeeping budget falling from $9.7 billion (2014) to $4.7 billion (2025)

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute attributes these declines to:

Geopolitical tensions among major powers limiting consensus
Donor fatigue and budget pressures in contributing countries
Questions about peacekeeping effectiveness in complex civil wars
Host country sovereignty concerns limiting mandate flexibility

The Cyber and Grey-Zone Threat

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:

Tata Motors’ Jaguar Land Rover halted production due to cyberattack (September 2025)
Marks & Spencer faced up to £300 million losses from cyber breach (May 2025)
Multiple critical infrastructure attacks across Europe

Physical infrastructure also came under attack through grey-zone operations:

Sabotage of gas pipelines in Europe
Damage to undersea internet cables in the Red Sea and West Africa (three major multi-cable outages)
GPS jamming affecting civilian aviation
Disinformation campaigns targeting elections in multiple democracies

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.

The Defense Spending Response

Countries responded to deteriorating security with increased defense budgets:

NATO:

All 32 member states met the 2% of GDP defense spending target in 2025 (compared to fewer than 20 in 2024)
The alliance raised its spending target to 5% of GDP for 2035 at The Hague Summit (June 2025)

Asia-Pacific:

China continued double-digit defense budget increases
Japan increased defense spending significantly, moving toward the 2% NATO target
India expanded military modernization programs
Australia boosted defense spending in response to regional tensions

European Union:

The European Defence Agency reported increased spending across member states
New EU defense industrial strategy launched to build autonomous capabilities

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.

Regional Peacekeeping Fills the Gap

Despite the decline in UN-led multilateral operations, regional bodies stepped up:

African Union:

Led security transition in Somalia (ATMIS – African Union Transition Mission in Somalia)
Deployed forces to eastern Democratic Republic of Congo
Supported peacekeeping efforts in South Sudan

ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States):

Maintained presence in several West African nations
Coordinated responses to coups and instability in the Sahel

Arab League and GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council):

Mediation efforts in Yemen
Coordination on security challenges in the Red Sea corridor

United States Institute of Peace research suggests regional organizations often have advantages in peacekeeping:

Better understanding of local contexts and dynamics
Greater perceived legitimacy among parties to conflicts
Ability to act when great power politics block global action
More flexible mandates and lighter bureaucracy

However, these operations also face significant challenges, including limited resources, potential conflicts of interest among regional powers, and questions about impartiality.

Emerging Bright Spots in Conflict Resolution

Despite the overall decline, some successful examples of cooperation emerged in 2024-25:

Türkiye’s Mediation:

The Ankara Declaration (February 2025) led to de-escalation of tensions between Ethiopia and Somalia
Turkish diplomacy facilitated technical talks and confidence-building measures

Armenia-Azerbaijan Progress:

The two nations agreed on the text of a peace treaty with EU and US facilitation
Steps taken to keep third-country forces off borders reduced immediate escalation risks

Israel-Hamas Ceasefire:

After 15 months of conflict, Qatar and Egypt mediated a ceasefire agreement in January 2025
While fragile, the agreement created space for humanitarian access and reconstruction discussions

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 Rise of Minilateralism: From Global to Agile

The single most important trend across all five pillars is the shift from universal, rules-based multilateralism toward smaller, flexible, interest-based coalitions.

Defining the New Cooperation Landscape

Multilateralism traditionally involved:

Near-universal membership (180+ countries)
Comprehensive frameworks (covering many issues)
Consensus-based decision-making
Institutional permanence (UN, WTO, WHO, etc.)
Rules-based order with dispute resolution mechanisms

Minilateralism (sometimes called “plurilateralism”) instead features:

Small groups of like-minded countries (3-20 members)
Focused agendas (addressing specific challenges)
Streamlined decision-making (easier consensus)
Purpose-built arrangements (dissolving when objectives met)
Pragmatic cooperation based on mutual interests

According to Council on Foreign Relations analysis, minilateralism offers several advantages in the current environment:

Speed: Smaller groups negotiate and implement faster
Flexibility: Tailored solutions address specific needs without compromising for universal buy-in
Resilience: Less vulnerable to any single member’s withdrawal or obstruction
Effectiveness: Clear objectives and accountable membership improve outcomes
Complementarity: Can coexist with and supplement multilateral frameworks

Examples Across the Five Pillars

Trade and Capital:

Future of Investment and Trade (FIT) Partnership (14 economies)
EU-Mercosur trade agreement (after decade of negotiations)
ASEAN Digital Economy Framework Agreement
US-Australia-Japan-India Quad economic cooperation
Bilateral critical minerals partnerships (US-Australia, US-Canada, US-Japan)

Innovation and Technology:

US-India Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technology
US-EU Trade and Technology Council
US-Japan semiconductor research collaboration
US-UAE advanced technology cooperation framework
Various AI safety research partnerships

Climate and Natural Capital:

EU Clean Industrial Deal and regional decarbonization efforts
LTMS-PIP Southeast Asian power grid integration
EU-Central Asia Hydrogen Partnership
Just Energy Transition Partnerships (despite underperformance, represent minilateral model)

Health and Wellness:

African Medicines Agency regional pharmaceutical cooperation
OECS insulin procurement collaboration (Caribbean)
Accra Compact on African health sovereignty
Various regional vaccine manufacturing partnerships

Peace and Security:

African Union-led peacekeeping missions
ECOWAS regional security coordination
Türkiye-mediated bilateral negotiations (Ethiopia-Somalia, others)
Quad security dialogue (US-Japan-Australia-India)

The Geopolitical Clustering Dynamic

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:

North America, Europe, developed Asia-Pacific (Japan, South Korea, Australia)
Characterized by: democratic governance, market economies, security alliances (NATO, bilateral treaties)
Deepening integration in technology, defense, critical supply chains

China-Aligned Bloc:

China, Russia, some Central Asian nations, selective African and Latin American partnerships
Characterized by: state-directed economics,alternative governance models, Belt and Road participation
Growing integration in infrastructure, commodities, some technologies

Non-Aligned/Swing States:

India, Brazil, Indonesia, Turkey, Gulf states, much of Africa and Latin America
Characterized by: strategic autonomy, economic pragmatism, multiple partnerships
Maintain relationships across blocs, optimize for national interests

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.

The Dialogue Imperative

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:

Positioning statements rather than genuine exchange
One-way communication designed to hold ground rather than find common ground
Performative diplomacy focused on domestic audiences
Tactical maneuvering instead of problem-solving

Effective dialogue in the minilateral era requires:

Confidential channels: Away from public pressure and domestic political constraints
Specific agendas: Focused on concrete problems with potential solutions
Good-faith participation: Genuine willingness to find mutually beneficial outcomes
Technical expertise: Subject matter experts alongside diplomats
Follow-through mechanisms: Implementation plans with clear accountability

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.

What the Shifting Cooperation Landscape Means for Global Business

The transformation in global cooperation patterns has profound implications for multinational corporations, investors, and business leaders navigating an increasingly complex environment.

The Corporate Sentiment Split

The Global Cooperation Barometer survey of approximately 800 executives across 81 economies revealed a striking divergence in perceptions:

40% reported that growing barriers in trade, talent, and capital flows hampered their ability to do business
60% said the effects were neutral or not substantially negative

This split suggests that business impacts depend heavily on:

Industry: Technology and pharmaceuticals face more restrictions than services
Geography: Companies operating between aligned partners less affected than those spanning geopolitical divides
Business model: Digital platforms more adaptable than asset-heavy manufacturers
Strategic positioning: Proactive adaptation mitigates negative effects

According to Harvard Business Review analysis, companies successfully navigating this environment share several characteristics:

Geopolitical intelligence capabilities: Dedicated teams tracking regulatory changes, alliance shifts, and emerging restrictions
Flexible supply chains: Multiple sourcing options and rapid reconfiguration ability
Regional strategies: Tailored approaches for different geopolitical clusters
Government relations excellence: Deep understanding of policy priorities and effective engagement
Scenario planning: Regular war-gaming of geopolitical shocks and strategic responses

The Opportunity in Reconfiguration

While some business leaders focus on cooperation’s decline, others see opportunity in its transformation. McKinsey research identifies several emerging opportunities:

New Trade Corridors:

Intra-ASEAN trade growing rapidly as regional integration deepens
Africa-India trade expanding as both seek diversification
Middle East-Europe connections strengthening (renewable energy, logistics)
Latin American regional trade agreements creating larger effective markets

Strategic Industry Positioning:

Semiconductor manufacturing expanding beyond East Asia (US, Europe, India investments)
EV battery supply chains developing regional hubs (Europe, North America, Southeast Asia)
Critical minerals processing diversifying away from China dominance
Pharmaceutical manufacturing regionalizing for supply security

Services and Digital Growth:

IT services demand surging as businesses digitize and adopt AI
Professional services expanding as companies navigate complex regulatory environments
Digital platforms less constrained by physical trade barriers
Knowledge-intensive services benefiting from continued (if selective) talent mobility

Climate Transition Opportunities:

$1 trillion+ annual climate finance creating massive market
Clean technology manufacturing and deployment accelerating globally
Energy transition requiring infrastructure investment across developing economies
Carbon markets and climate services expanding

Building a Geopolitical Nerve Center

McKinsey research on geopolitical risk management recommends companies establish a dedicated “geopolitical nerve center”—a cross-functional team responsible for:

Monitoring and Intelligence:

Track regulatory changes across jurisdictions
Monitor geopolitical developments affecting operations
Assess competitor positioning and strategic moves
Maintain relationships with policy experts and government officials

Scenario Planning and War-Gaming:

Develop detailed scenarios for potential geopolitical shocks (new sanctions, conflict escalation, alliance shifts)
War-game company responses with senior leadership quarterly
Identify trigger points for pre-authorized decisions
Maintain updated playbooks for rapid response

Strategic Coordination:

Align business unit strategies with geopolitical realities
Coordinate government relations across regions
Manage trade-offs between efficiency and resilience
Balance short-term costs of adaptation with long-term risk reduction

Capability Building:

Develop internal expertise on key geographies and issues
Build relationships with external experts and advisors
Train leadership on geopolitical risk assessment
Foster cultural awareness and sensitivity

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.

Three Strategies for Navigating the New Cooperation Paradigm

As global cooperation evolves, leaders in both public and private sectors must adapt their approaches. Three strategies emerge from the barometer’s findings:

1. Match Cooperation Format to Specific Issues

Not all challenges require universal, multilateral solutions. Leaders should strategically choose cooperation formats based on:

Issue Characteristics:

Technical problems with clear solutions: Small expert groups (e.g., technology standards)
Economic opportunities with aligned incentives: Bilateral or regional trade agreements
Security challenges with geographic concentration: Regional organizations
Global challenges requiring universal participation: Reformed multilateral institutions (climate, pandemics)

Partner Alignment:

High alignment: Deep integration possible (single markets, currency unions, defense alliances)
Moderate alignment: Issue-specific cooperation (trade agreements, technology partnerships)
Low alignment: Transactional engagement (commodity trade, specific projects)

Time Sensitivity:

Immediate crises: Ad hoc coalitions of capable and willing actors
Medium-term challenges: Purpose-built minilateral partnerships
Long-term systemic issues: Institutional frameworks with staying power

The key is strategic flexibility—maintaining participation in multiple cooperation formats simultaneously, activating different partnerships for different challenges.

2. Strengthen Resilience Through New Organizational Capabilities

Both governments and businesses must build capabilities to thrive in a more fragmented cooperation landscape:

For Governments:

Intelligence and Foresight:

Establish forward-looking analytical units tracking cooperation trends
Maintain comprehensive mapping of existing partnerships and potential new ones
Develop scenario planning for different cooperation futures

Diplomatic Agility:

Train diplomats in minilateral negotiation techniques
Empower smaller negotiating teams with flexible mandates
Build rapid response capacity for emerging cooperation opportunities

Policy Coordination:

Break down silos between trade, security, climate, and health policy
Recognize interconnections across cooperation domains
Develop whole-of-government strategies for key relationships

For Businesses:

Geopolitical Intelligence:

Build dedicated teams monitoring regulatory and political developments
Develop early warning systems for cooperation disruptions
Maintain networks of advisors across key geographies

Operational Flexibility:

Design supply chains with multiple sourcing options
Maintain manufacturing and service delivery capacity in multiple regions
Develop rapid reconfiguration capabilities

Strategic Relationships:

Cultivate relationships with policymakers in key markets
Participate actively in industry associations and multi-stakeholder forums
Build trust through consistent engagement, not just during crises

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.

3. Pursue Public-Private and Private-Private Coalitions

Cooperation need not flow only through governmental channels. Innovative partnership models can accelerate progress:

Public-Private Coalitions:

These partnerships leverage complementary strengths:

Government: Convening power, regulatory authority, patient capital, long-term perspective
Business: Technical expertise, operational efficiency, innovation capacity, private capital

Successful examples include:

Minerals Security Partnership:

Governments and leading mining/manufacturing companies
Objective: Accelerate critical mineral projects
Approach: Coordinated investment and market-making
Result: Pipeline of projects moving toward financial close

Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI):

Governments, foundations, pharmaceutical companies
Objective: Accelerate vaccine development for emerging threats
Approach: Coordinated R&D funding and manufacturing capacity
Result: Rapid COVID-19 vaccine development and future preparedness

Private-Private Coalitions:

When public policy moves slowly, businesses can self-organize:

The Resilience Consortium (World Economic Forum/McKinsey):

Brings together businesses’ agility, MDBs’ capital mobilization capacity
Focus on building resilience in critical supply chains
Enables rapid coordination without waiting for government action

Industry-Specific Standards Bodies:

Technology companies collaborating on AI safety standards
Pharmaceutical companies coordinating on pandemic preparedness
Logistics companies optimizing supply chain resilience

According to World Economic Forum research, effective public-private partnerships share common characteristics:

Clear governance: Defined roles, decision-making processes, accountability
Aligned incentives: Structure ensuring all parties benefit from success
Measurable objectives: Concrete targets and transparent progress tracking
Risk sharing: Appropriate distribution of risks and rewards
Long-term commitment: Patience through inevitable implementation challenges

Looking Ahead: Cooperation’s Future in 2026 and Beyond

As we move deeper into 2026, several trends deserve close attention:

Pressure Points to Watch

US Policy Direction:

Tariff policies and their implementation affecting global trade flows
Foreign aid levels impacting health and development cooperation
Technology export controls shaping innovation ecosystems
Immigration policies affecting talent mobility

China’s Strategic Choices:

Economic opening or further self-reliance emphasis
Technology cooperation with developing economies
Belt and Road Initiative evolution
Role in multilateral institutions

European Union Cohesion:

Internal political dynamics affecting unity
Defense spending and security cooperation expansion
Industrial policy and subsidy competition
Enlargement and neighborhood relations

Emerging Economy Agency:

India’s positioning between major powers
Gulf states’ technology and economic partnerships
African regional integration progress
Latin American trade and political alignments

Multilateral Institution Reform:

UN Security Council reform discussions
WTO dispute resolution restoration
World Bank/IMF governance changes
WHO funding and authority

Reasons for Measured Optimism

Despite significant challenges, several factors suggest cooperation’s resilience:

Economic Incentives Remain Strong:

Global supply chains still deliver efficiency gains
Cross-border investment creates wealth
International students and workers enhance innovation
Trade benefits consumers through lower prices and greater choice

Technology Enables New Forms:

Digital platforms reduce coordination costs
Data flows enable distributed collaboration
Remote communication makes distance less relevant
AI could enhance translation and cross-cultural understanding

Shared Challenges Demand Collective Action:

Climate change affects all countries
Pandemics ignore borders
Cybersecurity threats require coordination
Economic instability ripples globally

Pragmatic Leaders Understand Value:

Surveys show majority recognize cooperation benefits
Business leaders adapt strategies rather than retreat
Diplomats seek creative solutions within constraints
Civil society maintains cross-border networks

The Adaptation Imperative

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:

Dialogue: Open, constructive engagement to identify common interests
Flexibility: Willingness to try new cooperation formats and partnerships
Pragmatism: Focus on tangible outcomes rather than ideological purity
Patience: Recognition that building trust and achieving results takes time
Innovation: Creative approaches to long-standing challenges

Conclusion: Cooperation Evolving, Not Collapsing

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:

Multilateral mechanisms declining but not disappearing entirely
Regional and minilateral partnerships filling gaps with agile, interest-based cooperation
Economic incentives continuing to drive collaboration where mutual benefits are clear
Outcomes holding steady or improving in some areas, deteriorating in others
Adaptability emerging as the key to navigating uncertainty

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.