About the paper
The report argues that 2026 will be shaped by a “rewired” world marked by geopolitical fragmentation, deep public pessimism, widening gaps between elites and citizens, accelerating AI adoption, and increasingly atomised influence systems.
It is a mixed-methods report based on 175 in-depth interviews with senior leaders and policy experts across business, politics, academia and media, combined with nationally representative polling of roughly 20,000 people across the US, Canada, the EU member states, the UK and Japan; public results are averaged across markets with equal weighting by country or bloc.
The report is explicit about scale and broad geography, but does not clearly specify fieldwork dates or detailed polling procedures beyond that summary.
Length: 56 pages
More information / download:
https://fgsglobal.com/radar
Core Insights
1. What is the report’s central argument about the state of the world in 2026?
The core argument is that the world is no longer merely volatile or uncertain; it has been fundamentally “rewired”. The report says the post-war rules-based order is fragmenting, international institutions are weakening, and politics is increasingly driven by strong leaders, national interest and spheres of influence rather than shared values or multilateral norms. It presents this as the defining context for 2026, with the US and China setting the pace and the rest of the world being forced to adapt.
The report also argues that this rewiring is not only geopolitical. It is economic, technological and communicative. Economically, it sees a K-shaped pattern in which gains accrue unevenly, especially to high-income groups and tech-related sectors. Technologically, AI is portrayed as a major driver of practical business change, labour-market disruption and geopolitical competition. Communicatively, influence is becoming atomised, with mainstream media and traditional institutions losing authority while fragmented digital networks and AI-mediated information systems gain power.
For leaders, the implication is that older assumptions about stability, consensus and institutional mediation are no longer dependable. The report’s message is that success in 2026 will depend on combining long-term strategic clarity with the agility to respond to constant disruption.
2. What evidence does the report provide that public pessimism and distrust have reached a critical level?
One of the report’s strongest findings is the depth and breadth of public pessimism across the 27 countries it polled. It says that in all 27 countries, substantial majorities believe the political system is failing ordinary people and needs fundamental reform, that public institutions are wasteful and badly run, that national identity is disappearing, that democracy is weakening, and that life will be harder for the next generation. It adds that 73% say their country feels divided. Denmark is singled out as the only country where one of these pessimistic propositions is not supported by a majority, which underscores how widespread the mood is elsewhere.
The report interprets this as more than routine dissatisfaction. It explicitly says this level of pessimism is not normal and may not be sustainable. It describes a widening gap between elites and the broader public, especially in Europe, Japan and Canada, where confidence in governments and institutions is said to be collapsing. It also notes that even people who dislike Donald Trump may still admire his disruptive capacity to act, because many citizens feel conventional institutions no longer deliver results.
Distrust also extends to information systems. In the stakeholder section, the report says only Denmark and Finland have more people trusting than mistrusting mainstream news media, while 61% overall believe mainstream media have their own agenda and cannot be trusted to report fairly. Politicians are described as the least trusted information source in every country surveyed. That finding strengthens the report’s wider claim that legitimacy is eroding across both politics and media.
3. Which major divides does the report identify, and why do they matter?
The report argues that 2026 will be defined by multiple reinforcing divides rather than one single cleavage. The first is the divide between elite and public opinion. Experts tend to see trade-offs as unavoidable on issues such as taxation, AI governance and business incentives, while the public often believes there are simple solutions if only better leaders were in charge. That gap matters because it creates fertile ground for populism and makes it harder for governments to build support for difficult but realistic policies.
A second divide is between old and young. The report says both generations feel resources are skewed unfairly towards the other, while many experts fear that wealth transfer through inheritance will make success depend more on family assets than enterprise. At the same time, polling suggests younger generations are somewhat more optimistic than older ones in the short term, even though the public overall thinks life will be harder for the next generation. This divide matters because it combines economic frustration with perceptions of intergenerational unfairness.
A third divide is between the engaged and the disengaged. Younger adults are less likely to follow politics and more likely to think voting makes no difference. The report says disengaged people are more likely to distrust others, believe globalisation has gone too far, downplay climate change and believe conspiracy theories. This matters because democratic systems depend on participation and basic confidence in shared reality.
A fourth divide is between the global north and south, especially on climate and development. Experts argue that climate impacts are increasingly tangible in the global south, while economic pressure and populism in the north are pushing climate lower down the agenda. Yet publics in the surveyed democracies broadly oppose sending money overseas for climate or development support. This matters because climate disruption and migration pressures are likely to intensify just as willingness for cross-border solidarity weakens.
4. How does the report portray the outlook for geopolitics, the economy, AI and climate in 2026?
On geopolitics, the report expects 2026 to be shaped by strong leaders and weaker institutions. It presents the US and China as the two dominant powers, with more grey-zone conflict, strategic rivalry in trade and technology, and the rest of the world struggling to align. It says public pessimism is high about both US-China relations and the chances of peace in the Middle East and Ukraine. Europe is portrayed as pivotal but vulnerable: admired for stability, yet anxious about its competitiveness, growth and geopolitical relevance.
On the economy, the report describes “a tale of two economies”. Experts are split between cautious optimists, who think the global economy will muddle through, and pessimists, who believe it is structurally fragile and overdue for correction. The report highlights over-leverage in the West, inflationary pressure, and heavy concentration of value in the “Magnificent 7” tech stocks. At the public level, affordability dominates: inflation and cost of living appear as the most important issue in several major markets, and many people believe growth mainly benefits those already well off.
On AI, the report says the debate has shifted from whether AI will matter to how it will be implemented and with what consequences. Experts expect significant business evolution rather than total revolution, including agentic AI, more conversational models, greater robotisation and practical implementation across functions such as customer service, HR, finance and software development. But both experts and publics are concerned about employment effects: 70% of the public believe AI will destroy more jobs than it creates, and large majorities support stronger regulation and higher taxation of AI companies.
On energy and sustainability, the report argues that current systems are not fit for purpose. Experts think infrastructure, regulation and planning are too slow to support either economic competitiveness or climate goals. Public concern about climate change remains high, but so do concerns about affordability. The report finds that most people support progress towards carbon neutrality at a slower pace to limit financial pain, rather than pushing ahead as fast as possible regardless of price increases.
5. What perspective does the report take on leadership, and what are its main practical implications?
The report clearly adopts a leadership-oriented perspective. It is written for decision-makers in business and politics, and its practical conclusion is that leadership in 2026 requires more than technical competence. Leaders need to understand fragmented realities, operate amid contested legitimacy, and make strategy resilient to volatility rather than built for stability. The report explicitly recommends building a “reality function” to interpret fractured environments, rebuilding strategy around volatility, treating affordability and fairness as non-negotiable constraints, and handling AI as both a capability issue and a social contract issue.
Its assumptions are also visible. The report assumes that institutional weakening, pessimism and fragmentation are durable enough to shape business strategy directly. It assumes that political backlash, distrust and perceived unfairness will increasingly constrain what organisations can do. It also assumes that influence is no longer governed by a stable hierarchy of media, parties and institutions, but by a messy system of competing networks, platforms and AI-shaped information flows.
The final practical message is that leaders must combine strategy, agility, authenticity and storytelling. Strategy matters because organisations need a stable destination. Agility matters because the route will keep changing. Authenticity matters because legitimacy is constantly contested. Storytelling matters because fragmented audiences do not absorb complexity easily, and leaders have to repeat and clarify their message in a crowded, distrustful environment. In that sense, the report is not just a diagnosis of 2026; it is also a guide to the leadership style it believes that environment now demands.