What makes a country competitive in 2026? More capital? More talent? More computing power? More infrastructure?
These questions framed the discussions at the inaugural IMD World Competitiveness Summit in Zurich. However, in discussions covering artificial intelligence, workforce skills, capital markets, and infrastructure, the speakers arrived at a strikingly similar conclusion: competitive advantage depends increasingly on how effectively countries leverage their strengths, adapt to disruptions, and turn their potential into performance.
Opening the Summit, IMD President David Bach challenged the notion that competitiveness is a zero-sum game.
Referring to the ongoing World Cup, he drew a clear distinction between sports and the economy. “…We are not here to determine who the sole winner is, because for the most part, competitiveness is about competing with ourselves…,” he said.
“It’s about how we can improve…”. In a rapidly changing world, Bach argued, the real advantage lies in the ability to learn and constantly renew oneself, while remaining open to lessons from others. “…This is, to a large extent, the spirit of this gathering—this is at the heart of what we do at IMD…”.
And from this perspective, emphasis was placed on institutional credibility as a new competitive advantage. Thus, in unveiling the results of the 2026 World Competitiveness Ranking, Arturo Bris, Professor of Finance and Director of the IMD World Competitiveness Center, noted that competitiveness today is no longer about cost and scale, but about institutional credibility.
In a fragmented global landscape, the strongest are those that offer businesses and investors clear, reliable rules.
The results reinforced this argument. Singapore regained the top spot, followed by Hong Kong and Switzerland, while many larger European economies lost ground, particularly those closest to Russia.
In this instance, however, the speaker avoided mentioning the case of Poland, which is posting an annual growth rate of over 4%.
The case of Singapore, a country whose guiding principle is continuous renewal, also made a strong impression at the IMD event. As Jermaine Loy, CEO of the Singapore Economic Development Board, put it, competitiveness depends on remaining relevant and useful to the world, not on the pursuit of self-sufficiency.
And as Hanan Mansour Ahli, Director General of the Competition Commission of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), observed, “Competitiveness is not something we manage once a year, but something we manage continuously.”
The same issue arose in discussions regarding artificial intelligence. For countries outside the group of AI superpowers, the question is not whether they can match the largest investments in computing power, but how effectively they can apply AI to their own economies.
A panel discussion on whether countries outside the AI superpowers can remain competitive agreed on one point: the race is not primarily about the size of the model or the number of GPUs.
Omar Sultan AI Olama, Minister of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), argued that what matters is the dissemination and use of artificial intelligence throughout society. “…The race today is not a competition that rewards the size of your model or the number of GPUs you have, but rather concerns the dissemination of Artificial Intelligence throughout society…”
The conclusion, according to the participants, is that countries will succeed by building on their own strengths rather than trying to replicate the strategies of the AI superpowers.
However, broadening the discussion, the skills group emphasized that human judgment—not automation—remains the differentiating factor, and that proficiency in Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly becoming a key criterion for progress. “...AI will transform work, but it is people who will turn AI into value…,” said Veronique Rodoni of Akkodis, part of the Adecco Group.
The real challenge, as speakers from UBS, Helvetia, and Swiss Re agreed, is not accessing AI tools, but ensuring their effective use. Stefan Seiler of UBS compared AI to Excel—widely available but unevenly adopted—and called for more creative approaches to learning, including gamification.
Esther Roman of Helvetia argued that traditional job descriptions and career paths have already begun to break down as organizations adapt to new ways of working. As artificial intelligence reshapes work, organizations will need to hire to capitalize on its potential and invest in continuous learning, ensuring that employees have both the technical skills to use AI and the judgment to use it properly.
Stronger partnerships between industry and education will also be needed to align talent development with the future needs of the workforce.
Issues of development and implementation also dominated discussions on Europe’s economic future. Former French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire warned that Europe risks missing out on the artificial intelligence revolution, just as it missed out on parts of the digital revolution, pointing to declining growth, productivity, and technological leadership. However, he argued, Europe’s challenge is not a lack of capital, talent, or industrial capacity. It is fragmentation.
“…We are not united; we are divided,” he said, calling for faster progress toward a capital markets union, starting with a smaller coalition of willing states…”.
Other speakers echoed this point. Marni McManus of Citi argued that Europe should focus less on emulating the United States and more on making more effective use of existing capital, particularly pension funds.
The broader lesson, as the speakers noted, is that competitiveness depends increasingly on finding advantages beyond size alone.