Navigating the Changing World Order: Paths to Sustainable and Inclusive Growth

The global economy is undergoing a profound technological transformation of jobs and growth, now intensified by the rapid rise of AI. Heiwai Tang set the stage by framing the session as a decade-long reality check on the unprecedented uncertainty surrounding GenAI and challenged the panelists to focus on what has changed materially since 2016.

Victor Fung offered a business executive’s perspective, arguing that the old debate about whether AI destroys more jobs than it creates has largely been overtaken by a new reality: the challenge is no longer net job counts but massive transition. The pressing task, he emphasized, is building a global-scale revolution in retraining and education reform for billions of workers who are still prepared for yesterday’s roles. Fung added that competition increasingly makes AI adoption unavoidable—AI won’t kill jobs, but a competitor using AI might.

Michael Spence then broadened the lens to macro growth and inequality. He emphasized that GenAI is both unusually non-domain-specific and accessible, giving it a much wider footprint across tasks than earlier technologies. He also highlighted a structural asymmetry: frontier model training remains concentrated among a small number of entities primarily in the US and China due to the need for massive compute, talent, data, and market scale. Most importantly, he argued that whether AI ultimately boosts productivity broadly or amplifies inequality is not a forecast but a choice, hinging on the balance between automation and human–machine augmentation, and on the hard but essential work of diffusing AI capabilities across the entire economy, not just top firms.

Andrew Sheng approached the topic through finance and development, arguing that the last decade has ushered in an “ACI+” era—America, China, India plus the rest of the world—where scale and digital infrastructure shape who benefits most from new technology. He highlighted India’s digital identity and fintech leap as a quiet but monumental shift in inclusion. Viewing AI as a tool whose value depends on data quality, Sheng suggested that inclusive AI will rely as much on building strong digital rails as on improving models.

The panel ultimately converged on the view that the biggest AI challenge is not whether it creates or destroys jobs in aggregate, but whether institutions can match the speed of technological change with equally ambitious retraining, diffusion, and governance.

The accelerating capabilities of artificial intelligence are reshaping not only global systems and economies but also the deepest dimensions of human experience. In this panel, speakers explored how emerging technologies are transforming education, cognition, and human identity itself. What becomes of learning, agency, and ethics when AI embeds itself in human development? And as these tools evolve, how can societies mitigate risks, preserve essential aspects of human flourishing, and guard against misuse?

Joleen Liang illustrated how Large Adaptive Models (LAMs) can revolutionize children’s learning. These systems personalize instruction to each student’s pace, strengths, and weaknesses, enabling deeper engagement and greater efficiency. Liang argued that LAM-enabled education will gradually redefine teachers’ roles: AI will handle knowledge transmission, freeing educators to guide inquiry, interpret learning data alongside students, and provide essential psychological and motivational support. In this vision, AI acts not as a mere answer provider but as a foundational tool that catalyzes meaningful learning.

Sicong Shan showcased advances in non-invasive brain–computer interfaces (BCIs). He highlighted the company’s mission to develop smart prosthetics for the millions worldwide living with physical disabilities, as well as neuro-rehabilitation tools for conditions like ADHD. These AI-driven systems analyze neural activity in real time, adapting to users’ cognitive states to enhance focus, modulate attention, and enable more intuitive human–machine interaction. Together, they point toward a future in which machine intelligence works in close harmony with human cognition.

Herman Cappelen brought a philosophical lens to the discussion, balancing optimism about AI’s transformative potential with caution about its impact on human development—particularly in early childhood. While AI can reduce friction in learning, he stressed the value of preserving certain forms of struggle that foster resilience, autonomy, and social connection. His remarks underscored the need for ongoing ethical reflection to ensure that these powerful tools support, rather than erode, the conditions essential for human flourishing.

In a watershed year for the global order, with trade rules and growth models in flux, the panel focused on a key question: Can Asia’s institutional choices and ability to rebuild trust turn this era of fragmentation into an opportunity for more resilient and inclusive cooperation, rather than a prolonged crisis?

Barbara Meynert set the tone by acknowledging the uncertainty of the transitional world. She pointed to 2025’s shocks, especially the tariff “Liberation Day” announcement in April, using it to probe how the old trading orthodoxy is being upended and what this means for ASEAN, BRICS expansion, and the role of middle powers. Her guiding question was pragmatic: in a world of disrupted assumptions, how should Asia position itself to preserve growth, maintain stability, and retain room to make its own choices?

Jaime Zobel de Ayala described the tariff shock as a sharp break from decades of predictable, rules-based globalization. For small, open economies like the Philippines, he argued, the shift signals a move away from efficiency-first supply chains toward more cautious, redundancy-heavy structures. He emphasized that adjustment is unavoidable and positioned ASEAN as a practical, trust-based anchor amid external uncertainty.

Cherie Nursalim brought an ASEAN and Indonesia lens focused on long-term institution-building. She highlighted Indonesia’s role in advancing blended finance and argued that climate, health, and development challenges require mobilizing business alongside government. In addressing Indonesia joining BRICS, she emphasized the country’s identity as “united in diversity,” suggesting that Indonesia is positioned to bridge divides rather than deepen blocs. Her broader takeaway was optimistic: with strong leadership and aligned institutions, Indonesia can turn geopolitical uncertainty into an opportunity for inclusive growth and sustainable regional influence.

Suman Bery situated India’s geopolitical role within a long arc of cautious but consequential globalization. He argued that openness and prudent macro management have supported steady growth, and that India’s 2047 development ambition will require deeper integration while preserving strategic autonomy. On a more nuanced view of BRICS, he carefully viewed it as a forum rather than a unified bloc, cautioning against assuming unanimity. Bery underscored that the rise of parallel groupings reflects shifting power realities and perceived limitations in the existing global governance architecture.

George Hara pivoted the focus to Hong Kong’s potential as a resilience and innovation hub and as a bridge among major powers. Yet he viewed today’s biggest structural challenge as the erosion of the middle class across advanced and emerging economies. This framework emphasizes broader profit-sharing across stakeholders and institutionalized support for entrepreneurship. He positioned Hong Kong’s deep concentration of global research capacity as an under-leveraged asset and advocated building technology-based industries that can retain talent and turn scientific excellence into real-economy growth.