The global economy 'at a crossroads' ahead of Davos: Chief Economists Outlook
38:29 Share

Welcome to Radio Davos, the podcast from the World Economic Forum that looks at the biggest challenges and how we might solve them.

This week we're taking the pulse of the global economy as the Forum publishes its Chief Economist's outlook. The policy choices that are being made now, this year, are really going to determine which path we are going to go as a global economy and whether that's a path that is embracing international trade or whether that's a path that is disrupting international trade.

The chief economist of the World Trade Organization gives his take on the global economy at this crucial moment as world leaders gather in Davos and Donald Trump returns to the White House promising a robust stance on trade whose impact on economies cannot yet be assessed. I do expect firms and countries also to hedge their bets and diversify their trade rather than rely on individual partners, be they friends or geopolitical rivals. Friend today may not be a friend anymore tomorrow.

The Chief Economist Outlook, a survey of chief economists on where we are and where we're going, predicts subdued economic growth with the keyword uncertainty, particularly around trade. What we don't see actually is de-globalisation, even though there's all sorts of shocks. But what we do see

is trade reorienting on geopolitical lines. Follow Radio Davos wherever you get your podcasts or at wef.ch slash podcasts. I'm Robin Pomeroy at the World Economic Forum. And with this look at the chief economist's outlook. So I would really say we are at crossroads. This is Radio Davos.

Welcome to Radio Davos. The World Economic Forum has just published the latest Chief Economist Outlook. The Chief Economist Outlook is a regular taking of the pulse of the world economy by talking to chief economists around the world. I'm delighted to say one of them has joined us here on Radio Davos. He's the chief economist at the World Trade Organization. His name's

Ralph Ossor. Ralph, how are you? Thank you very much for having me. I'm great. So let's get stuck straight in to this Chief Economist's outlook. I'll just read you a couple of bullet points from it, and we'll take things from there.

The outlook for the global economy remains subdued and downside risks have intensified, not least because of heightened uncertainty around the economic implications of November's US presidential election. Well, this week in Davos is the week that Donald Trump returns to the White House.

There's a lot of uncertainty. I mean, how do you see the global economy on the most macro level possible? And so I would say three things, perhaps, about the global economy. The first point I would make, it's been made before, but I think it's important to remember is that the global economy has been remarkably resilient and also continues to be remarkably resilient.

After the catch up, after the pandemic, we had relatively stable growth in '23, '24. We expect the same for '25, which is quite remarkable given all the difficulties that the global economy has been facing, all the shocks that have been thrown at it. At the same time, I very much agree with the perspective from the outlook that the growth rate is still subdued. It's about one percentage point lower than it used to be

in the 2010s. And that's not just because of weak Europe. That's a broader phenomenon. And lastly, of course, you said that uncertainty is extremely high. We are all waiting to see what the new administration is going to do and how the world is going to react. And I think that's going to determine a lot where things are headed. Why do you say it was surprisingly resilient? Well, I mean, if you think about all the shocks, I mean, first of all, we had a

pandemic, we had record high inflation, we have contractionary monetary policy, now we have debt problems. I mean, we have trade tensions, we have geopolitical tensions. So quite something, I would say. And against this background, I think it's not so bad overall how things have been turning out. I wonder if we're in the calm before a storm. I mean, I guess we've had the big storm COVID was.

Obviously, wars we know about that continue to rumble on. I'll just read a figure from the Chief Economist's outlook.

which is a survey of people like you from all around the world, a majority, 56%, expect the global economy to weaken over the next year, compared with 70% who expect it to strengthen. I mean, it sounds like everyone's hedging their bets, as economists always do, but it does seem there is a majority there that says, yeah, it's going to be weak.

We like to do that on the one hand, but on the other hand, of course. So, I mean, what can I say? So we don't have a forecast yet for next year. We're going to come out with our forecast for next year in April. So I don't have a deeply informed opinion. I think for me, the key word here is really uncertainty and uncertainty

is already, I think, affecting investment decisions, is affecting trade flows. I mean, one thing that I always say, particularly when you think about international trade, it's not just about trade costs, it's not just about tariffs, but it's also about the expectation of what these trade costs and tariffs are going to be. Because if you as an investor now can't be sure what tariffs are going to be next year, what they're going to be in five years,

already today, even though nothing might have happened, is already going to affect your choices. There's a really good illustration of that in the report when it comes to tariffs. Donald Trump has said tariffs are his favorite word and in the weeks leading up to his inauguration has promised to impose them for a variety of reasons on a variety of countries.

90% of the chief economists we spoke to expect the new US tariffs to be smaller than the ones promised in the presidential campaign. But a large majority expect multinational companies, most multinational companies, to start on potentially costly changes, such as restructuring supply chains. 91% of respondents said they expected that to happen. So already, no matter if

And no matter how big those tariffs already, those changes are happening and that could have

in itself, leaving the tariffs aside, some kind of impact on economies, right? Yeah, that's exactly what I was trying to say, that of course, we need to see now what's going to happen in terms of tariffs. As you know, we've had various announcements, so it's difficult to speculate what is actually going to happen. But the uncertainty itself really plays a big role. And there's good evidence actually for this having an effect.

also the other way around, interestingly. So one example that I think is quite illuminating is when China joined the WTO, what happened is that US tariffs against China actually didn't change. The main thing that happened is that

there was more certainty than before that these tariffs would also remain in place. And just this reduction in trade policy uncertainty, people have estimated, has contributed to the surge of Chinese exports into the United States. There's other examples, for example, Portugal joining the European Union, same story as Spanish tariffs against Portugal actually didn't change. Yet,

Portuguese exports to Spain exploded because once firms know that these low tariffs are there to stay, then of course they're willing to make these costly investment decisions. And you talked about a restructuring of supply chains. Of course, in this uncertain world where you

don't know about policy shocks that might hit you. I mean, we haven't even talked about climate risks, geopolitical risks more broadly. Of course, firms try to diversify their supply chains and not rely only on one partner anymore. You mentioned risks. The World Economic Forum publishes global risks report, which, like the chief economist Outlaw, is one of the major

products from the World Economic Forum that really give an idea of where we might be going as a planet. And climate change, the risk you mentioned there, has always been kind of the number one, although seen on the long-term horizon, and new this year was in the short-term risks, it's fears about war, about state-on-state conflict. What impact do you think we're already seeing from

those kinds of concerns, geopolitical tensions, to put it at its nicest, or war and the threat of war at its worst, potentially. Maybe let me preface this by saying that what we don't see actually is deglobalization, even though there's all sorts of shocks, as we have discussed, also hitting international trade. But it's still the case that trade growth is more or less proportional to GDP growth. So the trade to GDP ratio actually, on average, hasn't really

change that much. But what we do see is trade reorienting on geopolitical lines. This is most obvious in the relationship between China and the United States, which I suppose is also the relationship that many of the respondents of this risk survey might have in mind. And there you see that since the first wave of Trump tariffs from the previous administration,

trade share. So bilateral trade between China and the United States has grown much, much more slowly than trade between either of these countries and third countries. But it's actually something that's not just restricted to bilateral trade between the United States and China. So one thing we've done

In our analysis, we have divided the world into hypothetical geopolitical blocks based on voting behavior at the United Nations General Assembly. And you see quite clearly the trade between these "blocks" is growing more slowly than trade within these blocks, meaning that there's some evidence of

of French shoring. Although speaking of French shoring, this is something that people always talk about, that there's going to be more trade with allies. One thing that remains to be seen also in terms of the tariffs that we will likely see is how many of them, some of them have also been threatened to be imposed against geopolitical allies. So maybe this is going to

make this "french-shoring" also a little bit less attractive. So "french-shoring" for anyone who's never heard that expression before, it's a manipulation of the world, "off-shoring". So you offshore your manufacturing somewhere,

It's still offshoring, but it's to countries that are considered friendly to you. Exactly. What you're saying here is maybe we're not sure who our friends are anymore. Is that the thing? Well, on the one hand, we clearly see these patterns in the data as I described. On the other hand, politics is very polarized, as you know.

So who's a friend today may not be a friend anymore tomorrow. So I do expect firms and countries also to hedge their bets and really diversify their trade rather than rely on individual partners, be they friends or geopolitical rivals. I don't want to have this whole conversation about trade, but you are from the World Trade Organization. So let's carry on for a bit, but then I want to get back to talk about inflation and about debt, the two things that you also mentioned.

when you started speaking. Just another point though from the chief economist outlook, there is unanimity among the chief economists question that developments in the US will alter the trajectory of the global economy with a solid majority of around 60% characterizing this change as a long-term shift rather than short-term disruption.

And the most likely factor driving those lasting changes to global trade patterns

is protectionism. I mean, this is of course something that we are following very closely and that we are also concerned about. Maybe building on the discussion we had in the previous question about China-US relations, of course, this is a relationship that's particularly in the focus when it comes to new tariffs, higher tariffs. I mean, of course, there's already relatively high tariffs in place on bilateral trade.

But one figure that most people don't know is that bilateral trade between China and the United States actually only accounts for less than 3% of world trade. So it generates 80% of the news, but only 3% of world trade, if you will. So what is really going to be crucial

is whether trade tensions, I think it's safe to predict that trade tensions between these two countries are going to persist. I think the key question is, is this going to spread to other countries? So is this going to be contained to that bilateral relationship? What is the risk of that kind of spread? Why do we see trade tensions spread

And do you expect that to happen? Well, I certainly don't hope that this is going to happen because I mean, there's always a risk of tit for tat. If one country starts imposing tariffs, then some partners may be quick to respond and also impose tariffs. But this is something that we would warn against simply against the background that the rest of the world is quite big. Let me put it like that. And I think there's a

a large chunk of international trade that can be kept, I think, clear of these frictions. I mean, just to give you one number that is very important for us at the WTO, despite all these trade tensions, despite even the

prominence of regional trade agreements, more than 75% of world trade is still conducted directly on WTO terms, meaning directly under the most favored nation tariffs of the WTO. So the vast majority of trade continues to flow under this rules-based system with also great benefits.

to all trading partners, including, by the way, the United States. Maybe I should add that 85% of US exports are conducted directly under these MFN tariffs, directly under the rules of the WTO. And what people often forget is that the WTO is about more than just tariffs, of course. I mean, we have the TRIPS agreement, for example, also, which protects intellectual property rights. 21% or more than 20%, I forget the exact number, more than 20% of international patent applications come from US firms.

And these patents are protected by the WTO at the end of the day. So I do think that preserving the system is going to be important for all countries, but also for the United States. It's a factoid on that, on trade tensions. Large majorities of the chief economists surveyed expect a trade war of tit-for-tat trade restrictions between the US and China. 89% of them expect that. And more broadly, i.e.,

beyond the US and China, 68%. This phrase trade war gets bandied about, I don't suppose, is there actually a definition of, I mean, there's trade tensions, there's tariffs, there's rhetoric.

When does it become a trade war? Do you have a definition? I mean, we tend to speak of trade tensions and not trade war, not to escalate the language. As much as we dislike trade tensions, it's still very different to have a tension, trade tensions than to have a war. So I wouldn't start mixing the two. But from an economics perspective, it's really the difference between conducting trade policy in a cooperative or in a non-cooperative fashion. So if you have a

If you have a trade war, so what the academic literature would say is that's a situation where I try to benefit at your expense and you try to benefit at my expense. We just non-cooperatively set our trade policy.

policy, in a way, which is lose-lose at the end. And that's the whole point of having trade policy cooperation. That's the whole point of having the WTO, that by kind of reining in our own unilateral incentives to protect, at the end of the day, we are better off. Let me play devil's advocate and say I'm in favor of tariffs because I want to bring jobs back to my country. I don't want to have to rely on countries that I perceive as in some way hostile.

Why is that such a bad thing? We have to distinguish, I think, between the security discussion, which I admit is a difficult discussion, and more an economic discussion. I mean, there's all sorts of economic reasons why you unilaterally might want to impose tariffs, perhaps to employ, to expand your manufacturing sector, perhaps to generate additional jobs, perhaps to protect domestic industries, and so on.

The problem is just that other countries have the same incentive also. So if I try to expand my manufacturing sector, for example, at your expense and you try to expand yours at my expense, then at the end of the day, none of us has achieved their objective. And all we've done is increase prices for our consumers and also for our firms, which ultimately then... And there'll be other...

criticisms of globalization and global trade. We've talked about offshoring of jobs, maybe tax avoidance, concerns about lower standards on labor, on the environment, on climate change. Look at Europe imposing border mechanisms to try and impose greenhouse gas reduction standards on imported manufactured goods. All of those things, if we had just complete free trade and liberalized trade,

None of those issues would be addressed. That's some of the things that critics of the kind of globalized trade system would say. Do you have an answer to that? Well, let me put it like that. So I think if I take a step back and just think about the globalization crisis that we're in, I think we can call it that.

My diagnosis is that it's not so much that people have forgotten about the economic gains from trade, but exactly as you say, I think more and more people are of the view that trade is part of the problem when it comes to addressing some of the key challenges that we're facing as a world. And for me, these are to maintain peace and security, and I also mean economic security, so resilient supply chains,

It is to reduce poverty and inequality, and it is also to maintain or to achieve a sustainable economy. Now, a lot of the work that we've been trying to do at the WTO to look at this, take these concerns seriously and try to understand under what conditions trade can actually be part of the solution and not be part of the problem. And I think we've

convinced ourselves, we're trying to convince the world that trade is an important part of the solution. And let me give you the example related to climate change, because I think that's most obvious to make. When people think about trade, typically they think about transport, and when they think about transport, they think about transport emissions, they think about dirty ships, plants, trucks, and so on.

And of course, if that's your perspective or if you stop there immediately, trade is part of the problem. And I don't want to dispute that we need to decarbonize the transport sector, of course. But what they don't see is that most of the emissions are actually related to production. And there's a lot of variation in production emissions across countries. So to the extent that you buy some

something, imports something from a greener origin, on net, this can be good for the environment. So building on this observation, we came up with this notion of environmental gains from trade and environmental comparative advantage. Logic is very simple. We all know that there's economic gains from trade which come from countries specializing in what they're relatively good at. And by exactly the same logic, there's also environmental gains from trade which come from countries specializing in what they're relatively green at. Now,

Now, the key difference though is that these environmental gains from trade, they don't just fall from heaven. They don't just materialize naturally as the outcome of market forces, but they need some help. And in particular, they need supportive climate policies in place. So if you have the right climate policies in place, then trade actually becomes part of the solution. Another way of saying it, trade is actually a very strong force multiplier for climate policies. And we have some quantitative work on this also.

That's a whole episode of Radio Davos in itself, Ralph. I think we should definitely do one. We'll leave that one there. I've got a lot of questions. I think that's a very, very interesting topic. Moving away from trade for a moment then. Inflation. Chief Economist's outlooks over the last couple of years, certainly since COVID, it's always been this terror of inflation in certain regions and globally. I'll just read the facts from this year.

Global inflation continues to ease with the International Monetary Fund projecting an annual average of 4.3% this year. It's a difficult number because price increases around the world vary so much, but that's the number they've come up with. An average annual price rise of 4.3%.

That is down from in 2023, 6.7%. So that's a really steady, decent drop. That's got to be

good news in most people's eyes, right? Yeah, absolutely. I think that's excellent news, which I would qualify a little bit. So one point, of course, I mean, it's obvious, I suppose, but I think still really important to keep in mind. The fact that inflation has come down only means that prices are rising less quickly. It doesn't mean that past

price increases are going to be reversed. And I think much of the political discontent that we see at the moment with the economic situation is not so much now about the incremental change in prices, but it's just the fact that you go to a grocery store and things are still a lot more expensive than they have been in the past. So the cumulative change and cumulative increase in prices, I think, is still hurting a lot of households, a lot of firms significantly.

The second point I would make is that if you look at China in particular, the concern now seems to be deflation. So almost things going the other way around with people being concerned that perhaps China could repeat some of the experience that Japan had, where you had an unholy

a combination of deflation, difficulties in the housing sector, and so on. And I know you don't want to talk about trade, but I can't help-- I do. But I can't help talking about trade, because with inflation, it's actually really, really interesting.

because many of the goods that feature disproportionately in international trade are capital goods, so goods that firms use to make investments but also consumer durables, so things like a fridge and, I don't know, a new stove, you know, things like that. They feature disproportionately in international trade. Now, what happens if you have high inflation?

People tend to postpone these purchases, firms tend to postpone these investments. And this is exactly why we saw such a slump in international trade in

in 2023. So I said before that growth has been quite stable. So growth actually hasn't changed so much GDP growth that is in 2023, 2024, even 2025. Yet trade, the volume of merchandise trade actually fell in 2023. And the key reason or one of the key reasons for this is exactly inflation. So it's even relevant also for international trade.

Let's talk about debt. Another thing you mentioned as a problem that gets spoken about a lot when we talk about the global economy. Why is debt a problem? And what do we mean by debt? Let's start with that. And why is it such a particular problem right now? I mean, I think the main problem

I'm not sure the main, but one important kind of debt that people have in mind when they talk about it is sovereign debt, meaning government debt. Because of course, the COVID pandemic has required extreme fiscal measures also, where many governments took expensive action, which accumulated debt.

And now the question is, well, what do we do with that? How do we start repaying that? And also in the United States, by the way, we didn't really talk about that when we talked about inflation. But I think one really interesting point that the chief economist outlook makes on inflation is also related to fiscal policy. So the fact that in the United States, it seems like where we are going

is low taxes, not necessarily lower government expenditure. So you also have a potential debt situation there. And also for some countries, those high inflation rates that we talked about have meant

higher interest rates and therefore those countries repaying those debts. These were loans they took out when interest rates were very low. These are bonds they issued when interest rates were low. Now those costs have soared and

leaves them very little to spend on anything else. Exactly. So it's great that you add this point. So of course, you not only have the issue that you need to repay the debt, but you also have the issue that you need to service the debt that you have incurred, meaning that you need to make these interest payments and that money is then not available to do things you would like to do and perhaps also need to do more urgently, such as investing in education, investing in health care and other important government expenses.

GDP is the metric everyone looks at. It shows how wealthy a nation and particularly the increase or decrease in GDP. Economic growth. It's such an important metric, but there are critics of it.

who would say it doesn't reflect people's wellbeing necessarily. It certainly doesn't affect or show whether as a country or as a community, they're moving forward, they're getting happier, healthier, that their environment is getting better.

Where do you stand on GDP? It is the key statistic that people use, or the key summary statistic that people use to measure the health or the success of the macroeconomy. And I think it's also going to continue to be that way. Having said this, it's a highly imperfect measure. And you mentioned already some of the reasons. So one reason, of course, is that it doesn't tell you anything about inequality.

So you would need to complement it with measures of inequality. It doesn't tell you anything about non-market activities. So, for example, if you used to look after your children yourselves and now it's daycare that looks after your children, that shows up as GDP growth, even though in terms of the actual services that have been provided.

delivered in the economy, not much has changed. The only difference is that you don't do it yourself anymore. And then also the issue of environmental degradation or more generally even depreciation. The fact that some of the goods that you produce are also simply used to replenish the capital stock.

So there are these criticisms, but at the end of the day, if you look, for example, at the Human Development Index, which tries to take other metrics into account, education in particular and health in particular, it ends up being extremely highly correlated for most economies. So I do think, I mean, coming back to what we said before, at the end of the day,

economics is crucial. Economic success is also crucial for success and many of the other important indicators, be it life expectancy, child mortality, literacy, and so on. So the correlation is very high. So in economies where GDP growth is positive,

You'll see that correlation with some of those things you just mentioned, the growth expectancy, healthcare. I mean, not always, but I mean, just look at the last 200 years or make it even simpler, look at the last 30 years. I mean, we just looked at this in a recent report because the WTO turns 30 this year. So we looked at what has changed in the last 30 years. And of course, you had

amazing GDP growth and low and middle income economies, by the way, I can't help emphasize this, driven by international trade. This was trade led growth, but it wasn't just macroeconomic growth, but it lifted

hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, the share of people living in extreme poverty and low and middle income economies over the last 30 years has fallen from something like 40% down to something like 10%. I mean, this is an absolutely dramatic improvement

in the livelihood of literally hundreds of millions of people driven by economic growth, which in turn was driven by international trade, at least to some extent. What's the one thing you wish people would understand about economics?

Well, I guess the one thing we already talked about is that economics is really, really important. But as a trade economist, I would have to say comparative advantage. So the principle of comparative advantage. Paul Samuelson, the father of modern economics, was once challenged by a physicist at a conference. And the physicist said, can you tell me one insight of all of social sciences that is both

not obvious to intelligent people and at the same time undeniably true. And Samuelson mentioned this principle of comparative advantage. And one way to think about it quite easily, if you look at the world economy, you can ask yourself, well, how can it be that a high wage country like Switzerland, for example, can compete with a low wage country like India, for example? How can this be?

And the answer is, of course, productivity differences. Similarly, you can ask yourself, well, how can a low productivity country ever compete in international markets with a high productivity country who's so much better at making everything? And the key to that is wage differences. And what this all means is that

success in international trade is driven by a combination of the two. So cross-country differences in wages effectively soak up cross-country differences in average productivity. So what remains to determine export success is relative differences in productivity. And this is the comparative advantage. So you're good at, you export what you're relatively good at and not what you're absolutely good at. And I think it's so important

because what it means fundamentally

is that competition between countries is very different from competition between corporations because countries cannot go out of business. Corporations can go out of business, but countries can't. So wages are going to adjust to always make sure that you have a comparative advantage in something. And what this also means is that if you're a successful business person who knows how to lead a firm, your intuition

of what makes this forum successful does not necessarily translate to economic policy. So successful business people are not necessarily good economic policy makers. So it's such a fundamental concept that I would invite everyone to take a careful look at. Wouldn't it logically be the case that a country that has the advantage of low wages and is good enough at manufacturing a certain thing

There's two problems with that. One is they'll take the jobs away from countries and you'll have a lot of unemployment in those higher wage companies. And then also, once the wages grow in that country that's taken those jobs, won't you then just move on to another country with still lower wages? And eventually you just have this chain of unemployment and social unrest and everything else that goes with it. Or is there an economic reason why

that shouldn't happen. Yeah, so I think there's an economic reason. Let me say a few things. So first, I think we have to be very careful when we think about trade and aggregate employment.

Because both from a theoretical perspective, but also from an empirical perspective, trade liberalizations, changes in trade regimes just don't lead to major changes in aggregate employment. And just think about history. I mean, after the Second World War, we had Western Europe grow exponentially.

at dramatic rates. We had Japan grow at dramatic rates. Now we have China grow at dramatic rates. Yes, yet we have full employment, for example, in the United States. So aggregate employment doesn't seem to be the issue. Now having said this, of course, we have to be very mindful of the fact

that trade liberalization or fast growth in other countries can lead to disruptions in labor markets, meaning it can favor certain industries at the expense of other industries, and it can also lead to economic hardships. So I think we need to acknowledge that. And then the question is how you deal with this. And the one thought experiment that I find helpful

And I really don't want to minimize this. And by the way, I think how to deal with this is often the job of domestic policies and not so much trade policies. But one thought experiment that I find helpful is that trade liberalization in many ways is not so different from technological change. I mean, you can think of trade in very abstract terms. You can think of trade as a machine where you stuff exports in and imports come out.

So if you were able to convert exports into imports with a machine, that would effectively, from a macroeconomic perspective, be what trade is. Yet simply because it's international trade and because it's a foreign country, people tend to criticize that much more than technological change.

all sorts of technological change happening all the time that is leading to disruptions in neighborhoods. We need to take those very seriously. The only thing I would caution against is singling trade out in a broader discussion. We're at the start of the year, we're at Davos. What is the message we get from the chief economist's outlook? It is that

The economy is likely to weaken over the year. Inflation is easing. But there's huge uncertainty about inflation.

the global economy, and particularly about trade. I mean, where do you stand? Are you optimistic about 2025? How would you sum up where we stand at the moment as we look out to the year? So I would really say we are at crossroads. The economy is still resilient, both in terms of growth as well as in terms of trade. Yes, we see some geo-economic fragmentation,

but we don't see yet any de-globalization. And I think the policy choices that are being made now, this year, are really going to determine which path we are going to go as a global economy and whether that's a path that is embracing international trade or whether that's a path that

that is disrupting international trade. And I'm still optimistic because at the end of the day, I am deeply convinced, and not just because I'm from the World Trade Organization, that international trade in general, and also the WTO in particular, is really beneficial to everyone. Because if you really break it down to the most simple way of looking at it, I think all of us would agree that the division of labor is an absolutely fundamental

pillar of our prosperity. If I had to make all of my clothes, all of my food, all of my housing, all of my shelter and so on by myself personally, clearly this would be a disaster. So what do I do? I specialize in something, you specialize in something, and we exchange. I think it stands to reason

that this is the absolute fundamental pillar of our prosperity. Now, international trade is just an extension of this very basic idea across international borders. And why should the power of the division of labor stop just because there's an international border in the way? So I'm really hoping--

the policy makers also supported, influenced by business interests, by consumer interests, by civil society will come to appreciate that we are all better off cooperating and we are all better off trading than moving towards some sort of tit for tat situation that is going to leave all of us worse off. Ralph Osser, Chief Economist at the World Trade Organization. Thanks very much for joining us on Radio Davenport. Thank you very much for having me.

The Chief Economist's Outlook January 2025 is available now at wef.ch slash chiefeconjan25. That link will also be in the show notes.

And if you're going to the World Economic Forum's annual meeting or following it from afar, be sure to check out all our podcasts here on Radio Davos, on Meet the Leader and on Agenda Dialogues. All three are available wherever you listen to podcasts and at weforum.org slash podcasts. For example, don't miss the recent Radio Davos episodes on the Global Risk Report and the Global Cybersecurity Outlook. Those are both great primers for some of the big issues that will be discussed at Davos.

and catch up on all the action at the annual meeting 2025 at wef.ch slash wef25 and across social media using the hashtag wef25. This episode of Radio Davos was written, presented and produced by me, Robin Pomeroy. Studio production was by Taz Kelleher. We will be back very soon. But for now, thanks to you for listening and goodbye.