2018全球风险报告.pdf

The Global Risks Report 201813th EditionInsight ReportWorld Economic Forum91-93 route de la CapiteCH-1223 Cologny/GenevaSwitzerlandTel.: +41 (0) 22 869 1212 Fax: +41 (0) 22 786 2744contactweforum weforumThe Global Risks Report 2018, 13thEdition, is published by the World Economic Forum.The information in this report, or on which this report is based, has been obtained from sources that the authors believe to be reliable and accurate. However, it has not been independently verified and no representation or warranty, express or implied, is made as to the accuracy or completeness of any information obtained from third parties. In addition, the statements in this report may provide current expectations of future events based on certain assumptions and include any statement that does not directly relate to a historical fact or a current fact. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which are not exhaustive. The companies contributing to this report operate in a continually changing environment and new risks emerge continually. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these statements. The companies contributing to this report undertake no obligation to publicly revise or update any statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise and they shall in no event be liable for any loss or damage arising in connection with the use of the information in this report.World Economic ForumGenevaWorld Economic Forum 2018 All rights reserved.All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise without the prior permission of the World Economic Forum.ISBN: 978-1-944835-15-6REF: 09012018The report and an interactive data platform are available at wef.ch/risks2018LikelihoodGlobal Risks LandscapeImpactTop 10 risks in terms of Likelihood CategoriesTop 10 risks in terms of ImpactWeapons of mass destructionExtreme weather eventsNatural disastersFailure of climate-change mitigation and adaptationWater crisesCyberattacksFood crisesBiodiversity loss and ecosystem collapseLarge-scale involuntary migrationSpread of infectious diseases Extreme weather eventsNatural disastersCyberattacksData fraud or theftFailure of climate-change mitigation and adaptationLarge-scale involuntary migrationMan-made environmental disastersTerrorist attacksIllicit tradeAsset bubbles in a major economy 12345678910123456789105.01.0 5.0plottedarea3.40averageaverage3.482.5 3.0 4.0 4.53.03.54.0Asset bubbles in a majoreconomyDeflationFailure of financialmechanism or institutionFailure of criticalinfrastructureFiscal crisesUnemployment orunderemploymentIllicit tradeEnergy price shockUnmanageable inflationExtreme weather eventsFailure of climate-changemitigation and adaptationBiodiversity loss andecosystem collapseNatural disastersMan-made environmentaldisastersFailure of nationalgovernanceFailure of regional orglobal governanceInterstate conflictTerrorist attacksState collapse or crisisWeapons of mass destructionFailure of urban planningFood crisesLarge-scaleinvoluntary migrationProfound socialinstabilitySpread of infectiousdiseasesWater crisesCritical informationinfrastructure breakdownCyberattacksData fraud or theftAdverse consequences oftechnological advancesEconomicGeopoliticalEnvironmentalSocietalTechnologicalFigure I: The Global Risks Landscape 2018Source: World Economic Forum Global Risks Perception Survey 20172018.Note: Survey respondents were asked to assess the likelihood of the individual global risk on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 representing a risk that is very unlikely to happen and 5 a risk that is very likely to occur. They also assess the impact on each global risk on a scale of 1 to 5 (1: minimal impact, 2: minor impact, 3: moderate impact, 4: severe impact and 5: catastrophic impact). See Appendix B for more details. To ensure legibility, the names of the global risks are abbreviated; see Appendix A for the full name and description.Trend Interconnection MapAgeing populationChanging landscape ofinternational governanceChanging climateChanging climateDegrading environmentGrowing middle class inemerging economiesIncreasing nationalsentimentsocietiesIncreasing polarizationof societiesRising chronic diseasesRising cyber dependencyRising cyber dependencyRising geographic mobilityRising income and wealthdisparityShifting powerRising urbanizationUnmanageable inflationData fraud or theft Asset bubbles in a major economyDeflationFailure of financialmechanism or institutionFailure of criticalinfrastructureFiscal crisesUnemployment orunderemploymentIllicit tradeEnergy price shockExtreme weather eventsFailure of climate-changemitigation and adaptationBiodiversity loss andecosystem collapseNatural disastersMan-made environmentaldisastersFailure of nationalgovernanceFailure of regional orglobal governanceInterstate conflictTerrorist attacksState collapse or crisisWeapons of mass destructionFailure of urban planningFood crisesLarge-scaleinvoluntary migrationProfound socialinstabilitySpread of infectiousdiseasesWater crisesAdverse consequences oftechnological advancesCritical informationinfrastructure breakdownCyberattacksRising geographic mobilityEconomicRisksGeopoliticalRisksEnvironmentalRisksSocietalRisksTechnologicalRisksNumber and strengthof connections(“weighted degree”)Risks TrendsNumber and strengthof connections(“weighted degree”)Figure II: The Risks-Trends Interconnections Map 2018Source: World Economic Forum Global Risks Perception Survey 20172018.Note: Survey respondents were asked to select the three trends that are the most important in shaping global development in the next 10 years. For each of the three trends identified, respondents were asked to select the risks that are most strongly driven by those trends. See Appendix B for more details. To ensure legibility, the names of the global risks are abbreviated; see Appendix A for the full name and description.Risk Interconnection Mapinvoluntary migrationAsset bubbles in a major economyDeflationFailure of financialmechanism or institutionFailure of criticalinfrastructureFiscal crisesUnemployment orunderemploymentAdverse consequences oftechnological advancesIllicit tradeEnergy price shockUnmanageable inflationExtreme weather eventsFailure of climate-changemitigation and adaptationBiodiversity loss andecosystem collapseNatural disastersMan-madeenvironmentaldisastersFailure of nationalgovernanceFailure of regional orglobal governanceInterstate conflictTerrorist attacksState collapse or crisisWeapons of mass destructionFailure of urban planningFood crisesLarge-scaleProfound socialinstabilitySpread of infectiousdiseasesWater crisesCritical informationinfrastructure breakdownCyberattacksData fraud or theftEconomicRisksGeopoliticalRisksEnvironmentalRisksSocietalRisksTechnologicalRisksNumber and strengthof connections(“weighted degree”)Figure III: The Global Risks Interconnections Map 2018Source: World Economic Forum Global Risks Perception Survey 20172018. Note: Survey respondents were asked to identify between three and six pairs of global risks they believe to be most interconnected. See Appendix B for more details. To ensure legibility, the names of the global risks are abbreviated; see Appendix A for the full name and description.Breakdown of critical information infrastructureBreakdown of critical information infrastructure2008200920102011201220131stAsset price collapseAsset price collapseAsset price collapseFiscal crisesMajor systemic financial failure Major systemic financial failure 2ndRetrenchment from globalization (developed)Retrenchment from globalization (developed)Retrenchment from globalization (developed)Climate change Water supply crisesWater supply crises3rdSlowing Chinese economy (705.80%Gender Expertise Organization type RegionEnvironment6.04%Society11.70%International organizations6.04% NGO11.42%Age distribution606911.21%5059404933.64%3039 19.00%304.88%Male70.36%Sub-Saharan Africa7.34%Latin Americaand the Caribbean7.88%Europe42.86%East Asia and the Pacific12.68%Middle East and North Africa3.60%Eurasia0.27%South Asia3.34%Other1.71%25.46%Female27.93%Economics26.94%Geopolitics8.54%Technology21.68%Other25.10%North America22.03%Business48.56%Government7.87%Academia20.47%Other5.64%65The Global Risks Report 20181If a respondent answered “no opinion” for likelihood or impact, his or her assessment of the other dimension (impact or likelihood, respectively), was retained. 2Jacomy, M., T. Venturini, S. Heymann, and M. Bastian. 2014. “ForceAtlas2: A Continuous Graph Layout Algorithm for Handy Network Visualization Designed for the Gephi Software”. PLoS ONE 9 (6): e98679. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0098679The Global Risks Interconnections Map 2018 (Figure III) and the Risks-Trends Interconnections Map 2018 (Figure II) To draw the Global Risks Interconnections Map 2018 (Figure III), survey respondents were asked the following question: “Global risks are not isolated and it is important to assess their interconnections. In your view, which are the most strongly connected global risks? Please select three to six pairs of global risks.”Similarly, for the Risks-Trends Interconnections Map 2018 (Figure II), respondents had to identify up to three trends that they consider important in shaping the global agenda in the next 10 years and the three risks that are driven by each of those trends. The two questions read: “Which are the three most important trends that will shape global development in the next 10 years?” and “For each of the three trends identified in the previous question, select up to three global risks that are most strongly driven by these trends.” The information thereby obtained was used to construct the Risks-Trend Interconnections Map 2018. In both cases, a tally was made of the number of times each pair was cited. This value was then divided by the count of the most frequently cited pair. As a final step, the square root of this ratio was taken to dampen the long-tail effect (i.e. a few very strong links, and many weak ones) and to make the differences more apparent across the weakest connections. Out of the 435 possible pairs of risks, 56 or 20% were not cited. Similarly, out of the possible 377 trend-risk combinations, 35 or 9% were not cited. Formally, the intensity of the interconnection between risks i and j (or between trend i and risk j), denoted interconnectionij, corresponds to:likelihoodi1Nilikelihoodi,nNi1n=1impacti=1Niimpacti,nNi2n=1interconnectionij= pairij,nNn=1pairmaxpairmax= maxij(pairij,nNn=1) % concerni=1Nci,nNn=1% likelihoodir=1Nrli,nNrn=1% Cij=1Nrci,nNjn=1likelihoodi1Nilikelihoodi,nNi1n=1impacti=1Niimpacti,nNi2n=1interconnectionij= pairij,nNn=1pairmaxpairmax= maxij(pairij,nNn=1) % concerni=1Nci,nNn=1% likelihoodir=1Nrli,nNrn=1% Cij=1Nrci,nNjn=1withwhere N is the number of respondents. Variable pairij,nis 1 when respondent n selected the pair of risks i and j as part of his/her selection. Otherwise, it is 0. The value of the interconnection determines the thickness of each connecting line in the graph, with the most frequently cited pair having the thickest line.In the Global Risks Landscape and the Risks-Trends Interconnections Map, the size of each risk is scaled according to the degree of weight of that node in the system. Moreover, in the Risks-Trends Interconnections Map, the size of the trend represents the perception of its importance in shaping global development (answer to the first part of the question on trend, as explained above); the biggest trend is the one considered to be the most important in shaping global development. The placement of the nodes in the Risks-Trends Interconnections Map was computed using ForceAtlas2, a force-directed network layout algorithm implemented in Gephi software, which minimizes edge lengths and edge crossings by running a physical particle simulation.2The Global Risks Report 201866Acknowledgements The lead author of The Global Risks Report 2018 is Aengus Collins. At the World Economic Forum a debt of gratitude is owed to Professor Klaus Schwab (Founder and Executive Chairman), Brge Brende (President), Richard Samans (Head of the Centre for the Global Agenda) and Margareta Drzeniek Hanouz (Head of the System Initiative on Shaping the Future of Economic Progress), under whose guidance this report has been produced. Lee Howell (Head of Global Programming) has been an important source of insight and advice.Katharine Shaw has played an indispensable role in the creation of this report. Thanks also go to Ciara Porawski and the other members of the Global Risks Report 2018 team: Oliver Cann, Thierry Geiger, Alem Tedeneke, Jean-Franois Trinh Tan and Stphanie Verin. In addition, the following colleagues were particularly instrumental in shaping and writing elements of the report: Ushang Damachi, Emily Farnworth, Derek OHalloran, Philip Shetler-Jones and Jahda Swanborough.We would like to thank our Strategic Partners, Marsh & McLennan Companies (MMC) and Zurich Insurance Group. On the steering board of the Global Risks Report, Richard Samans of the World Economic Forum is joined by John Drzik (President, Global Risk and Digital at Marsh) and Alison Martin (Group Chief Risk Officer at Zurich Insurance Group). Particular gratitude is due also to Richard Smith-Bingham (Director of the Global Risk Center at MMC) and John Scott (Zurich Insurance Group) for their contributions throughout the planning and drafting of the report.We are also grateful to our three Academic Advisers: the National University of Singapore, Oxford Martin School at the University of Oxford and the Wharton Risk Management and Decision Processes Center at the University of Pennsylvania.The report has greatly benefited from the dedication and guidance of the members of the Global Risks Report Advisory Board: Rolf Alter (Hertie School of Governance), Sharan Burrow (International Trade Union Confederation), Winnie Byanyima (Oxfam International), Howard Kunreuther (Wharton Risk Center), Marie-Valentine Florin (International Risk Governance Council), Al Gore (Generation Investment Management), Steven Kou (National University of Singapore), Julian Laird (Oxford Martin School), Pascal Lamy (Jacques Delors Institute), Ursula von der Leyen (Federal Minister of Defence of Germany), Maleeha Lodhi (Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations), Gary Marchant (Arizona State University), Robert Muggah (Igarap Institute), Moiss Nam (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), Naomi Oreskes (Harvard University), Jonathan Ostry (International Monetary Fund), Daniel Ralph (Cambridge Centre for Risk Studies), Nouriel Roubini (New York University), John Scott (Zurich Insurance Group), Shi Peijun (Beijing Normal University), Richard Smith-Bingham (Marsh & McLennan Comp