Irving Wladawsky-Berger

What Industries Are Most Likely to Reshape the Global Economy by 2040?

“The next big arenas of competition,” a recently published report by the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), “identifies and describes a category of industries that could account for much of the future change in the business landscape and transform the world. We call these industries arenas of competition,” said the report.

Arenas of competition are defined by two characteristics: “they capture an outsize share of the economy’s growth, and market share within them changes hands to an outsize degree. The presence of those two attributes indicates that a new competitive game has begun, usually prompted by a new bundle of technologies and business models.” To identify the key arenas of the future, the report looked back at the arenas of today to see how they evolved.

The Arenas of Today

The arenas of today include 12 industries that showed outsize growth between 2005 and 2020. These 12 industries had a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10%, a market capitalization of 16%, and tripled their global GDP share from 3% to 9% over that period. By contrast, non-arenas had only a 4% revenue annual revenue growth and a 6% market cap growth over the same period.

The Breakthroughs AI Needs

A recent issue of The Economist featured a technology focus on “The breakthrough AI needs” with eight articles on the topic. “Two years after ChatGPT took the world by storm, generative artificial intelligence seems to have hit a roadblock,” said the issue’s lead article. “The energy costs of building and using bigger models are spiralling, and breakthroughs are getting harder. Fortunately, researchers and entrepreneurs are racing for ways around the constraints. Their ingenuity will not just transform AI. It will determine which firms prevail, whether investors win, and which country holds sway over the technology.”

This is frightening for investors who’ve bet big on AI, but there is no reason to panic, said the article. “Plenty of other technologies have faced limits and gone on to prosper thanks to human ingenuity,” it added. “Already, developments in AI are showing how constraints can stimulate creativity.” In particular, The Economist mentions two such major innovations: the development of chips with the special purpose architectures needed to train and run AI models as fast and energy efficient as possible, and the development of smaller, more specialized domain specific models that consume a lot less energy than the very large models that rely on brute force computational power.

Let me discuss each of these two innovations.

An Open Architecture for Health Data Interoperability

I’ve been a member of the Linux Foundation (LF) Research Advisory Board for the past three years. At a September, 2023 meeting of the Advisory Board, we discussed that one of the few industry sectors in which the LF doesn’t have projects is healthcare, — despite the size and importance of healthcare around the world. The LF had launched open source healthcare initiatives in the past, but they all eventually failed.

A paper on Digital Health in the 21st Century published in June of 2022 by the US National Academy of Medicine noted that “Revolutionary advances in digital health are transforming health, medicine, and biomedical science, and redefining and re-engineering the tools needed to create a healthier future,” including artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and the increased adoption of electronic health records (EHRs). 

So, perhaps it’s time to try again, and LF Research made the decision to launch a healthcare study, led by Anna Hermansen, Researcher and Ecosystem manager in LF Research, to understand the obstacles for open source adoption and interoperable data standards in the healthcare sector. A year later, in October of 2024, Hermansen released the study’s findings and recommendations in a report, “An Open Architecture for Health Data Interoperability: How Open Source Can Help the Healthcare Sector Overcome the Information Dark Ages.”

Who Will Be Proved Right? The Bullish or the Skeptic AI Camp?

A few weeks ago I posted “AI Advances Aren’t Likely to Occur Nearly as Quickly as Many Believe,” a blog focused on a research paper, “The Simple Macroeconomics of AI,” by MIT professor Daron Acemoglu, — a co-recipient of the 2024 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. The blog referenced a  NY Times article, “What if the A.I. Boosters Are Wrong?,” which discussed Acemoglu’s skeptical views that AI will supercharge economic productivity by the end of this decade, as well as “Gen AI: Too Much Spend, Too Little Benefit?, a report by Goldman Sachs Research senior strategist Allison Nathan, which included a number of insightful interviews, including one with Professor Acemoglu.

As I wrote in the blog, Nathan started her interview by asking why his paper argued that the upside to US productivity and GDP growth from GenAI will likely prove more limited that those of other predictions, including some from Goldman market analysts. “Why are you less optimistic on AI’s potential economic impacts?,” she asked him.

Acemoglu replied that the forecast differences are primarily about the timing of AI’s economic impacts rather than about the ultimate promise of the technology. “Generative AI has the potential to fundamentally change the process of scientific discovery, research and development, innovation, new product and material testing, etc. as well as create new products and platforms.” But the economic impact of historically transformative technologies like AI take time to play out.

I’d like to now discuss another recent NYT article, “Will A.I. Be a Bust?,” which was focused on the views of Jim Covello, Goldman Sachs’ head of stock research, one of Wall Street’s leading AI skeptics. “Three months ago, he jolted markets with a research paper that challenged whether businesses would see a sufficient return on what by some estimates could be $1 trillion in A.I. spending in the coming years,” said the article.