The article argues that Donald Trump's unique and prolonged lame-duck period, coupled with domestic political pressures, makes him dangerously prone to international instability. Having exhausted major diplomatic gambits, Trump is expected to channel his energy into high-stakes, unilateral actions, primarily targeting adversaries such as Iran and Cuba. These potential actions—ranging from fresh strikes in the Persian Gulf to attempts at regime change—carry a significant risk of destabilizing regional security and triggering a global economic crisis. Policymakers must anticipate this pivot to high-risk foreign policy to mitigate potential international flare-ups.
Global Economy and Finance Programme
English Summary
Chatham House’s Global Economy and Finance Programme argues that independent, policy-oriented analysis can improve international economic decision-making when it is tightly connected to real-world policymakers and practitioners. Its reasoning rests on a three-part operating model: original research on emerging global finance issues, convening expert dialogues across academia, government, and business, and running private briefings for senior decision-makers. The programme’s topic coverage, from G7/G20 governance and trade to debt, climate economics, and monetary system reform, indicates a systems-level approach to interconnected global risks. Strategically, this implies policymakers should prioritize cross-border coordination, use evidence-led forums to build consensus, and translate technical analysis into actionable policy pathways quickly.
中文摘要
查塔姆研究所（Chatham House）全球經濟與金融計畫主張，若能與第一線政策制定者及實務工作者緊密連結，獨立且以政策為導向的分析可提升國際經濟決策品質。其論證建立於三部分運作模式：針對新興全球金融議題進行原創研究、召集學術界與政府及企業之間的專家對話，以及為高階決策者提供非公開簡報。該計畫涵蓋議題橫跨 G7／G20 治理、貿易、債務、氣候經濟學與貨幣體系改革，顯示其以系統層次處理彼此連動的全球風險。從策略意涵看，政策制定者應優先推動跨境協調，運用以證據為基礎的論壇建立共識，並迅速將技術分析轉化為可執行的政策路徑。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
China's economic strategy is characterized by a persistent 'economics of denial,' prioritizing massive state-directed investment in advanced technology over addressing weak domestic consumption. This approach is rooted in a flawed belief that controlling physical capital will automatically generate productivity and wage growth, ignoring the structural imbalance where domestic demand consistently falls short of supply. This overinvestment and underconsumption model is unsustainable. Consequently, Beijing's policies will continue to generate global deflationary pressures and escalating trade friction, necessitating a fundamental pivot toward consumption-led growth for long-term stability.
-
3.
The Blue Wave signals significant voter frustration with cost of living and inflation, giving Congress a mandate to prioritize affordability and cost-reduction measures. Economically, the rapid build-out of AI data centers is creating localized stress, driving up skilled labor wages and straining resources, while also facing constraints from power grids and potential local regulatory backlash. Policymakers must manage this 'sequencing issue'—addressing rising costs before full productivity gains from AI can materialize—and anticipate shifts in global data center infrastructure as the market matures.
-
4.
The U.S. is drastically reducing core funding to multilateral institutions, withdrawing from numerous bodies due to perceived misalignment with national interests. While multilateral channels offer critical advantages—such as pooling resources for global public goods and managing risk in fragile settings—the U.S.'s funding remains heavily 'earmarked,' which effectively 'bilateralizes' the system and undermines shared burden-sharing. This practice, coupled with deep cuts, diminishes the multilateral system's effectiveness and efficiency, particularly in humanitarian aid. Policy recommendations suggest the U.S. must adopt a systematic, published strategy for aid channel choice and shift from restrictive project-level earmarking to broader thematic funding to restore global cooperation.
-
5.
The article analyzes the deep ideological split within the Democratic Party regarding the future of U.S. foreign policy, pitting centrists against progressives. Centrists generally advocate for restoring a reformed U.S.-led international order and strengthening alliances, while progressives argue for a multipolar world that prioritizes transnational threats like climate change and AI over geopolitical competition. This division is most pronounced in the Middle East, where centrists push for greater pressure on Israel and a regional settlement, a shift largely welcomed by progressives. The core finding is that these internal debates threaten to consume a future administration with indecision, making it difficult for the U.S. to project a coherent and unified global strategy.