- Economic dependency, military ties, and societal values can help explain how countries are likely to align if the global economy fractures into competing blocs.
- The report’s model suggests 75 countries would likely side with the United States and only six with China, while many low-income countries would seek to remain non-aligned.
- Grouped by fundamental alignment drivers, the US-led bloc is expected to represent a larger share of global GDP than the Chinese-led bloc through 2049.
- US supply chains for 29 strategically important products could be at risk in a fragmented global economy, creating temporary shortages and vulnerabilities.
- Seven countries could collectively increase production enough to meet half the expected shortfall in strategically important goods, making them priorities for US foreign policy engagement.
Commissioned by the Special Competitive Studies Project, this Fathom Consulting report examines the geoeconomic implications of a divided global economy, with particular attention to trade under rising US-China tensions. It argues that deeper fractures would solidify economic blocs, alter trade flows, and interrupt supply chains for critical materials and technologies while opening opportunities for new suppliers. The report uses advanced econometric techniques to assess likely exporter alignment and analyzes a database of more than 1,200 products to identify vulnerabilities, possible substitutes, and costs. It finds that economic dependency, military ties, and societal values help explain alignment; that a US-led bloc would represent a larger share of global GDP than a Chinese-led bloc through 2049; and that many low-income countries may remain non-aligned. It identifies 29 strategically important products where US supply chains could be at risk, seven countries that could meet half the expected shortfall, and potential beneficiaries in Europe, North America, and parts of Southeast Asia. The report estimates that up to $3 trillion in fixed-capital investment could be needed and frames delayed US de-risking commitments as cost-escalating, making partner prioritization and foreign-policy levers central to its policy relevance.
Published by the Special Competitive Studies Project. Co-publishers and external authors, where they exist, are credited in the byline above.