Misreading Global Economic Risks, Why the IMF’s Analysis Fails the Global South
In the tumultuous global economic and political context of the past year, it is hardly surprising that the focus of the IMF in the first chapter of its flagship report, the World Economic Outlook for April 2026, should be on geopolitical risks, and recognise their impact on economies across the world. It therefore proposes that countries must prioritise “policies that are robust to alternative states of the world” so as to “enhance resilience and foster agility and adaptability”. Yet the proposed strategies for doing this remain much the same as they would have been before: “preserving price and financial stability, safeguarding fiscal sustainability, and implementing structural reforms without further delay.” These are the usual bromides that have appeared in successive IMF documents over far too many decades, which are somehow impervious to the very differing economic realities of countries over time and in different geopolitical and economic contexts. As such, these banal and even misleading suggestions are unlikely to be of much help to policymakers in lower income countries who are trying to grapple with a perfect storm of adverse shocks in an already fragile environment. The IMF’s analysis is disproportionately based on the approach and perceptions of investors based in the North Atlantic, and it notably omits the most devastating risks of all: climate change and the vulnerability of undersea internet cables that underpin the modern economy.
The Northern Bias: Uncertainty Indices That Miss the Global South
Part of the problem is that—even while recognising that all risk analysis in these crazy times is difficult—the IMF’s analysis is disproportionately based on the approach and perceptions of investors based in the North Atlantic. Consider the uncertainty measures derived from the World Uncertainty Index and other sources. These are news- and media-outlets-based indices that quantify media attention to global news related to overall uncertainty, economic policy uncertainty, and trade policy uncertainty. These are probably reliant on largely Western media and specifically more on finance- and business-related news portals, which essentially orient to the concerns of capital markets.
What is interesting is not the dramatic increase in the uncertainty indices in September-October 2025, but the almost equally dramatic decline thereafter. This may have reflected the view of financial markets, especially in the United States (which appear to have absorbed the TACO doctrine that “Trump always chickens out”). But to suggest that most low and middle income countries (other than China) were equally facing reduced uncertainty would be very far off the mark, as most of them continued to face the combined threats of trade disruption, pressure from the US to alter many domestic policies along with trade policy concessions, and capital market volatility.
The regional calculations of risk are similarly misleading. The country-specific geopolitical risk index is a news-based measure of adverse geopolitical events that covers 10 major newspapers in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Once again, it is safe to assume that these measures are oriented to the interests of financial investors in those countries, rather than people who actually live in the countries of the various regions. On an absolute measure, such risks are still perceived to be significantly lower in Europe despite the recent increase, while they remain significantly higher in the developing regions.
This Northern bias is not neutral. It leads to policy recommendations that are appropriate for the United States or Europe but inappropriate for India, Nigeria, or Brazil. A country with high inflation and low growth (stagflation) needs different policies than a country with high growth and moderate inflation. A country with a flexible exchange rate needs different policies than a country with a fixed exchange rate. A country with deep capital markets needs different policies than a country with shallow ones. The IMF treats all countries as if they were the same.
The Perfect Storm: What the IMF Acknowledges but Misses
To be fair, it is not that the IMF does not recognise the possibility of other more diverse and even more problematic risks. “Downside risks dominate, even after the realization of a risk event — namely, an escalation of geopolitical tensions — frequently underscored in previous WEO reports. Geopolitical tensions could worsen even more than they already have — turning the situation into the largest energy crisis in modern times — or domestic political strains could erupt. Political stress factors can get entangled with shifts in trade and other international policies. Independently of geopolitical developments, trade-related disputes could flare up.”
This is a reasonable laundry list of risks. But it is a list, not an analysis. It does not tell policymakers which risks are most likely, which would be most damaging, or which can be mitigated. It does not tell them how to prioritise scarce resources. It does not tell them what to do differently from what they were already doing.
The limitations of such risk analysis are clearly brought out by the experience of the past two months. The unjustified US-Israel war on Iran has had obviously disastrous effects on the people of Iran, but the regime’s remarkable ability for survival and success in asymmetric warfare have meant that the other worst effects have fallen on people in lower income countries, especially in Asian oil importing countries that relied disproportionately on oil and gas coming through the now-closed Hormuz Strait.
The risks inherent in that possibility of closure are now painfully realised, but they were not factored in before. The IMF’s models did not predict the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. They did not predict the spike in oil prices to over $100 per barrel. They did not predict the disruption of LPG supplies to South Asia. They did not predict the reverse migration of workers from the Gulf. They were, like all models, caught by surprise.
The Hidden Vulnerability: Undersea Cables and the Digital Economy
Nor are other possible chokepoints for the global economy being considered, even after this experience. For example, the Gulf economies rely hugely not only on the ability to export oil through that narrow strait, but also on incomes from tourism, foreign residents (corporations and individuals) attracted by tax haven status, and serving as logistics and communications hubs. This in turn is dependent on constant and high-quality connectivity, which is almost completely delivered by a dense network of undersea cables.
The recent publication by the Iranian news agency Tasnim, of maps of undersea internet cables, the locations of servers providing cloud infrastructure, and landing stations in the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, may have served as a polite warning that these are also vulnerable in the ongoing conflict. These cables do not require massive military hardware to disrupt: a simple snip of a few cables would do more than disrupt the entire economy that is increasingly dependent on such connectivity. Repairing these, if and when they are broken (such as Alcatel Submarine Networks being unable to send their flagship cable vessel into the Gulf to repair a broken cable lying on the seabed), is currently next to impossible because those repair vessels cannot gain entry.
These risks are also not noted in the IMF’s report. But they immediately affect insurance markets, which now price these into all future transactions. So whether or not the IMF chooses to recognise these risks that have translated into fearsome reality, anyone trying to engage in economic activity in this region—large or small enterprises, formal or informal workers—already have to face them, and hit the livelihood and remittances of millions of migrant workers from South Asia and elsewhere.
The undersea cable network is the invisible backbone of the global economy. It carries 99 per cent of intercontinental internet traffic. Its disruption would bring down banking, trade, communication, and cloud services. A coordinated attack on landing stations in the Gulf could cripple the digital economies of Asia, Africa, and Europe. This is not science fiction; it is a real and present danger. The IMF’s report does not mention it.
The Shameful Omission: Climate Risk
The worst—and most obvious—omission may well be deliberate. The shameful subservience of multilateral institutions supposedly answerable to the entire world, to the climate-denying whims of the current US administration, means that the report notably makes no mention of climate risks. Yet these are now significantly greater than before for most lower income countries. They are even greater because of the unjustified wars unleashed by the US and Israel, which create not just deaths, destruction, and trade blockages, but also add to global warming and immense ecological damage that may be impossible to reverse.
Climate risk is not a future threat; it is a present reality. In 2025 alone, the world experienced record-breaking heatwaves, floods, droughts, and wildfires. The economic costs ran into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Lower income countries, which have contributed the least to climate change, are suffering the most. They lack the resources to adapt: to build sea walls, to develop drought-resistant crops, to relocate coastal populations, to cool their cities. The IMF’s silence on this issue is deafening.
The climate crisis also interacts with geopolitical risks in ways that the IMF’s models cannot capture. A drought in one region can trigger food price spikes globally. A flood in a manufacturing hub can disrupt supply chains. A heatwave can reduce labour productivity. Climate change is a threat multiplier, making every other risk worse. To ignore it is to be wilfully blind.
The Way Forward: Different Risks, Different Responses
What would a more useful risk analysis look like? It would start by acknowledging that different countries face different risks. A small island state faces existential threat from sea-level rise. A landlocked country faces vulnerability to border closures. An oil exporter faces the risk of a permanent decline in demand. An oil importer faces the risk of price spikes. A country with a large diaspora faces the risk of remittance shocks.
It would also acknowledge that different countries have different capacities to respond. A rich country can borrow at low interest rates to finance disaster relief; a poor country cannot. A country with a strong state can implement lockdowns effectively; a country with a weak state cannot. A country with diversified exports can weather a trade shock; a country dependent on a single commodity cannot.
Finally, it would offer policy recommendations that are tailored to these differences. For a country facing an oil price shock, the recommendation might be to build strategic reserves, diversify energy sources, and promote energy efficiency. For a country facing a remittance shock, the recommendation might be to develop alternative sources of foreign exchange, support migrant workers, and strengthen social safety nets. For a country facing a climate shock, the recommendation might be to invest in adaptation, build early warning systems, and seek international climate finance.
The IMF’s one-size-fits-all advice—”preserving price and financial stability, safeguarding fiscal sustainability, and implementing structural reforms without further delay”—is useless. It is the economic equivalent of a doctor prescribing paracetamol for every illness. It does no harm, but it does no good either.
Conclusion: A Different Kind of Resilience
The IMF’s April 2026 World Economic Outlook is a missed opportunity. It recognises that the world is more uncertain, more volatile, and more dangerous than it has been in decades. But it offers no new thinking, no new tools, and no new strategies. It retreats to the familiar, the comfortable, and the irrelevant.
The countries that will thrive in this new era are not those that follow the IMF’s prescriptions. They are those that build real resilience: diversified economies, robust social safety nets, strategic reserves, renewable energy, digital infrastructure, and strong states. They are those that invest in their people: health, education, and skills. They are those that cooperate with their neighbours: trade, finance, and security.
The IMF could have helped them. It chose not to. The shameful omission of climate risk, the Northern bias in its risk indices, and the silence on the vulnerability of undersea cables are not technical oversights; they are political choices. They reflect a worldview that values the interests of Western investors over the lives of the global poor. That worldview is not only morally bankrupt; it is practically useless. It will not help lower income countries navigate the perfect storm. It will not save them. Only they can save themselves.
Q&A: IMF’s World Economic Outlook and Its Limitations
Q1: What are the main criticisms of the IMF’s April 2026 World Economic Outlook?
A1: The article criticises the IMF on three main grounds. First, its proposed policy strategies remain the “usual bromides” (“preserving price and financial stability, safeguarding fiscal sustainability, and implementing structural reforms”) that are “impervious to the very differing economic realities of countries.” Second, its risk analysis is disproportionately biased towards Northern Atlantic investors—uncertainty indices are based on Western media outlets, and geopolitical risk indices are based on newspapers from Canada, the UK, and the US. This “Northern bias” leads to policy recommendations appropriate for the US or Europe but inappropriate for the Global South. Third, the report notably omits two critical risks: climate risk (the “shameful subservience” of multilateral institutions to the climate-denying US administration) and the vulnerability of undersea internet cables that are essential for Gulf economies. The article concludes that the IMF “offers no new thinking, no new tools, and no new strategies.”
Q2: How do uncertainty indices based on Western media misrepresent risks for lower-income countries?
A2: Uncertainty indices (economic policy uncertainty, trade policy uncertainty) are based on news and business media from Western countries. The article notes that while these indices showed a dramatic increase in September-October 2025 followed by an “almost equally dramatic decline,” this likely reflected financial market views in the US (the “TACO doctrine that ‘Trump always chickens out'”). However, most lower-income countries “continued to face the combined threats of trade disruption, pressure from the US to alter many domestic policies along with trade policy concessions, and capital market volatility.” The regional geopolitical risk index is based on adverse geopolitical events covered by newspapers in Canada, the UK, and the US, oriented to “the interests of financial investors in those countries, rather than people who actually live in the countries of the various regions.” On an absolute measure, risks are perceived to be significantly lower in Europe but remain significantly higher in developing regions.
Q3: What are undersea internet cables, and why are they a critical vulnerability not mentioned in the IMF report?
A3: Undersea internet cables carry 99 per cent of intercontinental internet traffic. They are the “invisible backbone of the global economy.” The article notes that Iranian news agency Tasnim published maps of undersea internet cables, cloud server locations, and landing stations in the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia—a “polite warning that these are also vulnerable.” A “simple snip of a few cables” would disrupt the entire digital economy, including banking, trade, communication, and cloud services. Repairing these cables is currently “next to impossible” because repair vessels cannot gain entry into the Gulf. This vulnerability immediately affects insurance markets, which now price these risks into all future transactions, hitting the “livelihood and remittances of millions of migrant workers from South Asia and elsewhere.” The IMF report makes no mention of this risk.
Q4: Why does the article say the IMF’s omission of climate risk is “shameful” and possibly “deliberate”?
A4: The article states that “the shameful subservience of multilateral institutions supposedly answerable to the entire world, to the climate-denying whims of the current US administration, means that the report notably makes no mention of climate risks.” Climate risks are “significantly greater than before for most lower income countries” and are even greater because the “unjustified wars unleashed by the US and Israel” add to global warming and “immense ecological damage that may be impossible to reverse.” Lower-income countries, which have contributed the least to climate change, are suffering the most from record-breaking heatwaves, floods, droughts, and wildfires, but they lack resources to adapt. Climate change is a “threat multiplier, making every other risk worse.” The IMF’s silence is described as “wilfully blind.”
Q5: What kind of risk analysis and policy recommendations would be more useful for lower-income countries?
A5: The article argues that useful risk analysis would:
-
Acknowledge different countries face different risks: A small island state faces sea-level rise; a landlocked country faces border closure vulnerability; an oil importer faces price spikes; a country with a large diaspora faces remittance shocks.
-
Acknowledge different capacities to respond: A rich country can borrow cheaply for disaster relief; a poor country cannot. A country with a strong state can implement lockdowns; a weak state cannot.
-
Offer tailored policy recommendations: For oil price shocks: strategic reserves, diversified energy sources, energy efficiency. For remittance shocks: alternative foreign exchange sources, support for migrant workers, strengthened social safety nets. For climate shocks: adaptation investment, early warning systems, international climate finance.
The article concludes that real resilience comes from “diversified economies, robust social safety nets, strategic reserves, renewable energy, digital infrastructure, and strong states.” The IMF’s “one-size-fits-all advice” is “the economic equivalent of a doctor prescribing paracetamol for every illness. It does no harm, but it does no good either.” The worldview that values Western investors over the global poor is “not only morally bankrupt; it is practically useless.”
