Will we work three days a week? It depends on several factors by 2050.

Do you envision the global economy of the future as a utopia that meets climate goals and provides more free time than ever before? Or do you see it as a world of digital Darwinism, where technology concentrates wealth and power in the hands of a few, while the majority balances between insecure jobs and constant surveillance?

According to new research from the Henderson Institute, a research institute founded by the Boston Consulting Group, both futures, the best and the worst, are equally possible by 2050. The global economy will not develop in one direction over the next 25 years, but could follow distinctly different paths, depending on the development of technology, geopolitics, climate, and society.

How large will the total size be?

As stated in the press release, the New Scenarios 2050 research is based on the analysis of over 100 megatrends and centuries of historical data. The conclusion is quite clear: the future will not be black and white, but the range of possibilities is broader than most business leaders consider today.

For example, global economic growth in the coming decades could significantly slow down and remain at around 1.8 percent annually, but there is also a possibility that it could accelerate to five percent. Within that range of change lies a huge difference in the total size of the world economy, which could be just over one and a half times, but also more than three times larger than today by mid-century.

The same applies to global trade: it could decrease to levels recorded during the Cold War, when economies were significantly more closed, or remain approximately as open and connected as today. The energy picture is no less uncertain, with the share of low-carbon electricity potentially making up just over half of total production, but also growing to nearly complete dominance.

In other words, everything is still open.

These different growth rates can be realized under completely different socio-political conditions that BCG described through four different scenarios.

Control Society

In the most negative version of the future lies a scenario often described as digital Darwinism. Technology continues to advance rapidly, but without clear rules. States consciously reduce regulation to encourage innovation, leading to a sharp rise of large tech companies. The economy as a whole grows quite strongly, around four percent annually, but the benefits of that growth are not evenly distributed. A small number of people, about one percent of the richest, control a large portion of global wealth, while the middle class gradually diminishes.

In everyday life, this means that more and more people work insecure, short-term jobs, while artificial intelligence takes over routine tasks. The work environment becomes digitized and under constant surveillance – algorithms help increase productivity, but at the same time create pressure and a sense of control. Many therefore seek escape into digital worlds, tailored to each individual, but which can lead to isolation. Although global trade still exists, the differences between developed and less developed parts of the world become increasingly pronounced. Climate change is not addressed collectively, but societies mainly try to adapt to its consequences.

On the opposite side, in the most optimistic version of the future, artificial intelligence becomes the foundation of the economy. States manage to reach a global agreement on rules for its application, making technology safe and widely available. Although the beginning is not without tension, and even cyber conflicts, over time there is stabilization and cooperation.

Work ceases to be the most important

In such a world, the global economy grows strongly, even up to around five percent annually, meaning that the total world economy could more than triple. At the same time, the way of working changes – the workweek shortens, and four-day or even three-day work becomes common. Technology accelerates scientific discoveries, energy becomes cheaper and cleaner, and production changes thanks to robotics and new materials. However, this development also has its downsides. As work ceases to be a central part of life, the question of the meaning of work and personal identity in a world where machines perform a large part of tasks increasingly opens up.

Between these two extremes lie two more possible directions of development. In one of them, geopolitics takes the main role. The world divides into several large blocks that function almost independently, leading to a significant decline in global trade. States invest more in defense, and economic growth slows down. The globalization we know today practically ceases, supply chains are reorganized, and states take greater control over key industries. Such a system can be stable, but it is slow and less efficient, which reflects on the standard of living. Society focuses more on security than on freedom and development.

The second scenario is driven by climate change. A series of severe weather events forces states and industry to act together. A sort of global climate coalition emerges that introduces rules for reducing emissions and encourages the transition to clean energy. In such a world, global warming stabilizes, fossil fuels lose importance, and the economy grows at a moderate pace. A large portion of investments is directed towards energy, infrastructure, and new technologies.

The role of business leaders

However, this transition is not easy. Higher costs also mean higher taxes, and people are spending more cautiously. Younger generations feel the pressure of slower economic growth and weaker opportunities, although on the other hand, global poverty is decreasing, and many developing countries benefit from new investments.

In all of this, the role of business leaders and managers is often mentioned, but the message of the research goes broader than that. No one can actually afford to plan just one version of the future. It makes sense to start building systems today that are more resilient, not just efficient, to adapt the way of working to new circumstances such as artificial intelligence and an aging population, invest in flexible technologies, and carefully monitor changes in the world.

The most important message may also be the simplest: the future is not predetermined. The decisions made today, whether as states, companies, or individuals, will greatly influence what the world will be like in 2050. And the most realistic expectation is that it will not be entirely positive or entirely negative, but a combination of different scenarios.