A new World Trade Organization study says artificial intelligence is on track to reshape how goods and services move, potentially swelling global trade by roughly 34–37% and boosting GDP by 12–13% by 2040.
The headline numbers arrived today alongside a sober warning: without inclusive policies, AI may widen the gap between rich and poor economies. Read Reuters’ report.
The WTO’s own release goes deeper on mechanics—translation tools that pry open language barriers, cheaper compliance via automated paperwork, and smarter logistics that shave costs on every mile.
In other words, trade friction melts where algorithms do the boring bits. See the WTO’s summary.
Here’s the twist that had officials talking in Geneva: growth is not guaranteed to be fair.
Modeling suggests high-income economies reap gains faster unless lower-income countries get serious upgrades in digital infrastructure and skills.
That equity caveat loomed large in coverage by the Financial Times, which flagged the risk of an AI-era replay of uneven globalization. The FT’s write-up is here.
If you want a second opinion on the “mind the gap” problem, UNCTAD has been blunt for months: the AI market could hit trillions, but benefits remain concentrated and only a minority of developing countries even have national AI strategies.
That context matters when you’re betting policy on rosy projections. UNCTAD’s 2025 Technology & Innovation Report has the receipts.
Hardware tells a similar story. Capital keeps racing into AI chips and inference hardware—today’s funding headlines are less about curiosity and more about capacity.
As one fresh example, investors pushed a U.S. AI-chip startup’s valuation sharply higher, a reminder that compute remains the tollbooth for the entire AI-trade flywheel. See Reuters’ separate chip funding report.
And inclusive growth isn’t just about fiber lines and GPUs; it’s about who gets help crossing the bridge.
A European Court of Auditors review this week said the EU is likely to miss its own targets for “Aid for Trade” to the least-developed countries—awkward timing when the WTO is pleading for more inclusive AI adoption. Here’s the auditors’ story via Reuters.
Zoom out to the demand side, and the WTO’s April trade outlook already flagged a cooler baseline for services—even before the AI dividend kicks in.
If AI really trims costs in transport, customs, and back-office services, those sectors could rebound faster than the forecast implied, but only with stable rules and market access. WTO’s Global Trade Outlook is worth a skim.
So where does the rulebook go next? Geneva’s workstreams on digital trade signal a push to modernize disciplines that date back to the dial-up era.
Think data flows, source-code protections, and interoperability instead of tariff tables alone.
That’s dry on paper, but it’s the plumbing that makes AI-enabled commerce actually flow. The WTO’s digital technologies page maps the agenda.
Reporter’s Q&A (because this is ultimately about choices)
How is AI supposed to add that much trade, practically?
By trimming invisible taxes—translation, compliance, and coordination.
The WTO’s modeling leans on cost reductions that let small exporters pitch globally and big firms run leaner supply chains.
What could derail the upside?
Fragmented rules and uneven access. If infrastructure and skills lag, you get productivity in rich hubs and frustration elsewhere—exactly what UNCTAD warns about.
Is this all just another hype cycle?
Some hype, sure; but the cost-cutting story is tangible. Follow the money into chips and logistics automation, and the policy debate into WTO/UN forums. When both finance and governance move, outcomes usually follow.
My read, with a little newsroom candor
The WTO has planted a flag: AI isn’t a cute add-on to e-commerce; it’s a general-purpose cost cutter for the entire trading system. I like the clarity.
I also like the humility in the footnotes: the upside depends on everyone getting a fair shot at infrastructure, compute, and skills.
If policymakers pair those investments with updated digital rules, the “40% by 2040” line stops sounding like sci-fi and starts looking like logistics spreadsheets.
If they don’t, we’ll be back here in a few years, writing the same story with more frustration baked in. And nobody wants that rerun.
