The world economy is at a crossroads. International trade is slowing, economic uncertainty is rising, and trade between the US and China – the world’s two largest economies – risks pulling apart. And it is not just trade: the two countries also invest less in each other than they did just a few years ago.

What is driving this reconfiguration of trade? For some large economies, including the US under President Donald Trump, a desire for greater self-reliance is central. Between 2017 and 2023, American imports fell most sharply in the very products where the US had been most reliant on China – including industrial machinery, computers and computer parts, and other electronic equipment such as monitors.

This has important implications for global value chains (GVCs). GVCs are the backbone of international trade – production activities from research and product design to assembly are distributed across various locations, with “value” being added at each stage. This redistribution can take place across several countries, co-ordinated by multinational firms.

The reconfiguration of GVCs is accelerating, and so industrialised economies now have two main options. They can reshore production, bringing manufacturing back to their own countries (a stated priority for the current US administration).

Or they can “friendshore”, shifting imports and investments towards economies that are either geographically closer, or with which they have long-standing relationships.

Read more: After a year of Trump, who are the winners and losers from US tariffs?

For developing countries, the balance between these two strategies is crucial. If advanced economies reshore a substantial share of production, developing countries could suffer as investment and jobs are lost.

And automation and digitisation now make it more convenient for advanced countries to produce goods at home, making this a greater risk to these poorer countries than it was a decade ago.

For consumers though, this reshoring could mean higher prices for everyday goods, at least in the short term, because of the higher costs of manufacturing in more advanced economies. It should be said, however, that the empirical evidence for this remains limited.

Risks and opportunities

But friendshoring offers an alternative. Early signals from countries like Mexico and Vietnam – which have recently seen an increase in investment and factory expansions from multinational firms – suggest that friendshoring can create opportunities. When paired with supportive government policies such as investment incentives or help to upgrade technology, these shifts can ensure that more production takes place domestically. This can lead to greater technology spillovers and learning.

To understand the risks and opportunities, we examined the specific products where US-China decoupling is most pronounced (that is, where trade is reducing). From this analysis, two broad clusters emerged, each with different implications for developing economies.

The first group mainly includes relatively complex goods – things like consumer electronics, vehicle components, chemicals and machinery. Here, the US is both diversifying its imports quickly and is already producing these goods competitively.

The products and sectors at the heart of the reconfiguration of GVCs

These products can easily be reshored, particularly if automation lowers costs. Semiconductors, for instance, are already the focus of major US reshoring efforts. Yet the risk to current producers of the US reshoring appears limited for now. While the US has reduced imports from China of these products, other developing regions have not experienced a similar trend.

In the second group, the US is diversifying but is not competitive enough to bring production home. This group accounted for just over 6% of finished products that the US imported in 2023 – roughly US$181 billion (£134 billion). This is a small share overall, but economically significant.

Within this group, two types of opportunity emerge. Technologically complex goods, such as electrical equipment, computers and car parts, offer the greatest potential for middle-income economies with strong manufacturing experience to win contracts and investments. Lower-tech goods like textiles and furniture are better suited to lower-income countries. In both cases, governments need to negotiate carefully to ensure investments add value locally, support skills development and avoid social or environmental harm.

For consumers worldwide, friendshoring offers a more benign outlook than reshoring or tariffs. Goods may simply be made in different countries, with prices remaining broadly stable.

Who could gain?

So far, east and south-eastern Asia – including Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia – have captured the largest share of these friendshoring opportunities, particularly in high-tech sectors like computers. Their exports to China have also risen, reinforcing their central role in Asian manufacturing networks. But whether this momentum continues will depend on tariffs, production costs and the pace of automation.

Other beneficiaries could include Latin America and Caribbean nations, led by Mexico. Here, the automotive sector dominates export growth. South Asia could also benefit, with India expanding in both high- and low-tech products, and Bangladesh at the lower-tech end. In contrast, Africa and western Asia remain largely absent from the emerging friendshoring landscape.

The risk to these countries of large-scale reshoring remains limited for now but cannot be ignored amid shifting global trade and investment patterns. But friendshoring could offset or even exceed potential losses, offering new pathways for industrialisation.

As economic uncertainty and technology reshape global value chains, developing economies that invest in production capabilities – and implement smart industrial policies – will be best placed to harness opportunities. In some cases, friendshoring may even allow them to leapfrog into more sophisticated activities faster than traditional development paths would allow.

For consumers, there are benefits too. The label on our next laptop, charger or T-shirt might change, but prices will remain broadly stable – at least before tariffs kick in. In this sense, globalisation will not disappear. But it will take on a different geographical shape.

This article builds on UNIDO IID Policy Brief 28, "Navigating a fragmenting global economy: What GVC reconfiguration means for future industrial development". The views expressed in the Policy Brief and in this article are those of the authors, based on their research and expertise, and do not necessarily reflect the views of UNIDO.

Carlo Pietrobelli and Nicolò Geri do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

As we go through life, our brains run different processing modes. Some – the attention and sensory systems – result in very similar experiences of the world: what colour the sky is, how warm the day feels.

But there is another, deeper side to the brain which weaves together your memories, goals, beliefs and emotions into a continuous sense of self. This allows you to experience the world not as it is, but as it matters to you personally.

This unique inner world is supported by the brain’s default mode network (DMN). This links together several areas including in the prefrontal cortex (at the very front of the brain) and the parietal lobe (at the back).

These areas of the DMN are, in evolutionary terms, relatively recent. As human brains expanded dramatically between around 800,000 and 200,000 years ago, those regions grew in size and complexity compared with our closest primate relatives. They are more likely to express genes that are uniquely human, related to brain development and function.

Our latest research explores to what extent the DMN explains what makes each of us unique. Put another way, we are attempting to understand what makes you “you”.

What makes us human?

While ancient deep regions of the brain, shared with all vertebrates, support basic experiences such as fear and thirst, the more recent and complex DMN is important for what makes us human.

To better understand the differences, we asked 16 adult volunteers to listen to an excerpt from the Hollywood film Taken (2009) while we recorded their brain activity. Using the audio alone enabled us to compare each person’s activity when both conscious and unconscious. Our volunteers were scanned using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) while awake and under general anaesthetic, as the same story was played to them.

Each time, we tracked the shifting patterns of communication between brain regions. In particular, we monitored changes in each person’s attention, sensory and default mode networks, and compared these with changes in subjective experience that participants reported.

When participants were conscious, we found their DMN activity patterns became both more complex and more dissimilar to each other as they listened to the story. In contrast, when unconscious, their individual signatures diminished – becoming simpler and more similar to those of the other volunteers.

But their attention and sensory networks showed the opposite pattern. These were more similar when awake, reflecting common mechanisms for gathering sensory information and interpreting the external world through sight and sound.

Our results reinforce that the DMN carries the more personal side of consciousness, changing from moment to moment to reflect each person’s thoughts, memories and inner experiences.

However, different parts of the DMN contribute in different ways. Some subregions, both deep in the back of the cortex and in the front of the brain, help us reflect on ourselves, imagine possibilities, and weave experience into a personal story. Others, especially those linked to memory in the deep temporal lobe regions, help reconstruct scenes and recall past events, and make sense of ideas and how they connect.

Understanding our uniqueness

Why does the DMN vary so much from person to person? Because it underpins deeply personal characteristics that define us, such as personality and values.

This echoes ideas like that of pioneering psychologist William James, who wrote: “Every brain-state is partly determined by the nature of this entire past succession … It is out of the question, then, that any total brain-state should identically recur.”

The DMN interacts with the rest of the brain to enable us move fluidly between the world as it is, and the world as we conceive it. Some studies suggest that disrupting DMN activity can blunt originality in creative tasks.

Altered DMN connectivity has been linked to many mental health conditions, particularly those involving self-narrative, memory and social cognition. If we can map a person’s DMN dynamics, we may be able to better understand their specific difficulties – for example, with memory or socialising – in a way that could one day lead to more personal forms of therapy.

But achieving high-quality brain maps requires lengthy scans and complex analytics. That is where precision functional mapping (combining a variety of methods including fMRI) and artificial intelligence come in.

Precision mapping can handle large amounts of data per person to chart individual networks. Machine learning models may then be able to combine these maps with genetics and symptoms to guide diagnosis and treatment.

But deeper questions need answering too. Humans are highly social animals living in complex societies. If every person’s inner world is unique, what does that mean for ethical decisions such as managing criminality or prioritising treatments?

The DMN is key to enabling our ability to imagine different futures. This includes the precise role that brain science can and should play in them.

Peter Coppola received funding from Cambridge Trust. Peter Coppola is currently part of the University of East Anglia and an employee of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust. He is also a Visiting Researcher at the University of Cambridge

Emmanuel A Stamatakis received funding related to this work from the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR; RCZB/072 RG93193) and the Stephen Erskine Fellowship at Queens’ College, Cambridge.

For many business owners, managing a crisis in silence is the default response. Companies generally prefer to deal with the fallout behind the scenes, following a simple mantra: resolve the issue and keep up the appearance that everything is “business as usual”.

However, this time, KitKat took a different approach. Instead of keeping it low-key, the brand took the incident public, transforming it into a campaign to engage the audience.

In just a few days, the incident gained worldwide traction on social media and news outlets. Audiences shifted from passive observers to active participants. This potential reputational threat ultimately became a record-breaking campaign with over 100 million views.

This is a prime example of how brands today have shifted from mere crisis management to using unexpected challenges as a way to engage audiences in real time.

Baca juga: From ‘market value’ to levelling up, the manosphere is shaped by a financial mindset

What actually happened?

The story began in late March 2026, when a truck carrying over 413,000 KitKat bars — roughly 12 tonnes — disappeared in transit between central Italy and Poland.

The timing was critical. This “unlucky” incident took place only a week before Easter and right as KitKat was debuting as an official Formula 1 partner.

Baca juga: The more commodified your job, the more likely AI can do it – lessons from online freelancing

Take their “unique” official statement, for example. It was not your standard, boring corporate press release — it was written with a playful wink. At first, the internet was convinced it was an elaborate marketing stunt or an early April Fool’s joke, but KitKat soon confirmed: this was no prank.

In their statement, KitKat verified the theft and assured the public of product safety, but they did not stop there. By adding that the culprits had exceptional taste, they shifted the tone entirely. It was no longer a PR disaster to be fixed, it was a compelling story waiting to be told.

Working with VML, KitKat launched the Stolen KitKat Tracker, a digital tool where consumers could verify their chocolate’s origins using an eight-digit pack code.

The campaign triggered a massive cultural moment. #KitKatHeist became a trending topic, sparking millions of memes and inviting other major brands to join the conversation.

Rethinking the brand response to disruption

This case highlights the evolution of real-time marketing: the ability to pivot a crisis into a cultural moment. In today’s battle for attention (attention economy), KitKat proves that holding the public’s interest is just as vital as managing the brand’s reputation.

A key factor in the campaign’s effectiveness was direct audience involvement. By using the tracker, consumers moved beyond merely reading about the heist to actively taking part in it — a classic element of gamification. It was a simple but effective approach: it gave people a tangible reason to pick up a KitKat, engage with the brand, and, most importantly, share their results.

Consumers shifted from passive buyers to active participants in a live, unfolding story. This engagement did more than just capture attention. It drove sales and refreshed the brand’s connection with its customers.

At the same time, curiosity fuels the campaign, as the public remains unsure of how much is fact and how much is fiction. This uncertainty sparks deeper discussion and sharing, transforming a simple incident into an interactive experience while refocusing attention on the product itself.

The spillover effect: The power of collaborative brand storytelling

KitKat’s response did more than just spark attention. It created a cultural vacuum that other brands rushed to fill.

Ryanair, Domino’s, and Pizza Hut joined the party with their own official statements, each offering mock condolences while subtly promoting themselves in the same breath.

The result was a snowballing effect: every brand that joined extended the story’s lifespan, reached a new audience, and reflected that visibility back onto KitKat. What began as a single brand’s crisis evolved into a shared cultural moment, where participation became the price of entry.

Brands amplifying each other is no accident. It works because the original incident provided a clear, low-stakes hook for others to latch onto. Since there was no real harm involved, the humour was accessible to everyone; the stakes were low enough to serve as an open invitation for play.

Baca juga: Money isn’t free. Here’s what to know before downloading a cashback app

Humorous crisis communication is not merely a stylistic choice; it is a conditional one. KitKat could pull it off because the incident was victimless, posed no safety risks, and involved an everyday product with no significant moral weight.

The future of the attention economy

Campaigns like this raise an important ethical question: where should brands draw the line between seizing opportunities and corporate responsibility?

KitKat’s response worked well not just because it was creative, but because of the crisis itself: it was low-stakes, harmless, and socially acceptable. Ultimately, not every disruption should become a campaign. In the world of real-time marketing, good judgment is just as important as acting quickly.

KitKat’s success proves we have moved beyond the era of one-way communication and into the era of “navigating moments”. In today’s landscape, a brand’s ability to balance instant visibility with genuine credibility is crucial to stand out.

The challenge is no longer avoiding a crisis, but knowing how to respond in a way that builds both attention and trust.

Baca juga: How this ‘dirtbag’ billionaire chose to do capitalism differently

Para penulis tidak bekerja, menjadi konsultan, memiliki saham atau menerima dana dari perusahaan atau organisasi mana pun yang akan mengambil untung dari artikel ini, dan telah mengungkapkan bahwa ia tidak memiliki afiliasi di luar afiliasi akademis yang telah disebut di atas.