AGI could plausibly arrive within the next decade and fundamentally reshape economic and military power; Europe currently lacks the strategic awareness, compute and talent capacity, and unified policy framework to manage that disruption, calling for a coordinated preparedness agenda.

Main Finding

The emergence of artificial general intelligence (AGI) within the next one to two decades is plausible enough — plausibly between ~2030–2040 or earlier — that Europe should treat it as a realistic and strategically consequential scenario. AGI could materially reshape economic and military power, intensify interstate competition, and stress existing governance frameworks. Europe is currently underprepared across strategic awareness, competitive positioning (compute, talent, capital, industrial adoption) and policy coherence. The authors recommend a coordinated European “AGI Preparedness Report” to align assessment, institutional capacity and policy options.

Key Points

• Plausible AGI timeline: Drawing on expert forecasts, model-based projections and trends in compute/data/algorithms, the paper finds a credible window for AGI emergence around 2030–2040 (with substantial uncertainty).
• Current frontier capabilities: Modern multimodal systems (text, image, audio, video), tool use (browsing, code interpreters), chain-of-thought, and agentic behavior yield big capability gains; performance is superhuman in many formal tasks but remains brittle on commonsense, tacit-experience tasks and physical embodiment.
• “Jagged frontier”: Progress is uneven — strong in domains with clean, abundant machine-readable data (coding, math) and weaker in experiential, long-horizon planning, and real-world physical tasks.
• Geopolitical mechanisms:
  • Economic & military power shifts: AGI could accelerate growth, productivity and military effectiveness for actors that lead in frontier AI.
  • New levers of coercion and surveillance: AI-driven tools could increase economic coercion, cyber capabilities and influence operations.
  • Power diffusion risks: Capabilities might empower individuals, non-state actors or the AI systems themselves, complicating control and stability.
  • Strategic responses visible: export controls, compute investments and military applications indicate major powers treat advanced AI as strategic.
• Europe’s preparedness gaps:
  • Strategic awareness: Limited institutional monitoring of frontier AI progress and limited situational awareness.
  • Compute infrastructure: Europe hosts only ~5% of global AI computing infrastructure.
  • Models & industry: European AI companies lag frontier models (estimated ~6–12 months behind).
  • Data & regulation: Regulation constrains data access; compliance/legal frictions (copyright, safety) add costs.
  • Capital & energy: Small share of AI VC going to EU startups; higher electricity prices than US competitors.
  • Talent: Low concentration of elite AI talent in Europe.
  • AI diffusion: Mixed adoption across industries, likely trailing the US in aggregate.
  • Policy coherence: EU strategies are ambitious but fragmented and not fully integrated for AGI-scale risks/opportunities.
• Recommendation: The European Commission President should commission an AGI Preparedness Report (analogous in approach to the Draghi Report on competitiveness) to assess practical policy levers and coordinate EU/Member-State responses. The report should focus on (1) capturing AGI economic benefits while securing sovereignty, (2) preparing institutions and societies for rapid change, and (3) strengthening international stability and shared prosperity.

Data & Methods

• Literature basis: Narrative literature review of ~300 items (peer-reviewed articles, working papers, government and NGO reports, industry analyses), with a focus on materials from the prior 5 years; search period July–November 2025. Sources after Nov 2025 were not included.
• Inclusion criteria: Relevance to AGI timelines, geopolitical impacts or European preparedness; analytical rigor; transparency of methods; and distinctive perspectives (including non-European actors).
• Analytical framework:
  • Timelines: Synthesised expert-survey forecasts, forecasting-platform aggregates and quantitative input-driven models (the “outside view”), plus a “plausibility check” via the AI triad (compute, data, algorithms).
  • Capabilities assessment: Survey of frontier AI abilities and limitations, with the “jagged frontier” concept to explain uneven progress across domains.
  • Geopolitics: Classification of mechanisms by which AGI could affect power (economic/military shifts; diffusion to individuals/systems) and review of strategic responses by major powers.
  • Preparedness: Three-dimensional assessment — (1) strategic awareness, (2) competitive positioning & leverage (compute, data, capital, energy, talent, diffusion), (3) robustness/coherence of EU policy strategies.
• Limitations: Narrative (not quantitative meta-analysis); English-language sources; constrained to publicly available literature and materials prior to Nov 2025; substantial uncertainty in AGI prediction acknowledged.

Implications for AI Economics

• Productivity and growth:
  • If AGI materially increases the productivity of cognitively intensive tasks, growth rates could accelerate, changing long-run GDP trajectories. Policymakers should model plausible uplift scenarios and fiscal/monetary responses.
  • Short-run sectoral winners/losers: Sectors reliant on routine cognitive labor (software, legal, medical diagnostics, finance, creative production) could see rapid productivity gains and disruption; transitional unemployment and reallocation effects are likely.
• Labor markets and distribution:
  • Large displacement risk for high-skill white-collar jobs could alter wage structures, increase income inequality, and require targeted retraining, social insurance and labor-market policy.
  • Complementarity vs. substitution: Outcomes depend on whether AGI augments human labor (task delegation) or substitutes for it at scale. Policy should encourage augmentation pathways and manage transitions.
• Market structure and competition:
  • Entrenchment risk: First movers with access to scale compute, proprietary data and top talent could capture dominant positions, increasing concentration and platform power in AI industries.
  • Role for industrial policy: Strategic public investment (compute capacity, data infrastructure, talent pipelines, subsidised compute) may be necessary to prevent marginalisation and to maintain competitive markets.
• Compute sovereignty and trade:
  • Compute concentration (EU ~5% of global AI compute) implies dependency on foreign infrastructure and potential vulnerability to export controls or geopolitical leverage. Economic policy must consider onshore compute scaling, energy/price competitiveness, and trade agreements.
• Finance and R&D incentives:
  • Venture and corporate capital flows shape frontier innovation; limited EU VC to AI startups could slow domestic frontier progress. Public finance, prize mechanisms, and R&D subsidies can influence direction and location of investment.
  • Regulation can alter incentives: Data protection, IP litigation and safety requirements affect the marginal cost of R&D and productisation; careful policy design is needed to avoid stifling innovation while ensuring safety.
• Regulation, governance and externalities:
  • Cross-border externalities (security, misuse, systemic risk) require coordinated international governance; unilateral regulation can shift innovation offshore with economic consequences.
  • Competition policy and procurement: Public procurement and antitrust enforcement are tools to shape market structure and preserve contestability in AI.
• Energy and factor costs:
  • Higher European electricity prices and limited compute capacity increase the unit cost of frontier model training/inference, affecting the comparative economics of hosting model development.
  • Decarbonisation and energy policy intersect with compute expansion — planning is needed for grid capacity, demand-side management and carbon pricing of large-scale AI compute.
• Policy sequencing and uncertainty management:
  • Given deep uncertainty about AGI timing and effects, flexible, staged policies (capacity-building, surveillance/situational awareness, conditional interventions) are preferable to rigid regulation that may lock-in suboptimal paths.
  • The recommended AGI Preparedness Report would provide the evidence base to calibrate economic policy measures (industrial subsidies, labor-market supports, competition rules, trade and procurement strategies).

Overall, from an AI-economics perspective the paper implies urgent priorities: invest in compute and data infrastructure, mobilise capital and talent, design policies to manage concentration and labour transitions, and coordinate internationally to reduce strategic risk and externalities.