Investment in Conferences Makes Countries Stronger

Why Countries Pay to Attract Global Business Events

International business events are no longer viewed simply as conferences. For many governments, they have become an important instrument of tourism policy, foreign investment, international promotion and economic diplomacy.

A global forum bringing hundreds or thousands of international entrepreneurs, investors and executives creates immediate economic value. Delegates pay for hotels, restaurants, transport, venues, entertainment and professional services. More importantly, they establish business relationships that can lead to future investment, trade and repeat visits.

This is why a growing number of countries now provide direct grants, subsidies and destination-support packages to attract major international events.

Portugal: €45 Million for Events

Portugal is one of the clearest examples.

Its Portugal Events 2026–2028 programme has a total budget of €45 million. International corporate and association events can receive financial support, while projects classified as Strategic Tourism Events may receive up to €300,000 per event, subject to qualifying investment and programme conditions.

Portugal also offers additional incentives for events taking place in lower-density regions and during the winter tourism season.

The objective is straightforward: bring international visitors to Portugal, increase overnight stays, strengthen the country's international visibility and generate expenditure throughout the local economy.

Canada: Government Funding to Win International Conferences

Canada has created a dedicated International Convention Attraction Fund.

In 2026, the federal government announced another C$15 million over three years to help Canadian destinations compete for major international conventions.

The previous programme demonstrated why governments are willing to invest. Canadian authorities reported an economic return of approximately 20:1, with supported international events generating hundreds of millions of Canadian dollars in economic activity.

Instead of waiting for conferences to choose Canada, the country actively helps its cities win international bids.

Abu Dhabi: Paying for International Delegates

Abu Dhabi uses an especially clear incentive model.

Under its business-events support system, qualifying international groups can receive support calculated according to the number of delegates.

For example, published incentive levels can reach:

• around AED 60,000 for 300 delegates;

• around AED 100,000 for 500 delegates;

• approximately AED 350,000 for 1,000 delegates,

subject to programme rules, including minimum stays and approved local suppliers.

The message to organisers is simple: bring valuable international business visitors, and the destination will help reduce the cost of the event.

Malta: Up to €40 Per International Delegate

Malta has also introduced a very transparent model.

Its Conferences & Expos support programme has operated with a dedicated €3 million budget.

For qualifying events during selected months, support can reach approximately €40 per international participant.

This means that an event attracting:

300 foreign delegates could generate around €12,000 in support;

500 delegates — around €20,000;

1,000 delegates — around €40,000.

The programme also encourages participants to remain in Malta for several nights, ensuring that the subsidy generates hotel and tourism expenditure.

Vienna: Up to €24,000 for Large International Meetings

The Vienna Meeting Fund 2025–2028 has €4 million available.

International organisers are able to apply directly, and qualifying events with a strong international audience can receive support reaching approximately €24,000 for events of around 1,000 participants, depending on the programme structure and sustainability criteria.

Vienna understands that international conferences do more than fill congress halls: they reinforce the city's position as a global centre for business, diplomacy, science and innovation.

Singapore: Hundreds of Millions Invested in Tourism and Business Events

Singapore operates on an even larger strategic scale.

In 2026, the government announced S$740 million for the Tourism Development Fund over five years. This is a broad tourism-development programme rather than a conference-only fund, but business events and MICE development form an important part of Singapore's strategy.

Singapore has spent decades building a global reputation as a meeting point for Asian and international business. Conferences help the country attract executives who may later return as investors, entrepreneurs or corporate decision-makers.

Why Governments Spend Money on Business Events

The economics explain the strategy.

A leisure tourist may visit a destination once. A business delegate may arrive as the CEO of a company, an investor, an exporter, a university leader or the representative of an international organisation.

A conference of 1,000 international delegates staying four nights creates 4,000 hotel room-nights immediately.

If each visitor spends only €300 per day on accommodation, food, transport, entertainment and services, the direct local economic impact can already approach: 1,000 × 4 × €300 = €1.2 million.

And this does not include exhibition expenditure, sponsorship, venue rental, business contracts, future investment or repeat tourism.

Governments are therefore increasingly treating global events as a form of economic infrastructure.

The most competitive destinations are no longer asking: “Why should we subsidise a conference?”

They are asking: “How much economic activity, international visibility and future investment will we lose if another country hosts it instead?”

That shift is creating a new global competition for major business events — and for organisers capable of bringing hundreds or thousands of international decision-makers into a host economy.

X Money and the New Financial Geopolitics: Why Elon Musk’s Project Could Become a Strategic Asset for the United States

Future American financial infrastructure

The history of the global economy demonstrates that financial power has never depended solely on the quantity of money a country possesses. It also depends on the infrastructure through which capital moves. In the nineteenth century, Britain exercised extraordinary financial influence through the City of London and sterling. After the Second World War, the United States, the dollar, American banks and US-led financial institutions became central to the global financial system. Today, a new stage of competition is emerging. Economic influence increasingly depends not only on banks and central banks, but also on technology platforms that control digital communication, identity, data and payments. It is in this wider context that Elon Musk's X Money deserves to be viewed not merely as a commercial fintech venture, but as a potentially significant component of the future American financial infrastructure.

X Money is a private initiative and not a programme of the United States government. Yet the history of the American technology industry repeatedly shows how privately owned companies can become instruments of national economic influence without being directly controlled by the state. Microsoft shaped a large part of the world's computing infrastructure. Google became one of the principal gateways to global information. Apple created a global ecosystem of mobile devices, services and payments. Amazon became a dominant infrastructure for e-commerce and cloud computing. Visa and Mastercard became fundamental components of international payment flows. If X Money eventually develops into a global financial platform, it could add another layer to this architecture: a mass digital environment in which communications, commerce and the movement of money operate within a predominantly American technological ecosystem.

The strategic relevance becomes particularly clear when compared with China's super-app model. WeChat and Alipay demonstrated far earlier than most Western platforms that a mobile application could simultaneously function as a communications network, identity layer, payment instrument and commercial infrastructure. For hundreds of millions of Chinese users, the mobile wallet long ago ceased to be an isolated financial product and became part of ordinary digital life. Western markets evolved differently. Social networks, banking, payments, e-commerce and messaging generally remained separate. Musk is effectively attempting to build an American version of the super-app model, but he is doing so in the age of generative artificial intelligence, when the possibilities extend far beyond the functionality originally demonstrated by Chinese platforms.

The dollar is a critical element of this equation. For decades, the international position of the US currency has been supported not only by the size of the American economy and confidence in US institutions, but by powerful network effects. International contracts are denominated in dollars, commodities are priced in dollars, central banks hold dollar reserves and businesses use the dollar in cross-border trade. The more participants use a currency, the more convenient it becomes for everyone else. Digital financial infrastructure can strengthen this effect further. If millions of international users eventually gain an easy way to receive, hold, transfer and manage dollar-denominated funds through a platform such as X, the technological accessibility of the dollar itself becomes another source of monetary influence.

This becomes even more important in the context of stablecoins. Regulated digital tokens backed by dollars or dollar-denominated liquid assets could significantly accelerate international settlement. Traditional cross-border bank payments may pass through multiple correspondent institutions, take considerable time and incur meaningful fees. Digital dollar instruments can potentially move twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, with far less friction. Broad stablecoin integration is not currently an established feature of X Money, but strategically it represents one of the most consequential possible directions for the platform. If a global social network with its own AI system and financial infrastructure were eventually to integrate regulated digital dollars, the implications would go far beyond the launch of another banking product.

Under such a scenario, the United States could gain an unusual form of strategic advantage. The American currency would spread not only through traditional banks, international trade and capital markets, but through digital platforms used by individuals and companies in their daily economic activity. The easier it becomes for an entrepreneur outside the United States to receive a dollar payment, preserve dollar liquidity, pay a supplier or customer and manage funds through a single platform, the weaker the incentive to move towards alternative currency infrastructures. Competition between currencies in the twenty-first century may therefore be shaped not only by interest rates and central-bank reserves, but by the quality, usability and reach of digital financial networks.

American businesses could also benefit substantially. If X Money develops into an international financial platform, US companies could gain a simpler way to interact with clients, suppliers and entrepreneurs abroad through infrastructure originally built around American financial standards. Smaller American businesses could reach global customers without relying on a complex combination of banking intermediaries. Large corporations could gain additional channels for sales, payments and customer interaction. Creators could monetise international audiences more directly. The more commercial activity that flows through American digital platforms, the stronger the United States remains as a central node of the global digital economy.

There is also a further strategic dimension: data. Modern economic power increasingly depends not only on controlling capital, but on the ability to observe economic behaviour in real time. A global platform that combines social activity and finance can potentially generate enormous amounts of information about market behaviour, consumer preferences, commercial relationships and capital flows. This is precisely why privacy, data protection and regulatory oversight would become exceptionally sensitive issues. Any combination of social and financial information would have to operate under stringent rules. Yet from the perspective of technological competition, the ability of US companies to build advanced financial-data architectures is itself an important component of national competitiveness.

The global landscape is therefore evolving into a contest between several different models. China continues to develop its own digital payment ecosystems and the digital yuan. The European Union is pursuing the digital euro while simultaneously building a stringent regulatory framework for digital platforms and financial services. Gulf states are investing heavily in fintech, blockchain and digital assets. Emerging economies are exploring alternative cross-border payment systems. The United States retains three extraordinary advantages: the dollar, the world's deepest capital markets and a concentration of globally dominant technology companies. X Money has the potential, at least in theory, to connect those advantages within a single private-sector ecosystem.

International success, however, is far from guaranteed. The United States cannot simply export a financial platform into every jurisdiction without resistance. European regulators may impose strict limits on the use of personal data. Individual countries may require local data storage, domestic banking partnerships or specific licensing structures. Some governments will seek to protect national payment systems and digital currencies. Public trust in a platform associated so closely with one powerful individual may also vary considerably between regions. Financial infrastructure requires institutional predictability because individuals and corporations need confidence that rules governing their money will not change unpredictably.

Nevertheless, X Money illustrates a much broader shift in the nature of financial geopolitics. In the twentieth century, the principal strategic assets were central banks, major commercial banks, stock exchanges and international payment systems. In the twenty-first century, social networks, artificial intelligence, cloud infrastructure, digital identity and embedded finance are becoming part of the same strategic landscape. A country whose companies control these layers can gain not only commercial profits, but structural influence over how the global economy operates.

For this reason, the potential success of X Money should not be measured simply by the number of people who open an account. If X becomes an environment in which individuals communicate, companies acquire customers, creators earn income, AI agents assist in the management of capital and money moves continuously between participants, the United States would gain another major global digital-infrastructure asset. If the dollar remains the dominant currency within such an environment, the platform could also reinforce the international network effects that have supported the American currency for decades.

Historically, financial leadership belonged to countries that created the most efficient, trusted and widely used infrastructure for global capital. Britain achieved this through London and sterling. The United States achieved it through the dollar system, Wall Street and a network of international financial institutions. The next phase may increasingly be built around digital platforms in which information, artificial intelligence and money operate inside the same ecosystem. That is why X Money could prove to be much more than another Elon Musk business venture. In its most ambitious form, it represents an attempt to build an American financial infrastructure for a new digital era — an era in which competition for economic influence will no longer take place only between banks and states, but between global technological ecosystems capable of combining networks, intelligence and money.

Innovation Starts in Schools — Lessons from China

Innovation Starts in Schools — Lessons from China

Countries that want successful innovation systems must invest in science education — and, above all, in science teachers.

When governments discuss national innovation strategies, the conversation usually begins at the top of the pyramid: artificial intelligence, research universities, venture capital, technology parks, semiconductor factories and R&D budgets. China is increasingly working from the opposite direction as well. Its current education reforms are based on a much longer-term proposition: a country cannot build a sustainable innovation economy unless scientific thinking begins at school, years before a young person enters a university laboratory or technology company.

The scale of China's innovation investment is already enormous. In 2025, national expenditure on research and experimental development reached approximately RMB 3.93 trillion, or 2.80% of GDP, up from RMB 2.44 trillion and 2.36% of GDP in 2020. China now has the world's second-largest R&D expenditure, while its R&D workforce reached approximately 7.95 million full-time-equivalent researchers and personnel in 2025. Basic-research expenditure alone reached RMB 277.8 billion, up 11.1% in a single year. But the important change is that China is increasingly connecting this enormous investment at the top of the innovation system with reforms beginning at primary and secondary school level.

In January 2025, China's Ministry of Education issued a new Guideline for Science Education in Primary and Secondary Schools, transforming science education from an individual subject into a broader innovation-development system. The policy focuses not simply on memorising scientific knowledge, but on developing scientific reasoning, inquiry, experimentation, critical thinking and the ability to solve problems. Science is now taught throughout Years 1–9, while science in primary school and science-related subjects — including physics, chemistry and biology — in lower secondary education together account for approximately 8–10% of compulsory curriculum time. Information technology and practical labour education have also been strengthened as separate components of the curriculum.

The most revealing element of the reform, however, concerns teachers. China appears to recognise something many innovation strategies underestimate: advanced laboratories are of limited value if there is no skilled teacher capable of turning a child's curiosity into scientific thinking. The 2025 guideline calls for every primary school to have appropriately qualified science teachers and sets an ambitious direction towards having at least one science teacher with a master's degree and a science or engineering background in every primary school. It also requires science teachers to receive equal opportunities in performance assessment, promotion, professional recognition and career development, while regions are encouraged to create teacher-sharing centres so that stronger schools can support schools with weaker science provision.

China is also extending the concept of who can be a science educator. Schools are being encouraged to appoint at least one science vice-principal, drawing specialists not only from the school system but from universities, research institutes, science museums, technology organisations and companies. Scientists and engineers can therefore become directly involved in the educational environment of children. The objective is important: instead of keeping the worlds of school, university, research and industry separate until students are adults, China is attempting to connect them much earlier.

This represents a structural change in the innovation pipeline. The traditional model can be described as school → examination → university → employment. The emerging Chinese model increasingly resembles school curiosity → experimentation → scientific literacy → university and research → technological innovation → industrial application. The Ministry of Education is encouraging regional science-education centres, greater use of laboratories and science venues, cooperation with universities and research institutes, digital science resources and greater emphasis on experimental and inquiry-based work in student assessment. Science therefore becomes not merely something children study, but something they are expected to practise.

The reform is part of a much larger national transformation. The first full year of implementation of China's 2024–2035 Master Plan for Building a Leading Country in Education was 2025. A supporting three-year action programme introduced two rounds of pilots covering six categories and 41 reform initiatives. At university level, China is simultaneously restructuring programmes around emerging economic priorities. Since 2023, institutions have added 3,715 undergraduate programmes, 2,294 master's programmes and 1,129 doctoral programmes, with new disciplines increasingly concentrated in fields such as artificial intelligence, integrated circuits, the digital economy and interdisciplinary technologies.

The logic is clear: primary schools create scientific curiosity; secondary schools develop analytical and experimental ability; universities deepen specialist knowledge; research institutes generate discoveries; industry converts discoveries into products. Innovation is therefore treated as a pipeline rather than an isolated sector.

There are already measurable signs of a broader shift in scientific capacity. The share of Chinese citizens assessed as possessing scientific literacy reached 16.74% in 2025, compared with 15.37% in 2024. By the end of 2025, China had 6.318 million valid invention patents, while 1.04 million technology contracts signed during the year represented RMB 7.57 trillion in transaction value. These figures cannot be attributed to school reform alone — China's industrial scale, university system, research investment and technology policy all matter enormously — but they demonstrate the economic environment into which the education reforms are being integrated.

This is perhaps China's most important lesson for other countries. Governments often try to create innovation by financing the final stages: start-ups, research grants, accelerators and technology clusters. Those mechanisms are necessary, but they cannot compensate indefinitely for a weak educational foundation. The scientist, engineer, inventor or technology entrepreneur who will create a breakthrough in 2040 is probably sitting in a school classroom today.

The strategic investment therefore begins much earlier than venture capital. It begins with a child being allowed to ask why, with a laboratory experiment that produces an unexpected result, with a teacher who knows how to turn failure into investigation, and with an education system that treats curiosity as an economic resource rather than a distraction from examinations.

China's current reforms suggest a powerful formula for national development: Invest in science → invest in science teachers → develop scientific thinking early → connect schools with universities and industry → build a larger innovation talent pipeline → convert knowledge into technology and economic growth.

The decisive link in that chain may be the one that receives the least attention in many countries: the science teacher.

A nation can purchase computers, build laboratories and finance AI centres relatively quickly. Developing thousands of teachers capable of inspiring the next generation of scientists takes much longer. That is precisely why countries that want to compete in the innovation economy of the 2030s and 2040s must begin investing in them now.

X Money + Grok: How Artificial Intelligence Could Turn Money from a Passive Asset into an Intelligent Economic System

When a financial account is combined with a global digital identity

The most interesting aspect of X Money may not lie in the financial products Elon Musk is launching today, but in what could happen if X's financial infrastructure becomes deeply integrated with artificial intelligence. A digital wallet on its own is no longer revolutionary. Interest-bearing accounts, cards, cashback, instant transfers and direct deposits are already established features across financial markets. But when a financial account is combined with a global digital identity, a communications network and a powerful AI agent, the result belongs to a fundamentally different category. It is no longer simply an application for storing and transferring money. It becomes the potential foundation of an intelligent environment capable of analysing the financial position of an individual or company and acting in pursuit of defined economic objectives.

Financial management remains surprisingly fragmented even in an age of sophisticated technology. A highly digital entrepreneur may still use ten or more disconnected systems every day. Cash sits across several banks, investments are held with brokers, bills are paid through separate services, corporate expenses are recorded in accounting software, customers arrive through social networks, marketing budgets are managed in advertising dashboards and cross-border transfers pass through specialised intermediaries. The individual or management team must mentally assemble all these pieces into one financial picture. Banking software has become more convenient, but the fundamental operating model has hardly changed: the human being still opens applications, reviews data, selects transactions and manually issues commands to each separate system.

Artificial intelligence could change that model. Instead of “working inside a banking application”, users may increasingly describe financial objectives in ordinary language. An individual might tell an AI system: “Keep a reserve equal to six months of my normal expenditure, pay all regular bills automatically, alert me if spending in any category exceeds the budget by more than 20 per cent, and allocate surplus liquidity to the most attractive available options within my agreed risk profile.” A company might formulate a more complex instruction: “Maintain operational liquidity of £500,000, forecast cash flow for the next 90 days, monitor receivables, move liquidity between accounts where appropriate, and alert the board if the projected cash shortfall exceeds £100,000.” This would represent a shift from conventional automation towards contextual financial decision-making, in which the system does not merely execute predefined transactions but interprets objectives and determines the appropriate sequence of actions.

This is where the potential combination of X Money and Grok becomes strategically significant. X possesses a communications network containing the context of social and commercial relationships. Grok can interpret natural language, process data and reason across complex requests. X Money provides the beginnings of a financial execution layer. When these three components are connected, the theoretical result is a financial AI agent capable not only of providing advice, but of taking authorised action. Such deep integration is not yet a fully deployed feature of X Money, and there is an enormous regulatory, cybersecurity and technological distance between today's product and a genuinely autonomous financial agent. But the underlying architecture points logically in that direction.

For individuals, such a system could dramatically simplify personal finance. Instead of manually deciding how much money should remain in a current account, how much should move into savings, which bills are overdue and where spending has become unusual, AI could continuously analyse the entire financial picture. A person receiving multiple forms of income — salary, business revenue, investment returns and creator earnings — could have these treated as one dynamic cash-flow system. The AI could forecast future obligations, identify surpluses and recommend or execute an optimal allocation of capital. In conceptual terms, the bank account would cease to be a passive container for money and would become an active instrument for managing financial wellbeing.

For entrepreneurs, the transformation could be even more significant. Consider a small international company selling services in ten different countries. Today, managing its finances may require a bank, an accountant, a payment processor, a CRM platform, an invoicing service, an expense-management system, advertising platforms and forecasting software. An AI-native financial system could potentially combine data from all of these processes and begin managing not merely transactions, but commercial objectives. A chief executive could say: “Increase sales in Germany by 20 per cent this quarter, while keeping customer-acquisition costs below €80 and total marketing expenditure below €200,000.” If the AI also has authorised access to advertising systems, customer analytics and the company's financial account, it could theoretically allocate budgets between channels, stop underperforming campaigns, pay contractors and monitor returns on investment in near real time.

The truly revolutionary shift is therefore from managing transactions to managing objectives. Today, we tell a bank: “Transfer $10,000 to this supplier.” In the future, we may tell an intelligent financial system: “Ensure that 5,000 units are produced next month at the lowest viable cost while maintaining a liquidity reserve of at least 20 per cent.” The system could determine which suppliers need to be paid, which payments can be postponed, whether foreign currency should be exchanged and which expenses require human approval. Money would cease to be the final object of management and would instead become a resource that artificial intelligence allocates in pursuit of a broader economic objective.

For large corporations, the same model could eventually transform treasury management. Multinational companies control billions of dollars distributed across dozens of countries, currencies, bank accounts and subsidiaries. Thousands of employees and highly complex systems are involved in forecasting cash flows, managing foreign-exchange exposure, controlling balances and arranging short-term financing. AI with access to real-time information could potentially improve the speed and efficiency of this process. It could simultaneously analyse customer receipts, payroll schedules, tax obligations, foreign-exchange movements, counterparty debt and financing costs. Even a relatively modest improvement in the efficiency of global treasury operations can represent tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in annual economic value for a large corporation.

The integration of AI finance with a social platform creates another particularly interesting possibility. In a traditional bank, the financial transaction is almost always separated from the context in which the commercial decision was made. The bank sees the transfer but does not see the discussion, the negotiation or the relationship that produced it. Within X, that context could potentially exist inside the same environment. A customer sees a post, begins a conversation, receives a commercial proposal and completes a payment. For small businesses, this could create an almost continuous process from marketing to revenue. For AI, it creates a much richer information environment in which to interpret commercial intent.

This is why X Money can be viewed as part of a wider movement towards AI-native finance. The next generation of financial institutions may compete not only on interest rates, fees and transfer speed, but on the quality of financial intelligence they provide. The most valuable financial platform may not be the one offering the most attractive card design, but the one that understands a user's objectives most accurately, anticipates the financial consequences of decisions and executes a strategy with minimal friction.

Such a model would, however, create unprecedented risks. Once an AI system is authorised to control real money, an algorithmic error is no longer a mere inconvenience; it can become an immediate financial loss. Strict authorisation layers, transaction limits, transparency, auditability and instant human intervention will therefore be essential. In corporate settings, the delegation of authority would have to be carefully structured. AI might be permitted to execute transactions below a defined threshold automatically, while larger payments could require approval from a chief financial officer or multiple members of the board. Cybersecurity would become equally critical because compromising an intelligent financial agent could be significantly more dangerous than compromising a conventional banking application.

Despite these challenges, the strategic direction is clear. We are moving towards an era in which money will no longer exist merely as a passive digital balance waiting for instructions. It will increasingly become part of intelligent systems that continuously analyse economic conditions and assist users in achieving defined goals. If X manages to combine X Money, Grok, digital identity, social relationships and commerce successfully, Musk may create not simply a financial application, but one of the first mass-market operating systems for an AI-managed economy. In that world, the central question will no longer be how much money sits in an account, but how intelligently the financial agent connected to that account can deploy it.

University Discovery Tours 2027-2030

Explore Britain’s Best Universities Before You Apply

The World Educational, Science and Innovation Organisation is launching a 3-year programme of University Discovery tours focused on exploring British universities and the best educational practices of the 21st century.

Choosing a university is one of the most important educational and financial decisions a young person makes. Yet thousands of students still make that decision almost entirely online — comparing rankings, websites and photographs without experiencing the university, the city, the accommodation or the academic environment in person.

This is why University Discovery Tours by World Education, Science and Innovation Organisation have become such a valuable part of preparing to study in the United Kingdom.

The UK higher-education system enrolled approximately 3 million students in 2026, according to HESA. UCAS itself describes an open day as one of the best ways to experience university life because prospective students can explore the campus and local area, inspect facilities, and speak directly with staff and current students.

For international families, the idea can be taken further: instead of visiting one university, a carefully designed 2-3-5-7 or 10-day educational intensive tour can allow a student to compare several institutions, understand British admissions, experience different university cities and build a realistic shortlist before submitting a UCAS application.

UK EDUCATIONAL MAP

Britain should not be viewed as one university market. It is better understood as a collection of distinctive university zones, each offering a different academic culture, student lifestyle and career environment.

Sсhool of the Future: How One Founder Changed Education In 30+ Countries

How the “Educational LEGO” Model Is Driving a Revolution in Education

Dr OLGA AZAROVA

Founder & CEO | Education Innovator | Entrepreneur | PhD in Economics. Founder and developer of international educational innovations, including MINIBOSS & BIGBOSS BUSINESS SCHOOLS, LEONARDO, EINSTEIN and a broad ecosystem of specialised education franchises.
FORTUNE 500 MPW and UN SDGs Awards Laureate.

Education determines not only what people know, but what they are capable of creating. For decades, traditional education has successfully delivered literacy, academic knowledge and socialisation. Yet the modern economy increasingly demands something more: entrepreneurship, creativity, problem-solving, technological thinking, leadership and the ability to transform knowledge into real results.

According to the World Economic Forum, around 40% of workers’ core professional skills are expected to change by 2030. It is often said today that AI will replace the majority of current workers; consequently, training workers for factories and plants—and pouring all our educational resources into schools and universities for this purpose—is a pointless endeavor. Instead, we need to cultivate creators, entrepreneurs, and AI managers capable of driving significant global change, particularly in business processes.

Technology is evolving rapidly, while human capabilities such as creative thinking, resilience, curiosity, communication and leadership are becoming increasingly valuable.