The AI Divide: A New Great Divergence Is Approaching

The artificial intelligence revolution is global—but its rewards are not shared equally.

“If the right decisions are not made today, artificial intelligence could widen inequalities between countries. This might happen faster and more deeply than the 19th-century Industrial Revolution.”

This stark warning opens the United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) latest report, The New Great Divergence. It is a document clearly written to leave a mark on history.

For decades, the world believed in a story of convergence. People thought globalization, trade, and technology would gradually allow low- and middle-income countries to catch up. These countries were expected to close the gap with high-income economies.

That optimistic narrative has been faltering for some time. With the arrival of AI as a new technological threshold, the challenge has become even more severe. Instead of narrowing gaps between countries, the risk today is a rapidly widening divide—faster, more structural, and far more persistent than before.

UNDP’s warning is unambiguous: the decisions not taken today will shape the inequality map of future generations.

The New Anatomy of Inequality: Infrastructure, Skills, Governance

The data is striking. In high-income countries, nearly two-thirds of the population regularly uses AI tools. In low-income countries, that figure remains below 5 percent. Income-based gaps in mobile internet usage approach 40 percent, while in some regions, women’s access to digital tools lags by as much as 50 percent.

UNDP’s core message is clear: the AI revolution is global, but access to its benefits is profoundly unequal. Countries are not starting from the same baseline. At one end are strong infrastructure, large-scale investment, capable institutions, and advanced skill sets. At the other are fragmented connectivity, fragile governance, and limited access.

In short, AI is no longer an equalizing force—it is rapidly becoming a divisive one.

Who Captures the Gains?

The report estimates that AI could generate an additional $1 trillion in GDP across the Asia-Pacific region over the next decade. Yet a very small group will likely accrue the lion’s share of this value. This group includes the United States, China, and perhaps the EU’s core economies. These are the entities that control chips, model development, data-center capacity, investment flows, and regulatory power.

Developing countries supply the data, provide the users, and absorb the risks. A handful of global powers capture the value, set the standards, and control the rules.

Does this not resemble a new form of technological colonialism?

For humanity, this is a familiar equation—echoing the “Great Divergence” of the 19th century triggered by the Industrial Revolution. UNDP’s reference to a “technological dependency spiral” is therefore no coincidence.

Rule-Makers and Rule-Takers

The world is increasingly splitting into two camps: countries that develop and govern AI models, and those that import and consume them. The first group designs the technology and writes the rules. The second buys the systems, hands over its data, becomes exposed to embedded cultural biases—and captures only a fraction of the economic value.

Countries like Türkiye sit closer to this second category. This is not destiny—yet. But if it becomes permanent, it risks turning the middle-income trap into a digitally reinforced concrete structure.

The Geopolitics of Artificial Intelligence

According to the report, 95 percent of global content flows through US-based platforms. Roughly 70 percent of large language models operate primarily in English. Three-quarters of the world’s data centers are concentrated in just ten high-income countries. Security frameworks, ethical standards, and governance norms are overwhelmingly drafted in these same geographies.

This is no longer just a technological issue. It concerns the infrastructure of truth, cultural framing, and ethical norms. Risk management is also involved. These aspects are shaped largely by those who already hold power.

Conclusion: The Window Is Still Open—for Now

UNDP’s report is a clear alarm bell. A second great global divergence is approaching.

The future will be shaped less by technology itself than by the collective choices of governments, businesses, and societies. To prevent fragmentation and turn AI’s potential into genuine social benefit, two policy pillars stand out.

The first is hard infrastructure: affordable devices, reliable connectivity, adequate computing capacity, and secure digital identity systems.
The second is soft capacity: skills development, strong institutions, transparent rules, competitive ecosystems, and governance frameworks that enable meaningful participation.

Ultimately, the goal must be to anchor the AI agenda in human development and societal benefit. If achieved, artificial intelligence could become not the engine of an unequal prosperity. Instead, it could be a cornerstone of a more just and inclusive future.

Difficult? Yes.
Impossible? No.