In a world that feels more unpredictable by the day, who craves a crystal ball more than insurers? From climate disasters to political shocks, risk is everywhere – and for insurance companies, reading the future isn’t a luxury – it’s the business model.

To understand how they’re making sense of it all, Monocle sat down with Gilles Moëc, chief economist at AXA Group. The French insurance giant operates in some 50 countries and Moëc leads the in-house team tasked with spotting trouble before it hits.

He splits his time between Paris and London, and is disarmingly calm for a man who describes his job as “worrying constantly”. We asked him about climate policy, the return of Trump, AI and whether Europe’s big defence spending spree might actually be a good thing.

What does your day-to-day look like as chief economist?
Producing scenarios and worrying constantly is a definition of what I do. Insurers tend to stress about “what-ifs”. For instance, we pay a lot of attention to the global fight against climate change, which is one of the most critical drivers shaping the world economy today.

It’s now half a year into president Donald Trump’s second term. How worried are you about the backlash against renewable energy in the US?
The understanding back in October and November of last year was that although some of the Biden administration’s subsidies for solar and wind power would be eliminated, most of the decarbonisation efforts would continue because many of the projects were going to be implemented in Republican states. Now that we have the final version of the ‘big, beautiful bill’, we know that most projects are going to be dead in the water. During the first mandate, there were no big changes in the speed of decarbonisation. This time, it looks different.

Do you see environmental concerns and decarbonisation falling behind in the pecking order in Europe as well?
I’m quite optimistic about that, because economic, environmental and geopolitical interests are aligned across Europe. The US is now the biggest producer of oil and gas in the world. Every year, Europe spends between two to three per cent of its hard-earned GDP on importing fossil fuel from the rest of the world, which puts us in a fragile position, as we saw when the war broke out in Ukraine. So for us, decarbonisation isn’t just our contribution to the fight against climate change. It’s also a way to make progress towards geopolitical sovereignty, as it is a way to save money in the future. 

What are France’s economic strong suits?
Compared to many big European countries, France still has a demographic vitality that you can’t find elsewhere. The country produces a disproportionate number of global brands and companies. France is also one of the very few countries close to achieving energy sovereignty, and we can offer companies operating in the nation electricity costs that are more attractive than a lot of other locations.

What are the French economy’s weaknesses?
First, education. It used to be one of our key assets but the system has deteriorated, and it needs to be addressed because it concerns our long-term growth. The second is our ageing population. Even if we are in a better demographic position than many other European countries, we also have a fairly generous welfare system that doesn’t cope well with ageing. Taken together, these two issues are going to pose significant fiscal challenges that need to be dealt with.

How does AI fit into this picture?
France is in a fairly good position. There’s an established start-up culture and we already have an AI producer. The key is not only having companies that develop AI solutions but also ensuring their adoption. Digitalisation in general happened faster in France than in Germany, so I’m hopeful that, even if we are not among the top producers or innovators in the technique itself, we can at least adopt it quickly. You also need to have a government that allows exploration before regulating. In Europe – it’s not only a French problem – we very often have the reflex of regulating before we’ve seen implementation. This is where we need to take a hard look at ourselves. 

Do you see the growing consensus that Europe needs to invest massively in its defence industry as a positive economic development?
Some extra spending will have a positive multiplying effect on our economy. Military equipment manufacturers employ high-skilled blue-collar workers at a time when there are very few sectors that do. And there will most likely be some developments in productivity. 

The Apollo Program in the US, for example, had an effect not just on productivity through new research but it also forced American companies to follow some innovative management and quality-control techniques. Additional investment is not going to change the face of the European economy but it can benefit it.