This week, London Tech Week had its launch. We started on Sunday evening at the Royal Society with about 350 Indian companies that the British High Commission had brought over. To my surprise, every single one of the companies I spoke to was involved in AI and had already started employing local British staff or was about to.
For much of modern history, national power was measured in familiar ways: the size of an army, the reach of a navy, the strength of an economy, or the extent of territorial influence. The nineteenth century belonged to industrial powers. The twentieth century belonged to military and ideological superpowers. The twenty-first century increasingly belongs to those who can attract and retain talent.
In a multipolar world, where power is more dispersed and influence less concentrated, the competition between nations is changing. The most successful countries are not necessarily those with the largest populations or the biggest militaries. They are the countries that attract the brightest minds, the most ambitious entrepreneurs, and the most transformative technologies.
The reason is simple. Talent compounds.
Natural resources can be depleted. Military power can become obsolete. Capital can move. But human ingenuity generates new industries, new technologies, and new forms of wealth. The nation that becomes the preferred destination for global talent acquires an advantage that is difficult for competitors to replicate.
This helps explain why the United States has remained the world's leading economy for so long. It is not simply because of its market size. America has spent decades attracting scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs and innovators from every corner of the world. Many of its most successful companies were founded by immigrants or the children of immigrants. Silicon Valley is not merely an ecosystem of capital. It is an ecosystem of talent.
The same logic increasingly applies elsewhere.
India is producing one of the largest pools of technology talent in the world. China has invested heavily in scientific research and advanced manufacturing. Singapore has built a national strategy around attracting global expertise. The Gulf states are competing aggressively for entrepreneurs and innovators. This is why the arrival of more than 300 Indian technology companies at London Tech Week matters. These companies are not merely seeking customers. They are deciding where to build, where to hire, where to raise capital, and where to locate strategic decision-making.
For Britain, this presents a remarkable opportunity. The UK remains one of the few countries able to combine world-class universities, deep capital markets, trusted legal institutions, global connectivity, and a culture of innovation. Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial, UCL and Edinburgh continue to produce globally recognised research. London remains one of the world's great financial centres. English remains the language of global commerce.
These are not trivial advantages. They are strategic assets. The Office for Investment understands this. Modern economic competition is not simply about attracting factories or financial flows. It is about attracting ecosystems. Every successful founder brings employees, investors, suppliers and future entrepreneurs. Every successful technology company creates a network effect that extends far beyond its balance sheet.
In this sense, the competition for talent resembles the competition for territory in earlier centuries. Countries are no longer fighting primarily for land. They are competing for human capital. This shift has profound implications. Immigration policy becomes economic policy. University policy becomes industrial policy. Innovation policy becomes foreign policy.
The countries that understand this will thrive. Those that focus solely on traditional measures of power may discover that influence increasingly follows talent rather than territory. In a multipolar world, attracting global talent and technology is not merely a component of national power.
It is rapidly becoming its most important form.