The Global Development Formula

Abstract

Development remains a central concept for policy design and implementation aimed at improving the quality of life of the world population, despite a manifest rise in neoliberalist economic growth policy strategic guidance rationales. In accepting the relevance of development processes, this paper proposes a global development formula embracing four main pillars and their respective components: (i) global governance; (ii) global wealth; (iii) global resources; and (vi) global sustainability. Ultimately, this global development perspective presents a more comprehensive and holistic lens than current development visions to demonstrate the development status of territories at all territorial scales. By using existing indexes associated with the proposed main pillars of development, the research presents a novel global development index for 2020.

1. Introduction

We all live in a truly interdependent and networked world, united by a global economy [1]. Crucially, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has, once again, demonstrated how interdependent many nation-states are on cross-border commuting and international trade to function properly [2]. The path toward globalization is, however, neither inevitable nor easy, but it can bring enormous benefits to all, even though there is overwhelming evidence that it has failed to live up to its full potential [3]. As Coe and Yeung [4] maintain, the effects of globalization on uneven developmental outcomes result from organizationally fragmented and spatially dispersed global production networks. Moreover, Michie and Smith [5] point out that globalized markets have made developing countries particularly vulnerable to variations in capital flows.

In essence, uneven development trends are a mark of globalization, which are in opposite alignment with the European Union (EU) territorial cohesion policy rationale [6,7]. Put simply, globalization is known to favor certain territories and social classes while neglecting others within national boundaries [3]. As Amin [8] p. 1 notes, “history since antiquity has been characterized by the unequal development of regions. But it is only in the modem era that polarization has become the immanent by-product of the integration of the entire planet into the capitalist system”. However, these globalization processes verified by trade, financial transactions, and production are not yet seen in labor mobility, which continues to be largely limited by border controls [9].

Most fundamentally, the world is faced with mounting and urgent global development challenges toward an imagined future characterized by striving institutions and individuals [10]. For that, the territorial development process, at the global level, requires significant changes, not only in terms of economic thinking but also in social institutions and social attitudes [11]. In this regard, the work of Amartya Sen [12] has highlighted the importance of development processes for freedom, improving capabilities, reducing inequalities, and promoting democracy, among other issues, by counterbalancing the mainstream western imaginary of the development problematic [13].

In a nutshell, this paper explores and discusses the advantages of thinking global when designing and implementing territorial development processes aimed at tackling global development challenges that benefit all citizens, no matter where they live or their socioeconomic status. The general purpose of the paper is to trigger a multi-disciplinary discussion to achieving the most effective formula for global development. It adds to the existing literature by presenting a more comprehensive global development index than the existing one, which can be used to assess the degree of development of selected territories: from local to global. Its innovative conceptual approach is supported by the interplay of four fundamental pillars of global development and their respective components: (i) global governance; (ii) global wealth; (iii) global resources; and (vi) global sustainability.

The paper is organized as follows: the following section summarizes the main global development challenges as a basis to design a global development formula (GDF). The next section presents the proposed formula for positive global territorial development with its four main pillars and associated components. These are then further explained in the following four sections. A subsequent section presents a global development index supported by indicators related to the four main pillars. The last section concludes the paper.

2. The (Main) Current Global Development Challenges

In a perfect world, humankind would have full control of nature, the capacity to use and produce essential resources in a sustainable way, live a healthy and quality life in a democratic and safe political environment. On a crowded planet (around 7.9 billion inhabitants by April 2021) with a rising population, however, the main challenge is to produce more food and energy and provide fresh and safe water in a sustainable manner while mitigating and adapting to climate change [14,15]. Sachs [16], for instance, claims that the projected rise of the world population (9.7 billion by 2050), coupled with massive environmental dangers such as the loss of biodiversity, climate change, fragility of peace, mega-pollution, and a dramatic change in economic inequality, present some of the main current global challenges.

What if it was possible to control or bypass the effects of climate and natural disasters? The reality is that human history is replete with several concrete examples of human conquest over nature, at least partial. Examples can be seen in the taming of rivers (dams), the mitigation of earthquake disasters (aseismic structures), forest fires (forest management), cold waves (street heating), drought periods (water reserves and desalination plants), etc. [17].

In an ideal scenario, humankind would not be affected by any natural phenomena (Figure 1) and would live sustainably without any kind of pollution. Everyone would live in a free, democratic, and safe world, with free access to services of general interest, including health, education, and transport [18]. Moreover, an ideal world would provide all human beings with a high degree of quality of life [19] with food, energy, and water security, as well as a protected and biodiverse ecosystem [15]. This intended reality is beset by many difficulties and challenges that can be summarized in the following items:

• A: Controlling climate change: leading to average rises in global temperatures, changes in rainfall, melting of polar caps leading to ocean rise;
• B: Taming natural and cosmic hazards: geophysical (earthquakes, landslides, tsunamis, and volcanic activity), hydrological (avalanches and floods), climatological (extreme temperatures, drought, and wildfires), meteorological (cyclones and storms/wave surges), or biological (disease epidemics and insect/animal plagues); and comets and meteorites;
• C: Reducing pollution: land (solid waste including plastics, aerosol loading), air (burning fuels, release of dangerous gases leading to poisoning and ozone depletion, ocean acidification, and dumping of plastics in rivers and oceans leading to food poisoning), water (poisoning chemicals and metals, sewage, pesticides and fertilizers from agricultural runoff-eutrophication-polluting land and water resources), noise (over and underwater noise pollution), and light (skyglow). This can be achieved by making a clear turn to renewable and non-polluting sources of energy [20] and the use of green vehicles [21]. However, concerning the latter, there is a huge challenge in improving battery technology for safer, higher capacity, reliability and long-lasting batteries [22];
• D: Natural resources management and biodiversity protection: control the overuse of freshwater and inefficient food production [23], promote a circular and green economy [24], invert deforestation and forest degradation, biodiversity loss, and ecosystem degradation, overfishing, reduction in soil quality, and fall in the quantity of available water;
• E: Ending poverty and promoting territorial cohesion: As long as there is enough food, water, and energy for a dignified standard of living for everyone, there is no justification for overall poverty. This requires an appropriate distribution of wealth for all those willing to produce their fair share to the global community. Through this, every state should have similar chances of providing high standards of quality of life for their citizens;
• F: Establishing a one world, one system paradigm: there is only one species of human being and one world. Existing artificial national boundaries (territorialism) tend to foment poverty rather than positive progress [25]. Indeed, most of humankind’s main challenges have a global or transnational character [26]. Moreover, the presence of national borders creates unnecessary obstacles to the daily lives of countless citizens [27].

There have been some attempts to systematize models, as is the case of the doughnut model, a global development model designed to be a new compass for guiding humanity this century. It proposes “a social foundation of well-being that no one should fall below, and an ecological ceiling of planetary pressure that we should not go beyond. Between the two lies a safe and just space for all” [28]. In short, the doughnut model sets, in its inner ring, of 12 basic components for a sound social foundation: water, food, energy, health, peace and justice, political voice, housing, gender equality, education, income and work, social equity, and networks. In its outer ring, it advances nine environmental challenges: climate change, acidification, chemical pollution, freshwater withdrawals, biodiversity loss, air pollution, ozone layer depletion, land conversion, and nitrogen and phosphorous loading. Despite this broad overview toward a safe and just space for humanity, coupled with a regenerative and distributive economy, the doughnut model does not consider governance and planning components of development. Moreover, it does not contemplate cosmic and natural hazards, which can have a profound impact on global development trends.

In a similar manner, the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), signed by almost two hundred countries, represent one of the most powerful political development visions in history by addressing critical development issues surrounding social, economic, and environmental progress [29]. Considered by Sachs [15] as a potential historic decision, and a powerful way to move to a new global sustainable development agenda capable of engaging the world community in a new impetus and social mobilization, the 17 UN SDGs cover basic social, economic, environmental and governance challenges to: (1) end extreme poverty; (2) end hunger and promote sustainable development; (3) ensure healthy lives for all; (4) ensure quality education and lifelong learning; (5) achieve gender equality and empower women and girls; (6) ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation; (7) ensure access to affordable, sustainable modern energy; (8) promote sustainable economic growth and decent work for all; (9) build resilient infrastructure and promote sustainable industrialization; (10) reduce inequalities within and among countries; (11) make cities and human settlements sustainable; (12) ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns; (13) take urgent action to combat change and its impacts; (14) conserve the oceans and marine resources; (15) protect and restore terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests and halt biodiversity loss; (16) promote peaceful and inclusive societies; and (17) strengthen the means of implementation of the SDGs. However, despite presenting a more detailed and wider coverage of crucial development components when compared with the doughnut model, the SGDs not only lack policy support for spatial planning processes [30] but also do not consider measures that cope with potential cosmic and natural hazards.

3. The Formula for Global Positive Territorial Development Favoring All

For Potter et al. [31] p. 6, “progressive and effective development represents change that is intended to lead to the betterment of people and places around the globe.” Development processes imply positive changes that can take three different forms, according to Knox and Marston [32] p. 286: (i) changes in the structure of the region’s economy (for example, a shift from agriculture to manufacturing); (ii) changes in forms of economic organization within the region (for example, a shift from socialism to free-market capitalism); and (iii) changes in the availability and use of technology within the region. It is important to mention, however, that development vistas tend to change over time, as they are often shaped by debate, critique, evaluation, and experience [33]. The more holistic notion of territorial development refers to processes of positive trends in indicators related to economic competitiveness, social cohesion, environmental sustainability, territorial governance, and spatial planning in a given territory [34]. Although it has several different meanings, the notion of territoriality refers mainly to the control of boundaries and resources within a given territory [35].

In the face of mounting development challenges, humankind has crucial decisions to make. The first is the “business as usual” path. Here, the current territorialism paradigm will continue to prevail, with each country making its own political choices amid an ineffective UN [16]. The end results will most likely be the continuation of increasing global warming with its consequential impacts on sea level, with most estimates predicting a global mean sea-level rise below two meters (m) by the end of this century. This will affect up to 630 million (M) people that “live on land below projected annual flood levels for 2100, and up to 340 M for mid-century, versus roughly 250 M at present. We estimate one billion people now occupy land less than 10 m above current high tide lines, including 230 M below 1 m” [36] p. 4844.

Moreover, deforestation (carbon dioxide emissions associated with the loss of aboveground biomass) are estimated to be around 2.24 and 0.26 tons per ha [37]; loss of biodiversity, with the health of ecosystems on which we and all other species depend, are deteriorating more rapidly than ever, increasing pollution. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 4.2 M deaths annually can be attributed to outdoor air pollution [38], the rise of extremism and nationalism [39], and socioeconomic inequality [40], and could lead to an increasingly chaotic world.

An intermediary global development scenario (the patch remedy approach) would see increasing global coordination toward a more sustainable, inclusive, deterritorialized, and democratic policy approach by most countries. This approach would follow an effective implementation of the 17 UN SDGs, again with effective supervision from a reformed UN [16]. In the end, most of the aforementioned global menaces could be partially mitigated, at least in some parts of the world. However, this approach is beset by many difficulties, starting from the potential refusal from some countries led by populist and/or extremist movements, which would place their private interests above the common and global good. Secondly, a lack of a full and effective global approach to solving the main global challenges would probably lead, for instance, to increasing mass migration to wealthy nations, following current trends that have already caused great hardship and trauma as well as loss of life for those attempting to migrate [41].

An ideal global development scenario, in our view, would follow a global governance approach supporting a one world, one system paradigm [2] by supporting global wealth distribution, aimed at providing high standards of living for all who are willing to work. Moreover, this global approach would require effective implementation of a global sustainable development approach [15] coupled with the wise global management of critical resources for the survival of the human species [42]. When compared with previous development models, the “web of global development model” (Figure 2) is essentially forged with a global vision lens. Most instructive in this regard is the consideration for development components that are commonly disregarded by other development models, such as the need to address cosmic and natural disasters, the management of crucial resources, and the proposal for increasing sustainable and protective (dome) urbanization.

The primary argument for a proposed GDF, presented in this paper, is supported by the need to simplify a commonly complex interplay of factors that are at the base of positive development trends in a given territory. In this case, the GDF incorporates components for four main global development dimensions (G—Governance + R–Resources + E–Environment + W–Wealth), presented below in a necessarily simplified manner. The underlying idea is to consider, as much as possible, indicators in each of the presented components when analyzing global development trends and when forging global development strategies.

• G: Global governance:
  • One global governance system: with many nations, regions, and cities;
  • Informed, transparent, participatory and accountable democracy: the meritocracy system, corporate responsibility, media freedom and the fight against corruption;
  • Administrative capacity and multilevel governance: effective and efficient use of public funds;
  • Global peace and justice: global disarmament and prevention of tax evasion;
  • Global planning for a sustainable world: green cities, green energy, vertical green farms.
• R: Security of essential global resources
  • Water security: water purification plants, desalinization plants in areas of reduced precipitation;
  • Food security: circular and green food production in urban areas: vertical hydroponic farms, no soil, water efficiency, LED illumination, no pesticides;
  • Energy security: production of renewable energy mainly in city spaces (solar, wind);
  • Sustainable mining: for essential minerals;
  • Integrated food production systems: aquaculture integrated with vertical green farms in cities.
• E: Global sustainability, mobility, and peace
  • An urban world: concentrate urban populations in urban green spaces;
  • Green mobility at all territorial levels: electric and hydrogen vehicles;
  • The dome city: protect human living spaces from natural disasters and climate elements;
  • Climate, cosmic and natural disaster control: planting new forests for CO₂ reduction, earthquake-proof buildings, cosmic protection systems;
  • Enlarge natural protected areas: both on land and in oceans for increasing biodiversity protection.
• W: Global wealth distribution
  • State control of the services of general interest: free education, health, public transports;
  • Price control of essential products: water, bread, milk, vaccines, and oil;
  • Global control of wages: ending poverty and mitigating wealth disparities (the Nordic system);
  • Social inclusion: labor mobility, respect for minorities and diversity;
  • Safety: unemployment protection, global security.

4. The Global Governance Challenges

First introduced in the early 1990s [43], the notion of global governance, often applied to international regulations and formal agreements [44], underscores the challenge of deterritorialization [45] or deterritorialism [2]. In other words, its first essential component is based on the potential advantages for humankind of a “one world, one system governance paradigm”, which encompasses a similar currency, fiscal, price, salary, and social security systems, among others [2]. As Piketty [46] reminds us, the potential advantages of implementing a progressive tax on capital to invert development inequalities would require a high level of international cooperation and regional political integration, which cannot be reached via the current territorialism paradigm. Likewise, a recent OECD report [47] postulates that achieving progress on the UN SDGs would require governments to work across policy areas in an environment commonly subjected to economic and social pressures, which often crowd out longer-term strategic policy visions. Indeed, with the intensification of globalization, there is a growing need to create a more comprehensive, coherent, and effective governance system at the global level [48]. Crucially, as Sachs [16] reminds us, global governance for sustainable development requires, among others, a tremendous amount of consensus building. Hence the need for a more effective UN for global development.

The acceptance of “a one world, one system governance paradigm” looks utopic, especially in the current pandemic (COVID-19) and nationalistic times (2020). However, if its main advantages to all regions are appropriately sold, it might come full circle one day, in the not too distant future. For instance, who would not like to live in a world without the costs and negative impacts associated with trade tariffs, fiscal paradises (tax havens collectively cost governments between $500 billion USD and $600 USD billion a year in lost corporate tax revenue [49] and currency exchange [50]? Similarly, it is not difficult to anticipate the high costs for citizens who need to use different national legal-administrative systems, including social security and fiscal systems [51], not to speak of the advantages related to the sudden elimination of trade deficits and national debts.

The fact is that, by now, despite pinpoint surges of neoliberalism, the state remains fundamental to any forms of economic governance [52]. The proposed “one world one system governance paradigm”, however, does not imply the removal of nation-states and the importance of the regional and local level as fundamental governance levels. On the contrary, the implementation of subsidiarity [16] and multilevel governance [53] principles are key to implementing an effective and efficient global governance system [54]. This rationale relates to the well-known notion, “think globally, act locally”, from the co-founder of Sony (Akio Morita), from which the term “glocalization” originates [1]. Crucially, global institutions can provide an appropriate response to interdependence in a global context [55] via this multilevel governance approach since several global issues are still played out politically at the level of the nation-state [56].

For this multilevel governance to work, however, an informed, transparent, participatory, and accountable democratic system must be applied at all administrative levels, with a clear affirmative commitment to sustainable and inclusive development [16]. In this regard, some suggest that, in the future, there are potential risks associated with the end of democracy [57]. Hence, the selection of political leaders and administration officials requires a meritocratic selection process [58] and also a high level of education among voters [59]. Rist [13] goes further when invoking the need to change our model of society in claiming that, since our governing model that was able to create illusions for voters for barely two centuries, has reached its limits.

In a similar fashion, the UN needs to become more flexible, effective, and operative [60] to provide a wider response to institutional interdependency [61], in which public administration bodies can no longer be confined simply to a discussion of government agencies [62]. This complex interplay between global and local levels also requires the acknowledgment that even at the global level, the dynamics of power and contestation are inseparable from everyday material life [63]. Hence, it is expected that globalization will affect governance processes and be affected by them [64].

Ultimately, global governance should be a more effective vehicle to provide positive human development globally [65] by ensuring the effective implementation of “smart” global policies [66]. This implies, among others, a sound interaction with civil society organizations [62], and anticipating existing global tensions [67], the support for sound administrative capacity [68], the implementation of transnational [69] and global spatial planning for a green and sustainable future [70]. In addition, fundamental is the need for a common language that everyone understands (and can read and write), used in all fundamental official documents. In this arena, there are strong arguments for accepting English as the global language [71].

5. The Global Resources Management Challenges

As the world population is rapidly reaching eight billion, humankind is confronted with the real possibility of the scarcity of essential resources to human life such as water, food, energy, and mineral resources. Viewed in retrospect, the fall of most prior world civilizations was often impelled by failures in delivering some of these fundamental resources, such as food and water [72]. The salient point is that a global response to secure access to such resources, in the context of rising demographics, is firmly justifiable in view of the inequality of their distribution globally. Moreover, as Sachs [16] p. 236 claims, to attain food security coupled with biodiversity conservation, there is a need “to integrate our understanding of agriculture, healthcare, land use, carbon management, energy systems, and biodiversity conservation”.

Even today, despite all technological achievements, no region is fully resilient if it does not control access to food, water, and energy [73]. As regards water, on average, per capita use of water is around 38 L per day, yet more than one billion people lack access to sufficient supplies of freshwater. Furthermore, even though water is considered a renewable resource, the effects of climate change are affecting the hydrological cycle in many parts of the world [74]. As stated in a recent report, “climate change affects ecosystems, human societies and economies in a variety of ways, and water is the primary medium through which these impacts are felt” [75] p. vi. One way to mitigate water scarcity is through better integration of rivers [76], increasing efficiency in its use and distribution [77], and the use of water desalinization plants in water scarcity areas [78].

Amid a growing population scenario, a major and complex global challenge is how the world is going to feed itself [15]. For all its fine aspirations, to provide everyone with an appropriate diet by the mid-XXI century, the current food production will need to double. Yet, the issue of food insecurity and malnutrition already affects around 100 M inhabitants [74]. More worrying still, “many countries are now facing the triple burden of malnutrition where undernutrition and micronutrient deficiencies co-exist with over-nutrition and obesity. This reflects uneven material production and consumption, and socio-economic inequalities, both within and between countries” [79] p. xxix. In more detail, recent estimates point to 922.7 M at risk of hunger, with almost a third living in “South Asia, with India representing almost a quarter of the global total. Sub-Saharan Africa came in second behind South Asia, with 21.8% of the world’s at-risk population. East Asia was third with 18.9% of the world’s at-risk population, with China representing one-sixth of the world’s total” [80] p. 46.

Often defined in terms of food availability, food access, and food use, food security not only requires a more productive but also less environmentally destructive agriculture. One potential solution is to shift traditional agriculture practices into vertical farms in which “plants can be grown in rafts which float on the surface of beds of nutrient solution (…) or using a thin layer of nutrient solution in the rootzone” [81] p. 277. If located in urban areas, these agricultural systems will likely reduce transport costs, thus adding to the advantages of not requiring soil and pesticides, and, in addition, vertical farming is unaffected by climate conditions [82]. Moreover, food production could benefit from advances in molecular plant breeding [83] and hydroponics [84].

Besides water and food security, global development requires energy security, understood as a means to avoid energy supply disruption [85]. Based on a recent British Petroleum (BP) report, increasing energy consumption in past years sends yet another warning alarm that the world is on an unsustainable path [86]. Conversely, the same report presents positive trends in the growth in power generation led by renewable energy sources. This energy shift toward a green and clean power supply “is fundamental to virtually all visions of a decarbonised global economy. This requires the rapid transition away from coal, oil and gas towards renewables and nuclear. Clean electricity can then power vehicles, heating and industry as a major route to decarbonising these sectors” [87] p. 5.

The use of renewable sources of energy reaps many environmental and socioeconomic benefits as it produces minimum or zero secondary wastes and can address global socioeconomic needs [88]. More importantly, however, is the possibility of contributing to secure energy security via the production of renewable energy in urban areas, as is the case of the urban SUNstainability approach [89].

Also important is the need to follow sustainable mining and resource management [90]. As in crucial food elements and water supplies, the price of critical minerals for global development cannot be subject to market speculation. Most fundamentally, the mining industry needs to be highly regulated as it is known to exploit workers and environmental vulnerabilities. Moreover, and according to the World Bank [91], over 3 billion T of metals and minerals will be needed by 2050 to scale up wind, solar and geothermal power, and energy storage. According to a report by United States Geologic Survey [92], there are 35 minerals that are critical to our society. Here again, a global governance approach would eliminate the constraints of accessing some of these minerals due to, for example, national trade blockages.

6. The Global Sustainability Challenges

There is only one Earth. In accepting this, humankind needs to preserve it for future generations as a sustainable living place for all species. This concern and realization for the adverse environmental impacts of human activities have been, for several decades now, part of the mainstream policy rationale at all territorial levels, including the UN [93]. The extent and the rate the natural environment is being destroyed across the world and the negative impacts on biodiversity have been revealed [74]. Since natural ecosystems do not respect national boundaries, a global sustainability approach has the potential advantage of being more effective and ultimately efficient in inverting unsustainable environmental global trends. It is crucial to point out, however, that achieving sustainability trends can be problematic as humankind tends to view itself as superior to other species. If humans do not re-establish a more harmonious relationship with this planet, their survival is at stake [94].

Human activities are, indeed, putting unprecedented stress on Earth’s life-giving systems [28]. However, besides the need to protect nature and secure biodiversity, which can be accomplished by enlarging natural protected areas, both at land and sea [95], the survival of our species requires pro-active policy measures aimed at effectively mitigating the effects of natural disasters [96] through the use of existing technological innovations such as earthquake-proof buildings; and climate change, such as (re)forestation measures, which are less technologically driven. Promoting smart, clean energy policies, a carbon market, changes in consumption with more meat, green transportation, among others, can also contribute in the immediate and long-term to address challenges of climate change. In addition, crucial is the need to follow integrated sustainable urban development approaches, which take into consideration not only the need to support green economic activities but also social inclusion, environmental sustainability, urban governance, and planning activities [97].

However, what if all human beings could live in a protected and green urban environments, such as a dome city, which would not only be protected from natural hazards but also would be self-sufficient in food, water, and energy? As Fitzgerald [98] p. 11 postulates, “cities consume 75 percent of the world’s energy and produce 80 percent of its greenhouse gas emissions. Paradoxically, they are also the greenest places on earth when it comes to efficiency, because of their density”. This reality makes cities the perfect platform to instigate green and sustainable development policies.

7. The Global Wealth Challenges

The underlying rationale behind a global wealth system is based on the potential advantages for humankind of having a universal wage, price, and services of general interest systems. The essential foundation for this proposal is the possibility to provide all citizens and regions with the same conditions for a high standard of living and development. Through this, the availability of cheap labor for foreign investment enterprises would be greatly reduced. In this domain, the advantages of a universal basic income are already widely explored in the literature [99], in particular, to reduce global inequality [100], thus counteracting the globalization outsourcing processes, which have led to an increasing separation from decision-making in local communities [3]. This general services provision is particularly important in a context marked by growth rates of population vis-a-vis a lagging economic growth rate. As such, “even as the percentages of people living in poverty are falling, the absolute number is rising” [101] p. 10.

For a start, all human beings should be entitled to free access to services of general interest as vital means to meeting basic territorial development goals. These include access to social security and assistance, health, education, child and long-term care, social housing, and public transportation [102]. For instance, regarding health, there is not only a growing recognition that health issues go beyond borders, thus requiring intergovernmental cooperation for an effective response but also a realization of the importance of NGOs and the private sector in global health governance decision-making [103].

In a complementary manner, global wealth distribution would benefit from the control of prices on key products for consumers, such as staple food, energy, public transport. Likewise, the process of social inclusion, social mobility, and tolerance would need to be effectively implemented to place all human beings at the same level in all society domains [104]. In the end, the proposed global salary and price model, with the use of the same currency, would place all human beings and regions on the same competitiveness platform, thus potentially stimulating innovation processes for global competitiveness rather than current global human inequality trends.

Finally, a global security system would provide the necessary base for the global economy to work. It would be controlled at different territorial levels but with similar and comprehensive laws and rules. Global security includes providing humanitarian assistance and building security, justice, and law enforcement institutions to improve stability at all territorial levels [105,106]. Moreover, security, being a central human concern, includes numerous elements that would need to be considered, such as “economic security, national security, energy security, nuclear security, cyber security, democratic and civil rights security, personal security and health care security as some examples” [106] p. 45.

8. Measuring Global Development

The terms “global” and “development” imply a complex scientific analysis of a myriad of indicators. The good news is that many entities/organizations worldwide have already set out to produce comparable indicators at the national level that, at least partially, can provide an important contribution to measuring global development trends. With this in mind, this short section presents a global development index for 2020 based on scores from existing indexes that were normalized and standardized based on the methodology used to create the UN Human Development Index [40].

In short, the scores from the UN Human Development Index were used to provide a current picture of global wealth, and this index incorporates crucial indicators such as GDP and life expectancy at birth. For analyzing global governance, two indexes were used: Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index and Vision of Humanity’s Global Peace Index. For measuring global sustainability, Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy’s Environmental Performance Index was used. This includes 32 performance indicators across 11 issue categories. Data related to the urbanization rate of each country was added to complement this index. Finally, for the analysis of global resources, two indexes were used: The World Energy Trilemma Index (World Energy Council) and the Water Stress by Country Index (World Resources Institute). The combination of all these sources of data provided a not so unfamiliar picture of unbalanced global development favoring wealthy countries (Figure 3 and

Table 1. Top 20 Global Development Index (2020) scores.

Country	WEA2020	GOV2020	RES2020	SUS2020	GDI2020
Denmark	0.97	0.99	0.91	0.98	0.96
Norway	1.00	0.94	0.90	0.90	0.93
New Zealand	0.95	1.00	0.88	0.87	0.93
Iceland	0.99	0.86	0.90	0.93	0.92
Switzerland	1.00	0.96	0.77	0.88	0.90
Finland	0.97	0.95	0.71	0.93	0.89
Sweden	0.98	0.95	0.68	0.95	0.89
Netherlands	0.98	0.91	0.63	0.94	0.87
Austria	0.94	0.86	0.91	0.76	0.87
Canada	0.95	0.87	0.79	0.84	0.86
Germany	0.98	0.89	0.65	0.86	0.85
Luxembourg	0.93	0.87	0.45	1.00	0.81
Japan	0.93	0.83	0.54	0.94	0.81
United Kingdom	0.96	0.84	0.49	0.94	0.81
Slovenia	0.93	0.67	0.93	0.67	0.80
Ireland	1.00	0.81	0.65	0.73	0.80
France	0.90	0.74	0.60	0.91	0.79
Uruguay	0.75	0.78	0.87	0.74	0.78
Australia	0.98	0.86	0.34	0.90	0.77
Belgium	0.95	0.85	0.30	0.97	0.77

Note: WEA-Wealth/GOV-Governance/RES-Resources/SUS2020-Sustainability/GDI-Global Development Index: Source: own elaboration.

). What is uncontestable, however, is the lack of comparable global data on many components of the “web of global development”, which, for instance, can measure human mitigation of the effects of natural events and extra-terrestrial events of nature and the cosmos.

9. Conclusions

This article proposes a GDF based on four main pillars and their respective components. In contrast to existing global development paradigms such as the UN SDGs, the proposed approach is supported by a more futuristic and comprehensive global development vision dominated by global governance, global wealth distribution, global and sound resource management, and a global sustainable development ideal favoring all human beings. It is futuristic because it supports a global development paradigm fostered by green and protected (dome) cities, self-sufficient in energy, food, and water. It is comprehensive because it considers components such as one system for all countries and also the need for global action to mitigate the potential negative impacts of natural and cosmic disasters.

In detail, a global governance approach would require the acceptance of one global system that would include a common currency, fiscal and social security system, and language for official purposes. The potential advantages of this unified system would be that the costs associated with the presence of different national systems, as well as trade tariffs, would be mitigated. This one world one system paradigm would not undermine the principle of subsidiarity as there would be a role for nation-states and regions. Nevertheless, the rules of global competition would be far fairer since prices and wages would be standardized globally.

This tentative and preliminary road map on how the proposed global governance prism can be installed in practice would require a step-by-step process. To be effective, it would need to be initially supported via already established global entities, such as the UN-driven international agreements or contracts, related to all the proposed pillars for global development. More particularly, in an initial phase, four panels of international experts on each global development pillar would prepare a feasible strategy to implement the GDF via an open method of coordination, which could then be debated and voted on by all nations.

Another potential advantage of the proposed global development approach is the possibility to correct socioeconomic inequalities that would have profound implications in drastically reducing global crime and insecurity levels. Moreover, this GDF proposes the concentration of the large majority of human beings in areas protected from cosmic and natural hazards. These sustainable urban areas, known as dome cities, would produce their own (renewable) energy, food in vertical farms and follow a circular economy rationale. In this context, the protection of natural areas would be expanded, with direct positive impacts on biodiversity and environmental protection.

The proposed global development scenario would have to be accepted against the current development and geopolitical trends, favoring regionalism and nationalism. However, if most people were able to scrutinize the benefits of this global development approach to their own lives, we are convinced that, in a not-so-distant future, this approach would be adopted in a step-by-step process. The truth is, the current global environmental and socioeconomic trends are simply not sustainable for humankind and the pure implementation of the UN SDGs is largely dependent on national governments’ will to adopt them. In the meantime, the proposed GDF can provide useful information on the current state of development for a specific territory. Moreover, the debate we expect the proposed global development approach can generate will likely provide potential benefits for all living species of our planet.