In 1990s, the globalization process based on neoliberal foundations seemed to have triumphed irreversibly, while the notorious Fukuyama’s (1992) bestseller named The End of History and the Last ManThe End of History and the Last Man, Free Press.">[1] postulated, in fact, the final victory of the Western liberal democracy as the universal form of human government, following the collapse of the Soviet Union.However, only in a decade, the 2008-2009 global financial and economic crisis disrupted the growing neoliberal globalization trend. Coupled with serious setbacks in market democracy transformations in different areas of the world, especially in the post-Soviet space and the North Africa and Middle East Islamic states, it brought about not only massive economic and social failures but also a prolonged period of global frustration and uncertainty. In fact, the appearing deglobalizing trends revealed the inadequacy of the model of global order based on assumptions of neoliberal economic orthodoxy and universal template of Western-type democracy. However, it was not the predicaments of losers but the success of winners among emerging market economies that changed the overall balance of power and ignited the process of revision of the global economic and political order.The new trade policy of US president Donald Trump, guided by the principle “America first”, de-facto launched the far-going dismantling of some the basic pillars of the global order. It advocated American nationalism, unilateralism, protectionism, and, to certain extent, isolationism, which substituted the policies of American transnationalism that had been the main driver of neoliberal globalization for several decades. Thereby, miscellaneous anti-globalization movements and organizations throughout the world found potent support to their efforts. The withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement and Paris Climate Agreement, the exit from the UNESCO, the blocking of dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO (coupled with intentions to exit this institution if it is not reformed according to American perception), and the aggravation of US-China trade dispute associated with massive protectionist measures are only some of the most visible components of the process of ongoing global institutional disintegration. The power policies based on nationalism that gained momentum have exacerbated multiple overt and hidden conflicts across the world (similarly to the 1930s) and hit even the most prosperous regions. The latter has been vividly demonstrated by the crisis developments within the European Union.However, the worst thing we could do under these circumstances is merely to regret or deplore such a course of events. We need to explore the roots of these tendencies and try to find workable remedies to cure the current global affliction. In fact, we have witnessed a rise of diversified worldwide alter-globalization movement, involving some political and business leaders, academics, NGOs and global networks.Since the climax of neoliberal globalization in1990s, a number of seminal scientific investigations containing alternative approaches have been performed worldwide. This large-scale intellectual and political movement has moved forward some major ideas and proposals. Among them, one could mention an extensive programme for restructuring, democratizing and properly managing globalization, to make it serve the poorer countries - a global social contact between developed and less developed countries (Stiglitz, 2006)Making Globalization Work, New York - London: W.W. Norton & Co., 2006.">[2]. Within the broad range of intellectual concepts and political solutions that have been offered several ideas deserve special attention.First, it is certainly the idea of cultural diversity and the needed dialogue (or partnership) of different civilizations (see Table 1).Second, we are to refer to the idea of diversity of the ways and models of development. It is closely connected with the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity as of 2 November 2001[3], with its article 3 proclaiming cultural diversity as a factor in development. But what is especially important, it has produced the idea of diverse models of economic development. Table 1 Selected major contributions to the development of the concept of Dialog (Partnership) of Civilizations Many in-depth research endevours have been done in this vein. One could mention, for instance, the emphasised link between cultural foundations and development and the concept of New Pragmatism; the latter being based on a strategic approach to future development and its active shaping up in a desired direction, proceeding from a specific and changing (in time and space) coincidence of development determinants (Kolodko, 2011)Truth, Errors, and Lies: Politics and Economics in a Volatile World, translated from the Polish by William R. Brand, New York: Columbia University Press, 2011.">[4]. US scholar D. Rodrik (2007)One Economics, Many Recipes: Globalization, Institutions and Economic Growth, New Jersey-Woodstock: Princeton University Press, 2007.">[5] presented convincing evidence against uniformity in policy space and articulated the importance of local knowledge and institutional diversity. In particular, he postulated that leaders of the advanced countries will have to provide room for poor nations to develop their own strategies of institution-building and economic catch-up.Third, the idea of recoupling of economic and social development has moved to the forefront, in particular due to the efforts of David Snower, former director of the Kiel Institute for International Economics, president of the Global Solutions Initiative. This institutional framework annually (since 2017) hosts Global Solution summits (an associated event for the G20), involving participants from over 100 countries, and publishes the Global Solutions Journal (quarterly) that advocates global paradigm change for a sustainable world order (see Snower, 2019)Global Solutions Journal, issue 4, March 2019, pp. 12-32.">[6]. It has emphasised the importance of harmonisation of economic and political paradigms, cooperation in order to benefit one another, supporting personal empowerment and social solidarity, create new moral narratives and controlling self-interest in favour of social groups, moving from corporations that maximize shareholder value to those driven by social purpose. The agenda of the “Global Solutions” rejects both nationalism and globalism - in favour of diversity, multiple, multi-level identities, and calls for a redesigning of multilateral international institutions to resolve urgent global issues.Fourth, multiple institutional frameworks have emerged to assist in green (ecology-friendly) restructuring of the world economy. One of the most influential among them is the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, which comprises former heads of government and finance ministers, and leaders in the fields of economics, business and finance. The Commission has formulated the agenda (flagship project) on “The New Climate Economy” (see its report for 2018)[7].Thus, we witness a rapidly proliferating intellectual and political movement towards reshaping the existing world economic, political and social order. On this background, the Chinese concept of a shared future for humankind appears to be of special importance. It is not only due to its origination from the top political level of a major superpower: the idea was initially introduced by President Xi Jinping during the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC) in November 2012, and later developed in his speeches at the UN and the 19th CPC National Congress in October 2017[8]. Moreover, it attracts attention not only as a result that it introduced a new policy stance of China towards a pronounced activism to enhance global governance and exploring new models of win-win cooperation for world development. What is even more significant, it appeared as a new philosophic paradigm for the New Era of world development (Zhao Xiaochun, 2018)China Quarterly of International Strategic Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1, 23-37, doi: 10.1142/S2377740018500082.">[9]. The strength of this conceptual perception is determined by a set of its fundamental characteristics:(1) the multi-faceted character of the concept, embracing economic, political, security, ecological, and cultural dimensions as integral parts;(2) its being based on extensive absorption of the best ideas of alternative world order that have been developed worldwide and are partly and concisely represented in this article;(3) its focus on the future, creativity and emphasis on exploration of new opportunities deriving from the new breakthrough technologies that are to be employed in a win-win manner but not as a zero-sum game or an instrument of technology-based domination;(4) its innovative approach in the sense of rejection of the opportunities to use the status of a great power exclusively for the sake of own national interest but appealing instead to greater global responsibilities;(5) it does not confront the ideas of unity and diversity in a mode of thinking derived from Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” but seeks unity in diversity: it postulates diversity not as a source of conflict (which is actually happening in today’s world based on dichotomy “we vs. they” and hostility towards “the others”) but as a source of creative development;(6) it signifies a clear departure from the policies of conquering the nature towards coevolution of human society and nature, which appears not only as a matter of survival for the humanity but as an aesthetical (cultural) imperative;(7) it is much more functional than previous endeavours to reshape the world order because of its reliance on huge resource allocation. The latter is especially visible in the case of infrastructure allocations within the implementation of the Road and Belt Initiative.The substantial difference between the basic features of the traditional neoliberal concept of globalization and the proposed “shared future” concept are summarised in Table 2. Table 2 Main features of alternative concepts of globalization: Neoliberalism vs. Shared Future for Mankind The current period of a certain reversal in the globalizing processes is closely connected not only with the revival of old protectionist policies but also with the need of transition to alternative modes of globalization development. Such a transition is likely to be an extremely difficult endeavour. The most significant barriers on this way are the inertia of human behaviour and deeply rooted social traditions in shaping life preferences and building trust in social institutions.In fact, we usually perceive socially significant ideas through the lens of personal experience and interests. The methodological individualism underlying the neoliberal economic and social model rests on these fundamental premises and vastly exploits the human propensity to act egoistically. To some nations (representing the Anglo-Saxon model), unrestricted individual freedom is the basic cultural foundation. However, in other socio-economic models, we see a different picture where personal and social foundations are mixed specifically, and common interests and values may prevail - and this appears similarly as a cultural phenomenon. This cultural divergence poses a highly important question: How can we share our future if our “cultural genotypes” differ?The historical experience proves that this problem cannot be solved efficiently by endeavours to transpose national institutions of most advanced nations to the others - whether it is done in the framework of “best experience sharing”, political advice or conditions linked foreign financial aid, or as a precondition to integrate into a regional community (like the EU). Quality institutions really matter for development and economic prosperity - Daron Acemoglu and James RobinsonWhy Nations Fail. The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty, New York: Crown Business, 2012.">[10] were right in many of their findings on this issue. However, cultural foundations of nations matter even more than institutions: they are more deeply enshrined in the human nature than formal institutional arrangements and are not subject to rapid changes. You can reform promptly your formal institutions but never - your culture and those informal institutional forms that it determines. Nevertheless, human culture evolves in the course of human and social development.Thus, the only viable way to make closer differing cultural structures and provide a basis for sharing of their important elements is a continuous and extensive cooperation and common effort in attaining significant public goals. Common institutions may much easier appear resulting from continuous and mutually important interaction.This methodological principle has three major implications, on which we are to focus our policies:·creating more opportunities for nations to communicate, with due regard to the issues of national security;·investing more in areas of common interest, with equal access to various modern business and social infrastructures and equal opportunities to be engaged in technological progress;·emphasising rather on aggregate long-term return than on short-term profitability, rather on broad social efficiency than narrow financial profit.The needed radical evolutionary change in globalization policies also depends on a new brand of global leadership and global responsibility. It will not be compatible with the old type of centre-periphery relationship and efforts to impose an institutional template on less developed nations and punish those who deviate from it. It will have nothing to do with forceful and premature opening by leading nations and international financial institutions of underdeveloped national financial markets or land markets. Those who are in charge of formulating the global development agenda are to focus rather on capital formation and innovative capacity in developing nations than on their financial austerity. The latter does not mean irresponsible monetary and budgetary policies. But to ensure better global governance, we must realize that the process of financialization of the global economy has reached hypertrophied scale: it overshadows the development of the real sector of economy and, in fact, distorts the criteria of long-term efficiency of socioeconomic development.The new global economy of the future can hardly emerge if based on selfish Homo oeconomicus - the concept that for several centuries has been the basic principle and building bloc of economics worldwide. The new global leadership needs a much broader understanding of the nature of human behaviour, which will necessarily become meta-economic. The Chinese concept of a shared future for mankind, which is based on rich insights in the nature of human spirit and the forms of social relationship, opens up new prospects for the concerted global evolution in this direction.