I have always been interested in the Human Development Index and in the Inclusive Growth Model. I remember while preparing for the interview for Global Governance around March of the last year I spent entire evenings reading papers and documents from the Un or the World Economic Forum about sustainable development, socioeconomic growth, the Scandinavian model, standards of happiness, work-life balance and other similar themes. I have always thought quite reductive to classify countries on the sole base of their economic growth – in doing so, not only we keep fuelling an erroneous and strictly material idea of the world and of our same lives, but we also keep missing the important points of focus of our society: that every single member has to be better off from a national growth plan. What I have never thought about, instead, was how helpful and necessary would be to apply the risk assessment procedure that we talked in today’s class. Such procedure is based on four main steps: risk identification, risk analysis, risk evaluation and risk perception. If we apply these concepts on our society, it will probably look like this: 1. understand the context of a specific group of people, their culture (values) and their objectives (what they are working for), 2. understand what are the strong points and the fragilities of such society and the potential consequences of such fragilities, 3. decide whether it is necessary to take corrective policy actions in order to prevent / save the situation, 4. ask for feedback and assess the results and the action taken itself. Doing that, I am positive we will be able to shift the attention to political matters closer to the people: standards of living (encompassing income, employment opportunity, economic security and quality of life), health and education, welfare and trust. In particular, the Inclusive Development index –a tool set up by the WEF with the purpose to offer a bottom-line metric, complementary to the GDP, that measures the level and rate of improvement in shred economic progress – is based upon three main pillars: Growth and Development, Inclusion, and Intergenerational Equity and Sustainability. It is worth noticing how the ranking of countries, both advanced and emerging economies, does not reflect the rankings in terms of the GDP; for example, top economies as US and China are both to be found relatively low in the list: the US ranked only 23rd among the advanced economies (with a Growth and Development score quite high but an impressively low one in the other two), while China is 26th in the emerging economies rank (and same pattern of scores as the US). On the contrary, the top 10 in both rankings is made of small economies – mainly from North Europe: Norway scores the best overall while Lithuania is first among the emerging economies. I believe we, especially as westerners, tend to forget how important is to build trust in the systems through an efficient net of social and fiscal policies in order to keep alive the system itself and allow it to self-recover through spending.