We come to develop together, not to collect colonial rent
In Moscow this May, more than forty nations convened at the Open Dialogue forum to ask a question that older economic institutions have long deferred: what if growth were measured not by output, but by human flourishing? Drawing on essays from over sixteen hundred contributors across a hundred and twenty countries, the forum gave shape to a growing conviction that the dominant models of development — GDP-centered, extractive, and asymmetric — are no longer sufficient for a world that increasingly demands mutual respect among nations. The conclusions reached will travel forward into the St. Petersburg Economic Forum and the expanding architecture of BRICS+, carrying with them the possibility that a different kind of global conversation has begun.
- A deepening dissatisfaction with GDP-driven development is pushing nations across the Global South to seek frameworks that measure what actually matters to people's lives.
- Over 1,600 essayists from 120 countries flooded the forum with proposals, signaling that the hunger for alternative models is not confined to any one region or institution.
- Tensions around digital sovereignty — who controls data, who profits from it, and who gets left behind — emerged as one of the sharpest fault lines in the new global economy.
- Forum participants are attempting to translate ideas into action through a mentorship program linking essayists directly to businesses, bridging the gap between theory and implementation.
- The forum's conclusions are now feeding into the St. Petersburg Economic Forum and BRICS+ initiatives, giving these alternative frameworks a concrete institutional pathway forward.
In Moscow this May, representatives from more than forty countries gathered for the Open Dialogue forum to ask a question the mainstream economic order has long resisted: what would growth look like if it were built around people rather than markets?
The event drew experts and young researchers who had submitted essays across four themes — investing in people, connectivity, technology, and the environment. More than sixteen hundred authors from a hundred and twenty countries had entered the competition. Organizers framed this breadth as evidence of a genuine shift: a recognition that the old models, the ones that measured everything by GDP and treated development as a zero-sum game, were no longer adequate.
The forum's central idea — a multipolar architecture of global development — held that sustainable growth requires equality among nations, not dominance by a few. Russian economist Maxim Oreshkin illustrated this through technology: when Russian digital platforms enter other markets, he said, they bring data localization, local partnerships, and worker training. "We come to develop together, not to collect colonial rent."
The four essay winners each sharpened a different edge of this vision. A student from Morocco raised the question of digital sovereignty for developing nations. A researcher from Ethiopia proposed cross-border data frameworks for healthcare within BRICS. An Indian scholar challenged GDP as a meaningful measure of national wealth. And a Zambian economist argued that real Global South convergence required concrete reforms in education and knowledge exchange — not just multipolar rhetoric.
Dr. Selina Neri, founder of the Future Readiness Academy in the UAE, gave the forum its clearest moral anchor: the future must be built around human flourishing — health, agency, meaningful life — rather than around technology for its own sake or systems that have already failed.
The conversation will not end in Moscow. Forum conclusions will be presented at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, and a mentorship program will connect essayists with businesses to turn proposals into real projects. The organizers have committed to expanding the Open Dialogue annually — suggesting this is not a single convening, but the beginning of a sustained parallel conversation about what global development could yet become.
In Moscow this May, representatives from more than forty countries gathered for a three-day forum called the Open Dialogue, a conference designed to step back from the usual machinery of global economics and ask a different question: what would growth look like if we built it around people instead of markets?
The event, held at the Russia National Centre, drew experts and young researchers who had submitted essays on four themes—investing in people, connectivity, technology, and the environment. But the real scope was larger. Over sixteen hundred authors from a hundred and twenty countries had entered the competition, submitting work from every continent. The forum's organizers framed this as evidence of something shifting in how the world thinks about itself: a recognition that no nation develops alone, and that the old models—the ones that measured everything by GDP, the ones that treated development as a zero-sum game—were no longer adequate.
The conversation centered on what speakers called a multipolar architecture of global development, a phrase that kept surfacing in remarks from Russian officials and international participants alike. The idea was straightforward but radical: that sustainable growth requires equality and mutual respect among nations, not dominance by a few. Maxim Oreshkin, a Russian economist who helped summarize the forum's conclusions, articulated this through the lens of technology. When Russian digital platforms enter other markets, he said, they come with data localization, local partnerships, and training for local workers—a model of shared development rather than extraction. "We come to develop together, not to collect colonial rent," he stated.
The four essay winners each brought a distinct angle on what this reimagined growth might require. Aya Arfaoui, a student from Morocco, won the technology track by raising the question of digital sovereignty—the idea that developing nations lack sufficient voice in how the digital space gets regulated. Solomon Gardie, from Ethiopia, proposed a system where data could cross borders only after being processed and anonymized, with applications in healthcare and disease monitoring within the BRICS framework. Soumya Bhowmick, a researcher from India, challenged the century-long obsession with GDP as a measure of national wealth, suggesting it obscures what actually matters. And Lubinda Haabazoka from Zambia argued that real convergence among Global South nations required not just rhetoric about multipolarity but concrete changes in education and knowledge exchange.
Dr. Selina Neri, an expert at the forum and founder of the Future Readiness Academy in the UAE, articulated what seemed to be the underlying current of the entire event: that the future should be built around human flourishing—health, agency, meaningful life—rather than around technology for its own sake or systems that no longer serve anyone well. This required new approaches to education and work, she said, approaches that prioritized sovereignty and practical implementation over copying models that had already failed elsewhere.
The forum's reach extended beyond the three days in Moscow. The conclusions drawn from the discussions will be presented at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum later this year. More significantly, a mentorship program has been established to connect essay authors with Russian and international businesses, turning ideas on paper into actual projects. The organizers have committed to expanding the Open Dialogue each year, suggesting this is not a one-time convening but the beginning of something sustained—a parallel conversation about what global development could become if the people doing the thinking were not just the usual suspects in the usual rooms.
Notable Quotes
No country can develop in isolation, at the expense of other states or to their detriment. Modern global challenges require a joint response and collective efforts.— Russian official remarks at the Open Dialogue
The future should be built around the individual, their health, agency, and a long, meaningful life, rather than around technologies and outdated systems.— Dr. Selina Neri, co-founder of Future Readiness Academy
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does it matter that this happened in Moscow, of all places? Doesn't that shape how people will read it?
It does, and that's the point. Moscow hosting a forum about multipolar development is itself a statement—a claim that the conversation about the world's future doesn't have to happen in Washington or London or Geneva. Whether you trust that claim or not, the fact that over a thousand young researchers from a hundred and twenty countries showed up suggests something real is moving.
What struck you most about the actual ideas that won?
That they're all about power and access. Digital sovereignty, data protection, measuring wealth differently, reforming education—these aren't abstract policy papers. They're young people saying: the systems that exist now don't let us participate equally, and we need different ones.
The mentorship piece seems important. Why?
Because it's the difference between a conference and something that might actually change. Ideas stay ideas unless someone with resources and reach picks them up and runs with them. Connecting essayists to businesses means these proposals might become real projects, real companies, real policy.
Do you think this actually challenges the existing order, or is it just talk?
That's the question everyone should be asking. The forum itself is real—the people, the essays, the commitments to implement. Whether it reshapes global development depends on whether the businesses and governments involved actually follow through, and whether the ideas are as good as the people presenting them believe.
What would you be watching for next?
Whether these essayists actually get connected to meaningful projects, whether their ideas show up in the St. Petersburg forum discussions, and whether BRICS+ platforms actually adopt any of these frameworks. The real test is implementation, not intention.