The implementation of the most pragmatic solutions will require a commitment from all different levels of society. As it was argued above, first of all, policy makers need to start looking at the issues of wealth creation not in isolation, looking at specific solutions for each country but to think of solutions to come as part of a system that is interconnected and complex. In that sense, the sources and determinants of global wealth under a complex framework need to be analysed. This is a challenge that requires a commitment from top academics in the world to produce new pieces of research that focus on wealth complexity. This type of research will then inform the policy makers, who then have the important task to decentralise the decision making process.
If we assume that the wealth problem is complex in nature, then centralised top-down solutions will not work. It will be necessary to adopt both a top-down and bottom-up approach depending on the context and the intended solutions. This means that society as a whole and especially private business, needs to be involved in the process of creating wealth and reducing inequality.
The complex nature of wealth creation and distribution means that governments, business, academics and institutions need to work together in a more stable, long-term and institutionalised way. This is why, new institutions for collaboration that offer an holistic and systemic approach to the problem of global wealth will need to be created. Old institutions may not have the capabilities to embrace the complex nature of the problem at hand, and may resist change of paradigm.
Maybe it is more appropriate to consider what will be the consequences if we don’t adopt a new paradigm. The main consequence of not dealing in a systemic way with the issues of wealth creation and wealth distribution that have been described above, is an increasingly social struggle inside some countries. This may create political pressure that, depending on the context and the history of the country, may result in political instability and even regime change. Not addressing the issues could result in new political experiments that could reject capitalism and reintroduce authoritarian regimes based on a tight and centralized control of the market. As we know from history, these types of regime are not the solution to the problems of wealth and they are certainly not an alternative to capitalism. On the other hand, it is also clear that the way capitalist economies have been handling wealth inequality, often ignoring it, is not sustainable and need to be revisited.