Quantitative evidence of the community of shared future for mankind as a driver of sustainable development in human society

The paper addresses global challenges—post-pandemic recovery, non-traditional security threats, and development setbacks—by examining whether and how the Community of Shared Future for Mankind (CSFM) advances sustainable development. Proposed by China in 2012 and refined at the 2015 UN General Assembly, CSFM emphasizes five core principles: equitable and mutually beneficial partnerships; a fair and shared security framework; an open, inclusive, and innovative development outlook; multicultural exchange for harmony and mutual learning; and a green and sustainable development model. The study’s purpose is to provide the first quantitative operationalization of these five principles and test their empirical relationship with sustainable development, proxied by green total factor productivity (GTFP). Using a global panel of 184 countries/regions from 1991–2022, the authors aim to assess applicability across diverse economic, cultural, and political contexts and to derive policy recommendations. The research fills a gap by bringing quantitative measurement and econometric analysis to a concept previously discussed mainly in qualitative or regional terms.

The review situates CSFM within long-standing debates on values, governance, and development. Classical Western thought (Plato, Aristotle) offered early visions of ideal society and political systems. Modern critiques of growth (post-growth, de-growth, post-development) question the environmental and social costs of perpetual economic expansion (Jackson; Latouche; Escobar). Marx’s notion of an “association of free individuals” is highlighted as a philosophical antecedent to CSFM’s collective orientation. Western scholarly engagement with CSFM is relatively limited and mixed: some view CSFM/BRI as reshaping or challenging existing global orders and norms (Callahan, Dollar, Blackwill & Tellis), others emphasize inclusivity and potential for cooperative globalization (Yakunin, Koenig), while some raise concerns about strategic influence, institutional reconfiguration, and media narratives. Existing studies often focus on specific regions, lack global scope, or rely on theory without rigorous empirical tests. A Web of Science search found only 48 studies directly addressing CSFM and sustainable development, underscoring the need for quantitative, global, multi-decade analysis. The literature also links CSFM’s principles to sustainability mechanisms: partnership-based cooperation, shared security, open innovation, multicultural exchange, and green growth (Stott & Murphy; Banerjee et al.; Lee et al.; Rockström et al.; Cai; Phonthanukitithaworn et al.; Fatma & Haleem; Skrefsrud; Banban; Wen & Dai; OECD).

Data and scope: Panel dataset of 184 countries/regions from 1991 to 2022. The long horizon and broad coverage aim to reduce selection bias, enhance generalizability, and capture global dynamics across diverse development stages. Dependent variable (sustainable development): Green Total Factor Productivity (GTFP). Computation uses the super-efficiency Slack-Based Measure (SBM) Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) with undesirable outputs (Tone, 2002). Rationale: (1) models costs associated with reducing undesirable outputs; (2) accounts for slacks, avoiding radial/directional biases; (3) allows ranking among efficient DMUs. Earlier alternatives (undesirable inputs, DDF) have limitations in representing production tradeoffs. As a robustness alternative, GTFP is recomputed via the Malmquist index (denoted GTFP1). Key independent construct (CSFM index): The CSFM is operationalized via five pillars aligned with Xi (2015): - Equitable and mutually beneficial partnerships (e.g., trade agreements; diplomatic visits; memberships, tenures, participation and leadership roles in major international organizations; proposals and adoptions at IO meetings) with data primarily from UN, WTO. - Just and shared security framework (e.g., military cooperation, joint exercises; personnel and financial contributions to UN peacekeeping; security treaties; compliance reports) using UN peacekeeping sources. - Open, inclusive, and innovative development (e.g., trade openness; FDI; income inequality; R&D expenditure) from World Bank, UNCTAD, OECD, UNDP. - Multicultural exchange (e.g., high-tech exports; World Heritage sites; cultural and academic exchange programs; international cultural agreements; outbound students) using UNESCO and WTO. - Green sustainable development (e.g., safe water and sanitation access; climate policies; forest coverage; land degradation; marine pollution and protected areas; carbon emissions; clean energy patents; renewable energy share) from UNICEF/WHO, FAO, UNEP, UNCCD, IUCN, IEA, World Bank, NDC database. Index construction: Indicators are combined using the entropy weight method, which assigns higher weights to variables with greater dispersion across units, minimizing subjectivity. As a robustness check, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is used to create an alternative CSFM measure (CSFM1). Descriptive patterns: The CSFM index fluctuates over 1991–2022 with four periods: decline (1991–1997), rise (1997–2007), decline (2007–2013), and rise (2013–2022) reaching ~0.62 by 2022. Regional dynamics reflect globalization, crises, and policy shifts across Asia, Africa, Europe, North America, South America, and Oceania. Econometric specification: Baseline panel model with country and year fixed effects: GTFP_it = α_i + α1·CSFM_it + X_control_it + C_i + λ_t + trend_t + ε_it Controls reflect scale, technology, and structure channels based on prior work: per capita GDP (PGDP), fiscal support (FS), R&D investment (RD), foreign direct investment (FDI), industrial structure (INS), and energy consumption structure (ES). Two-way fixed effects control for unobserved time-invariant country heterogeneity and common shocks. Estimation and robustness: Baseline OLS with fixed effects is complemented by Partial Least Squares (PLS), Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE), Ridge, and Lasso to address multicollinearity and high-dimensionality. Construct robustness replaces CSFM with CSFM1 (PCA) and GTFP with GTFP1 (Malmquist). Endogeneity is probed using dynamic panel GMM (System GMM and Difference GMM) with lagged instruments, and diagnostic tests (AR(1), AR(2), Sargan, Hansen) assess instrument validity and serial correlation. Heterogeneity is examined by splitting countries into high-, middle-, and low-income groups and re-estimating across methods.

- Descriptive correlation: Pearson correlation between CSFM and GTFP is 0.63, indicating a strong positive association. - Baseline and alternative estimators (with controls, country and year fixed effects): • OLS: CSFM coefficient 0.5105 (t=8.1196), p<0.01. • PLS: 0.4263 (t=3.8584), p<0.01. • MLE: 0.5212 (t=4.3952), p<0.01. • Ridge: 0.5243 (t=3.6201), p<0.01. • Lasso: 0.4928 (t=3.9164), p<0.01. Across methods, CSFM significantly and positively predicts sustainable development (GTFP). - Construct robustness: • Replacing GTFP with GTFP1 (Malmquist): coefficients ~0.4485–0.4778 with p<0.05–0.01 across methods (e.g., OLS 0.4522, t=4.6972). • Replacing CSFM with CSFM1 (PCA): coefficients ~0.5011–0.5617 with p<0.05–0.01 (e.g., OLS 0.5491, t=4.6727). Results remain positive and significant, confirming robustness to measurement choices. - Endogeneity checks (dynamic panel): • SYS-GMM: L.GTFP 0.8536 (t=3.4896), CSFM 0.4953 (t=5.3803), p<0.01. AR(1) p=0.021; AR(2) p=0.857; Hansen p=0.742; Sargan p=0.715. • DIF-GMM: L.GTFP 0.9237 (t=3.6121), CSFM 0.4866 (t=5.5900), p<0.01. AR(1) p=0.015; AR(2) p=0.624; Hansen p=0.953; Sargan p=0.816. Instrument validity and absence of AR(2) are satisfied; CSFM remains positive and significant. - CSFM trend insights (1991–2022): Two declines (post–Cold War adjustment; post–2007 financial crisis) and two increases (globalization phase to 2007; recovery and cooperation 2013–2022), with regional heterogeneity reflecting crises, trade integration, and policy cooperation. - Heterogeneity by income: The positive impact of CSFM on sustainable development is strongest in high-income countries, positive but smaller in middle-income countries, and relatively small or insignificant in low-income countries, suggesting roles for infrastructure, governance capacity, and absorptive capabilities.

The findings directly address the research question by demonstrating that operationalized CSFM principles are empirically associated with higher sustainable development (GTFP) across a large global panel. Multiple estimators, alternative constructs (PCA-based CSFM, Malmquist GTFP), and dynamic GMM confirm a robust, likely causal link. Mechanistically, the five CSFM pillars align with sustainability drivers: partnership and trade integration support knowledge and technology diffusion; shared security frameworks reduce risk and stabilize investment; openness and innovation enhance productivity and green technologies; multicultural exchange fosters social cohesion and human capital; green models directly improve environmental performance while supporting growth. Temporal and regional trends show sensitivity to global shocks (e.g., financial crisis) and renewed cooperation post-2013. The stronger effects in high-income settings highlight the importance of institutional quality, infrastructure, and innovation ecosystems in translating CSFM tenets into sustainable productivity gains. Policy implications emphasize strengthening cooperation, inclusive governance, innovation, and green transitions to amplify CSFM’s benefits across diverse contexts.

This study makes three main contributions: (1) it provides the first quantitative operationalization of the CSFM’s five core principles via an entropy-weighted composite index; (2) it measures sustainable development with super-efficiency SBM GTFP across 184 countries over 1991–2022; and (3) it delivers robust empirical evidence—across multiple estimators, alternative constructs, and endogeneity checks—that CSFM positively and significantly promotes sustainable development. Policy recommendations include: (a) enhancing international cooperation and coordination, and promoting multicultural exchanges to build shared values and reduce frictions; (b) strengthening fair and shared security frameworks and fostering open, inclusive, and innovative development with supportive institutional architectures; and (c) accelerating green transitions, improving infrastructure, and sharing CSFM benefits to narrow disparities—especially supporting middle- and low-income countries’ absorptive capacity. Future research should extend and refine the indicators, deepen mechanism analyses, and broaden data coverage to further inform global governance and sustainable development strategies.

The study acknowledges: (1) Subjectivity in indicator selection and quantification of CSFM’s core principles despite the objective entropy weighting; different operationalizations could yield variations. (2) Data availability and completeness constraints across countries and years (1991–2022) may affect stability and reliability. (3) Limited exploration of specific causal mechanisms and policy transmission channels; while econometric evidence is strong, detailed pathways require further investigation. Future work should refine and validate measurement frameworks with multidisciplinary input, enhance data completeness (especially for developing economies), and combine case studies with empirical analyses to unpack mechanisms and context-specific policy designs.