These different terms express a new perception of reality which goes beyond the current reality. They are indicative of new research paths, both in terms of analysis and the policy to follow.

However, these measures have remained confined to old theoretical and doctrinal references. They have revived the heated debates that characterized capitalism mutation crises.

Today, with globalization, Malthus and Keynes are more valid. They find a greater freshness than those of our contemporaries. They are the tool box that is at the service of both the supporters of stimulation by the budget and the defenders of the green growth who see the planet's resources as not unlimited.

The current crisis has reconciled the two schools, showing that the Keynesian state is not inconsistent with the Malthusian one. Both are liberal; the difference however lies in the degree and the instruments of state intervention. The new growth problematic that is shaking the world has won its spurs.

How to produce, minimizing the environmental cost and without depleting the ground and the underground? How to relocate without adversely affecting the ecological balance of the host countries which are developing countries? How to recognize, validate and ensure the implementation of climate protection norms as they were discussed at the Copenhagen summit? How to legislate for the protection of this new category of common property which constitutes the heritage of humanity, namely water, air, forests and renewable resources?

So far, growth has been destructive and unequal. The 21st century has to come up with its own model of growth, underpinned by a new philosophy, a new vision and new governance, a model that fits into the logic of life preservation, imposing new instruments and new conventions.

This model should also promote the redistribution of power and the growth fruit, boost the kind of production that is fights speculation and rentiers, and work against opacity, market manipulation and anything that may harm the new growth.

Some would say that this is a generous vision of the market! Perhaps, but the necessary changes should lead to overcoming the fear of the future and to fighting conservatism.

Growth potential, existing at all levels (local, national, regional and international), is huge, but it is paralyzed by the high concentration of wealth and the growing inequalities that continue to cause crisis after crisis with all their ramifications.

In fact, the alternative resides in the construction of a model which is based on sharing and which respects the dignity of every individual and every nation. Will 2010 start the new march towards the new century?