Some states have done better than others - more open vs more closed (Taiwan vs PRC) better welfare vs less (Northern Europe vs US), but the global systems - as a whole - suck.
What has been striking about the post-1991 world has been the consensus.
"The current system might have bugs, but it is the best. There's no alternative."
The ones most able, the most organised, and at an angle to the world, where always the religious institutions, especially in the post-colonial world.
Some were better than others, but that isn't the issue, it was their need that was.
The leadership of the religious (or spiritual) is far less important than that of the followers.
If the "smart men" had all the answers, why didn't they have followers?
Instead we had a whole industry built upon the sneering at those that could not accept that this is the best world we could build.
Instead we had Fukuyama's End of History, Pinker's Better Angels of Our Nature, and just so much self-fellating junk.
Can we truly blame them? Have we been honest?
We just can't afford to go back to blase attitude that ignores the misery of so many. And we need to have some humility.
-end rant-