When researching for this article, I stumbled upon the World Economic Forum’s website, which listed the ‘Five tangible outcomes’ of its annual, high-profile meeting in Davos, Switzerland.
Firstly, I’d like to highlight that the meeting was convened under the theme “A Spirit of Dialogue”. If this doesn’t already sound like one of those hollow slogans accompanying an uncharismatic MP’s campaign run, I don’t know what does. We then progress further into the webpage, which is honestly comparable to how I would imagine the website of Dunder Mifflin — upsettingly corporate.
My reasoning for pointing out such shortcomings is that I simply could not understand why this event is so widely covered and attended. I don’t believe many people could list any bountiful achievements of the World Economic Forum.
Regardless, we saw Macron, von der Leyen, Trump, Carney, and Merz all in attendance. The Forum called far and wide across the globe and the political spectrum.
Here are the ‘Five tangible outcomes’:
- Cooperating for a better world
- Cities as growth engines
- Investing in people
- Real world AI, not speculation
- Water as economic infrastructure
At a surface level, to claim such outcomes is simply laughable. What do they mean by “investing in people” or “cooperating for a better world?” The World Economic Forum may as well claim their sixth and seventh outcomes are curing cancer and solving poverty.
The description of the fifth outcome of “water as economic infrastructure” forefronts the launch of Matt Damon’s Get Blue platform. Damon’s platform has apparently historically united the likes of Amazon, Gap and Starbucks — companies famously known for their eco-friendliness and dedication to their fellow man — with Water.org to “accelerate action on water access”.
Of course, the aim to upscale the reach of Water.org to 200 million people by 2030 is completely admirable and should be encouraged. As should point three’s aim of “reskilling” — focusing on teaching digital skills to entry-level workers — one billion people by 2030.
While there are other notable achievements of the forum, they are completely overshadowed by the geopolitical grandstanding of its attendees.
Those who pay attention to such events would be hard-pressed to find a primary news story about the forum that didn’t feature some speech or other by a world leader, primarily Mark Carney’s speech, urging the ‘middle powers’ to unite and reiterating Canada’s support for Denmark. Equally reported on were Trump’s rather hostile remarks towards European leaders and their lack of support towards the idea of a US-owned Greenland.
This wider political conversation is what makes the World Economic Forum a space to watch. It is rare to find such high-profile guests in a conclave for longer than a day, and thus, Davos is valuable as a route for anything from side conversations to broker agreements.
Is such a gathering to be celebrated as a place in which the world can genuinely, greatly improve? No. What we see is an elitist arena in which high-profile players can perform and interact. Such pursuits can centre conversation and set the tone for global affairs, but they cannot claim to be the catalysts for change and vast improvements in international cooperation.
Photo by Evangeline Shaw on Unsplash
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
Davos: an elitist arena for high-profile players to shake hands
When researching for this article, I stumbled upon the World Economic Forum’s website, which listed the ‘Five tangible outcomes’ of its annual, high-profile meeting in Davos, Switzerland.
Firstly, I’d like to highlight that the meeting was convened under the theme “A Spirit of Dialogue”. If this doesn’t already sound like one of those hollow slogans accompanying an uncharismatic MP’s campaign run, I don’t know what does. We then progress further into the webpage, which is honestly comparable to how I would imagine the website of Dunder Mifflin — upsettingly corporate.
My reasoning for pointing out such shortcomings is that I simply could not understand why this event is so widely covered and attended. I don’t believe many people could list any bountiful achievements of the World Economic Forum.
Regardless, we saw Macron, von der Leyen, Trump, Carney, and Merz all in attendance. The Forum called far and wide across the globe and the political spectrum.
Here are the ‘Five tangible outcomes’:
At a surface level, to claim such outcomes is simply laughable. What do they mean by “investing in people” or “cooperating for a better world?” The World Economic Forum may as well claim their sixth and seventh outcomes are curing cancer and solving poverty.
The description of the fifth outcome of “water as economic infrastructure” forefronts the launch of Matt Damon’s Get Blue platform. Damon’s platform has apparently historically united the likes of Amazon, Gap and Starbucks — companies famously known for their eco-friendliness and dedication to their fellow man — with Water.org to “accelerate action on water access”.
Of course, the aim to upscale the reach of Water.org to 200 million people by 2030 is completely admirable and should be encouraged. As should point three’s aim of “reskilling” — focusing on teaching digital skills to entry-level workers — one billion people by 2030.
While there are other notable achievements of the forum, they are completely overshadowed by the geopolitical grandstanding of its attendees.
Those who pay attention to such events would be hard-pressed to find a primary news story about the forum that didn’t feature some speech or other by a world leader, primarily Mark Carney’s speech, urging the ‘middle powers’ to unite and reiterating Canada’s support for Denmark. Equally reported on were Trump’s rather hostile remarks towards European leaders and their lack of support towards the idea of a US-owned Greenland.
This wider political conversation is what makes the World Economic Forum a space to watch. It is rare to find such high-profile guests in a conclave for longer than a day, and thus, Davos is valuable as a route for anything from side conversations to broker agreements.
Is such a gathering to be celebrated as a place in which the world can genuinely, greatly improve? No. What we see is an elitist arena in which high-profile players can perform and interact. Such pursuits can centre conversation and set the tone for global affairs, but they cannot claim to be the catalysts for change and vast improvements in international cooperation.
Photo by Evangeline Shaw on Unsplash
Share this:
Like this:
Related