The World Economic Forum's Great Transformation: Collaboration and the Seductive Fairytale of Davos

That business should have a voice in global governance initiatives is not being disputed here. What is being disputed is whether we should place our trust in an organisation funded primarily by those interests to deliver a vision of the most equitable and inclusive of global governance frameworks.
|

As Davos prepares for its annual influx of the world's power elite, we should ready ourselves for the now customary diet of star-struck, fawning and unquestioning coverage on the part of the world's media. A fascination with the number of private jets, chauffeured limousines, extortionate hotel prices and ludicrous fondue stories will almost certainly obscure any serious analysis of what the World Economic Forum (WEF) is doing - and why it's doing it. If only a small number of the media representatives in Davos this week (an estimated one-in-five of all visitors) were to scratch at the veneer of the story, we might discover that it's about much more than exclusive alpine glitz, back-slapping and networking.

In the coming days over 2,500 of the world's most powerful individuals will gather under the conference banner of "The Great Transformation: Shaping New Models". Many of those in attendance will have no idea what this means but will, no doubt, applaud enthusiastically and make all the right noises when mingling over coffee in the breaks between sessions. That they should attend at all, and frequently spend hundreds of thousands of corporate dollars doing so, is ultimately their business and that of their shareholders. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the pantomime of Chairmen and CEO's of the world's leading corporations falling over themselves to appear engaged with global social and political, as well as economic, agendas might be laughable if its practical implications weren't so tragic.

The 2012 WEF annual conference takes place, in the words of its founder Klaus Schwab, at a "historical inflection point" - set, as it is, against the backdrop of the most precarious conditions ever faced by the modern globalisation project. This project has, from the outset, had the creation of a borderless global economy with friction-free flows of goods and capital as its overarching objective - justified by a belief that greater economic development and interdependence between states create the conditions for a more prosperous and peaceful world order. Several decades in and it's clear, for all to see, that things aren't going entirely according to plan. More importantly, and thanks to the excess and short-termism of many of the organizations represented at the conference, a growing number of people around the world are losing the faith. They're asking inconvenient questions about the costs and benefits, and winners and losers, of globalisation - critical questions that are threatening to derail its progress.

According to Schwab, the turbulence of the past three years has seen us lose sight of the fundamental transformation that's taking place in the world - a transformation that's seen "conventional modes of decision making [...] become outdated". What's required, he claims, are new models at the national, regional and global levels - models that emphasise togetherness, the needs of a broader set of stakeholders and greater collaboration with empowered non-state actors. In other words, we can't go on ignoring the needs of a much broader global society if the 'great transformation' is to take place. As somebody who has followed the WEF with some interest in recent years, it's been fascinating to observe the changing emphasis from a preoccupation with the benefits of economic development to the broader societal concerns it now professes. In fact, one could be forgiven for believing, when looking at the WEF's current website, that the organisation had ever been anything other than "an independent international organization committed to improving the state of the world [...] through projects which address issues like HIV/AIDS treatment, water supply and fostering dialogue between Islam and the West".

I don't doubt that Klaus Schwab, and many of those who work for the WEF, have a genuine desire to improve the state of the world. Not because I place great store in their stated independence, neutrality and not-for-profit credentials but because, ultimately, I think they truly believe in collaboration as the only possible solution to the hugely complex global issues we face. The problem, unfortunately, is that the principle of collaboration - a seductive idea that's permeated all levels and domains of the policy process in recent years - is taken, for the most part, on blind faith. We've all been seduced by the reasonableness of pragmatism, collaboration and consensus - and a simultaneous fear of ideology, confrontation and zero-sum politics - to such an extent that we barely pay attention to the results. And therein lies the rub: collaboration has become a political mechanism for co-opting opponents and legitimizing decisions that, might otherwise, face more fierce scrutiny and resistance. The largely unconscious adoption of "mother earthish" collaboration rhetoric by practically all transnational policy networks, including the World Economic Forum, may be a reflection of progressive attitudes to the question of how best to deal with global problems. It is just as importantly, however, a reminder of the discreet, and ever resourceful, nature of economic power in contemporary world politics.

The World Economic Forum has over the past forty years emerged as a symbolic arena for discussion of the globalisation agenda. The consensuses and narratives that form in its extended corporate networks have had far-reaching implications for the shape and tenor of business/political relations around the world. That business should have a voice in global governance initiatives is not being disputed here. What is being disputed is whether we should place our trust in an organisation funded primarily by those interests to deliver a vision of the most equitable and inclusive of global governance frameworks.