Here is a question few people ask: why is the World Economic Forum in Davos so popular? I ask the question as I set off to the forum to have cocktails in the snow with my peeps (not), the 0.1% of the 1%, this weekend.

Allow me to tell you how that feels… It feels weird. There are few less-meritorious participants in the forum than I. Far from luxuriating in limousines, I feel physically ill when I see the amount I have to pay to fill up my car. I do not have a private jet at my disposal, and my idea of a luxury flight is a window seat in cattle with not too many stopovers.

Yet I have to admit, I love going to the forum. (This will be my fourth visit to Davos). The variety and intensity of the discussions feed your curiosity in unexpected and gratifying ways, and their international character can transport you out of the cloistered world of South Africa’s endless morass of problems and dilemmas.

It’s an uninterrupted feast of ideas: more than 500 discussion forums considering topics. You don’t have to agree with everything, but it is fun to have the ideas wash over you.

To me, it is curious that so few journalists admit to enjoying the forum, particularly because there is obviously a scrum to get invited and thousands arrive every year.

Many brand themselves as vociferous forum critics and make a great show of being righteously indignant at the idea of lots of rich people talking shop.

Read in Daily Maverick: “How the mighty have fallen — Vladimir Putin, Elon Musk and the Icarus effect”

But my feeling is, you know, grow up. Rich people are influential; they always have been, they always will be. Some are even influential because they should be influential, because they are successful.

Unmasking the ‘Davos Man’

Recently, Peter Goodman, the global economics correspondent of The New York Times, wrote a book titled Davos Man: How the Billionaires Devoured the World. 

A review in the Financial Times describes its contents as 400 pages of that above-mentioned righteous indignation at contemporary capitalism – from price gouging to anticompetitive behaviour and cosy corporate lobbying to the failure of trickle-down economics, the rise of international tax avoidance, growing inequality and the pain of public-sector austerity.

Frankly, I’m mostly with him on all that stuff, but here is the catch: it turns out Goodman is a regular at Davos. I mean, what? If he despises Davos so much, why keep attending? A spy in the house, perhaps? Still, you would think it would just be too much to ask a person of his delicate sensibilities to demean his moral code by attending such a despicable function. But attend he did, year after year.

The Financial Times review concludes that the book takes itself too seriously: “Davos may have failed to deliver a kinder form of capitalism, but its role in fostering the uglier current alternative is more modest than Goodman suggests,” reviewer Andrew Jack concludes.

Faint praise indeed, but oddly, the FT itself often falls into the same trap: desperate to disassociate itself from the tawdry unlikability of the global elite, it takes regular potshots at the forum, while at the same time sending a fleet of its most senior journalists to cover the event. 

The FT review itself is a good example. The review criticises the book for its overreach, but along the way, it suggests WEF has “failed to deliver a kinder form of capitalism”.

Really? The WEF is responsible for that? A networking event? Personally, I have no doubt the WEF has done precisely the opposite: it has encouraged business people to think more carefully about the social and environmental questions they confront. 

But anyway, leaving the arguments aside, the facts are in and these are:

• The forum is wildly successful, and no event demonstrates that more explicitly than the one starting today (Monday, 16 January);
• A record number of participants (about 3,000) are taking part this year, alongside a record number of heads of state (52) and a record number of finance ministers (59) along with 19 central bank governors and 40 trade ministers;
• And, it must be said, at least 100 billionaires will attend, among the ranks of the 600 CEOs attending.

Its true that this year, only one G7 leader is attending, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, and UK prime minister Rishi Sunak and French President Emmanuel Macron are not going. But both the latter have crises at home, as of course does SA’s president Cyril Ramaphosa.

So, to come back to the original question: Why is Davos so popular? I think there are four essential reasons.

First, there is just no other function like it where senior business people and senior politicians can mingle and get to know each other in an informal but creditable context. If any government were to try and hold such a function, it would be riven with diplomatic niceties and hierarchies, not to mention lousy food.

The fact that it’s really a business conference with government officials attending as special guests means it is a place where governments can pitch their tents without having to adhere to the limitations of their own political confines.

Visit Daily Maverick’s home page for more news, analysis and investigations

Second, it is actually quite useful. The forum gets lots of flack from the left because it’s a rich-person thing, but also from the right because it is actually quite centrist in its politics.

Its politics, far from flattering the ultra-rich, are grounded very clearly in the German social democratic tradition: progressive, functional, practical and forward-looking. But very proper.

The political tone is set by founder Claus Schwab, who is emblematic of the intelligent, forward-thinking thoughtfulness you often come across in the best German business and government circles.

Although I must say, I sometimes find the buzzword bingo tiresome and overwhelming. Everything is “inclusive”, “environmentally friendly”, “leading edge” and “outside the box”. But, you know, better than the opposite.

Read in Daily Maverick: “After the Bell: Botswana transparently displays what SA’s DMRE may reluctantly provide”

Third, apart from the value of networking, Davos does play a role in the utility of a central meeting point. One SA telecoms CEO told me he meets all his suppliers at Davos, and if he didn’t, he would have to spend two months in a plane.

Suppliers meet buyers, advisers meet CEOs, lawyers meet clients and, perhaps more importantly, potential clients. The services industry can get a feeling of who they might want as clients, and vice versa. This might seem very mundane, but I think its importance is often understated.

And fourth, FOMO. There is something of the network effect operating here: the more people attend means it is attractive to more people to attend. That’s part of the reason, I suspect, that self-styled critics of Davos Man can’t resist attending.

So how does President Cyril Ramaphosa, himself a Davos regular, deal with this unusual situation? More on that this week. BM/DM