A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI
Every January, headlines begin to murmur about a small Alpine town in Switzerland where presidents, prime ministers, billionaires, activists, and journalists gather in winter coats and sensible boots. The place is Davos. The occasion is the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum.
For many people, what they hear sounds mysterious, elite, or faintly ominous. For others, it sounds like empty talk in a luxury setting. Most people simply want to know: what is this thing, who’s there, and why does it matter?
This essay is written for that middle ground—the reader who knows little, hears a lot, and wants a clearer picture without conspiracy or cheerleading.
What the World Economic Forum actually is
The World Economic Forum is not a world government. It cannot pass laws, levy taxes, deploy troops, or compel nations or companies to do anything. It is an international nonprofit organization based in Geneva whose central purpose is to convene people who rarely sit in the same room: political leaders, business executives, academics, civil-society leaders, technologists, and journalists.
Its core belief is simple: many of the biggest problems of modern life—financial instability, pandemics, climate change, technological disruption—do not respect borders or sectors. Governments alone cannot solve them. Markets alone cannot solve them. NGOs alone cannot solve them. The Forum exists to provide a neutral place where these worlds collide, talk, argue, and sometimes align.
That makes the Forum a platform, not a power. Its influence comes from who attends and what conversations happen—not from any formal authority.
How Davos became Davos
The Forum began modestly in 1971, founded by German economist Klaus Schwab as the European Management Forum. The early meetings focused on helping European companies learn modern management practices. Davos, a quiet mountain town, was chosen deliberately: remote enough to keep people focused, neutral enough to avoid national dominance.
Over time, as globalization accelerated, business problems became political problems, technological problems became ethical problems, and economic decisions began shaping entire societies. The Forum expanded with the world it was trying to understand.
What started with a few hundred executives grew into a global gathering. Today, the annual meeting typically brings about 2,500–3,000 participants from more than 130 countries, including dozens of heads of state and government, hundreds of CEOs, leaders of international organizations, researchers, activists, and several hundred journalists. It is large—but intentionally capped to remain workable rather than sprawling.
What actually happens there
The popular image of Davos is a series of panel discussions filled with polished talking points. Those panels do exist, and they are public-facing for a reason: they help surface ideas and set agendas.
But the real substance happens elsewhere.
Davos is designed for density of interaction. Leaders move between formal sessions, small working groups, bilateral meetings, and unplanned conversations in hallways and cafés. Many of these meetings are private and off the record—not because secrets are being plotted, but because frank conversation is impossible when every sentence becomes a headline.
No binding decisions are made. No treaties are signed. What does happen is relationship-building, early alignment, and problem-definition. In global affairs, those are often the invisible first steps before any formal action occurs later through governments, markets, or institutions.
What the Forum has actually achieved
It’s fair to say the World Economic Forum has not “solved” the world’s problems. Anyone claiming otherwise should be met with raised eyebrows. Its contributions are subtler.
First, the Forum is exceptionally good at agenda-setting. Ideas such as stakeholder capitalism, ESG reporting, global health coordination, and AI governance gained early prominence at Davos before moving into boardrooms and legislatures.
Second, the Forum has served as an incubator for cooperation. It has helped launch or align initiatives in areas like vaccine access, climate finance, and cybersecurity norms by bringing public and private actors together before formal mechanisms existed.
Third, Davos has functioned at times as an informal diplomatic space. Leaders from rival nations have used it to test ideas, reduce misunderstandings, or reopen channels of communication. These moments rarely make headlines, but they matter precisely because they happen before crises harden into policy.
In short, Davos doesn’t produce outcomes the way elections or treaties do. It produces conditions under which outcomes later become possible.
The criticisms—and why they persist
Criticism of Davos is not irrational. It is, by design, an elite gathering. Many participants arrive by private jet to discuss inequality, climate change, or social strain. The optics are unavoidable, and resentment is understandable.
There is also a persistent frustration that Davos produces more talk than action. That criticism confuses a forum with an executive authority—but it still lands emotionally, because people want visible results.
Finally, there is the concern that some voices—particularly from poorer countries or grassroots movements—struggle to compete with corporate and state power. The Forum has tried to broaden participation, but the imbalance remains a legitimate tension.
These critiques don’t mean Davos is useless. They mean it is limited, and that limitation should be understood rather than ignored.
The bottom line
The World Economic Forum is neither a secret government nor an empty spectacle. It is a tool—an imperfect one—for convening global influence in one place and forcing conversations that rarely happen elsewhere.
Davos matters not because it commands the world, but because it reflects it. The same tensions people feel about globalization, inequality, power, and accountability show up there in concentrated form. That makes it an easy target—and also a useful mirror.
In a fragmented age, the experiment of bringing rivals, allies, critics, and skeptics into the same snowy town continues not because it is ideal, but because no better alternative has yet emerged. Davos doesn’t promise solutions. It offers something rarer and more fragile: the possibility that people with power might listen to one another before deciding what to do next.
Appendix A: Security, Protest, and Public Order at Davos
One of the most common questions people ask—often with suspicion—is: How can so many powerful people gather without turning the place into a fortress?
Security at Davos is led almost entirely by Swiss public authorities, not private forces. Swiss federal and cantonal police, local Davos police, and Swiss Army units operate in support roles such as airspace monitoring, logistics, and rapid response. Visiting leaders bring their own close-protection teams, but overall coordination remains Swiss.
The approach is layered and restrained. Davos is a small, geographically isolated town with limited access routes, which allows authorities to manage entry into the town rather than militarize individual buildings. Accreditation controls, police presence, and venue security form concentric rings, while the overall posture emphasizes predictability and calm rather than intimidation.
Protests are not banned. Switzerland strongly protects the right to assembly. Demonstrations are permitted with advance coordination, designated areas, and agreed routes. Police focus on separation and de-escalation, not suppression. As a result, protests at Davos are usually visible, peaceful, and orderly—more expression than confrontation.
Security at Davos works not because it is overwhelming, but because it is boringly competent.
Appendix B: Who Sets the Agenda?
The Forum’s agenda is not improvised, nor dictated by any single government or corporation.
At the top is a Board of Trustees, responsible for mission, long-term direction, and governance. The board does not choose individual panel topics or speakers, but it defines strategic priorities—the big questions the Forum believes the world must confront in the coming years.
Turning those priorities into an annual theme and program is handled by executive leadership, standing expert networks, and ongoing consultation with governments, international organizations, companies, and research institutions. Themes are often developed years in advance and refined annually as conditions change.
The board sets the compass, the staff draws the map, and participants fill in the terrain.
Appendix C: Where Is the Founder Now?
After leading the organization for more than five decades, Klaus Schwab has stepped back from day-to-day control. He no longer runs operations, sets agendas, or directs programming.
Today, his role is honorary and advisory—that of an institutional elder rather than an executive. Operational leadership rests with a new generation of executives, reflecting the Forum’s attempt to evolve beyond its founder while preserving continuity.
Why the appendices matter
Questions about security, agenda control, and founder influence are often where speculation rushes in to fill silence. Laying out the mechanics doesn’t require defending the Forum—it simply replaces myth with structure.
The World Economic Forum’s influence lies less in who controls it than in who chooses to show up. That remains its defining feature—and its enduring controversy.
Let's Talk About It, Lewis! 