As the Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum has just wrapped up in the Swiss ski resort of Davos, it is perhaps opportune for us to reflect on some of the key features of this gathering in terms of “world order.” Perhaps we might also consider how this summit could move us towards what I have elsewhere called “Earthly Order” that is more in harmony with the laws of nature.
This is by no means the most comfortable place to have a conference, and fatigue does set in after a couple of days of walking on icy pavements and being bussed around small traffic- clogged mountain roads. Yet the Davos summit is among the few major events where public and private sectors have a chance for frank conversations. The Forum has a carefully curated format for dialogue for billionaires and politicians, alongside “thought leaders.” and is increasingly also inclusive of civil society organizations.
Around the time of the Arab Spring, I was invited to attend the Davos meeting in 2012. The year I attended was particularly opportune as this was the year of the “Occupy Movement” and a shadow event, or “Open Forum,” was organized at a nearby high school for the protesters, who had very little engagement with the main forum. Since then, this accessible event has become an important venting opportunity for activists and is now formally embraced by the World Economic Forum as well. Several side events continue to be held to this day alongside the main meeting which can often be even more invigorating.
The challenges of multistakeholder engagement were best exemplified to me during a rather acerbic conversation on the last day of the summit with an academic professional from a developing country who works on issues of trade and investment in emerging economies. He expressed sympathy with several prominent economists who were hesitant to attend the Forum because there were too many “non- experts” allowed on panels. Furthermore, this distinguished professional expressed disdain for peace activists and others with no direct connection to “economics” being invited to discuss development issues.
It was quite alarming for me to learn that while the Forum has tried to respond positively to a criticism of exclusion, it has incurred the wrath of many such professionals with a highly limited view of “expertise!” Networks and the nodes which constitute them may be inherently devolved in their full scope, but they still have a propensity for agglomeration at key hubs. Just like natural monopolies in economics, there is a tendency in networks to also form key hubs, as we saw in the form of the rise of the major tech giants Facebook, Google, and Amazon.
This clustering into hubs or even superhubs is a manifestation of what is sometimes termed “the Matthew Effect,” after the parable of talents in the gospel of Matthew— a “winner takes all” warning perhaps: “For to everyone who has, will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.” (Matthew 25:29). The term was coined by sociologist Robert K. Merton (who won the National Medal of Science) to consider the impact of major prizes (incidentally his son Robert C. Merton won a Nobel Prize in economics). The World Economic Forum has in essence become a superhub for public–private partnerships and is emblematic of the Matthew Effect.
Powerful networking platforms that provide the opportunity to facilitate channeling of motivational energy must not be intimidated by scorn for alternative views. The WEF has the challenge to defy the Matthew Effect and constantly bring new voices, think beyond branded elite university academics, companies and best-selling authors. This is especially true for our quest for sustainability which is often most susceptible to “group-think.” The proponents of harnessing the Matthew Effect consider success as a mark of consensus but research has shown that this can often mitigate innovation as well and muzzle beneficial disruptive thinking.
Former Vice President Al Gore’s diatribe at WEF this year was particularly concerning as it was emblematic of how the Matthew Effect can lead to hyperbolic statements that take poetic license with science. Using his star power from the political podium, he got to make a documentary, which got him a Nobel Peace prize which then guaranteed that he would have a carte blanche invitation to Davos – every year! Gore gave misleading information comparing the greenhouse effect to 600,000 Hiroshima-level nuclear bombs exploding every day and making the “oceans boil!” Such performances are easy targets for ridicule and can undermine the cause of a transition towards sustainability.
Efforts to bring multiple perspectives and diverse epistemologies to the table will be needed to realign global order in congruence with ecological order. A wide range of economic perspectives including from ecological economists (who consider natural capital to have some primacy over other forms of capital) should also be included. If organizations such as the World Economic Forum lose a few self- absorbed academics in the process, there will happily be many other useful professionals to take their place. It is sheer folly to assume that data and analysis are somehow static and that the last word on economic theory has been delivered. Challenging expertise orthodoxy to understand the complexity of human behavior is precisely the role organizations such as the Forum are best fashioned to tackle.
