WASHINGTON, Jan. 26 (UPI) -- Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are staying away this year, but for business executives and others on the world's A-list of wheelers and dealers, Davos remains a place to network on a global scale. The question remains, though, whether the hobnobbing actually translates into achieving the objectives that organizers of the World Economic Forum have outlined.
"It's like Sundance or the Academy Awards to see and be seen" for economists and tycoons alike, said Peter Rodriguez, associate professor of business administration at the University of Virginia. "But there's an over-representation of the big economies ... and it's very clubby."
What's more, some of the most influential players in the global arena, most notably senior members of the Bush administration, are sorely missing from this year's list of attendees.
To be sure, the usually sleepy Swiss ski resort has had no problems in attracting some of the biggest names in enterprise as well as public policy for the latest annual meeting of the WEF which concludes Sunday. About 2,400 people are taking part in the latest meeting -- of which 800 are heads of multinational corporations -- a record number since the forum was founded by Klaus Schwab in 1971.
The group has, however, deliberately shied away from inviting Hollywood celebrities this year in an attempt to keep discussions serious and less paparazzi-driven. Instead, Davos is trying to give the limelight back to corporate titans rubbing shoulders with world leaders who have gathered to discuss overarching issues of global concern. In addition to CEOs, Davos has again attracted a slew of politicians including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown.
"The way the global economy and society has been developing since the 1960s ... has required a multi-stakeholder approach. Not just business, but government, civil society, religious groups, academics, and the media," said Geoffrey Pigman of Vermont's Bennington College. Pigman, who authored a book entitled "World Economic Forum: A Multi-Stakeholder Approach to Global Governance," pointed out that one of the issues that has attracted considerable interest amongst participants this year is global warming.
"Davos is seen as a crucial tipping point for climate change ... this is the first time business leaders are gathering in the same place since there have been major announcements on carbon trading" and other policies to protect the environment on a global scale, Pigman added.
Certainly, past forums have actually launched a number of initiatives that have flourished by bringing together businesses and governments together, with celebrities bringing the issue to the forefront, most notably the global health initiative to fight HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria that brought together some unlikely allies such as former U.S. President Bill Clinton, Microsoft's Bill Gates, and actress Sharon Stone.
One major problem, however, is the low level of participation of those from developing countries.
"The real issues that are driving the global economy ... are capital flows from the U.S., China and the developing world ... and oil, but representation (from emerging markets) is very limited," the University of Virginia's Rodriguez argued. At the same time, however, he pointed out that the world economy is currently enjoying relatively stable growth and therefore Davos participants have been able to focus on more socially-minded themes that are less market-driven, such as the environment.
Another point of concern is the absence of a cabinet member or any major player from the Bush administration, which may make it more difficult for any policies outlined at Davos to bear fruit, given the overwhelming influence the United States rightly or wrongly has in world affairs. Granted, a number of members of Congress including former presidential candidates John Kerry and John McCain are at the Swiss resort, but the fact that the administration itself is not investing the effort to engage in dialogue on overarching global issue could weaken the impact the forum actually has at the end of the day.
