Davos: with relevance in check, forum agrees diagnosis – 01/19/2024 – Market

The 54th edition of the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum ended this Friday (19) on a melancholy note, with many questions, few answers, family problems and an existential doubt about one’s own relevance. In the case of Brazil, the absence of government representatives in the economic wing to answer questions from global investors was felt.

The meeting conceived by Klaus Schwab in an alpine resort in 1971 brings together world leaders in different areas to seek common solutions for the year ahead. In times of multiple ruptures, rapid technological advancement and the rise of nationalism, these responses took on the appearance of a chimera.

The risks of the moment were well mapped out at the event, more than usual: the multiplication of climate disasters around the world, wars in Gaza and Ukraine, military friction in the Red Sea that threatens international trade, the possible return of Donald Trump to White House, the unknown consequences of the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence. But their solutions don’t come into view.

Added to these are the usual problems: inflation, high interest rates, fiscal crises, pressure on trade, changes in consumption patterns, in addition to the aging of the population and its consequences on the health and social security systems.

One participant commented that it is frustrating to debate in Davos the need for changes and possibilities for improvement year after year and not see anything change. In the forum’s closing panel, the president of Singapore, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, pointed out that many of these issues have no realistic solution other than global agreements (something in low demand at the moment).

A Sheet heard executives, diplomats and civil society representatives over the last five days to gather their impressions about the event and, above all, about the problems. Participants, in most cases, asked to have their names and positions withheld in order to speak more freely.

One of them pointed to the excessive expansion in the number of participants, from a few hundred to almost 3,000, as an inhibitor for ultra VIPs — if so many people come, the definition of elite needs to be recalibrated.

Although the forum saw its record number of participants this year, the number of heads of state and government passing through the halls of the Congress Center has dwindled. The one with the greatest stature was the Frenchman Emmanuel Macron, who is not at his best domestically. The one that caused the most repercussion was the Argentine Javier Milei, with his libertarian tone that culminated in criticism of the event itself.

And the one who attracted the most audience was the Chinese premier, Li Qiang, although his audience was comparable to that of the panel on artificial intelligence that featured Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT, on the stage.

AI, along with the possible return of Donald Trump, were the most debated topics in the corridors.

The first topic was included in the official program, alongside the energy transition, something that became consensual as a goal but not as a plan or strategy. Suffice it to say that one of the countries with the most constant presence at the forum was Saudi Arabia, whose wealth is based on oil. Meanwhile, the urgency of the climate crisis was highlighted as inevitable in several panels, including by presidents of oil companies.

The opportunity that the forum offers to politicians and executives to make contacts, seal deals and bring interests together, however, appears intact.

In the case of Brazilian businesspeople, several were satisfied, with the exception that the participation of the Minister of Finance, Fernando Haddad, was missing. There is interest in the country, even though it has declined among the strategic interests of companies, and confidence that the government’s commitment to fiscal balance is real seems solidified.

How the country will take advantage of the opportunity that opens up with the rise of the green economy and the interest in cleaner energy, however, remains unknown, given the insistence of the Brazilian government delegation in Davos in conditioning the country’s achievements to a counterpart of the richest economies and their right to use fossil fuels for longer.

The reconstruction of trust between the countries that served as the theme of the event still seems inconclusive. But the global economic scenario is already more promising than in recent years, despite the risks that permeated the debates.

The compass that the event represents may be broken, but it still points out the most important problems. Fewer and fewer figures responsible for political and economic decisions, however, actually seem to want to be guided by it.