In the closing hours of Davos in New York, what conclusions can be reached?
I think it has been an extraordinary achievement to pull off the event in New York, having decided only 12 weeks ago to shift the venue. Logistics and infrastructure may seem boring details, but if they fail, the whole event fails.
And the symbolic and emotional impact of holding Davos in New York, in the aftermath of September 11, has been powerful. Everyone I know wants the meeting to return to Davos — or some other mountain fastness — but has felt good about being in New York in these historic circumstances.
As always, the individual networking (schmoozing, if you like) opportunities in Davos are extraordinary. And for repeat participants (offenders), the networking gets better and better. I’ve made some good friends through Davos, and many more acquaintances that I look forward to seeing each year.
On the programme of the Annual Meeting, I can’t be as enthusiastic. Some things worked well. Plenaries, which have been an annual embarressment, were generally good. Set speeches were eliminated, and a vigorous question and answer format actually made for discussion and, at times, debate.
The general quality of sessions, however, was not up to the usual Davos standard. Part of it was technical: the venue meant there were many fewer sessions, so panels had to be crammed with people (otherwise invited officials and faculty would have had nothing to do). More importantly, the formulation of sessions was generally poor.
And there were some staggering absences. Enron, as I anticipated, was hardly mentioned. Yet I’m sure it will have a major impact on all the business participants here in terms of the ways in which they will be expected to steward their company. I didn’t see any serious attempt to deal with the economic disaster of Argentina.
As I’ve written before, holding the event in New York also meant that the US loomed too large in most discussions. Of course the US is the sole superpower, unrivalled militarily, economically and culturally. But it isn’t the only consideration. And even when it needed to be at the centre of a topic, we were too close (palpably too close) to achieve the necessary perspective.
Davos 2003 will be held in Davos, but the Forum has only confirmed its return for one year. I’m certain that, to preserve the spirit of Davos, the Annual Meeting needs to be in an isolated, somewhat hermetic place. The difficulty of getting there, the impossibility of slipping away, the enforced contact with others are all part of the magic of Davos. It’s remarkable that the Forum achieved some of that sense in Manhattan. It was almost Davos, but not quite.