The annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos has long positioned itself as a global platform for dialogue. Each year, leaders from politics, business and academia gather to discuss challenges that extend beyond borders and industries.
At the same time, Davos 2026 continues to reflect a clear structural reality: it remains largely shaped by Western perspectives. Participation, agenda-setting and many of the underlying assumptions are still dominated by North America and Europe. Debates around trade, regulation, technology and governance are typically framed within Western economic and institutional models.
This is neither unexpected nor inherently negative. The forum emerged from a European context and developed alongside decades of Western-led economic integration. That history explains much of its relevance and convening power. However, recent years have highlighted how much the surrounding global environment has changed.
Geopolitical tensions, questions of strategic influence and diverging views on sovereignty now feature more prominently than in the past. Economic topics remain central, but they are increasingly discussed through a political and security-related lens. Davos feels less like a venue for broad consensus and more like a place where differences in priorities and assumptions become visible.
For those involved in long-term decision-making, this shift matters. It influences how stability, predictability and institutional reliability are assessed. Formal rules and frameworks remain important, but greater attention is paid to their practical enforceability and the political context in which they operate.
I have never been a strong supporter of large symbolic summits. Yet forums like Davos retain value. Not because they offer immediate solutions, but because they provide insight into how global narratives evolve and where established models are under pressure.
In that sense, Davos 2026 remains a useful indicator of a Western-led order adapting to a more complex and contested world.
