Atlantico: Does the end of Klaus Schwab’s era mark a definitive break for the World Economic Forum, or can the institution find new momentum without betraying its core identity?
Rémi Bourgeot: Schwab had a knack for sensing the challenges posed by the gaping flaws of a system of which he himself was one of the leading advocates. Yet this approach was undermined by its own social framework. Beyond the current scandal, the erosion of managerial and governmental structures—particularly in Western countries—has deepened a broader crisis of meaning. We are witnessing a shift toward ever more insular, event-driven elitism, replacing the very notions of elite and leadership, which have been weakened by declining educational and cultural standards.
With its economic failures—stemming from the fragmentation of production chains in the name of bureaucratic optimization that has devolved into industrial tragedy—and a service sector increasingly detached from the concept of productivity, the idea of global governance has collided with a more fundamental question: competence. Schwab sought to propose an aggiornamento of global governance, threatened with collapse not only by populist leaders but, above all, by its own internal contradictions. However, the concept has evolved in an intellectually vulnerable context, succumbing to the allure of cultural warfare and spectacle.
Davos is merely the most visible, most glamorous tip of the iceberg. The proliferation of unlikely think tanks, especially in the United States, claiming to offer direction to executives, is a symptom of a deeper crisis of meaning. In a Western world that has turned away from tangible achievements, the most deindustrialized countries are the most obvious victims. In Europe, major French corporations are particularly vulnerable to this conditioning, against a backdrop of globetrotting corporate retreats.
Does Christine Lagarde represent a genuine leadership option to steer the WEF’s transition, or does her name merely crystallize a broader strategic void within the institution?
Beyond speculative rumors about individuals, we see many institutions replacing analysis and innovation with communication-driven management, meticulously calibrated in principle. Without the tools needed for major strategic shifts, these situations easily spiral into failure. This logic permeates beyond executive boards. It is likely that the WEF will double down on its role as an exclusive club rather than offering substantive guidance.
As companies gradually disengage from DEI policies, can Davos still position itself as a showcase for global progress without alienating its historical base?
Paradoxically, Schwab’s “Great Reset” initially stemmed from the observation that globalized governance—centered on quarterly financial capitalism and the Americanization of the masses—was hurtling toward a dead end. The idea was to expose the system’s flaws and advocate for a more intelligent form of cooperation. This echoed the calls for reorientation that briefly surfaced a decade earlier, in 2008, before the collective surrender to the opiate of monetary bubbles. Public institutions and corporations alike struggle to address the quest for meaning and the challenges of change, as seen in the widespread distortion of ESG principles.
As the global balance shifts toward assertive multipolarity, can the Davos Forum still assert itself as a structuring force in international dynamics, or does it risk being sidelined by emerging centers of influence? How did one man, Klaus Schwab, manage to plunge the Davos Forum into an existential crisis—and what does this fragility reveal about the elite’s reliance on tutelary figures rather than genuinely democratic and resilient structures?
The transatlantic fracture of the Western bloc represents a fundamental rupture. The same applies to the shifting alliances among the BRICS nations, despite their deep differences, in the face of Western disorientation. These developments carry significant geopolitical consequences, but also profound implications for economic and social thought. European leaders, in particular, are grappling with a crisis whose psychological dimension should not be underestimated, given how deeply the American leadership has shaped their collective imagination—both geopolitically, with Europe’s conversion to neoconservatism in the 2000s following the Iraq War, and individually, through the standardization of lifestyles.
This interview was originally pulished in French by Atlantico