Nestled in the Swiss Alps, Davos has long served as more than a scenic ski resort; it functions as the annual stage for the World Economic Forum (WEF), where global leaders convene to address pressing international issues. Within this environment, the term “Davos Man” has emerged as a widely recognized label, encapsulating a specific archetype of the contemporary global elite. This concept, originally introduced by political scientist Samuel P. Huntington in 2004, describes individuals who operate within a transnational framework, prioritizing interconnected markets and cross-border cooperation over traditional national allegiances.
This comprehensive examination draws from the original NDTV article published in 2026, which provides a detailed portrait of the “Davos Man” amid the ongoing WEF Annual Meeting, supplemented by historical context, evolving characteristics, and ongoing critiques. It aims to offer a clear, structured overview for readers interested in globalization, elite networks, and the dynamics of international influence.
The Origins and Evolution of the Term “Davos Man”
The phrase “Davos Man” was coined by Samuel P. Huntington in a 2004 essay exploring globalization and elite culture. Huntington portrayed this figure as part of an emerging “global superclass”—affluent, influential individuals who regard national borders as increasingly irrelevant obstacles. In his view, such persons exhibit minimal attachment to national loyalty, viewing governments primarily as facilitators for global operations rather than as sovereign entities demanding primary allegiance.
Over the subsequent two decades, the term has evolved from an academic descriptor into a broadly used shorthand, often carrying a critical undertone. Media outlets, including CNBC in 2018, summarized it as referring to those who are “affluent, influential, and more loyal to global networks than to any single country.” By the mid-2010s and into the 2020s, the label expanded to encompass not only business executives but also politicians, technocrats, and cultural figures who participate in Davos discussions.
The World Economic Forum itself, founded in 1971 by Klaus Schwab as a modest European management symposium, provided the setting that gave the term its name. Schwab’s initial gathering of approximately 450 business leaders aimed to equip European firms with competitive strategies amid post-war economic shifts. Over time, the event expanded to include heads of state, NGOs, media representatives, and celebrities, transforming Davos into a symbol of globalization. This shift invited scrutiny, leading to the term’s adoption as a critique of perceived elite detachment.
Defining Characteristics of the Davos Man
The archetypal Davos Man exhibits several consistent traits, as outlined in contemporary analyses and the 2026 NDTV profile:
- Access and Influence: Defined foremost by access rather than mere wealth, this individual occupies seats on multinational boards, participates in exclusive forums, and engages in discussions framed around “stakeholders” rather than national electorates.
- Global Orientation: Loyalty lies with transnational networks, interconnected economies, and cross-border collaboration. Nation-states are often regarded as regulatory hurdles—slow, emotionally driven, and ill-equipped for planetary challenges—while technocratic solutions driven by capital and expertise are deemed superior to democratic processes.
- Lifestyle and Presentation: Characterized by polished demeanor, carefully measured speech, and a cosmopolitan existence involving frequent private-jet travel. The image includes arrival in black SUVs, participation in closed-door panels, and preference for oat-milk cappuccinos during high-level deliberations.
- Mindset: Belief in the efficacy of global consensus and the moral authority of elite-driven cooperation. This perspective assumes that interconnected systems can address issues ranging from climate change to economic inequality more effectively than localized governance.
These attributes reflect a worldview rooted in the post-Cold War globalization era, where markets and technology transcend traditional boundaries.
The Davos Setting: Why This Remote Alpine Town?
Davos was deliberately selected for its isolation when Schwab established the Forum. The town’s remote location in the Swiss Alps—far from major capitals—ensures privacy, minimal distractions, and a sense of retreat from domestic political pressures. Historical accounts highlight this intentional detachment, allowing focused dialogue free from immediate national agendas.
The choice also carries symbolic weight. Thomas Mann’s novel The Magic Mountain (1924) depicts Davos as a secluded sanatorium where European intellectuals debate civilization and decay, removed from worldly affairs. Early organizers recognized this parallel, positioning Davos as a neutral ground where borders feel less rigid and conversations can extend beyond election cycles.
The World Economic Forum’s Transformation
From its origins as a pragmatic business symposium, the WEF has grown into a multifaceted platform. By the late 1990s and early 2000s, it symbolized globalization’s apex, attracting criticism as a venue where corporate and political power converge without sufficient accountability.
Recent years have seen adaptations: increased emphasis on sustainability, inclusion, and social impact, alongside invitations extended to influencers, activists, and celebrities. The Forum now frames itself as a catalyst for partnerships and initiatives rather than solely a discussion forum. Analyses of WEF press releases indicate a shift in language—declining references to unchecked economic growth and rising mentions of environmental limits, pollution, and collaborative solutions.
The emergence of “Davos Woman” reflects deliberate efforts to address gender imbalances through participation targets and curated panels. This figure, while operating within the same elite ecosystem, is often positioned as an advocate for inclusion, sustainability, and social progress.
Criticisms and the Backlash Against Davos Man
The term “Davos Man” frequently carries pejorative connotations, serving as shorthand for elite hypocrisy and detachment. Critics argue that participants advocate for global solutions while benefiting disproportionately from systems that exacerbate inequality. Protests outside Davos barricades, alongside the establishment of the World Social Forum in 2001 as an “anti-Davos” alternative, underscore this opposition.
Peter S. Goodman’s book Davos Man: How the Billionaires Devoured the World (2022) offers a pointed critique, asserting that the elite’s rhetoric of improvement masks self-interest. Goodman describes a shift toward overt deal-making, with Davos acquiring a “Las Vegas Strip” quality through corporate installations and suite-based negotiations.
Broader concerns highlight the contradiction: discussions of inclusion occur in one of the most exclusive gatherings, equality is championed from positions of privilege, and sustainability is promoted by individuals whose lifestyles contribute to environmental strain.
Contemporary Relevance and Ongoing Debates
In 2026, amid the WEF Annual Meeting, the “Davos Man” archetype remains pertinent. The event continues to convene thousands of leaders, yet faces persistent questions about its efficacy in addressing global challenges. Some analyses suggest the stereotype has softened, with greater focus on finite planetary resources and collaborative frameworks. Others contend that core tensions—between elite access and broader societal needs—persist unchanged.
The concept invites reflection on globalization’s trajectory: whether elite-driven consensus can genuinely advance collective welfare, or whether it primarily sustains existing power structures.
Final Reflections on the Davos Archetype
The “Davos Man” endures as a complex symbol—of ambition, detachment, and the contradictions inherent in global leadership. It encapsulates the tension between interconnected economies and national realities, elite influence and public skepticism. As the World Economic Forum continues to convene in its alpine setting, the figure prompts ongoing examination of who shapes international agendas and to what end.
Understanding this archetype requires acknowledging both its contributions to cross-border dialogue and the valid critiques of its exclusivity. For observers of global affairs, it remains a lens through which to assess the interplay of power, privilege, and progress in the contemporary world.