History marches past Davos: Global promises without binding commitments

As Davos debates dialogue and stakeholder capitalism, US resource grabs and weak public-private contracts expose the gap between rhetoric and reality in global economic governance

As the World Economic Forum (WEF) convenes in Davos under the banner “A Spirit of Dialogue”, the United States (US) has seized control of Venezuela’s oil infrastructure, installing what President Donald Trump calls an “indefinite” American administration of the country’s petroleum reserves, while blackmailing European countries over his demand for Greenland. The disconnect between the WEF’s call for dialogue and America’s unilateral aggression is jarring, to say the least.

 

US intervention in Latin America may be taking new forms, but the seizure of oil infrastructure echoes past resource grabs. While Davos attendees parse the nuances of stakeholder capitalism, the old rules of power politics and resource extraction are being unleashed anew.

 

In 2019, the Dutch historian Rutger Bregman cut through the Davos spectacle with surgical precision: “Taxes, taxes, taxes. All the rest is bull****.” With those eight words, he exposed the gap between rhetoric and reality, between the language of shared prosperity and the practice of wealth concentration.

 

Of course, companies should pay their fair tax bill. But beyond this, we also need to look at how value is created in the first place — not just redistribution but also predistribution. The latter is about restructuring how value is created and shared from the outset, not merely redistributing crumbs after value is extracted, and requires forging new social contracts with concrete conditions and accountability. That is why modern industrial strategy should be organised around missions: Specific, measurable goals that address societal challenges while catalysing innovation and investment across sectors.

 

Growth is not a mission. It is an outcome of investing in solutions to real problems. A mission to decarbonise the economy, for example, would transform energy, transport, food, and digital technology simultaneously. A mission to achieve “health for all” could advance public-health outcomes through innovation in areas including the life sciences.

 

This requires leadership, confidence, and attention to detail. The United Kingdom (UK) offers a masterclass in how not to structure public-private partnerships, and the “unreservedly pro-business” Labour government risks repeating expensive mistakes. Consider the US data and analytics company Palantir’s expanding grip on UK public services. During the pandemic, the company offered its services to the National Health Service free of charge — a gesture its UK chief later compared to a magazine’s trial subscription. Today, Palantir holds contracts worth over £330 million ($443 million) with the NHS, plus a new £240 million defence contract awarded without competition.

 

The Swiss army rejected Palantir following a seven-year courtship, as experts warned that its US ownership created intelligence-access risks and that dependence on Palantir specialists could “limit the army’s ability to act in crisis situations.”

 

With major UK infrastructure funding coming from firms like Blackstone and Macquarie, a clear pattern emerges: Socialised risks, privatised rewards, and essential services compromised by financial engineering.

 

Effective public-private partnerships include conditionalities that ensure public support generates public value. The US CHIPS and Science Act made funding for firms conditional on their limiting stock buybacks, investing in workforce development, and providing childcare. Germany’s public bank KfW ties low-interest loans to decarbonisation targets. Chile’s lithium strategy ensures mining companies invest in domestic value-added activities and meet sustainability standards, with the state securing a significant share of profits.

 

These are not anti-business measures. They are pro-reciprocity frameworks that align private incentives with public goals. When the UK provided £65.5 million to support the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, it required the company to operate on a not-for-profit basis during the pandemic. This is what genuine partnership looks like: shared risks, shared rewards, and shared purpose. So, implementation matters as much as design. Building state capacity means resisting the temptation to outsource core functions to consultants.

 

This week, Davos will feature the usual pledges about stakeholder capitalism, purpose-driven business, and sustainable development. But without concrete mechanisms — binding conditionalities, accountability frameworks, and equitable risk-sharing that distinguish genuine value creators from rent extractors — it remains theatre.

 

As another chapter in the long history of resource extraction unfolds in Latin America, Davos attendees should ask themselves: Are we building genuine partnerships or sophisticated extraction mechanisms?

 

The answer seems clear as tech titans line up to pledge fealty to Trump, with Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg ending fact-checking and Amazon’s Jeff Bezos killing the Washington Post’s editorial independence, genuflecting to power in exchange for free rein in using their platforms to extract value through algorithmic rents.

 

The spirit of dialogue is meaningless unless it is accompanied by fundamentally new ways to create value. True reciprocity requires new contracts that reflect a more symbiotic public-private relationship, with conditions that have teeth and share both risks and rewards. Otherwise, we will end up repeating the mistakes of the past.

 

Mariana Mazzucato is professor in the Economics of Innovation and Public Value at University College, London, and the author, most recently, of The Big Con: How the Consulting Industry Weakens Our Businesses, Infantilizes Our Governments and Warps Our Economies (Penguin Press, 2023).

 

Rainer Kattel is deputy director and professor of Innovation and Public Governance at the UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose.

 

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2026.www.project-syndicate.org