Each year in late January, global leaders — politicians, bureaucrats, corporate executives, and public intellectuals — make a pilgrimage to the Swiss town of Davos for the World Economic Forum. Demand is so great, and growing, available accommodations soon may not be sufficient.

These 2,000 or so elites (0.00003% of the world’s population) are the Davos Men (and comparatively few women), a term coined by political scientist Samuel P. Huntington. The average age of the participants is a bit over 50. They are predominately male, with only one in five being female. They represent around 1,000 organizations from 100 countries, although the largest proportion are from Western Europe and North America. Over the course of several days, their views, strategies, and policies will be captured by the paparazzi and an adoring media.

In recent years, the World Economic Forum (WEF) has focused on economic matters and the new global context, encompassing conflicts, instability, and political, economic, and technological changes. But in truth, little of consequence happens at Davos. The real genius of Davos is the concept itself. Founded in 1971 by economist Klaus Schwab, it taps into the world’s voyeurism and innate shallowness.

For 2016, the WEF’s theme was “Mastering the Fourth Industrial Revolution,” designed to prepare leaders for a future shaped by technological change. Yet participants ignored the fact that much of what passes for new technology destroys jobs and wages, and exacerbates income inequality, as owners of the technology benefit at the expense of others. It was also unclear where this future technological wonderland fits into a world of unsustainable debt levels, the intractable trajectory of climate change, the slowdown in Europe, Japan and emerging markets, conflict-driven immigration and geopolitical risk.

This year, the focus, ironically, is on “Responsive and Responsible Leadership” — code for confronting the rise of populism that threatens attendees’ control of their societies and economies. Over canapés and mineral water, WEF participants will discuss concepts such as geostrategic competition, new antagonists, global solidarity, exponentially disruptive change, a shared sense of uncertainty, the transformation of human identity, and the shift from traditional hierarchies to networked hierarchies.

“ The conference agenda shows how disconnected attendees are from real life. ”

The conference agenda shows how disconnected attendees are from real life. It is difficult for those who live in a cocoon of wealth or power, generally paid for by others, to understand the concerns of ordinary denizens of the planet. Discussions on economic inequality take place with scant participation from employee representatives or workers.

In reality, Davos is a networking opportunity. Participants hope to build up their Rolodex and book face time with clients, regulators, politicians, and peers over a few, hyper-efficient days. Firms can promote views beneficial to their business and financial interests in a seemingly benign environment. For some, Davos is an antidote to the insecurity of leadership. Financial Times columnist Gillian Tett once quipped that Davos was “a self-help group for the global elite”.

The price of admission to Davos is high. The WEF must invite you, after which you’re required to pay a fee. Then there is a basic ticket which buys admission to general sessions. Additional fees elevate the participant to Industry Associate level, which allows participation at private sessions. Businesses pay a large sum to become Strategic Partners, which allows multiple attendees (important people must be seen with their entourage). There is the associated cost of travel, accommodation and entertainment of associates and clients. All this must be at an acceptable standard that does not embarrass the attendee.

The quality of the intellectual talent and power present is usually not the draw to Davos. World leaders, central bankers and policy makers rarely provide major insights or insider information, choosing studied caution in their utterances. Participants also regularly skip sessions — other than ones where they want to be seen.

Opinion Journal: Trump: FDR for Black Americans?

Davos’s prime attraction is its proximity to wealth. Exclusivity is important. Access is limited to people whose adoring and uncritical media profiles promote their purported genius and ability to walk on water. This obviates the sheer inconvenience of having to put up with other people who are not of the requisite calibre. The special can associate only with special others who understand them.

There is also a certain calculated frisson, supplied by selected intellectuals, performers and artists. This can result in confusion, with celebrities wanting to be intellectuals, intellectuals wanting to be celebrities, and business leaders wanting to be both.

Davos is also a way to distinguish your status among the elite. Did you fly commercial or on your private jet? Where are you staying? Does your driver have a sticker allowing door-to-door pick up service? Did [name of rock star/ world leader/statesmen/ scientist] attend your soiree?

But like all such experiences, Davos is deeply unsatisfying, although few will admit it. Ultimately, the real problem with Davos is that it reinforces the global elite’s deep insecurity and fear that not attending means missing out on information, deals, and relationships.

As Davos shows, it really is lonely at the top.

Satyajit Das is a former banker. His latest book is “The Age of Stagnation” (published internationally as “A Banquet of Consequences”). He is also the author of “Extreme Money” and “Traders, Guns & Money.”