The lecture from the Asia Director of the World Economic Forum was interesting - although turnout was ridiculously low in my opinion. Now that I am used to the dynamic and direct style of the Singapore government official, the very smooth and diplomatic tone adopted by the representative of the forum surprised me. It is obviously the style that mus prevail in such an organization as it tries to bring together parties with different interests to talk about global issues. The organization has no strong public stance, and sees its role as a mediator, a creator of moments of insights that organizations, governments and NGOs value. The person was very careful about how he was going to voice issues - but clearly had a very good grasp of what they were.

This forum is very much like a rich people's club. Now, in terms of impact and ability to act, these are the people to influence. As the Forum wants to remain independent and entirely funded through its membership fees and events fee, it is also necessary.
It is certain - as as the Director himself put it - that some organization are just using it as a basis to extend their networking reach. However, members sign up on a voluntary basis and executives, ministers, etc...dedicate DAYS every year to the forum. If I look at the latest survey on exec compensation packages, this is a fairly clear indication that there is value found in getting together, agree on the main issues, get ideas on how to go about them, understand everybody's concern.
I cannot really pintpoint the actual impact of the forum on their business or policy decisions. However, talking is better than no talking. If the Wolrd Economic Forum experts - often in partnership with major consulting firms - can help mediate and moderate debates in a constructive way - then there is a high probability that these talks are not completely void of contents.

I am not sure what day to day work at the Wolrd Economic Forum is like, but they are hiring right now. I saw some positions on the MBA job posting site.