As has been the case for some 13 years or so, some of the top names in business and politics met in Davos, Switzerland, at the end of January to discuss the state of the world and to tell the rest of us what to expect until next year when they will all meet again under the auspices of the World Economic Forum.

One topic last year dominated the agenda in Davos: the international financial crisis. In spite of some improvement, the same topic was, and understandably, also discussed at this year's gathering. And for the first time, perhaps, without the tact and discretion one expects from such a gathering of eminent personalities in such a pristine and calm environment.

The reason for the frankness and transparency that characterised this year's discussions was probably the criticism by some that a number of the participants last year were the people who played a major part in creating the crisis. To ask them to come up with solutions was probably not the best strategy.

One participant angrily reflected the feeling of the man in the street by saying that he could not understand the rationale of continued high executive salaries and bonuses after such extensive bailouts using taxpayers' money.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy may also have set the theme of frankness in this year's opening statement by giving a blistering speech against capitalism as we know it and the role of the banks. He also left no doubt in anyone's mind that the main topic for this year's Davos had to be again the financial crisis. There may not have been too much new in his speech but it was clear he was advocating a 'deep and profound' change in the way the institutions work.

This change had to come to the international institutions like the IMF and the banks, a position supporting US President Barack Obama's proposed regulations on banks and regulatory institutions.

The heads of Barclays and HSBC, present at Davos this year, disagreed with Sarkozy's point of view on the banks, in spite of the fact that the French President left little to the imagination when he stressed that without governments' intervention the banking system would have imploded.

In the same spirit the business leaders present tried to fight off a too rigid wave of controls, particularly they pointed out, when the recovery was still so fragile.

In addition to this clear stand-off between governments and the business leaders, the forum tried to introduce some more popular activities to respond to standard criticism that the forum ignores the priorities of most of the people and concentrates more on the concerns of the developed world.

So far, Davos has not produced the magic formula to respond to the concerns of the common good, concerns that were discussed by the World Social Forum which was meeting in Porto Allegre in Brazil and in some 10 other cities around the world. The Porto Allegre meeting was addressed by Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who promised to tell everyone at Davos that the free market policies espoused for decades were to blame for the world financial crisis.

Lula was taken ill on his way to Davos and never made it to the mountain. His Foreign Minister, however, delivered the speech on his behalf, which lambasted the wealthy nations for triggering the global financial crisis and for not doing enough to help the globe's poor and for failing to redress historic wrongs.

While the world media covered Davos as if nothing else was happening in the world at that time, one had to search the internet to find information on the World Social Forum, its agenda and Lula's scheduled trip to Davos.

Proposals and suggestions made for the two forums to join forces and to meet under the same roof have not so far materialised.

In the meantime, Richard Attias, who, for the past 13 years was a prime mover of the Davos Forum, has announced the establishment of the New York Forum. However, it appears to be inviting the same Davos crowd, albeit a somewhat more technical one.

Unless the new economic paradigm takes into consideration the views and concerns of the millions represented by the World Social Forum, which Davos has so far been accused of ignoring, it runs the risk of duplicating Davos, and therefore keeping the debate half a world apart.

With such exclusivity, the New York Forum will, instead of pointing towards a new solution or a new economic paradigm, simply repeat the traditional diagnosis and resolution, a result that will benefit no one.