達沃斯、需求與慾望——世界經濟論壇與賣淫現象

 達沃斯、需求與慾望——世界經濟論壇與賣淫現象

每年一月，瑞士阿爾卑斯山小鎮達沃斯舉辦世界經濟論壇（WEF），匯聚政治領袖、企業巨頭與全球精英，討論氣候變遷、不平等與「資本主義的未來」。然而，在官方議程之外，另一個經濟悄然興起：性產業市場，其需求在論壇開幕時劇烈飆升。從經濟史角度，這並非偶然醜聞，而是集中財富、權力與暫時特權催生短期個人服務需求（包括賣淫）的重複模式。

達沃斯需求飆升

瑞士與國際媒體報導顯示，論壇期間，達沃斯的性服務需求可激增至平日的40倍。2026年首日，一家成人服務平台記錄79筆預訂，對比平日約兩筆。大量需求來自高淨值參與者——CEO、政客與富人，他們願在幾天內花費數萬美元於伴遊與派對。經濟上，這像典型的短期需求衝擊：固定小鎮突然湧入極度富有的訪客，擁有高可支配收入與有限時間。在賣淫合法且受監管的國家，性工作者——專業伴遊、學生、教師與旅行者——移入達沃斯捕捉短期租金。

供應回應與勞動流動

供應側高度流動。性產業機構報告，來自歐洲與更遠地區的女性湧入，包括將論壇週視為高收入季節性工作的學生與專業人士。部分工作者穿著商務服裝融入與會者，其他則被雇用於陪伴、演講排練「觀眾」或角色扮演。從經濟史看，這類似舊時市集、軍營與帝國首都的季節性或事件驅動性產業：精英集中一地，平行服務經濟隨之而來。今日差異在於，達沃斯被明確定位為全球責任峰會，卻同時滋生慾望與隱秘的影子經濟。

權力、不平等與「骯髒秘密」

評論家指出，同一領袖在WEF談論性別平等與社會包容，卻在達沃斯酒店與酒吧光顧性工作者。批評者認為這暴露深刻偽善：官方議程聚焦合作與永續，非正式社交圈卻強化金錢、地位與身體訪問的階層。從經濟史解讀，達沃斯賣淫是不平等與特權的可見症狀。需求飆升非隨機，反映全球決策權集中在少數可將性產業視為奢侈品的個人。同時，供應側揭示經濟不穩定——學生債務、低薪與不穩工作——如何推動女性在論壇週投入高風險高回報勞動。

對全球資本主義的啟示

廣義上，達沃斯–賣淫紐帶說明全球峰會與金融中心如何催生影子市場。如同港口、證券交易所與帝國首都曾吸引妓院與賭場，今日政策與金融樞紐吸引罕見於官方公報的短期高利潤服務。達沃斯案例也凸顯道德主義視角的局限。經濟史透鏡視其為適應性勞動回應，源於極端不平等、財富暫時聚集與商業網絡與個人放縱的模糊界線。

Davos, Demand, and Desire – Prostitution and the World Economic Forum

 Davos, Demand, and Desire – Prostitution and the World Economic Forum

Every January, the Swiss Alpine town of Davos hosts the World Economic Forum (WEF), a gathering of political leaders, corporate chiefs, and global elites who come to discuss climate change, inequality, and the “future of capitalism.” Yet alongside the official agenda, another economy blooms: the sex‑work market, whose demand surges dramatically whenever the Davos summit opens. From an economic‑history perspective, this pattern is not a scandalous anomaly but a recurring feature of how concentrated wealth, power, and temporary privilege generate short‑run spikes in demand for personal services—including prostitution.

The Davos demand spike

Reports from Swiss and international media show that, during the WEF week, requests for erotic services in Davos can rise by up to 40 times the usual level. One adult‑service platform recorded 79 bookings on the first day of the 2026 forum, compared with an average of about two per day outside the conference. Much of this demand comes from high‑net‑worth attendees—CEOs, politicians, and wealthy individuals—many of whom are willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars over a few days on escorts and parties.

Economically, this looks like a classic temporary demand shock: a fixed, small town suddenly flooded with extremely wealthy visitors, each with high disposable income and limited time. In a country where prostitution is legal and regulated, sex workers—professional escorts, students, teachers, and travellers—move into Davos to capture this short‑term rent.

Supply response and labour mobility

The supply side of this market is highly mobile. Sex‑work agencies report a sharp influx of women from across Europe and beyond, including students and professionals who treat the WEF week as a high‑income seasonal job. Some workers wear business attire to blend in with delegates, while others are hired not only for sex but also for companionship, speech‑rehearsal “audiences,” or role‑play scenarios.

From an economic‑history standpoint, this mirrors older patterns of seasonal or event‑driven sex‑work markets around fairs, military camps, and imperial capitals: when elites concentrate in one place, a parallel service economy follows. The difference today is that Davos is explicitly framed as a summit of global responsibility, even as it generates a shadow economy of desire and discretion.

Power, inequality, and the “dirty secrets” of Davos

Commentators have long noted that the same leaders who speak about gender equality and social inclusion at the WEF often patronise sex workers in the hotels and bars of Davos. Critics argue that this exposes a deep hypocrisy: the forum’s official agenda focuses on cooperation and sustainability, while its informal social circuit reinforces hierarchies of money, status, and bodily access.

For an economic‑history reading, Davos prostitution is a visible symptom of inequality and privilege. The demand spike is not random; it reflects the concentration of global decision‑making power in a handful of individuals who can afford to treat sex work as a luxury good. At the same time, the supply side reveals how economic precarity—student debt, low wages, and insecure jobs—pushes some women into high‑risk, high‑reward labour during the WEF week.

What this tells us about global capitalism

In broader economic‑history terms, the Davos‑prostitution nexus illustrates how global summits and financial centres generate shadow markets around them. Just as ports, stock exchanges, and imperial capitals once attracted brothels and gambling dens, today’s hubs of policy and finance attract short‑term, high‑margin services that are rarely mentioned in official communiqués.

The Davos case also highlights the limits of a purely moralistic view of prostitution. Instead of treating the phenomenon as mere vice, an economic‑history lens sees it as an adaptive labour response to extreme inequality, temporary agglomeration of wealth, and the blurred line between business networking and personal indulgence.

---

英國在全球GDP中的差距演變——自1800年以來的經濟史

 英國在全球GDP中的差距演變——自1800年以來的經濟史

過去兩個世紀，英國從世界首屈一指的工業大國，轉變為在全球GDP中佔比中等的大國。以全球產出比例衡量，英國的份額在19世紀末達到頂峰，隨後因工業化擴散與新興強權（尤其是美國、德國、日本與後來的中國）崛起而逐漸萎縮。這一長期故事的轉折點不在單一年份，而在1870年代至1914年期間，英國在全球GDP中的份額開始持續、長期下降。

黃金時代：1800–1870

19世紀初，英國率先工業化，迅速成為「世界工廠」。到1870年代，其佔全球GDP約9–10%，全球製造業產出份額更高達22–23%。在此階段，英國與其他經濟體的差距擴大：其全球GDP份額增長快於歐洲大陸、美國與亞洲。這一時期是工業化「先發優勢」的典範，英國在他人追趕前攫取了不成比例的全球收入。

轉折點：1870–1914

1870年代後，英國的全球GDP份額停止上升並開始下滑。到1913年，降至約8–9%，製造業份額降至13–14%。這是關鍵轉折點：美國與德國的追趕開始超越英國自身成長。多種力量匯聚：

• 第二次工業革命（鋼鐵、化工、電力、大規模生產）在美國與德國扎根更快，英國舊產業與制度適應緩慢。

• 保護主義與帝國競爭偏離英國倡導的自由貿易秩序。

• 帝國與軍事開支加重財政負擔。

這一時期標誌英國在全球GDP的相對差距頂峰與長期下降的開始。

兩次大戰與戰後時期

兩次世界大戰加速英國全球份額下滑。戰爭成本、海外資產損失與英鎊地位削弱，使英國在全球產出中的份額跌至個位數百分比，儘管經濟絕對規模仍在增長。戰後去工業化、帝國終結與美國及東亞崛起進一步壓縮其影響力。到1970年代，製造業份額降至約5%，全球GDP份額徘徊在4–5%。

近期：穩固而非復甦

自1980年代，英國維持大型全球化經濟，但全球GDP份額穩定而非回升。近年數據顯示，其佔全球GDP約3.2–3.5%（名義美元），購買力平價調整後約2.0–2.2%。英國如今是前十經濟體，但不再主導全球收入。

自1800年以來，長期趨勢清晰：英國在全球GDP的差距先擴大，在1870–1913年頂峰，隨後因世界經濟多樣化與工業化而持續縮小。轉折點是追趕力量超越英國成長的時刻。

The Rise and Relative Decline of the UK in World GDP – An Economic History since 1800

 The Rise and Relative Decline of the UK in World GDP – An Economic History since 1800

Over the past two centuries, the United Kingdom has moved from being the world’s leading industrial power to a large but mid‑sized economy in global GDP terms. Measured as a share of world output, Britain’s position peaked in the late 19th century and then gradually eroded as industrialisation spread and new powers—especially the United States, Germany, Japan, and later China—rose. The turning point in this long‑run story lies not in a single year, but in the period from the 1870s to the 1914, when Britain’s share of global GDP began a sustained, secular decline.

Britain’s golden age, 1800–1870

At the start of the 19th century, Britain was the first nation to industrialise and quickly became the “workshop of the world.” By the 1870s, it accounted for roughly 9–10% of global GDP and an even larger share of global manufacturing output (around 22–23%). During this phase, the UK’s gap with other economies was widening: its share of world GDP was growing faster than that of continental Europe, the United States, and Asia.

This golden age rested on several pillars: coal‑powered industry, a large colonial and maritime empire, a relatively open trade regime, and early leadership in railways, textiles, and engineering. For students of economic history, this period looks like a classic case of first‑mover advantage in industrialisation, where Britain captured a disproportionate slice of global income before others caught up.

The turning point: 1870–1914

From the 1870s onward, Britain’s share of world GDP stopped rising and then began to fall. By 1913, the UK’s share of global GDP had slipped to around 8–9%, while its share of global manufacturing had fallen to about 13–14%. This marks the key turning point: the moment when catch‑up by the United States and Germany started to outweigh Britain’s own growth.

Several forces converged:

• The Second Industrial Revolution (steel, chemicals, electricity, mass production) took root faster in the US and Germany than in Britain, where older industries and institutions were slower to adapt.​

• Rising protectionism and imperial competition pushed trade patterns away from the relatively free‑trade order Britain had championed in the mid‑19th century.​

• The burden of empire and military spending began to weigh more heavily on public finances and investment choices.​

From an economic‑history standpoint, 1870–1914 is when Britain’s relative gap in global GDP peaked and then began its long descent.

The interwar and post‑1945 era

The two world wars accelerated the decline in Britain’s global weight. The costs of fighting, the loss of overseas assets, and the erosion of sterling’s role as the dominant global currency all chipped away at the UK’s share of world output. By the mid‑20th century, Britain’s share of global GDP had fallen into the low‑single‑digit percentages, even though the economy itself continued to grow in absolute terms.

In the post‑1945 period, deindustrialisation, the end of empire, and the rise of the United States and later East Asia further compressed Britain’s global footprint. By the 1970s, the UK’s share of world manufacturing output had dropped to around 5%, and its share of global GDP hovered near 4–5% in nominal terms.​

Recent decades: consolidation rather than recovery

Since the 1980s, the UK has remained a large, highly globalised economy, but its share of world GDP has stabilised rather than rebounded. Recent World Bank data show the UK accounting for about 3.2–3.5% of world GDP in current‑dollar terms, with purchasing‑power‑adjusted shares around 2.0–2.2%. In other words, Britain is now a top‑ten economy in size, but no longer a dominant global power in income terms.

From an economic‑history perspective, the long‑run trend since 1800 is clear: Britain’s gap as a share of global GDP first widened, then peaked around 1870–1913, and has since narrowed steadily as the world economy diversified and industrialised. The turning point is best understood not as a sudden crash, but as the moment when catch‑up by other industrial powers began to outpace Britain’s own growth.