Lack of ambition and a failure to tackle problems in areas such as trade and climate change have given rise to scepticism
Last year it was Barack Obama's turn; next year it will be Vladimir Putin's. But this year it is David Cameron's responsibility to corral the leaders of the G8 nations for their annual family photo when they meet at Lough Erne in Northern Ireland.
There is something curiously dated about the G8. Its membership includes Italy but not India; Canada but not China. It is as if delegates from Austria and Turkey were invited to peace conferences between the first and second world wars but not representatives from the US and the Soviet Union.
But the G8 will not be scrapped. International bodies, once created, are incredibly difficult to kill off, even when they have outlived their usefulness. It was hoped that the G20 – which does include the bigger developing countries – would become a more effective vehicle for global governance, leaving the G8 as a largely ceremonial occasion for a handful of western leaders to gather each year for a chinwag and a photo opportunity.
In reality, the G20 has proved a big disappointment. More than 20 countries take part and, once the heads of the international organisations such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the European commission turn up, there can be 30 leaders round the table – far too many for effective discussion.
What's more, only once has the G20 shown any unity of purpose – and that was in late 2008 and early 2009 when fears of a second Great Depression overrode national self-interest. Since then, the G20 has been directionless, with countries agreeing to disagree on matters such as deficit reduction.
International summits work best when there is a problem to be solved, when one country decides to show leadership and when decisions are followed up with action. The US-dominated Bretton Woods conference that led to the creation of the IMF and the World Bank is a case in point.
But the international system is in flux, as it was in the first half of the 20th century. The stability of the cold war has been replaced by a world in which the developing countries want greater political power to match their growing economic strength. Countries such as China and India know what they do not want – they do not want western powers telling them what to do – but have yet to decide what they do want. As a result, the G20 has become a giant talking shop.
The shortcomings of the G20 have given the G8 a chance to reinvent itself as the body that specialises in international development. Without the involvement of China, the G8 cannot hope to come to meaningful agreements on exchange rates. Without the presence and agreement of China, India and Brazil, it cannot cut a deal that would conclude the stalled Doha trade talks.
But because G8 countries provide the bulk of global aid they remain big players in international development. Hence the summits have become the moment when the west "does its bit" for the poor. The debt-relief campaign came of age at the Cologne summit of 1999; the Gleneagles summit of 2005 pledged debt relief, a doubling of aid and a trade deal. It became the benchmark for subsequent summits, and this year Cameron is looking for progress in three areas: increasing trade, greater corporate transparency and action against tax havens.
So what can we learn from the intervening years? Firstly, that G8 has made a difference, particularly in the area of health. There have been hefty falls in child and maternal mortality, and this, despite what the sceptics say, is linked to the money provided by donors. Aid has saved lives.
Secondly, the G8 record is somewhat patchier than suggested by the glowing self-assessment report it published last week before the Lough Erne meeting. The G8 gave itself a pat on the back for keeping to past commitments, but a study by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) suggests there is plenty of room for improvement. Education, for example, has had a much lower priority than health, and even the extremely modest commitments made by the G8 have not been met.
The ODI notes there have been exaggerated claims, a lack of ambition, and a failure to tackle problems in areas such as trade, agricultural subsidies and climate change where G8 interests are at stake. Kevin Watkins, the ODI's director, said: "The G8 has acted like a student who ends the term by giving themselves inflated marks. They have self-declared an 'A' for effort and achievement. Our evaluation suggests that a 'B' would be more appropriate, along with a reminder that the student needs to work harder and show more application if they are to realize their potential."
Thirdly, context matters, and the objective conditions for this year's summit are good. Weak global growth means the G8 should be biddable when Cameron extols the benefits of a trade deal. Western governments are being bled dry by the offshore activities of multinational corporations, which should make it easy to get consensus on cracking down on tax havens. If ever there was a time to make the mining corporations come clean about their activities in Africa, this is it.
That the prime minister will be able to hail a summit success is not in doubt. The rules of the G8 club ensure that every leader can claim a major breakthrough on something, and he has had an easy ride from most of the UK NGOs. He has enjoyed a mini triumph with the weekend deal to double the aid directed at tackling malnutrition, and some campaigners believe there is a genuine chance of something big emerging from next weekend's transparency summit.
But genuine success would require more. On hunger, it would require recognition that handing responsibility to tackle malnutrition to a global alliance of agri-businesses is more about filling corporate coffers than empty bellies. It would require a trade deal that paid more than lip service to the interests of developing countries – that means tackling subsidies to US cotton farmers and scaling down the common agricultural policy. And it would involve a deal on tax havens that forced them – including the tough nuts such as the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands – to reveal which individuals, companies and trusts benefit from accounts.
If lasting achievement does elude Cameron it will be for three reasons: vested interests have proved too strong; the pressure exerted from civil society has proved too weak; and he left it too late to cajole and persuade his fellow leaders. Reports suggest the prime minister is fully engaged – but successful G8 summits need years, not weeks, of hard graft. Few leaders are prepared to put in the effort required, which is why most are forgettable affairs that deliver little.