ABSTRACT

There are several ways to evaluate the G8’s performance. One can evaluate what a G8 summit (or presidency) has delivered in the broadest sense. A good overview of indicators, which includes a large number of aspects ranging from money mobilized over instructions to international institutions to compliance with taken decisions, is provided by Kirton (2004). In a similar vein, Sir Nicholas Bayne makes overall assessments of G7/G8 summits by assigning “grades” (see, e.g., 2005: 12-15).1 These methods have in common that on principle no normative standard is set against which performance is evaluated. In other words, they adopt a relatively neutral conception of a summit’s value-added in terms of international cooperation. They also allow one to make interesting comparisons between G8 summits. Still another approach taken by the Toronto G8 Research Group, is comparing the outcome of G8 summits with member states’ prior objectives, and assigning scores for each summit, for each topic and for each country (see, e.g., Kwok et al. 2008a; Kwok et al. 2008b).