As world leaders prepare to gather in Evian for the upcoming G8 Summit, Cliff Taylor, Economics Editor, ponders its purpose.
They used to call it the "World Economic Summit". Now it is called simply the "G8 Summit". Perhaps they changed the name to reflect the wider political agenda which has come to dominate the annual bun-fight of the seven leading industrialised nations plus Russia.
But there must be a sneaking suspicion that it was done to deter any expectations that the leaders might actually do something to address the world's economic problems.
And there is plenty they could be doing. The international economy post-Iraq is in a period of considerable uncertainty. Growth is slow in the US and positively anaemic across most of the EU. Japan remains stuck in seemingly permanent recessions. The fall of the US dollar threatens further instability. Many poorer countries - particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa - remain stuck in poverty. And the future of the world trading system is in question. In other words, there's more than enough to keep the discussion going well into next week.
Naturally the summit has post-Iraq bridge-building potential that could have positive economic spin-offs. The undercurrent from the US that those who did not support the war on Iraq must "pay" has not been encouraging. However, some friendly words over a few glasses of sparkling water in Evian, the summit location on the Franco/Swiss border, would soothe some of the concerns about a permanent falling-out, which would have inevitable economic consequences.
There is much more, however, that summit leaders could do to restore some confidence to the rather battered world economy. A key job of economic management is to try to provide stability and to set the most favourable playing pitch for business.
Investors and businesspeople worldwide are now suffering from the most uncertain climate in years and in turn this is feeding into lower investment and growth. Even a body as powerful as the G8 cannot restore stability and confidence with one wave of its macro-economic wand. However, there are things which it can, and should, do.
In times past, the G8 leaders have taken the opportunity to chide each other about their respective economic performances. However, there is one area where they share a common interest - and that is trade. Increasing world trade has underpinned much of the wealth in the industrialised world over the past few decades. It has also been vital for Ireland.
A recent Forfás report says that freer trade has had a "subtle but profound" effect on Irish industrial development and has been a key factor behind the rise in income from 60 per cent of the EU average in the early 1970s to over 100 per cent of the average today. The successive GATT rounds have opened up new markets for Irish firms and underpinned the flow of foreign direct investment, attracted by access to EU and other markets.
The gradual lowering of trade barriers through global agreements brokered by GATT is now under threat. The latest round of talks, under the aegis of the World Trade Organisation - the successor to the GATT - stumbled into the world in Doha, Morocco in 2001, after a false start two years earlier at the contentious Seattle summit. The talks are now in serious trouble and the omens are poor for a crucial mid-term review, due to take place in Mexico in September, with warnings that a "second Seattle" is possible.
If there is one thing the G8 leaders could do it would be to signal a determination that the Doha round will succeed. And show they mean it by backing it up with some real compromises.
The battlefield in the talks is complex, but as ever there are a few central issues. The EU is refusing to move beyond its current plans to cut agricultural subsidies and Japan is also holding out against US demands in this area. (Followers of successive GATT rounds can be excused a dash of deja vu here.) The US blocked a move late last year to allow developing countries greater access to cheap generic copies of patented drugs.
These issues of agricultural reform and intellectual property rights are key issues for developing countries, which rightly argue that the latest trade talks must live up to their billing as the "development round".
Rebalancing the trade system to give more to poorer nations was a key goal of the round, but so far the usual vested interests are blocking the key compromises needed to get the round going. Meanwhile, the mood music gets worse, most recently through the US launching action against the EU on GM foods - the latest in a string of trade rows - while also stating it will pursue bilateral agreements in the Americas and elsewhere.
Perhaps the last time the G8 Summit actually achieved anything was in Tokyo in 1993, where there was a middle-of-the-night breakthrough on the last trade round. This time there appears no chance of anything more than a bland commitment to continued talks.
Perhaps not even bland commitments will be made in the area of exchange rates, another key linkage between economies and a proper area of focus on the world leaders. The decline of the US dollar threatens to have a far-reaching and destabilising impact on the world economy. If it continues much longer, it threatens to "export" deflation from the US to Europe by giving an unnecessary downward push to growth and prices in Europe, particularly in Germany.
While the lower dollar appears to be quietly welcomed in the White House, in the hope that it will stimulate exports and growth, the longer term US interests will not be served by a moribund EU economy, or by the wider instability which rapidly changing exchange rates can cause across the world economy.
This is surely proper territory for international co-operation. The G7 (as it was then) structure was, after all, behind the Plaza and Louvre accords of the 1980s, international agreements to manage the dollar exchange rate, ironically both signed in France. (The first was struck at the Plaza Hotel in Paris.)
Such agreements are not always successful - the 1987 stockmarket crash and the subsequent US interest rate cuts undermined the Louvre goal of supporting the dollar, for example. However, even a recognition of the danger of a rapidly falling dollar at the G8 would be an attempt to address the issue. Unfortunately, this is unlikely not only because of the tacit US support for the dollar's decline, but also because of the extraordinary recent statements from many EU leaders and central bankers - most recently our own finance minister, Mr Charlie McCreevy - who have indicated that they are comfortable with the euro's new levels. At least Mr McCreevy acknowledged that the speed of the euro's ascent was problematic, but as long as EU leaders talk up the currency, they will only encourage the foreign exchange markets to "buy".
There are also longer term issues which the leaders should consider. As several leading commentators have said, the position of the US as the sole likely driver of global growth contains key dangers, not least the constraint caused by the current account balance of payments deficit, now heading towards 6 per cent of US GDP.
No doubt the leaders will end their meeting with a confident statement that the world economy is back on track for recovery. They may be correct, but the risks are large - and will grow further as the G8 ignores the big issues at the meeting formerly known as the economic summit.