About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

38 Hitotsubashi J.L. & Pol. 1 (2010)

handle is hein.journals/hbijllw38 and id is 1 raw text is: Hitotsubashi Journal of Law and Politics 38 (2010), pp.1-11. C Hitotsubashi University INTERNATIONALLY SHARED GOALS AND NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS: A CASE STUDY OF FRANCE AND FINANCING FOR DEVELOPMENT JUN INOUE* Abstract This paper focuses on France's response to internationally shared ODA/GNI targets in the field of development cooperation. At the Monterrey Conference in 2002, the international community declared that they would increase the ratio of ODA/GNI to 0. 7% by 2015. Although France undertook an individual target to achieve 0.7% in 2012, she decreased her ODA and postponed her deadline. Facing the global financial crisis, international society reaffirmed its commitment to increase ODA at the 2008 Doha Conference. The DAC peer review called on France for national improvements in development cooperation, including ODA. The European Union also urged member states to increase ODA in order to achieve the agreed-upon ODA/GNI target and argued that the current economic crisis could not stand as an excuse for decreasing aid. These pressures did not succeed in forcing France to increase her ODA. Budgetary-planning processes and the attitudes of both the President and the ministry revealed that France seemed to give up increasing ODA, while she seemed to adhere to spread the concept of Global Public Goods and new financing measures. International pressures were ineffective in changing the course of France's national strategies/plans. I. Introduction This paper focuses on national responses to internationally shared goal/norm. Recent studies have examined the creation and diffusion processes of internationally shared goals and norms, and have shown that international organizations (IOs) play important roles in producing and diffusing measures with which to tackle transnational problems. As Barnett and Finnemore have shown (Barnett and Finnemore 2005), IOs exercise certain types of powers (productive, institutional, and compulsory) in the various phases of creating goals and norms, diffusing them, and assuring governmental enforcement. Do states change policies and attitudes as IOs direct? If so, why and how do they change their policies and attitudes? In other words, do IOs really change what national governments want (national interests), or do they merely change the strategic environment in which national governments pursue their policies? To what extent are governments able to independently choose their policies? To address these questions, this paper * Assistant Professor, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University; Researcher, EU Studies Institute in Tokyo. E-mail: jinoue@ier.hit-u.ac.jp

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most