Comparative European Politics

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 319–342 | Cite as

International norms and distinctive policy choices in global AIDS funding: Comparative case studies of Norway and Belgium

  • Young Soo Kim
Original Article


In response to urgent call for international cooperation against HIV/AIDS, all members of Development Assistance Committee (DAC) converged in foreign aid policy decision for the health crisis within a relatively short period of time frame. However, there also existed variations among the DAC with respect to developing pattern of global AIDS funding. The research attempts to explore both convergence and divergence in the policy choices of global AIDS funding of DAC countries. When it comes to the convergence, it is the mechanism of norms teaching that encouraged the DAC to make financial contribution for the global fight against HIV/AIDS based on the sense of obligation and urgency. With regard to the distinctive pattern of the policy choices, it depends on the different norms stage each country was embedded in. The norms stage was distinctively constituted by each country’s different historical background, political institutions and public opinion. I examine the cases of Norway and Belgium both of which converged in the decision of the foreign aid yet varied in the policy choices of funding increase. Institutional harmonization and policy coherence took place in Norway in the stage of norms internalization, while Belgium launched transformation of institutional structure at the stage of norms acceptance.


HIV/AIDS global response to AIDS norms teaching norms stage DAC (Development Assistance Committee) Norway Belgium 



  1. Alesina, A. and Dollar, D. (2000) Who gives foreign aid to whom and why? Journal of Economic Growth 5 (1): 33–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Behrman, G. (2004) The Invisible People: How the US has Slept Through the Global AIDS Pandemic, the Greatest Humanitarian Catastrophe of Our Time. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  3. Berthelemy, J.-C. (2004) Bilateralism and Multilateralism in Official Development Assistance Policies. Paris, France: University of Paris 1. TEAM Working Paper no. 04014.Google Scholar
  4. Breuning, M. (1995) Words and deeds: Foreign assistance rhetoric and policy behavior in the Netherlands, Belgium, and the United Kingdom. International Studies Quarterly 39 (2): 235–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Browne, S. (2006) Aid and Influence: Do Donors Help or Hinder? London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  6. Brundtland, G. (2003) Global health and international security. Global Governance 9 (4): 417–423.Google Scholar
  7. Checkel, J. (1999) Norms, institutions, and national identity in contemporary Europe. International Studies Quarterly 43 (1): 83–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cortell, A. and Davis, J. (1996) How do international institutions matter? The domestic impact of international rules and norms. International Studies Quarterly 40 (4): 451–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Directorate-General for Development Cooperation (DGDC). (2005) DGDC Annual Report 2004.Google Scholar
  10. ECOSOC. (1999) The key actions for the further implementation of the programme of action of the International Conference on Population and Development,, accessed 19 March 2008.
  11. Federal Public Service Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation. (2009) Brussels, Belgium,, accessed 5 April 2009.
  12. Finnemore, M. (1993) International organizations as teachers of norms: The United Nations educational, scientific, and cultural organization and science policy. International Organization 47 (4): 565–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Finnemore, M. (1996) National Interests in International Society. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Finnemore, M. and Sikkink, K. (1998) International norm dynamics and political change. International Organizations 52 (4): 887–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Finnemore, M. and Sikkink, K. (2001) Taking stock: The constructivist research program in international relations and comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science 4 (1): 391–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. General Assembly. (2000a) The political declaration and further action and initiatives to implement the Beijing declaration and platform for action of 5 June 2000,, accessed 19 March 2008.
  17. General Assembly. (2000b) United Nations Millennium Declaration (A/RES/S55/2).Google Scholar
  18. General Assembly. (2001a) The Political Declaration and Further Actions and Initiatives to Implement the Commitments made at the World Summit for Social Development of 1 July 2000,, accessed 19 March 2008.
  19. General Assembly. (2001b) Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS (A/RES/S-26/2).Google Scholar
  20. General Assembly. (2006) Political Declaration on HIV/AIDS (A/RES/60/262).Google Scholar
  21. Hattori, T. (2003) The moral politics of foreign aid. Review of International Studies 29 (2): 229–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ingebritsen, C. (2002) Norm entrepreneurs: Scandinavia’s role in world politics, cooperation and conflict. Journal of the Nordic International Studies Association 37 (1): 11–23.Google Scholar
  23. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2001) Global spending on AIDS,, accessed 19 March 2008.
  24. Katzenstein, P.J. (ed.) (1996) The Culture of National Security. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lisk, F. (2010) Global Institutions and the HIV/AIDS Epidemic: Responding to an International Crisis. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Lumsdaine, D.H. (1993) Moral Vision in International Politics: The Foreign Aid Regime 1949–1989. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Mann, J. (1987) The World Health Organization’s global strategy for the prevention and control of AIDS. The Western Journal of Medicine 147 (6): 732–734.Google Scholar
  28. Mann, J. and Tarantola, D. (eds.) (1996) A Global Report of AIDS in the World II. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  29. Mann, J., Tarantola, D. and Netter, T. (eds.) (1992) A Global Report of AIDS in the World I. Cambridge: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  30. Maizers, A. and Nissanke, M.K. (1984) Motivations for aid to developing countries. World Development 12 (9): 879–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McGillivray, M (2003) Aid effectiveness and selectivity: Integrating multiple objectives into aid allocations. Aid Effectiveness and Selectivity: DAC Journal 4 (33): 23–26.Google Scholar
  32. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2006) Norway’s HIV and AIDS policy. Position paper in development cooperation. Norway: Loyal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.Google Scholar
  33. Miller, J. (1999) In fight against tuberculosis, experts look for private help. New York Times, 2 November,, accessed 20 March 2008.
  34. NORAD. (2001) Action Plan for NORAD’s Intensified Efforts to Combat HIV/AIDS. Norway: Norwegian Agency for Development and Cooperation.Google Scholar
  35. OECD. (1996) Shaping the 21st century: The contribution of development co-operation. Development Assistance Committee., accessed 21 April 2008.
  36. OECD. (2001) Development Assistance Committee Peer Review: Belgium. Development Assistance Committee,, accessed 22 April 2008.
  37. OECD. (2002) Peer Review: A tool for co-operation and change: An analysis of an OECD Working Method,, accessed 21 April 2008.
  38. OECD. (2005a) Development Assistance Committee Peer Review: Belgium. Development Assistance Committee,, accessed 22 April 2008.
  39. OECD. (2005b) Development Assistance Committee Peer Review: Norway. Development Assistance Committee,, accessed 22 April 2008.
  40. OECD. (2009) Measuring aid to HIV/AIDS Control,
  41. Openskin, B.R. (1996) The moral foundations of foreign aid. World Development 24 (1): 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Security Council. (2000) Security Council Resolution 1308 on the responsibility of the Security Council in the Maintenance of International Peace and Security: HIV/AIDS and international peace-keeping operations,, accessed 19 March 2008.
  43. Sogge, D. (2002) Give and Take: What’s the Matter with Foreign Aid? London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  44. Slutkin, G. (2000) Global AIDS 1981–1999: The response. International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease 4 (2): 24–33.Google Scholar
  45. Thomas, D. (2001) The Helsinki Effect. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  46. UNAIDS. (2004) Analysis of aid in support of HIV/AIDS control 2000–2002. Geneva: UNAIDS.Google Scholar
  47. Wendt, A. (1992) Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization 46 (2): 391–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wendt, A. (1994) Collective identity formation and the international state. The American Political Science Review 88 (2): 384–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wendt, A. (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. WHO. (1986) Global WHO Strategy for the Prevention and Control of AIDS – Projected Needs for 1986–1987 (WHO/CPA/86.2). Geneva.Google Scholar
  51. WHO. (1988a) The Global Picture of AIDS. Presented in the IV International Conference on AIDS. Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  52. WHO. (1988b) Guidelines for the Development of a National AIDS Prevention and Control Programme. Geneva.Google Scholar
  53. WHO. (1992) SIDA/AIDS. Report of the External Review of the World Health Organization Global Programme on AIDS (WHO/GPA/GMC (8)/92.4). (January). Geneva.Google Scholar
  54. WHO. (2000) Bulletin of the World Health Organization 78(6): 863 (
  55. WHO. (2005) WHO and UNAIDS, ‘3 × 5’ Progress Report, December 2004 (Geneva, Switzerland).Google Scholar
  56. Will, K.D. (1991) The global politics of AIDS: The World Health Organization and the international regime for AIDS. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina, SC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Young Soo Kim
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceLoyola University New OrleansNew OrleansUSA

Personalised recommendations