Share

Reports


  • 24-October-2018

    English

    Working Together for Local Integration of Migrants and Refugees in Paris

    Of the requests for asylum in France made in 2016, more than 10 000 applications were made by people in Paris and were made in the context of a rising number of refugees and asylum seekers since 2015. This increase has stirred a debate in France around its 'universal' migrant integration model, which aspires to equal treatment for all and for which the main tool has been 'Integration Contract' for migrants. At all levels of government, measures are now being designed for 'reinforced' support for migrants, helping them to better integrate socially and to better access the  job market; these measures are tailored for all persons with a residency permit, in particular for refugees. This case study examines the City of Paris and its ambitions to successfully integrate its new inhabitants. The municipality sets aside dedicated resources for this and actively involves French citizens in implementing activities to foster social cohesion. The city is still attracting new migrants while socio-economic disparities and segregation remain marked in Paris and its region, in a context of limited emergency accommodation facilities for migrants and a tight housing market. More can be done to improve coherence across levels of government and among partners, in order to prevent fragmented service delivery and to improve how the impact of integration programmes is measured.
  • 9-October-2018

    English, PDF, 1,156kb

    Regions and Cities - country page - France

    Country page from the Regions and Cities at Glance 2018 publication (France)

    Related Documents
  • 20-September-2018

    English

    OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: France 2018

    The OECD's Development Assistance Committee (DAC) conducts periodic reviews of the individual development co-operation efforts of DAC members. The policies and programmes of each DAC member are critically examined approximately once every five years. DAC peer reviews assess the performance of a given member, not just that of its development co-operation agency, and examine both policy and implementation. They take an integrated, system-wide perspective on the development co-operation and humanitarian assistance activities of the member under review.This review analyses the performance of France, including its efforts towards international stability and climate financing, as well as the impact of the grant-loan composition and the cross-government management of its aid programme.
  • 15-June-2018

    English, PDF, 986kb

    A broken social elevator? Key findings for France

    A broken social elevator? Key findings for France

    Related Documents
  • 4-April-2018

    English

  • 6-March-2018

    English

    Measuring Tax Support for R&D and Innovation - country profiles

    The 2017 OECD R&D tax incentive country profiles provide detailed information on the design features and cost of tax provisions used by countries to incentivise R&D performance by businesses, reporting on both long-term and recent trends.

    Related Documents
  • 26-January-2018

    English

    Preventing the Flooding of the Seine in the Paris–Ile de France Region - Progress Made and Future Challenges

    The risk of the Seine flooding the Ile de France region is a major one. In 2014, the OECD estimated that flooding comparable to the historic 1910 flood could affect up to 5 million citizens and cause damage costing up to 30 billion euros. This update tracks the progress made since 2014 and identifies remaining challenges.
  • 19-December-2017

    English

    Government at a Glance

    Government at a Glance provides a dashboard of key indicators to help you analyse international comparisons of public sector performance.

  • 19-December-2017

    English

    Boosting Disaster Prevention through Innovative Risk Governance - Insights from Austria, France and Switzerland

    In 2014 the OECD carried out work to take stock of OECD countries' achievements in building resilience to major natural and man-made disasters. The report suggested that albeit significant achievements were made through effective risk prevention and mitigation management, past disasters have revealed persistent vulnerabilities and gaps in risk prevention management across OECD. Based on the findings of this OECD-wide report a cross-country comparative study was undertaken in Austria, France and Switzerland to test the recommendations put forward in specific country contexts. This report summarises the individual and comparative country case study findings. It highlights that the risk prevention policy mix has shifted in favor of organisational measures such as hazard informed land use planning or strengthening the enforcement of risk sensitive regulations. In the meantime, the great need for maintaining the large stock of structural protection measures has been overlooked and vulnerability might increase because of that. The report highlights the need for better policy evaluation to increase the effectiveness of risk prevention measures in the future. The report highlights practices where countries succeeded to make risk prevention a responsibility of the whole of government and the whole of society, by analysing supporting governance and financing arrangements.
  • 15-December-2017

    English

    Making Dispute Resolution More Effective – MAP Peer Review Report, France (Stage 1) - Inclusive Framework on BEPS: Action 14

    Under Action 14, jurisdictions have committed to implement a minimum standard to strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of the mutual agreement procedure (MAP). The MAP is included in Article 25 of the OECD Model Tax Convention and commits countries to endeavour to resolve disputes related to the interpretation and application of tax treaties. The Action 14 Minimum Standard has been translated into specific terms of reference and a methodology for the peer review and monitoring process. The peer review process is conducted in two stages.  Stage 1 assesses jurisdictions against the terms of reference of the minimum standard according to an agreed schedule of review. Stage 2 focuses on monitoring the follow-up of any recommendations resulting from jurisdictions' stage 1 peer review report. This report reflects the outcome of the stage 1 peer review of the implementation of the Action 14 Minimum Standard by France.
  • << < 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 > >>