WS1 Panel:
with the post-MDG debates:
global aspirations, domestic politics
and (un)intended consequences
Young and Dynamic? – a critical review
of Korea’s national level post-MDG
debates
Soyeun Kim and Hanee Kang
From what to do to how to do: some
reflections from Japan’s experience of
development aid for post-2015 debates
Sato Kan Hiroshi and Mizuno Masami
Dong Sang E Mong: Post-2015 Education
Goals and Korea's Education ODA Policy
Priorities
Moon Suk Hong and Tae Joo Lee
“The post-2015 decision-making process has
taken over the world of international
development. Nearly every conference and
every research or policy paper must now
include the number 2015 in its title, thus
making it "relevant". It is easy to be jaded by it
all. Are these discussions really worthwhile?
Will they really somehow trickle down into
real change? As I have written before, I think
this process has been valuable; we are going
through a paradigm shift which will have
(largely positive) repercussions on policies
and budgets.”
•Jonathan Glennie Guardian Professional, Thursday 29 May 2014
But the reality on the ground…
Korea and Japan’s national level debates
strikingly limited and at best superficial
• Esp. Korea - the Busan HLF4
• only a handful of diplomats and largely advocacy
CSOs with a close link to international NGOs.
• The process filled with an intricate mixture of
varied ideas, thorny emotions and increasingly
convoluted landscape of dev cooperation –
financing (Korea); revision of Article 9 (Japan).
• subsequent actions for the goals and targets
somehow become reduced to additional tick
boxes or some jargon-laden add-ons to already
chaotic policy documents or guidelines
What’s at stake?
• the good old implementation gap?
• the ‘Western’ vs ‘East Asian’ model?
(differentiated approaches to ‘effective’ dev) 
profoundly shaped by donors’ domestic setting –
relatively little studied
1. political economic climate such as the impact of
the rising conservative politics, economic
downturn and the geopolitical dynamics in the
region : also the China and North Korea question
2. burden of disseminating/promoting ‘global
agenda’: catching up those jargon-laden
documents, heavy/challenging task of translation,
and lacking articulate-ness in discourse production
when compared with the ‘Western’ organisations
•
•
•
that Korea and Japan (both government and
non-governmental actors) has with the postMDG debates as an East Asian DAC donor.
unpacking the way in which the these two aid
circles interact with the global post-MDG
process, and vice versa.
the process of (dis-/mis-)engagement and
(non-/mis-)interaction with the post-MDG
agenda may transpires as aspiration, or
hindrance, while shedding light on the relative
silence and ‘disinterest’ by the two aid circles.
Young and Dynamic? –
a critical review of Korea’s
national level post-MDG debates
Soyeun Kim (Sogang University, Korea)
Hanee Kang (Re-shaping Development
Institute, ReDI, Korea)
Taking the discrepancy and unevenness at
the heart of our discussion
• to identify / contextualise / historicise the
augmented and uneven geographies of the postMDG process in the Korean aid landscape
• two sources of Seoul's uneven process: relatively
shorter overseas aid experience (young) &
institutional dynamism  analytical foci.
• Y: capacity, experience and expertise within the
Korean domestic aid constituencies
• D: fragmentation/turf war and the strong
presidential influence
Conceptualising 'complicated relationship':
discrepancy and unevenness
• juxtaposing two strands of studies - to anchor
seemingly an idiosyncratic case of Korea to
wider epistemological debates on this issue
1. indicators (here the MDGs and post-MDGs) to
induce behavioural (policy) and knowledge
(ideas) changes for global governance
2. emerging donors in the global aid architecture
 Korea as an 'emerging' donor – dynamics of
localising the global norms or the other way
around!?!
Fukuda-Parr and Yamisn (2013a, 2013b)
• An analytical approach drawing upon the work
by Davis et al. (2012) - how the MDG indicators
have become transformed into a global policy
agenda and a planning framework by
establishing
– performance standards for monitoring and evaluation,
– a subsequent 'knowledge effect' through
communicating and mobilising attention to key
concepts for development purposes.
• incentives for changes in both behaviour (policy)
and knowledge (ideas) via adaptation and
localisation of MDGs.
adaptation/ localisation and
communication of MDGs as well as its use
• two key aspects of global governance
through indicators
• 'social processes' surrounding the use of
indicators including local responses like
claiming of legitimacy/power or
contestation over if and how indicators to
be adapted
• dynamism of indicators
prevailing tendency within existing literature
• many works on the impact on the South (as
recipients) without much discussion on how
indicators are localised as donors in their
domestic institutions
• The underlying assumption - Northern donor's
adaptation of MDGs were straight forward
therefore almost no divergence?  raises a
very important question of how the rest of the
world ('non-Western') is gazed solely as
decision/norm takers - therefore neglecting
any attempt by 'non-Western' actors in their
own way of 'participation' as decision/norm
makers (see Wade, 1996; Lee, 2008; Kim, 2011;
Reilly, 2012)  the point made by Jenny
Constantine yesterday at the workshop
• calling an attention to the augmented and
uneven geographies of the domestic post-MDG
process in an emerging DAC donor - Korea
• How likely the emerging donor as an
international development partner 'participates'
(or not) in the process?
• so far largely explored from a more
international relations framework and a statist
approach - a 'unified' front of government
responses to the global process at global
political fora.
• Such decisions and statements at the tops do
not truly reflect how those ideas and norms
travel; are localised ; and are acted upon
• specifically look into that schism.
Hows and whys of
young and dynamic
Korean Aid Process
Pre-OECD/DAC
• Act on the Measures for the Admission
to International Financial
Institutions (enacted in 1963)
• Economic Development Cooperation
Fund (EDCF) Act (enacted in 1987)
• Korea International Cooperation Agency
(KOICA) Act (enacted in 1991)
• Overseas Emergency Relief Act (enacted
in 2007)
After-OECD/DAC
• 2008: DAC Special Review on Korea
• 2010. 1. 01: DAC membership
• 2010. 1. 25: Framework Act on
International Development Cooperation
and the Presidential Decree
• Strategic Plan / Mid-term ODA Policy
(2011-2015)
• Annual Implementation Plan (since 2011)
• Country Partnership Strategy (since 2011)
Aid Budget
(2005-2012/net disbursement)
Bilateral aid
Multilateral aid
(Million USD)
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Source: EDCF Stats
(http://www.koreaexim.go.kr/kr/work/check/oda/use.jsp)
2011
2012
(Year)
Aid Budget
• Korean government declared the target of
GNI/0.25% (USD 3,200 mil) by 2015 when
joining OECD/DAC in 2010
• In 2009, Korea’s aid budget was USD 816mil
(GNI/0.10%)
• Since 2010, 17% increase average/each year
• In 2012, it increased to USD 1,597mil
(GNI/0.14%) which is far behind the target
of 0.25% by 2015
• Either, the target should be adjusted or,
MOSF attempts to adopt ‘Development
Financing’ associated with private funds
Aid Architecture(DAC 2008)
Committee for Int’l
Development
Cooperation Under the
Prime Minister
about
30 other ministries
/agencies
/municipalities
Consulting
companies
QUANGOs &
Thinktanks (gov-funded,
company-owned)
Business
OOF
CSOs
KOTRA etc
Coordination Mechanism
(Source: OECD DAC Peer Review on Korea, 2012)
Aid budget of implementing agencies
2013
100 million KRW
Name of governmental body(Ministry)
Prime Minister’s Office
Bi
33.6
MULTI
20.9
Total
54.5
Ministry of Strategy and Finance (EDCF included)
Ministry of Education
Ministry of Foreign Affairs(KOICA included)
Ministry of Justice
Ministry of Security and Public Administration
Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy
Ministry of Health and Welfare
Ministry of Environment
Ministry of Employment and Labor
Ministry of Gender Equality and Family
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport
Korea Communications Commission
Korea Fair Trade Commission
Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights Commission
Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs
Korea Customs Service
Statistics Korea
National Police Agency
Cultural Heritage Administration
Rural Development Administration
Korea Forest Service
Intellectual Property Office
Meteorological Administration
National Election Commission
7,076.8
521.6
5,690.4
10.7
67.1
43.1
150
97.5
126.0
101.0
4.5
10.0
41.6
1.7
0.9
1.8
28.4
7.4
28.4
7.4
138.9
69.1
3.6
17.5
3.6
3,982.8
88.2
1,489
2.8
25.4
90
15.1
196.4
85.1
11.3
45.2
1.1
19
3.5
1.2
3.5
1.2
5.2
27.1
10.1
18.5
-
11,059.6
609.8
7,179.4
13.5
67.1
68.5
240
112.6
322.4
186.1
15.8
55.2
1.1
60.6
1.7
0.9
1.8
31.9
8.6
31.9
8.6
144.1
96.2
13.9
36
3.6
Total
14,254.5
6,156.2
20,410.7
Imperial President
• Korea's top down model of executive branch
• Powerful presidential agenda taking the centre
stage of the Korean aid agenda setting  as
spontaneous policy space emerges
• five year single term - leads to policy
inconsistency
• easy to influence policy and political appointee:
• Unlike its US counterpart, the Korean case is
more of ‘parachuting in’ ideas and agenda to
the ministries and bureaucracy by those
political appointees.
Arbitrary localisation and divergence
Post-MDGs Process in general
• 정부기관 및 주무부처에서 Post-2015 체제의 후속작업에
맞추어 구체적인 ODA 정책 및 시행 등을 직접적으로
확인하기가 힘들고(자료가 잘 없음),
• 이슈가 있을 시 혹은 분야별로 중요한 일이 발생할 시(예.
2015년 세계교육회의 개최) 등의 경우에는 해당 관련 부처
혹은 기관(예. 교육부 등)이 함께 논의하여 진행
• 한국 정부는 MDGs 달성 기여과정에 있어서 ‘정책-이행-M&E’
프레임워크를 위한 전체적인 ‘매핑(mapping)’이 부재하였다는
한계가 있었다. -> 이 문제가 Post MDGS에서도 이어지는 것
• 그러나 무엇보다도 가장 중요한 것은 국가의 원조정책과
외교부 및 KOICA 원조지원 전략의 ‘공식화’ 문제이다.
외교부는 MDGs 지원 정책 및 전략 자체가 부재하고, 사실상
그러한 정책 또는 전략이 있다 하더라도 그 여부를 파악하기가
어려운 실정이다.
Imperial President
• president Lee Myungbak's 'contribution diplomacy' and Green
Growth
–



Green Growth
President Lee(2012)
지금은 다 사라짐
녹색성장위원회 폐지?? 유명무실??
• Saemaul movement as a successful rural development model by
the current President Park as her father Park Chung Hee’s legacy
–



Global Saemaul Movement
President Park(2013~Present)
모든 농촌개발사업 이름에 새마을 붙임
모든 개발 actor들이 새마을에 뛰어듦
Development Financing
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ministerial Rivalry
Post-MDGs 따르지 않고
Arbitrary localization
Creative understanding
Referencing France and others
EDCF에서 코이카 사람들 빼간다
Bilateral ODA by region (2007-2011) net disbursements
USD million
700
59%
600
500
400
18%
300
200
100
0
2007
Asia
America
2008
Africa
Oceania
2009
Middle East
Unallocated
2010
Europe
2011
양자 원조 지역별 현황
(2005-2012/ net disbursement))
양자 원조 소득그룹별 현황
(2005-2012/ net disbursement))
양자 원조 분야별 지원현황
(2005-2012/ net disbursement))