Bridging Troubled Worlds? An Analysis of the Ethical Case for South Korean Aid

Abstract

This article critically assesses an ethical case of emerging donors via a case study of South Korea's official development assistance. In so doing, the article sets out two tasks: (i) overcoming the hitherto reductionist reading of emerging donors that uses the established normative framework as a reference point and (ii) addressing a relatively understudied topic of emerging donors within the mainstream aid-ethics debates. To attend to these analytical gaps, the article focuses on two things. First, the case study is discussed within Korea's own historical and institutional context to highlight the latter's significant influence on the way its ethical case for aid provision is presented. Second, this study focuses on the tensions between the stated ethical rhetoric and reality. This study finds that the ethical case is not only an important rationale for Korea's donorship but also strategic for its efforts to achieve the comparative advantage in the increasingly competitive international aid market to advance its national interests.

The Korean Model of ODA: A Critical Review of Its Concept and Practices Reflected in Educational ODA

“…The weak position of idealism in Korean ODA policy, notwithstanding the moral emphasis, is revealed in its ignorance to humanitarian aid (Kim, 2011). Moreover, although the Korean government tries to combine idealism and realism in an eclectic way, the Korean ODA is also at odds with the norms and recommendations commonly accepted in international development community such as aid effectiveness, untied principles, and aid modalities like SWAPs.…”

Young and Dynamic?—The Curious Case of Korea's National Level Post‐2015 Process

“…This underlying assumption raises an important question of how the rest of the world is largely regarded as decision/norm takers (Kim and Lightfoot, : 713‐714; Mawdsley, :190). It has somewhat obscured non‐traditional partners' attempts or participation as decision/norm makers (Wade, ; Lee, ; Kim, ; Reilly, ).…”

Does ‘DAC-Ability’ Really Matter? The emergence of non-DAC Donors: Introduction to Policy Arena

“…This view is central in understanding the current debates on NDDs, because it highlights the tendency to reduce this diverse group of donors into a monolithic entity and to also set them apart from the norm of the DAC (Davies, ). However, as Kim () argues, this recent debate over NDDs pictures a rather familiar scene especially for researchers who have been working on Japan's aid. She further notes that this development seems more like ‘same script, different cast’ with the role of Japan now being played by China and India.…”

“…Such tendency is also reflected in the application of often misleading labels including emerging, which often applies to countries that may have a long aid tradition, yet have only become visible recently (Jerve, ; Lumsdain and Schopf, , see also Browne, and Burnell, for historical perspective), neo‐colonial, neo‐imperial and even rogue (see Naim, ). However, there are obvious dangers in uncritically celebrating those emerging donors as an alternative to the DAC model (Kim, ). The contradictions within the aid policies of the DAC members and the increasing neoliberalism of aid (Hook, ; Sorensen, ) have led some commentators to provide the NDDs with a sort of ‘moral high ground’.…”