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

Abstract

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. ABSTRACTThe purpose of this chapter is to critically review the Korean Official Development Assistance (ODA) policy in terms of its context, actors, structures, and values so as to find how these characteristics are reflected in the education ODA of Korea. Previous studies, documents of Korean Government, and ODA-related statistics are reviewed. Self-confident in being transformed from a poor recipient country to a DAC donor, Korean government emphasizes the so-called Korean ODA Model in sharing its economic development knowledge and experiences with the developing countries. Despite the coordination effort by Prime Minister's Office, government ministries tend to pursue its own ODA policies, while the finance ministry and the ministry of foreign affairs play major roles. As a result Korean ODA is economy-oriented, fragmented, and uncoordinated in planning and implementation. This study has found that such characteristics of Korean ODA are also reflected in the education ODA. For instance, TVET and higher education are the priority, while basic education is neglected, and the education ministry has its own ODA policies and programs. Outside studies on Korean ODA policy is rather scarce, furthermore, critical reviews other than policy advocacy are hard to find, particularly in English. This study will be a good start for further ones to understand the Korean ODA policy including education.

Asian Regionality and Post-2015 Consultation: Donors’ Self-Images and the Discourse

“…Putting aside the issues concerning implementation, however, in terms of philosophy, China's messages of equal partnership and support for endogenous development are not unique to China. They overlap largely with what Japan has stated from the beginning of its foreign aid in the 1950s, or South Korea since it joined OECD-DAC (see the chapters by Chung (2016) and by Yamada & Yoshida (2016)). Although they would not state in their policy documents that they have learned from the experience of neighbouring countries, in fact, the logic of legitimization and the modalities used for aid have many common traits among Asian countries, particularly among Japan, South Korea and China (Shimomura, 2012;Wang, 2012).…”

“…Therefore, by sharing its experience, South Korea can contribute to the self-motivated development process of developing countries. (More discussion on this point appears in the chapter by Chung (2016), in this volume). The successful experiences of South Korea include capacity building, growth of priority industries via centralized planning and regulation, and effective use of resources (Min, 2011, pp.…”

“…As the chapter by Chung (2016) indicates, the amount of South Korean ODA allocated for the education sector is around 20 per cent, which is considerably high. At the same time, the large part of education ODA goes to secondary and higher education, while the allocation to basic education is around 20% of it.…”

“…Both countries, which are DAC donors, have gone through drastic reorientation of educational aid to increase aid for basic education in order to align with the bottom-up and rights-based trend of EFA and the MDGs. However, the inherent characteristic is still there and surfaces from time to time, as the chapters by Chung (2016) and by Yamada & Yoshida (2016) describe. Asian education tends to be more pragmatic and oriented towards the formation of a skilled workforce and leadership.…”

Theorizing the Paradigm Shift in Educational Development

“…In addition, Japan has always been in the ambivalent position of being both a DAC member and an Asian latecomer. This struggle has now been taken up by South Korea as one of the main concerns of aid officials there (Chung, 2016; Korean Association for International Development and Cooperation, and Korea International Cooperation Agency, 2011). Somewhat common but different reactions to the mainstream discourse among northeast Asian donors will provide opportunities to consider the differential impact the international environment will have on these countries.…”