“…So-called developmental states are known for having several characteristics in common: 1) a powerful government role; 2) export-oriented economic policies; and 3) an elite group formed around government officials taking the lead in designing and implementing policies (Woo-Cumings 1999). This common experience is a strong base for foreign aid decision making (Atkinson 2018). Confident in this model of success, these countries will try to spread the model to recipient countries.…”
Section: An East Asian Model Of Foreign Aidmentioning
The landscape of global foreign aid is changing with the growing number of new donors, especially in Asia. While Japan is no longer overwhelmingly dominant, complexity grows as China is becoming increasingly influential as an emerging donor, and Korea is rising to be a considerable donor by joining the OECD's Development Assistance Committee. In this context, there have been numerous controversies concerning East Asian donors, and even debates about the East Asian model of aid apart from the more traditional Western models. However, only a handful of studies have examined donor behavior empirically. This study aims to assess the motives in the foreign aid allocations of China, Japan, and Korea as a group and as individual donors by methodically and empirically examining aid patterns and the East Asian model of aid. This research shows that the most important drivers of aid allocations of East Asian donor are economic, as opposed to political-strategic or humanitarian, which is viewed as typical for China, Japan, and Korea. Furthermore, this characteristic of valuing economic factors can be seen more clearly in Asia and other regions compared to in Africa. However, on an individual country level, economic motives are the primary determinants of aid allocations only for China. Japan prioritizes humanitarian factors over economic ones, and Korea does not reveal a clear pattern either way.
“…So-called developmental states are known for having several characteristics in common: 1) a powerful government role; 2) export-oriented economic policies; and 3) an elite group formed around government officials taking the lead in designing and implementing policies (Woo-Cumings 1999). This common experience is a strong base for foreign aid decision making (Atkinson 2018). Confident in this model of success, these countries will try to spread the model to recipient countries.…”
Section: An East Asian Model Of Foreign Aidmentioning
The landscape of global foreign aid is changing with the growing number of new donors, especially in Asia. While Japan is no longer overwhelmingly dominant, complexity grows as China is becoming increasingly influential as an emerging donor, and Korea is rising to be a considerable donor by joining the OECD's Development Assistance Committee. In this context, there have been numerous controversies concerning East Asian donors, and even debates about the East Asian model of aid apart from the more traditional Western models. However, only a handful of studies have examined donor behavior empirically. This study aims to assess the motives in the foreign aid allocations of China, Japan, and Korea as a group and as individual donors by methodically and empirically examining aid patterns and the East Asian model of aid. This research shows that the most important drivers of aid allocations of East Asian donor are economic, as opposed to political-strategic or humanitarian, which is viewed as typical for China, Japan, and Korea. Furthermore, this characteristic of valuing economic factors can be seen more clearly in Asia and other regions compared to in Africa. However, on an individual country level, economic motives are the primary determinants of aid allocations only for China. Japan prioritizes humanitarian factors over economic ones, and Korea does not reveal a clear pattern either way.
“…As shown in Table 1, Korea is similar to Japan relative to the DAC average, but also different. This means that the description of Korea's motives relative to Japan will shift depending on which motives are assigned to which explanatory variables (see Atkinson, 2018). For example, Sohn et al (2020, p. 123) found:on an individual country level, economic motives are the primary determinants of aid allocations only for China.…”
Section: What Do We Know About South Korean Oda Motives?mentioning
Official Development Assistance (ODA) is defined by a motive: the promotion of the economic development and welfare of developing countries. This review article considers the motives of one donor, South Korea, with a close reading and comparison of three authoritative texts. It argues that Korean ODA is primarily motivated by increasing status and influence, and supporting the overseas expansion of Korean companies. There is also a contribution from secondary motivations more clearly related to the definition of ODA: humanitarianism and being a good global citizen.
“…The importance of the region for Japanese maritime transport and deep‐sea fishing makes the “peace and prosperity” enjoyed by the island states “extremely important” for Japan (MOFA, ). Like Japan, Taiwan and South Korea see aid as a foreign policy tool and use it to pursue “comprehensive security” that entails achieving “economic strength and international influence” (Atkinson, ).…”
Section: Contextualizing the Reform Environmentmentioning
Motivation
Despite seeming donor–recipient consensus on the importance of effective governance, aid‐linked reforms often fall short of the expected outcomes. Solomon Islands provides a highly relevant case to explore the dynamics of institutional reform processes, and understand why, even in a relatively favourable operating environment, structural reforms are difficult to implement.
Purpose
This article aims to provide empirically grounded analysis of key factors that hinder institutional change in fragile aid‐receiving countries by addressing the reciprocal (rather than unilateral) constraints and trade‐offs faced by both recipients and donors, and examining their implications for the emerging institutional trajectories in host states.
Approach and Methods
This study is based on the use of a single case study that involves in‐depth review of related academic and policy literature, and media reports through the lens of “mutual dependencies.”
Findings
Solomon Islands’ recent experience with the regulation of Constituency Development Funds and tertiary scholarships makes it clear that by continuously postponing the implementation of relevant policies, domestic authorities try to avoid the potential costs institutional reforms are likely to create. Similarly, donors concerned about their own strategic interests and power relationships with other actors remain unable to enforce full implementation of such reforms. The process in Solomon Islands further confirms that political trade‐offs facing all actors in different forms have a constraining effect on the achievement of desired policy objectives.
Policy Implications
Policy reforms require domestic authorities to develop specific mechanisms that have the potential to secure popular support in favour of proposed structural changes. Donors need new and more evidence‐based approaches that may help balance between their strategic concerns and the achievement of institutional outcomes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
