한국 공적개발원조의 효과성에 관한 연구

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

As globalization and interdependence have been intensively promoted, an individual country's development has become closely intermingled with global peace and prosperity. Official development assistance(ODA) has played a significant role in reducing poverty and boosting sustainable development of many developing countries.
The United Nations set in 2000 the Millennium Development Goals to strengthen a global partnership for raising development fund and enhancing aid effectiveness. The Development Assistance Committee(DAC) of the Organization of Economic Cooperation Development(OECD) has also emphasized the effective operation of ODA from the first High Level Forum in Rome(2003) to the fourth in Busan(2011). To raise aid effectiveness, new aid modalities and financial resources have been exploited, and, especially, the concept of development effectiveness, a broader and more comprehensive one than aid effectiveness, has been proposed at the HLF-4. However, its conceptual context has not been clearly defined yet, and its conceptual demarcation blurs with that of aid effectiveness.
Aid effectiveness is defined in this study to be a concept that comprises both the effective operation of donor countries' aid programs and the resultant effects on recipient countries' development. This study aims to present policy guidelines in order to raise Korean ODA's aid effectiveness. For this, the present Korean ODA is reviewed and compared with major donor countries' ODA policies. Representative countries are selected on the criterion of their particular aid motivation. US case is classified to be a politico-security strategy type, UK one, a colony management type, Japan one, an economic utilitarian type, and Sweden one, a humanitarianism type. In term of aid organizational architecture, the US case is classified to be the coordination type under the Department of States, UK one, the independent organization type, Japan one, the integrated execution organization type, and Sweden one, the type of responsibility of a foreign affairs ministry.
In particular, this study examines international regimes and norms related to aid effectiveness, centering on UN and OECD activities, from the 1960s to the present. The Paris Declaration, the outcome of the HLF-3, has exerted the most significant effects on enhancing aid effectiveness in that it provides a practical, action-oriented roadmap with specific targets to be met by 2010. The targets were, however, far from satisfactory. The 2011 survey to measure the promised targets in the Paris Declaration draws the following results: At the global level, only one of the 13 targets - coordinated technical cooperaton - has been met with a narrow margin. Nonetheless, it should be noted that considerable progress has been made in the remaining 12 targets, too. In the US, UK, Japan and Sweden, two targets - coordinated technical cooperaton and untied aid - had been enhanced although other targets failed. One thing that needs attention, among others, is the fact that the policy harmonization of donor countries had recorded the worst satisfactory score in meeting the proposed target at the Paris Declaration.
South Korea, once a foreign aid recipient, has not only achieved impressive economic growth but also become one of the DAC members in 2009 and hosted the HLF-4 in 2011. The Framework Act on International Development Cooperation enacted in 2009 sets out South Korea's overall philosophy and principles of development cooperation. However, Korean ODA has some flaws yet. It is still indulged in traditional ODA paradigm pursuing national economic interests. Its ODA volume is still considered to be insufficient, considering its per capita GNI. The Korean ODA architecture is still fragmented and the public awareness of ODA is still at a lower level than that of other donor countries. Most of all, the 2010 survey on the progress of the Paris Declaration targets showed that all were failed to meet the goals in South Korea as of 2010. When compared with the survey in 2007, however, partial progresses were made in such sectors as indicator 3(aid which is aligned on recipient countries' priorities), 5b(use of country procurement systems), 6(strengthen capacity by avoiding Parallel Project Implementation Unit), 7(aid predictability), 8(untied aid), 9(use of common arrangements or procedures), and 10b(joint country analytic work).
Considering all these factors, this study proposes the following strategies and policies in order to raise the aid effectiveness of South Korea. First, South Korea needs to take a strategic approach for facilitating the connectivity of policies. The Country Assistance Strategy(CAS), an ODA mechanism to relevantly implement concerned programs, can contribute to improving aid effectiveness. Secondly, aids should be expanded in exemplary recipient countries such as Vietnam, Tanzania and so on. Thirdly, an independent organization like the DFID of the UK or a unified implementing agency like the JICA of Japan needs be institutionalized. Or, at least, the coordinative function of the Committee for International Development Cooperation should be strengthened. Fourthly, the integrated evaluation system arranged in 2009 should be settled and fully implemented to promote aids' accountability and transparency. In addition to these, an independent organization in full charge of evaluation, as in the US or Sweden, should be established to level up Korean ODA programs. Lastly, cooperation and partnership with private sectors and the civil society needs be strengthened to enhance aid effectiveness.
South Korea should sincerely look for ways to share the lessons learned from its own successful socioeconomic transformation with other developing countries. Although individual countries have their own particularities which make them difficult to utilize Korean lessons, there are still valuable lessons they can adopt from Korean experiences. If South Korea wants to be a decent, respectable donor country in the global community, the following principles need to be noted. First, the ultimate goals of ODA are the sustainable development of recipient countries and poverty reduction in the global community, and these should be respected from start to finish in ODA process. When South Korea comes to contribute to those purposes, its national prestige will be consolidated and South Korea's influence on international relations will be augmented. Secondly, ODA volume should be more rapidly expanded, and its quality needs be more exquisitely improved than now. Aid programs should be substantive, effective and realistic to help recipient countries' development. Thirdly, South Korea as a new medium-sized player in the global ODA community should concentrate its aids in those sectors that are in urgent demand, with clear comparative advantages, and of complementary effects with other donors' efforts. Those sectors can be, say, "Vocational & Technical Training", "Human Resources Development in ICT Field", "Capacity Building for Forest Preservation" and "Integrated Rural Development Project", etc. Fourthly, South Korea should act as a mediator between advanced countries and developing countries. Fifthly, South Korea should make an aid approach in the viewpoint of public diplomacy that creates long-term and cooperative common interests. Soft power and public diplomacy are of significant importance in contemporary international relations.

Key-words: official development aid(ODA), aid effectiveness, Paris Declaration, Development Assistance Committee(DAC), Organization of Economic Cooperation Development(OECD), High Level Forum(HLF), Millennium Development Goals

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 서론 1
• 제1절 연구 배경 및 목적 1
• 제2절 연구 범위 및 방법 3
• 제2장 공적개발원조의 효과성에 관한 이론적 논의 6
• 제1절 선행연구 분석 8
• 1. 원조목적에 관한 이론 8
• 2. 원조효과에 관한 연구 12
• 3. 한국의 연구동향 16
• 제2절 원조효과성에 관한 논의 19
• 1. 원조효과성과 개발효과성의 개념 19
• 2. 원조효과성에 관한 파리선언 27
• 제3절 연구의 분석틀 30
• 제3장 공적개발원조의 국제레짐 33
• 제1절 국제제도화 33
• 1. 국제연합 체제 34
• 2. 경제협력개발기구 체제 38
• 제2절 원조효과성에 관한 국제규범 43
• 1. 제1차 원조효과 고위급포럼:원조조화를 위한 로마선언 44
• 2. 제2차 원조효과 고위급포럼:원조효과성에 관한 파리선언 45
• 3. 제3차 원조효과 고위급포럼:아크라행동계획 48
• 4. 제4차 원조효과 고위급포럼: 효과적 개발협력을 위한 부산 파트너십 50
• 제4장 주요국의 공적개발원조 정책 분석 54
• 제1절 정책기조 54
• 1. 정치․안보 전략형:미국 55
• 2. 식민지 관리형:영국 57
• 3. 경제실익형:일본 58
• 4. 인도주의형:스웨덴 60
• 제2절 추진체계 61
• 1. 외교부 조정형:미국 61
• 2. 독립기관형:영국 63
• 3. 집행기관 통합형:일본 64
• 4. 외교부 책임형:스웨덴 66
• 제3절 원조효과성 분석 및 시사점 68
• 1. 파리선언에 기초한 원조효과성 분석 68
• 1) 원조의 일치 70
• 2) 원조의 조화 72
• 2. 원조효과성 제고를 위한 정책 개선 73
• 1) 수원국의 수요와 일치하는 원조 추구 73
• 2) 수원국과 공여국, 공여국간 원조의 조화 추구 75
• 3) 정책일관성을 위한 원조체제 개편 75
• 4) 성과중심 평가체제 강화 77
• 5) 효과적 개발 파트너십 구축 78
• 제5장 한국 공적개발원조의 효과성 제고를 위한 거버넌스와 정책 79
• 제1절 정책기조와 특징 80
• 1. 경제실익형 80
• 2. 원조 배분구조 83
• 제2절 추진체계:집행기관 분산형 89
• 1. 유상원조기관:대외경제협력기금 89
• 2. 무상원조기관:한국국제협력단 90
• 3. 조정기관: 국제개발협력위원회 91
• 4. 개발NGO와 시민사회 92
• 제3절 파리선언에 기초한 원조효과성 분석 94
• 1. 원조의 일치 95
• 2. 원조의 조화 98
• 제4절 원조효과성 제고를 위한 제언 100
• 1. 원조정책 방향 100
• 1) 수원국의 수요와 일치하는 원조전략 수립 100
• 2) 원조의 조화를 위한 프로그램 원조 확대 103
• 3) 정책일관성을 위한 원조집행체계 개선 104
• 4) 유·무상통합평가체제 정착 105
• 5) 포괄적 개발 파트너십 강화 107
• 2. 한국형 공적개발원조 모색 108
• 1) 원조목표 정립 108
• 2) 국제규범에 적합한 원조 추진 110
• 3) 한국형 원조 콘텐츠 개발 112
• 4) 선진국과 개발도상국간 가교역할 수행 113
• 5) 공공외교로서의 개발원조 활성화 115
• 제6장 결론 117
• 참고문헌 121
• -표목차-
• <표 2-1> 공적개발원조의 형태 7
• <표 2-2> 공적개발원조 목적에 관한 전통적 이론 8
• <표 2-3> 원조가 경제성장에 긍정적인 영향을 미치는 경로 13
• <표 2-4> 파리선언의 5대 원칙과 12대 지표 28
• <표 2-5> 연구의 분석 틀 32
• <표 3-1> 공적개발원조의 국제정치&#8228;경제적 환경과 주요내용 42
• <표 3-2> 아크라행동계획의 주요 내용 49
• <표 3-3> 2000년대 원조 관련 주요 국제회의 53
• <표 4-1> 주요국의 공적개발원조 정책 비교 68
• <표 4-2> 주요국의 파리선언 모니터링 조사 결과 69
• <표 5-1> 국제개발협력기본법의 구성 및 내용 81
• <표 5-2> 한국의 공적개발원조 현황 84
• <표 5-3> 한국 공적개발원조의 10대 수원국(2005년-2009년) 85
• <표 5-4> 한국 양자원조의 분야별 배분현황 86
• <표 5-5> 교육 분야의 원조 현황 87
• <표 5-6> 원조의 비구속화 추진 로드맵 88
• <표 5-7> 한국의 원조체계 92
• <표 5-8> 한국의 파리선언 모니터링 조사 결과 95