South Korea S Foreign Aid

Kim examines the impact of domestic politics in accomplishing South Korea’s middle power diplomacy through the provision of foreign aid. Since the 2000s, the rise of emerging nations as donors has brought about a remarkable transition in the international development community. South Korea has closed the gap with other Development Assistance Committee donors in terms of the quality of its aid. In doing so it has taken on a more active role as a middle power, acting as an agenda-setter and a mediator in the field of development and many other wide policy areas including trade, finance, environment, security, and peacekeeping. What factors, then, have encouraged South Korea to maintain and enhance the existing international development system? Not only how they behave, but also how their behaviour is determined is essential to truly understand the impact of emerging donors on the existing order. Kim highlights the significance of domestic politics in determining South Korea’s foreign aid behaviour, framing it in terms of South Korea’s wider middle power diplomatic strategy. This book will be of great value to scholars of South Korean politics and foreign policy, as well as to international relations scholars with an interest in the foreign aid policy of middle powers.

This volume explores South Korea's successful transition from an underdeveloped, authoritarian country to a modern industrialized democracy. South Korea's experience of foreign aid gives a unique perspective on how to use foreign aid for economic development as well as how to build a strong partnership between developed and developing countries.

This book compares the rapid development of South Korea over the past 70 years with selected countries in sub-Saharan Africa to assess what factors contributed to the country’s success story, and why it is that countries that were comparable in the past continue to experience challenges in achieving and sustaining economic growth. In the 1950s, South Korea’s GDP per capita was $876, roughly comparable with that of Cote d’Ivoire and somewhat below Ghana’s. The country’s subsequent transformation from a war-ravaged, international aid-dependent economy to the 13th largest economy in the world has been the focus of considerable international admiration and attention. But how was it that South Korea succeeded in multiplying its GDP per capita by a factor of 23, while other Less Developed Countries continue to experience challenges? This book compares South Korea’s politics of development and foreign assistance with that of Ghana, Nigeria, and Zambia, which were also major recipients of the U.S. aid, to investigate the specific contexts that made it possible for South Korea to achieve success. Overall, this book argues that effective state capacity in South Korea’s domestic and international politics provided an anchor for diplomatic engagement with donors and guided domestic political actors in the effective use of aid for economic development. This book will be of interest to researchers and students working on development, comparative political economy, and foreign aid, and to policy makers and practitioners looking for a greater understanding of comparative development trajectories.

This book theoretically and empirically explores recent internal and external challenges to South Korea's foreign policy. It analyzes how democratization and economic globalization have changed domestic politics in South Korea and reshaped its foreign policies.

This book examines the evolution of foreign aid policy in Japan and South Korea, analyzing policy rationales, institutional developments and policy choices. The book searches for new strategies of international development cooperation in an uncertain world. The book compares two countries’ policies in a unique way: pairs of Japanese and Korean scholars examine same policy themes in separate chapters, contrasting differences and similarities. This book will be of great value to scholars of international development cooperation, public policy and East Asian politics.

Since 1995, the United States has provided over $1 billion in foreign assistance to the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea (DPRK, also known as North Korea), about 60% of which has taken the form of food aid, and about 40% in the form of energy assistance channeled through the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO). Additionally, the Bush Administration has proposed offering North Korea broad economic development assistance in exchange for Pyongyang verifiably dismantling its nuclear program and cooperating on other security-related issues. Although the President has considerable flexibility to offer some forms of short term development assistance, longer term aid would likely require congressional action. Since the current North Korean nuclear crisis erupted in October 2002, when North Korea reportedly admitted that it has a secret uranium enrichment nuclear program, the dollar amount of U.S. aid has fallen by an order of magnitude. No U.S. funds have been provided to KEDO since FY2003, and the Bush Administration's position is that it would like to permanently end the KEDO program. U.S. food aid also has fallen considerably in recent years. This report describes and assesses U.S. aid programs to North Korea, including the controversies surrounding the programs, their relationship to the larger debate over strategy and objectives toward the DPRK, and policy options. The roles of China, South Korea, and Japan in providing assistance to North Korea are discussed, highlighting the likelihood that any dramatic decrease in U.S. aid to North Korea may have only marginal effects without the cooperation of these countries, particularly China and South Korea. This report will be updated as circumstances warrant.

South Korea has experienced new challenges both internally and externally with respect to its foreign policies. Internally, democratization has changed political terrain for domestic and international politics. Democratization and the information revolution have reinvigorated civic life and citizens have become active in expressing very divergent and often polarized views on foreign policies. Democratization also promotes South Korean nationalism. Rising nationalist sentiments make it difficult for the U.S. to effectively handle regional security-related issues such as the North Korean nuclear program, balancing against China, and dealing with the potential Sino-Japanese conflict. Externally, globalization has brought significant changes to South Korea’s foreign policies. Economic dimension and issues rather than security-related issues become salient and important. For example, although security concerns are still dominant in Korean society, economic interests necessitate South Korea improve its relations with China and redefine its political position between the U.S. and China. Globalization has also promoted Korea’s national interests to reach out to other countries. The Korean government has tried to develop new economic partnerships with developing countries for the purpose of securing energy and natural resources and expanding its soft power. Economic globalization and democratization have brought about changes in South Korea that raise many interesting questions with respect to foreign policy. Has South Korea’s rise as an economic power and a democracy changed its relationship with neighboring powers? Does economic integration between South Korea and China reshape their relationship? How about its impact on U.S.-Korea relations? Are geopolitical and security-related concerns still the dominant factor in explaining South Korea’s foreign policies? Does economic integration between Korea and Japan help to reduce tensions or emotional animosities that derive from historical disputes? Has South Korea, as a growing economic power, sought to forge relations with other middle or small powers beyond the confines of its region? Overall, this book theoretically and empirically explores how democratization and economic globalization have changed domestic politics in South Korea and reshaped its foreign policies.