중점협력국 선정 기준 및 방법에 관한 연구 (An Analysis on the Criteria and Methodology of Priority Recipient Selection for Country Partnership Strategy)

Korean Abstract: 우리나라는 국제개발위원회(DAC: Development Assistance Committee) 가입을 계기로 원조체계를 개선하기 위한 다양한 노력을 기울이고 있다. 그 중 하나가 중점협력국 선정을 체계화하려는 노력이다. 그 결과 2010년에는 26개 중점협력국을 선정하여 이를 2011년부터 적용하고 있다. 그러나 중점협력국 선정과 관련하여 선정기준 및 선정과정의 적절성을 둘러싸고 비판이 제기되기도 하였다. 이런 배경하에서 본 보고서의 일차적인 목적은 합리적인 중점협력국 선정기준과 그것을 이용한 선정방법을 제시하는 것이다. 이와 더불어 본 보고서는 중점협력국 선정과 관련된 다른 문제, 즉 중점협력국의 적정 수, 선정절차, 정보공개범위 등에 관해서도 대안을 제시하고자 한다. English Abstract: South Korea has provided serious efforts to reform the structure and process of ODA since the country joined OECD DAC in 2009. Selecting and managing "priority countries" has been one of those efforts, but it has led to controversies regarding the relevant standards and methods. This study addresses these controversies and further explores a theoretical and methodological alternative to such limited strategies regarding the selection of priority countries. In addition, this study seeks to deal with other related issues, such as the proper number of priority countries, the adequate procedures, and the degree to which the relevant information needs to be released. Methodologically, we use the following strategies: (1) review of past studies; (2) conduct case studies that reflect the experiences of traditional donor countries; (3) employ regression analyses to explicate the factors determining the selection of priority countries in other advanced donor countries; and (4) use of the Delphi technique to assign proper weights to the factors considered. Taken together, this study demonstrates the utility of a mixed method in order to suggest an alternative approach to the selection of priority countries. The analyses of past studies and cases lead us to consider the following four principles as crucial in selecting priority countries: (1) development needs of aid-receiving countries; (2) strategic correspondence; (3) international norms; and (4) aid-effectiveness. First, development needs involve the degree to which recipients need foreign aid in connection with their income-level and the level of poverty. Second, strategic correspondence refers to the extent to which economic and diplomatic interests overlap between a donor and a recipient. Third, respect for international norms indicates the necessity of adhering to globally-recognized norms involving proper ODA. Finally, the principle of aid-effectiveness involves the extent to which the provision of ODA might be used in ways to effectively solve the problems facing the recipient countries. Motivated by those principles, we suggest dozens of quantitative indicators that might highlight the principles and justify the designation of certain countries as priority countries. When using the proposed quantitative strategy, one needs to consider the following caveats: (1) The quantitative strategy needs to be supplemented with a qualitative approach because of the salience of non-qualifiable factors and/or concerns and the possibility that selected indicators might lack a proper level of reliability. (2) No country considers only the quantitative approach for the selection and management of priority countries. It is equally important to consider the pitfalls of the arbitrary use of a qualitative method because it might result in policy biases that weigh down donors' interests or strategic considerations. Considering the caveats, we select and present twice as much potential priority countries at the first stage, and suggest that policy-makers need to choose the final priority countries at the second stage in conjunction with various diplomatic considerations. In recognition of the importance of assigning proper weights to the indicators proposed, we conducted a Delphi survey for dozens of experts specializing in international development in Korea. The survey results assign 38% for development needs, 17% for strategic correspondence, 20% for international norms, and 25% for aid-effectiveness. The assigned weights for each principle area determine the actual weight of each indicator that corresponds to the demarcated principle area. The assigned weights might need to be modified in ways to balance the survey results reflecting positions of development experts and the real diplomatic considerations coupled with the sentiments of policy-makers. Considering the possibility of such modifications, we assign 30-35% for development needs, 25-30% for strategic correspondence, 25-30% for respecting international norms, and 15-20% for aid-effectiveness. Furthermore, we make several suggestions and/or recommendations regarding the processes by which to officially determine the list of priority countries and the proper levels of public disclosure of information. More specifically, we suggest public discussion of the selection strategy, consultation with experts, in-depth discussion among policy makers, and reporting the strategies and discussions to the National Assembly. With respect to the degree of public disclosure, we suggest that the public disclosure needs to be confined to the broad strategies and plans involving the selection of priority countries.