ODA 국별 성과관리체제 및 평가방법에 관한 연구 (Country Results Management and Country Evaluation: Approaches, Donor Practices and Implications for South Korea)

Korean Abstract: 신흥공여국인 우리나라는 2010년 OECD 개발원조위원회에 가입한 이후 원조효과성 개선을 위한 다양한 제도적 노력을 기울여 왔다. 특히 원조의 분절화를 해결하고 국가 차원의 통합된 ODA 지원을 위해 2010년 국제개발협력위원회에서는 26개 유무상 통합 중점협력국을 선정하는 한편 각 국가에 대한 국가협력전략(CPS: Country Partnership Strategy)을 수립하기로 결정하였다. 이러한 배경에서 2013년 말 현재, 26개 중점협력국에 대한 CPS가 마무리된 상황이다. 그러나 CPS는 수립 자체가 목적이 아니라 전략에 따라 해당 국가에 대한 지원사업을 추진하고 그 성과를 모니터링, 평가하여 다음 단계의 전략을 수립하는 단계에 다시 반영할 수 있는 ODA 성과관리의 수단이어야 한다. 이러한 배경에서 통합 CPS를 위한 국별 성과관리와 국별 평가의 필요성이 대두되었다. English Abstract: In the midst of rising emphasis on country-based programming and results-based management in international development, there is a growing consensus on the importance of country strategy and country evaluation as aid management tools. One of the growing tendencies among major donors for the last couple of decades is to strategically allocate their aid to a limited number of so-called priority countries for increased effectiveness and quality of aid. In this context, in an attempt to enhance its aid effectiveness, South Korea selected twenty six priority countries for concessional loans and grants in 2010 and approved the Country Partnership Strategies (CPS) for each country. However, developing the CPS is not the goal itself. The CPS fulfills its fundamental role when used as a management tool to implement, monitor and evaluate country-level strategy and performance as well as to provide lessons-learned and recommendations for the next round of the CPS. In this background, the paper aims to provide policy implications for South Korea to strengthen its results-based monitoring and evaluation system at the country level and improve accountability and value-for-money of its ODA. The paper begins by reviewing the history of development evaluation from the sixties to the present era. After the categorization into three branches in evaluation theories, namely methods branch, valuing branch and use branch; two different approaches largely adopted in country evaluation, Logical Framework Approach and theory-based evaluation, are presented. The study then moves on to illustrate how the country has emerged as the basic unit of aid, along with subsequent introduction of country evaluation and country results management in accordance with the change of development paradigm. The recent status and trends in evaluation of DAC aid agencies with specific focus on country evaluation were outlined. It was noted that the main unit of account for evaluation has shifted from projects to sectors, programs, strategies and countries. The paper then analyzes the key issues in country evaluation as follows: (i) evaluation criteria for Country Evaluation; (ii) attribution and contribution; (iii) feedback and learning. Then, the paper moves on to examine different approaches and practices of the United Kingdom and Ireland, focusing on each donor’s country results framework and country evaluation. The UK was featured as a model of a strong results-management framework and performance-based country allocation whereas Ireland is cited as a model for adoption of diversified evaluation approaches as well as a strong feedback system. Subsequently, the paper reviews the status and recent changes in Korea’s aid allocation system, country evaluation and results-management framework. As for the current system, evaluation practices of Korea’s main aid agencies, the Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA) and the Economic Development Cooperation Fund (EDCF) of the Korea Eximbank, were assessed. This was followed by the discussion on the integrated evaluation system led by the Sub-committee for Evaluation under the Committee for International Development Cooperation (CIDC). The paper suggests that the Korean Government must develop an integrated CPS results framework for each priority country and it should be led by the newly-designated evaluation team within the ODA Policy Bureau of the Prime Minister’s Office which happens to be a secretariat of the CIDC. From the early phase of the development of the CPS results framework, the local participation and ownership should be ensured. In order to create an environment for decentralized country evaluation and results management, further decision making power and responsibility should be delegated to the country office with corresponding allocation of budget and human resources as well as local capacity building. Furthermore, it was recommended that the integrated results management framework for the whole ODA, including goals and indicators for aid channels and priority sectors be developed through a multi-stakeholder approach including relevant ministries, aid agencies, civil society, industries and partner country from the initial stage. It was argued that the country-level performance and evaluation reports should be referred to when allocating budgets for priority countries to ensure evidence-based decision making in the aid allocation process. The paper suggests diversifying approaches in country evaluation depending on types and environments of priority countries. In particular, approaches such as contribution analysis and joint evaluation must be more actively adopted as a way to measure country-level outcomes more effectively. Additionally the paper recommends strengthening of the feedback mechanism to ensure that country evaluation reports are read and acted upon. Lastly, the importance of communications and information sharing on country evaluations with domestic and partner country stakeholders were highlighted.