This paper examines whether three sets of factors—humanitarianism, the South Korean government’s official aid, and concerns regarding performance—affect South Korean CSOs’ decisions regarding aid recipients and the amount of aid to them. The statistical results of these two-stage analyses show that South Korean CSOs take into consideration different sets of factors at each stage of their aid allocation decisions. While humanitarianism and ODA allocation are consistently important at both stages of South Korean CSOs’ aid allocation decisions, performance concerns for aid effectiveness and efficiency (language and religion) matter especially at the second stage. Governance level of a developing country has a positive relationship with aid allocation decisions, while the direction of influence changes when only recipient countries are included in the regression analysis. These findings suggest that concerns regarding accountability and autonomy of CSOs in the context of their growing engagement in development cooperation may be unwarranted.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
In this paper, the average value of KRW–USD exchange rate for the given year is utilized.
If subsidized funds to universities, university-affiliated hospitals, and research institutes are included, 494 projects were implemented.
World Vision Korea’s website (https://www.worldvision.or.kr/business/worldvision/about_worldvision/about_worldvision.asp).
Websites of Good Neighbors and Save the Children (https://www.goodneighbors.kr/; https://www.sc.or.kr/intro/spirit.do).
KCOC website (http://www.ngokcoc.or.kr/theme/kcoc/03/society04_05.php).
Although there is no single and universal definition of good governance (Weiss 2000), it is referred to as “sound development management” that is epitomized by “predictable, open, and enlightened policymaking (that is, transparent processes); a bureaucracy imbued with a professional ethos; an executive arm of government accountable for its actions; and a strong civil society participating in public affairs; and all behaving under the rule of law” (World Bank 1992: 1, 1994: vii).
Included in the six dimensions of governance are voice and accountability, political stability and absence of violence, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of corruption. The values range from − 2.5 (lowest) to 2.5 (highest). For more information, refer to the website of Worldwide Governance Indictors (http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#home).
The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) identifies Catholicism (or Roman Catholicism), Mormonism (including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints), Orthodox Christianity, and Protestant Christianity as basic groups for Christianity.
To confirm this possibility, we conduct an additional analysis involving a square-term of infant mortality rates. The result shows that there is a statistically significant effect on CSO’s allocation of aid to the squared term of infant mortality (-). This means that there can be an inverted U-shaped relationship between infant mortality rates and CSOs’ aid allocation.
Although there is no clear and widely accepted threshold level of governance beyond which aid is expected to be more effective, LDCs have much lower level of governance than non-LDCs and the difference is statistically significant at the 0.01 level. The average levels of governance in all recipient countries, non-LDCs, and LDCs are − 0.48, − 0.34, and − 0.76 respectively. Similarly, African countries have lower levels of governance compared to recipient countries in other continents.
Alagappa, M. (Ed.). (2004). Civil society and political change in Asia: Expanding and contracting democratic space. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Alesina, A., & Dollar, D. (2000). Who gives foreign aid to whom and why? Journal of Economic Growth, 5, 33–63.
Amsden, A. (1989). Asia’s next giant: South Korea and late industrialization. New York: Oxford University Press.
Armstrong, C. K. (2002). Korean society: Civil society, democracy, and the state. London and New York: Routledge.
Barnett, M. (2005). Humanitarianism Transformed. Perspectives on Politics, 3, 723–740.
Berthélemy, J. C., & Tichit, A. (2004). Bilateral donors’ aid allocation decisions—a three-dimensional panel analysis. International Review of Economics & Finance, 13, 253–274.
Blackman, A. D. (2018). Religion and foreign aid. Politics and Religion, 11(3), 522–552.
Bourguignon, F., & Sundberg, M. (2007). Aid effectiveness–opening the black box. American Economic Review, 97, 316–321.
Büthe, T., Major, S., & Souza, A. D. M. (2012). The politics of private foreign aid: Humanitarian principles, economic development objectives, and organizational interests in NGO private aid allocation. International Organization, 66, 571–607.
Chen, D. L., & Lind, J. T. (2007). Religion, welfare politics, and church-state separation. Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 42(1), 42–58.
Chun, H. M., Munyi, E. N., & Lee, H. (2010). South Korea as an emerging donor: Challenges and changes on its entering OECD/DAC. Journal of International Development, 22, 788–802.
Collier, P., & Dollar, D. (2002). Aid allocation and poverty reduction. European Economic Review, 46, 1475–1500.
Dreher, A., Mölders, F., & Nunnenkamp, P. (2007). Are NGOs the better donors? A case study of aid allocation for Sweden. A Case Study of Aid Allocation for Sweden. KOF Working Paper, 180 (pp. 1–37).
Dreher, A., Nunnenkamp, P., Öhler, H., & Weisser, J. (2012a). Financial dependence and aid allocation by Swiss NGOs: A panel tobit analysis. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 60, 829–867.
Dreher, A., Nunnenkamp, P., Thiel, S., & Thiele, R. (2012b). Aid allocation by German NGOs: Does the degree of official financing matter? The World Economy, 35, 1448–1472.
Gates, S., & Hoeffler, A. (2004). Global aid allocation: Are Nordic donors different? The Centre for the Study of African Economies. Working Paper 234. Berkeley: University of California.
Greif, A. (2006). Institutions and the path to the modern economy: Lessons from medieval trade. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2009). Cultural biases in economic exchanges? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124, 1095–1131.
Hergueux, J. (2011). How does religion bias the allocation of Foreign Direct Investment? The role of institutions. Economie Internationale, 128, 53–76.
Hook, S. W., & Zhang, G. (1998). Japan’s aid policy since the cold war: Rhetoric and reality. Asian Survey, 38, 1051–1066.
Keck, M. (2015). Comparing the determinants of US-funded NGO aid versus US Official Development Aid. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(4), 1314–1336.
Kim, S. (2000). The politics of democratization in Korea: The role of civil society. Pennsylvania: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Kim, S., & Jeong, J. (2017). Historical development of civil society in Korea since 1987. Journal of International and Area Studies, 24(2), 1–14.
Kim, E. M., & Oh, J. (2012). Determinants of foreign aid: The case of South Korea. Journal of East Asian Studies, 12, 251–274.
Koch, D. J., Dreher, A., Nunnenkamp, P., & Thiele, R. (2009). Keeping a low profile: What determines the allocation of aid by non-governmental organizations? World Development, 37, 902–918.
Koo, J. W., & Kim, D. W. (2011). World society and official assistance: Explaining determinants of Korean ODA, 1989–2007. Korean Journal of Sociology, 45, 153–190.
Lee, S. J., & Lee, K. S. (2016). The complex relationship between government and NGOs in international development cooperation: South Korea as an emerging donor country. International Review of Public Administration, 21(4), 275–291.
Maiden, E., & Brockway, M. (2018). Parlez-vous français? Language and agricultural aid allocation strategies in northern Mali. World Development, 106, 356–375.
Maizels, A., & Nissanke, M. K. (1984). Motivations for aid to developing countries. World Development, 12, 879–900.
McKinley, R. D., & Little, R. (1979). The US aid relationship: A test of the recipient need and donor interest models. Political Studies, 27, 236–250.
Nancy, G., & Yontcheva, B. (2006). Does NGO aid go to the poor? Empirical evidence from Europe, IMF Working Paper 06/39, Washington, D.C.
Neumayer, E. (2003). Do human rights matter in bilateral aid allocation? A quantitative analysis of 21 donor countries. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 650–666.
OECD. (2010). Civil Society and Aid Effectiveness 2009: Findings, Recommendations and Good Practice, Better Aid. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2019). Aid for civil society organizations: Statistics based on DAC members’ reporting to the creditor reporting system database (CRS), 2016–2017. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Oh, C. H., Selmier, W. T., & Lien, D. (2011). International trade, foreign direct investment, and transaction costs in languages. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40, 732–735.
Pomerantz, P. R. (2004). Aid effectiveness in Africa: Developing trust between donors and governments. Washington DC: Lexington Books.
Riddell, R. C. (2007). Does foreign aid really work?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shin, G. W., & Chang, P. (Eds.). (2011). South Korean social movements: From democracy to civil society. London and New York: Routledge.
Smillie, I. (2000). NGOs: Crisis and opportunity in the new world order. In J. Freedman (Ed.), Transforming development: Foreign aid for a changing world. London: University of Toronto Press.
Smith, D. A., & Brame, R. (2003). Tobit models in social science research: Some limitations and a more general alternative. Sociological Methods & Research, 31, 364–388.
Sohn, H. S., & Kim, S. (2011). Government-NGO partnerships for international development cooperation: A case study of South Korea. International Studies Review, 12(2), 65–86.
Stein, H. (1998). Japanese aid to Africa: Patterns, motivation and the role of structural adjustment. The Journal of Development Studies, 35, 27–53.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Monterey: Brooks-Cole.
Tuman, J. P., & Strand, J. R. (2006). The role of mercantilism, humanitarianism, and gaiatsu in Japan’s ODA programme in Asia. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 6, 61–80.
Weiss, T. G. (2000). Governance, good governance and global governance: Conceptual and actual challenges. Third world quarterly, 21(5), 795–814.
World Bank. (1992). Governance and development. Washington DC: The World Bank Publication.
World Bank. (1994). Governance, The World Bank’s Experience. Washington DC: The World Bank Publication.
Yoon, J. (2016). Advocacy and policymaking in South Korea: How the legacy of state and society relationships shapes contemporary public policy. New York: SUNY Press.
This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2018S1A3A2075117).
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kim, J., Jung, H.J. An Empirical Analysis on Determinants of Aid Allocation by South Korean Civil Society Organizations. Voluntas 32, 151–164 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-020-00238-1
- Civil society organization
- Foreign aid
- Official development assistance
- Aid effectiveness
- South Korea