Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

South Korea’s Fragmented Aid Structure from the 1960s to Early 1990s: Analysis Through Path Dependence

  • Manuscript
  • Published:
East Asia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The study aims to clarify how and why South Korea initiated and maintained a fragmented aid structure, even though discussions about integration existed before the establishment of its aid institutions. The research utilises a path dependence framework for its analysis. This analysis reveals that discussions concerning the fragmented structure of South Korean aid began in the 1960s and ultimately led to the establishment of South Korean aid agencies. This paper delves into the issue of integrating fragmented aid within the South Korean government by using newspaper articles, government documents, and reports. Path dependence is further illuminated by its relationship to the policy environment and institutional context. In conclusion, the persistence of this fragmented structure can be ascribed to factors such as the intricate nature of the aid policy, which combines diplomatic and economic policies within the policy environment. In terms of the institutional context, the claims of legitimacy for preserving the policy authority of aid-related ministries and the diminished coordination authority of the Economic Planning Board in the 1980s steered the path dependence of the fragmented aid structure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The scope of aid discussed in this paper primarily pertains to South-South Cooperation, with a focus on the periods preceding South Korea’s membership in the DAC. According to the OECD, “South-South Cooperation (SSC) has become the expression of collaboration and partnership among countries from the South, interested in sharing, learning, and exploring their complementary strengths to go beyond their traditional role as aid recipients [34, p. 00].” However, South Korea has been using the term “aid” since the 1960s. Therefore, this study consistently employs the term “aid” instead of “South-South Cooperation” throughout this paper.

References

  1. Amsdem, A. H. (1989). Asia’s next giant: South Korea and late industrialization. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arase, D. (1995). Buying power: The political economy of Japan’s foreign aid. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Beak. H. (2014) Comparison of unification and North Korea policies of the Park Chung-hee administration and the Chun Doo-hwan administration [In Korean: Bagjeonghuijeongbuwa jeonduhwanjeongbuui tong-il · daebugjeongchaeg bigyo]. Sejong Policy Research 2014–7. Seoungnam: Sejong Institute.

  4. Chae, R. (2015). Diplomatic war: Inter-Korean relations in the 1970s. Seoul Journal of Korean Studies, 27(2), 307–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chosun Ilbo. (1972). EPB continues to be in charge of Economic relations, diplomatic negotiations. [In Korean: Gyongjegwangye wegyogyosop gyonggiwonso gyesok jondam]. 21 March, 1972. Chosun Ilbo.

  6. 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(6), 788–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Crouch, C., & Farrell, H. (2002). Breaking the path of institutional development? Alternatives to the new determinism. Rationality and society, 16(1), 5-43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. David, P. A. (1994). Why are institutions the ‘carriers of history’?: Path dependence and the evolution of conventions, organizations and institutions. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 5(2), 205–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. David, P. A. (2006). Path dependence: a foundational concept for historical social science. Cliometrica, 1(2), 91–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dong-A Ilbo. (1970). State Diplomacy’s Growth Transformation Unification of Foreign Aid. [In Korean: Juneun wegyoe songjang talbakkum daewe wonjo irwonhwajagop onjori]. 5 October, 1970. Dong-A Ilbo.

  11. EDCF. (2007). Economic Development Cooperation Fund 20 years. Seoul: The Export-Import Bank of Korea.

  12. Garud, R., & Karnoe, P. (2012). Path dependence and creation. East Sussex: Psychology Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Gills, B. (1996). Korea versus Korea: A case of contested legitimacy. Cornwall: Routledge.

  14. Im, D. (2004). Redesigning Government Organization: With an emphasis on coordination mechanism at the top level. The Journal of Public Administration, 42(3), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Jeong, J. (1994). President’s Economic Leadership: Park Chung-hee.Economic Policy Management of the Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo Governments. [In Korean: Daetongnyonge gyongjeridosip bakjjonghijonduhwannotaeu jongbue gyongjejongchaekkkwalri]. Seoul: Korea Economic Daily.

  16. Ji, Y. (1993). Korea’s aid policy to developing countries. [In Korean: Hangug-ui gaedogug wonjojeongchaeg]. Seoul: KOICA.

  17. KOICA. (1992). 1992 Annual Report, Seoul: KOICA.

  18. KOICA. (2008). Understanding International Development Cooperation. Seoul: Hanul.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kang, K. H., Lee, Y., & Choi, S. O. (2008). The Policy Decision Making System during the Rapid Economic Growth in Korea: Economic Planning Board and Inter-Ministerial Committees. [In Korean: hangug godoseongjang-giui jeongchaeggyeoljeongchegye -gyeongjegihoeg-wongwa jeongchaegchujingigu]. Seoul: Korea Development Institute.

  20. Kim, S. (2016). Tracing the roots and domestic sources of Korea’s ODA: Aid as a cold war statecraft for a middle income country. Journal of International Cooperation Studies, 24(1), 87–102.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kim, S., & Lightfoot, S. (2011). Does ‘DAC‐ability’ really matter? The emergence of non-DAC donors: Introduction to policy arena. Journal of International Development, 23(5), 711–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kim, S., & Seddon, D. (2005). ODA Policy and practice: Japan and the Republic of Korea. In: D. Arase (Eds.), Japan’s foreign aid: Old continuities and new perspectives (pp. 152–190). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kondoh, H. (2013). Korea’s pathway from recipient to donor: How does Japan matter? In: J, Sato. & Shimomura, Y (Eds), The Rise of Asian Donors: Japan’s impact on the evolution of emerging donors (pp. 133–154). Abingdon Oxon: Routledge.

  24. Kondoh, H. (2015). Convergence of aid models in emerging donors? Learning processes, norms and identities, and recipients. JICA-RI Working Paper, 106, 1–58.

  25. Krasner, S. D. (1988). Sovereignty: An institutional perspective. Comparative Political Studies, 21(1), 66–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kyunghyang Shinmun. (1967). Discussion of Economic Cooperation on Asian Pacific area. [In Korean: Ajugyonghyopnoni]. 13 June, 1967. Kyunghyang Shinmun.

  27. Lee, T. (2003). An anthropological study of the Korean foreign aid policy: Making advanced country and development discourse. Cross-Cultural Studies, 9(1), 139–174.

    Google Scholar 

  28. MOFA. (1970). Establishment of an Organization for External Economic and Technological Cooperation. [In Korean: Daewegyongjegisulhyomnyokkkigu sinsolmunje]. Government Internal Document. MOFA.

  29. MOFA. (1990). Plan of Establishment of the Korea Development Cooperation Agency [In Korean: Hanguggugjehyeoblyeogdan seollib chujin]. Government Internal Document. MOFA.

  30. MOST. (1990). Opinions on Establishment of Korea Development Cooperation Agency [In Korean: Hanguggaebalhyeoblyeogsa-eobdanseollib-an-e daehan uigyeon]. Government Internal Document. MOST.

  31. Maeil Business Newspaper. (1977). Reviewing the enactment of the Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund Act with developing countries. [In Korean: Hujingaebalgukkkwa haewegyonghyopkkigeumppop jejong gomto]. 16 August, 1977. Maeil Business Newspaper.

  32. Mahoney, J. (2000). Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory and Society, 29(4), 507–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Nishino, J. (2001). Birth of the Economic Development Administrative System in South Korea. The Journal of Contemporary Korean Studies, 1, 67–79.

    Google Scholar 

  34. OECD. (2011). Unlocking the Potential of South-South Cooperation Policy Recommendations from the Task team on South-South Cooperation. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Oh, J. (2011). Measuring Bureaucratic Power: Cases of 41 Central Administration Agencies in Lee Administration. The Korean Journal of Public Administration 20(1), 67–91.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Onishi, Y. (2005). Political Analysis of the Korean Economy: The President’s Policy Choices. [In Japanese: Kankoku keizai no seiji bunseki - daitōryō no seisaku sentaku]. Tokyo: Yuhikaku.

  37. Page, S. E. (2006). Path dependence. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 1(1), 87–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Park, J. (2008). Organization Reform of the Strategy, Budget and Finance Sector: Issues and Agenda. Korean Public Management Review, 22(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Steinmo, S. (2008). Historical Institutionalism?. In: Della Porta, D., & Keating, M. (Eds), Approaches and methodologies in the social sciences: A pluralist perspective (pp. 118–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  41. Thelen, K., & Steinmo, S. (1992). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. In: S. Steinmo, K. Thelen, & F. Longstreth (Eds.), Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis (pp. 1-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  42. Sydow, J., Schreyögg, G., & Koch, J. (2009). Organizational path dependence: Opening the black box. Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 689–709.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Szent-Iványi, B. Z., & Lightfoot, S. (2015). New Europe’s new development aid. Abingdon Oxon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  44. Szent-Iványi, B. (2016). Irrelevant or transformative power? The OECD DAC and foreign aid policies in Central and Eastern Europe. Yearbook of the Institute of East-Central Europe, 14(4), 55–70.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Asian and African Area Studies, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

    Hyomin Jung

Authors
  1. Hyomin Jung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hyomin Jung.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jung, H. South Korea’s Fragmented Aid Structure from the 1960s to Early 1990s: Analysis Through Path Dependence. East Asia (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12140-023-09421-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12140-023-09421-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation