무역분야 개발협력 방안: 한국 AfT 프로그램의 원조효과성 강화를 중심으로

Abstract

Korea, the first OECD DAC member who had prior experience of the benefits of ODA, also witnessed the dramatic effects of trade on economic growth and poverty reduction. In other words, Korea is the only official donor country that experienced the impact of ODA’s from a recipient’s perspective as well as the effects of trade on poverty reduction. Such experience sets Korea apart from other advanced donor countries, and an increasing number of less developed countries regard Korea's experiences as an attractive benchmark in their efforts for economic development and poverty reduction. However, it should be kept in mind that Korea’s experiences do not necessarily guarantee the effectiveness of Korea’s aid for trade (AfT). Up to now, it is hard to say that Korea’s AfT has met the needs and expectations of partner countries and the international aid community.

In the 2000s, Korea’s AfT has increased very rapidly, and the AfT/ODA ratio has turned out to be very high compared with those of other donor countries. However, these accomplishments do not result from Korea’s well-established AfT policies and strategies. Korea’s AfT has not been in line with the Aid Effectiveness Principles in many respects. The first challenge for Korea in enhancing the effectiveness of its AfT, is to establish frameworks and strategies for its AfT policy .

This study draws out priority areas and programs for Korea's AfT in formulating Korea’s AfT strategy paper. A survey of Korean experts in international economic issues was carried out, and ‘building private production capacity’ and ‘trade development’ were identified as Korea’s AfT priority areas, while 8 AfT programs were marked out as Korea’s priority programs. Out of the 8 AfT programs, this study looked at 4 programs in detail including: ① Special economic zone for export promotion ② Trade promotion organization ③ Trade finance system and ④ Customs system. How to design and implement each program is investigated in this study. Great emphasis was put on program-based approaches and the program as a ‘package’ of related projects.