제주평화연구원

International Development Cooperation and Jeju Island

  [caption id="" align="alignright" width="151"] Sangcheol Kwon
​Department of Geography, Jeju National University[/caption] As a new Official Development Assistance (ODA) donor country, the Republic of Korea is subject to heightened expectations for international development in numerous areas. Acting on the calls from developing countries to pass on its experience in economic development from its rapid transition from a recipient to a donor country, Korea joined the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 2010. Since then, Korea has since engaged in several ODA and international development cooperation projects.   ODA and international development cooperation are still being used interchangeably, necessitating explanation about the two terms in connection with recent changes in the international practice of aiding developing countries. Following World War II, ODA mainly consisted of assistance from developed Western countries to developing countries to aid the latter’s economic growth. Compassionate contributions, moral obligation, and the transfer of advanced knowledge, technologies, and systems from the West to developing countries characterized ODA in these early years. By contrast, the donor countries that have emerged since the 1990s have implemented a new practice, one that has veered away from the principles of conventional aid. Capitalizing on their prior experiences as developing countries, these new donor countries put greater emphasis on South-South development cooperation as an opportunity for mutual growth than on the North-South assistance more commonly adopted by Western countries. This new practice prioritizes empathy, instead of sympathy, and partnership ties with others based on shared identity and experiences as well as mutual exchanges and benefits.   The shift from traditional ODA to international development cooperation is a positive advancement in that it encourages developing countries to be self-reliant and participate in development cooperation, but the practice has also drawn criticism for its opportunistic approach aimed at economic or political interests. In particular, the development cooperation projects initiated by Korea and Japan in Southeast Asia and by China in Africa and Asia have received censure for their geopolitical interest-oriented strategies. Specifically, the OECD DAC’s peer review panel pointed out that Korea needs to increase the volume of its assistance, expand assistance to poor, heavily indebted countries, and provide unconditional aid and concessional loans in accordance with international norms.   Regarding the recent evolution of ODA, Korea, as a member of the OECD’s DAC, is obliged to observe international norms, share the experience of its rapid economic growth, and promote global citizenship to draw more attention to and enhance efforts to eliminate poverty worldwide. To improve development cooperation and mutual development, Korea is advised to sympathetically consider the history and culture of aid-recipient countries and cultivate a better understanding of local conditions. In general, Korea must take a balanced approach to international norms, development fields and specialties, and comprehensive and specialized knowledge about aid-recipient countries. As the East Asian model of development cooperation, which is mainly focused on grand projects to expand infrastructure, is often criticized for pursuing donor country interests rather than those of the recipient, it is recommended that smaller, program-based aid be implemented. This will enhance the effects of development cooperation in the aid-recipient countries as well as the problem-solving capacity of donor and recipient countries alike.   Local government ODA programs should also take these state-level considerations into account. Jeju province, for example, needs to have a better understanding of international norms and national strategies for ODA, identify ODA fields where it has performed well or can do so, and endeavor to become more familiar with ODA partner countries. Currently, tourism might be cited as an ODA field where Jeju province has a competitive edge. For example, aid-recipient countries could easily turn under-developed but well-preserved areas such as natural and cultural sites into tourism destinations as Jeju province has done. Given the growing demand for alternative types of tourism, such as eco-tourism, cultural tourism, and voluntourism, Jeju province should avoid proposing major tour projects to modernize accommodation facilities or build more roads. Instead, Jeju province should consider smaller, program-based aid packages, such as education for local residents on tourism and hygiene, assistance with the creation of local tourism asset lists and maps, and the creation of indices with lodging facilities and tour services in multiple languages.   As Jeju province hosts the Inter-Islands Tourism Policy Forum, which promotes cooperation between islands that have a unique natural environment and culture but lack tourism resources, it may explore ways to share its experience with islands in developing countries through development cooperation projects. Such international development cooperation projects between local governments can encourage knowledge exchanges between donor and recipient countries without entailing large-scale capital aid. Continued exchanges and the building of personal relationships would help local governments enhance mutual understanding and shared experiences as well as maintain cooperative ties, ultimately providing the opportunity to succeed in development cooperation. It would also a model case of international development cooperation for ODA in which the donor and recipient countries maintain mutually beneficial ties while advancing the growth of recipient countries and offering donor countries the chance to learn something new and mature as global citizens. In this way, Jeju province has the opportunity and potential to advance the cause of international development cooperation on the level of local government.