An Analysis on the Criteria and Methodology of Priority Recipient Selection for Country Partnership Strategy 

Bokyeong Park, Hongshik Lee, and Jeong-Woo Koo

South Korea has provided serious efforts to reform the structure and process of ODA since the country joined OECD DAC in 2009. Selecting and managing “priority countries” has been one of those efforts, but it has led to controversies regarding the relevant standards and methods. This study addresses these controversies and further explores a theoretical and methodological alternative to such limited strategies regarding the selection of priority countries. In addition, this study seeks to deal with other related issues, such as the proper number of priority countries, the adequate procedures, and the degree to which the relevant information needs to be released. 

Methodologically, we use the following strategies: (1) review of past studies; (2) conduct case studies that reflect the experiences of traditional donor countries; (3) employ regression analyses to explicate the factors determining the selection of priority countries in other advanced donor countries; and (4) use of the Delphi technique to assign proper weights to the factors considered. Taken together, this study demonstrates the utility of a mixed method in order to suggest an alternative approach to the selection of priority countries. 

The analyses of past studies and cases lead us to consider the following four principles as crucial in selecting priority countries: (1) development needs of aid-receiving countries; (2) strategic correspondence; (3) international norms; and (4) aid-effectiveness. First, development needs involve the degree to which recipients need foreign aid in connection with their income-level and the level of poverty. Second, strategic correspondence refers to the extent to which economic and diplomatic interests overlap between a donor and a recipient. Third, respect for international norms indicates the necessity of adhering to globally-recognized norms involving proper ODA. Finally, the principle of aid-effectiveness involves the extent to which the provision of ODA might be used in ways to effectively solve the problems facing the recipient countries. Motivated by those principles, we suggest dozens of quantitative indicators that might highlight the principles and justify the designation of certain countries as priority countries.

When using the proposed quantitative strategy, one needs to consider the following caveats: (1) The quantitative strategy needs to be supplemented with a qualitative approach because of the salience of non-qualifiable factors and/or concerns and the possibility that selected indicators might lack a proper level of reliability. (2) No country considers only the quantitative approach for the selection and management of priority countries. It is equally important to consider the pitfalls of the arbitrary use of a qualitative method because it might result in policy biases that weigh down donors’ interests or strategic considerations. Considering the caveats, we select and present twice as much potential priority countries at the first stage, and suggest that policy-makers need to choose the final priority countries at the second stage in conjunction with various diplomatic considerations. 

In recognition of the importance of assigning proper weights to the indicators proposed, we conducted a Delphi survey for dozens of experts specializing in international development in Korea. The survey results assign 38% for development needs, 17% for strategic correspondence, 20% for international norms, and 25% for aid-effectiveness. The assigned weights for each principle area determine the actual weight of each indicator that corresponds to the demarcated principle area. The assigned weights might need to be modified in ways to balance the survey results reflecting positions of development experts and the real diplomatic considerations coupled with the sentiments of policy-makers. Considering the possibility of such modifications, we assign 30-35% for development needs, 25-30% for strategic correspondence, 25-30% for respecting international norms, and 15-20% for aid-effectiveness. 

Furthermore, we make several suggestions and/or recommendations regarding the processes by which to officially determine the list of priority countries and the proper levels of public disclosure of information. More specifically, we suggest public discussion of the selection strategy, consultation with experts, in-depth discussion among policy makers, and reporting the strategies and discussions to the National Assembly. With respect to the degree of public disclosure, we suggest that the public disclosure needs to be confined to the broad strategies and plans involving the selection of priority countries.

국문요약

제1장 머리말

1. 연구의 배경과 목적

2. 연구의 주요 내용과 방법론

3. 중점협력국 선정 현황 및 문제점

가. 경과와 현황

나. 문제점과 과제

제2장 중점협력국 선정의 원칙과 기준

1. 선진공여국 사례연구

가. 개관

나. 주요국의 중점협력국 선정기준

2. 중점협력국의 선정기준

가. 수원국의 개발

나. 전략적 조응성

다. 국제규범의 존중

라. 원조효과

제3장 주요국의 중점협력국 결정요인 분석

1. 분석의 목적

2. 분석대상 공여국의 원조 현황

가. 캐나다

나. 네덜란드

다. 독일

라. 스웨덴

3. 분석 모형 및 자료

가. 분석모형

나. 분석자료

4. 분석결과

가. 캐나다

나. 네덜란드

다. 독일

라. 스웨덴

5. 소결

제4장 중점협력국 선정 기준의 중요도 평가

1. 델파이 조사의 필요성

2. 델파이 조사 설계

3. 델파이 조사문항

4. 델파이 조사 분석결과

5. 최종 가중치 산출

제5장 정책방안

1. 중점협력국 선정방법

가. 선정 기준 및 방법

나. 가중치 부여

다. 적정국가 수 및 재원배분

라. 선정절차 및 책임성 확보

2. 중점협력국 선정결과

참고문헌

부록

Executive Summary