The international community has recently suffered from conflicts, disasters, and terrorism, from which fragile states suffer the most. With the increasing number of refugees and migrants from fragile states emerging as a major regional and global problem, the international society has begun to perceive that fragile states could pose a threat to international security. Furthermore, most of the fragile states face not only poverty but also human rights and security-related issues that prompt global concerns over fragile states hindering the international society from achieving development goals. Therefore, considering the Sustainable Development Goals(SDGs) adopted at the UN General Assembly in 2015, the international community began promoting strategic plans to resolve peace and human rights-related issues under SDG 16 “peace, justice, and strong institutions.” Emphasized at the World Humanitarian Summit 2016, the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus(HDP Nexus) suggests new directions to support fragile states by connecting humanitarian aid, development, and peacebuilding practices and funding.
   As of 2017, aid to fragile states continues to increase as the importance of fragile states gains more recognition as a part of international development cooperation. However, the development outcomes of such engagements remain unclear and insufficient, while more than 40% of the world’s poorest still live in conflict-affected or fragile states. In this regard, the international society has taken efforts to enhance development effectiveness to address the negative impacts of fragility in achieving the SDGs, international security, and peacebuilding. The world overhauls related policies and devises strategic plans that go beyond humanitarian purposes and affect the achievement of sustainable development, conflict prevention, and peacebuilding to provide effective aid for fragile states.
   The study aims to suggest policy suggestions to improve the effectiveness of Korea’s development cooperation in fragile states. To achieve this goal, the study first presents the statistical trends of development cooperation towards fragile states, introducing contextual backgrounds and international dialogues regarding aid to fragile states. Secondly, the research compares and analyzes the current status, policies, and characteristics of aid to fragile states in major case study donors. Thirdly, the study constructs empirical models to analyze the impact of aid to fragile states using indicators for development, peace and economic growth. The study attempts to disaggregate and measure the impacts of aid by sector and modality. This is followed by an analysis of Korea’s development cooperation to fragile states.
   Chapter 2 outlines an analysis of trends in development cooperation in fragile states and discussions on the effectiveness of aid, as well as major issues at the international level. The international community is increasingly becoming aware of the importance of enhancing aid effectiveness and securing peace in fragile states with the adoption of the SDGs. Therefore, the UN and the World Bank have suggested new ways of working by linking peacebuilding activities to existing humanitarian aid and development cooperation projects, known as the HDP nexus. There is a strong assumption that the HDP nexus will substantially contribute to the enhancement of development effectiveness in fragile states. The study emphasizes how the HDP nexus is based on the perception that development assistance to fragile states should be pursued in the multi-year planning to support building resilience to future crises and minimize the impact of current risks, and to respond to fundamental fragilities. 
   Chapter 3 illustrates the current status, policies, and characteristics of development cooperation to fragile states in major donor countries, such as Germany, Australia, Denmark, and Japan, which have significant implications for the establishment of Korea’s policies considering the volume and implementation tools of aid to fragile states. Germany is the third largest donor to fragile states following the United States and the United Kingdom, and it promotes effective development cooperation plans through whole- of-government approaches by operating intergovernmental networks, guidelines of project planning, and performance management in severe conflict areas. Using the Peace and Conflict Assessment(PCA) tool, fragility is systematically considered during every stage of the project cycle. In the Denmark case, it emphasizes “ex-ante common analysis on cause of conflict” should precede project implementation in fragile and conflict-affected situations. Also, the Danish government is responding to the development needs of fragile states quickly and flexibly by operating a Peace and Stabilization Fund(PSF). Australia concentrates its development aid to support Small Island Developing Countries(SIDS) with high economic, environmental, and social fragility over conflict-prone ones. Due to the Australian government’s particular concerns over the negative impacts on its national security, it supports fragile states with an aim to manage immigration and the spread of infectious disease. Japan responds to the development needs of fragile states with a comprehensive approach to achieving human security and provides a high proportion of concessional loan to build large-scale infrastructures. To support the fragile state more effectively, the Japanese government established a guideline to build the capacity of governments and local communities simultaneously.
   Chapter 4 demonstrates an empirical analysis of the impact of foreign aid to fragile states on indicators for development, peace, and economic growth. Because the existing literature analyzes the impact of overall aid on restricted indicators including economic growth, it is limited when it comes to showing the causal relationship between aid to fragile states and development. To overcome this limitation of the existing literature, the study estimates the causal relationship between development cooperation to fragile states and various indicators for development, peace, and economic growth. Furthermore, the study focuses on showing the linkages between aid to fragile states and development by type of aid, and sectoral aid allocation by adding post-conflict effects. The analysis shows that project aid to fragile states has a positive impact on economic growth and improvements in the Water Supply and Sanitation sector under conflict situations. In contrast, program aid and technical assistance have negative or no impacts on development. Under post-conflict situations, the analysis finds, budget support has a negative influence on economic growth, while technical assistance or food aid have positive impacts. The results support the existing literature that budget support could negatively affect economic development due to weak governance.
   Chapter 5 identifies the current status and characteristics of Korea’s aid to fragile states and draw up some policy implications for future improvement in development effectiveness in fragile and conflict-affected situations based upon earlier analyses. Korea lacks a systematic approach to consider each fragile state’s characteristics when it provides aid to fragile states. Although the majority of Korea’s top partner countries are fragile states and account for about half of its total ODA, only a small amount of aid is provided to conflict-affected countries, such as Syria and Iraq, except Afghanistan. While Korea established its Assistance Strategy for Fragile States in 2017, it has yet to build an effective system to consult with relevant ministries other than those in charge of development cooperation. Furthermore, in the project cycle, Korea struggles with difficulties in project implementation and results management in fragile states due to weak fragility analysis. In order to tackle these issues, Korea should strengthen cooperation with the international community, including other donors and international organizations, establish robust coordination mechanisms between relevant ministries using the whole-of-government approach, and build capacity to provide effective aid to fragile states based upon comprehensive fragility analysis.
   Accordingly, this study recommends the following policy implications for enhancing the effectiveness of Korea’s aid to fragile states.
   First, the whole-of-government approach to support fragile states is requisite. The approach is crucial for the international community to achieve the 2030 Agenda. Specifically, fragile states face various development challenges, including climate change and refugee issues other than poverty, peace, and security. Policy coherence should be reinforced based upon strong coordination between stakeholders, to tackle these development challenges, and achieve collective outcomes through the HDP nexus and the SDGs in fragile states. However, Korea’s aid to fragile states is ex-post facto, weak to build bridges between responses of various development challenges, and it does not guarantee policy coherence among development aid projects. Thus, for advanced development cooperation in fragile states in the medium to long term, Korea should consolidate a whole-of-government approach and strong reciprocal coordination mechanism.
   Second, when Korea designs the Mid-term Strategy for Development Cooperation or Country Partnership Strategy(CPS), it should reflect characteristics of fragility and the particular development needs faced by each fragile and conflict-affected country. Currently, the Korean government is putting together the 3rd Mid-term Strategy for Development Cooperation and the CPS for 2021-2025, a mid-term ODA plans for the next five years. Thus the government needs to present an integrated support strategy and guidelines for aid to fragile states. Moreover, in the case of fragile states among priority partner countries, the  Korean government should identify each country’s specific dimensions of fragility and development needs accurately, which should then be integrated into the CPS. Based upon the CPS, which reflects the multiple dimensions of fragility and following development needs, stronger efforts should be made to establish a continuous and effective support system needed for various development challenges in fragile states.
   Third, consideration needs to be given to types of aid and sectoral aid allocation to enhance the development effectiveness of aid to fragile states. Considering the recent growing importance of the HDP nexus, Korea should expand its effectiveness of aid to fragile states by interlinking various types of aid and project cycles. However, as proven in the empirical analysis in Chapter 4, the budget support program needs to be approached with more care. Moreover, while it is inevitable to expand multi-bi aids in support of conflict-affected countries such as Afghanistan, it will also be necessary to create synergy effects by linking its existing individual project-based approach with multi-bi aid programs from the early phase.
   Lastly, there is a need to establish project management schemes in fragile and conflict-affected situations to implement development projects effectively. Before the project is implemented, a risk management mechanism should be provided as well as policy measures to control fragility. More emphasis is needed to support the capacity building of the government and local communities in fragile countries. To conclude, it is time for a new shift in assistance methods for fragile states to ensure do-no-harm principles to minimize unintended negative impacts of aid projects, to build systems for preventing disputes or violent conflicts, and to contribute to creating sustainable and resilient environments to overcome and manage fragility through capacity building.