Bringing Capacity Building Back in Aid Ownership : An Analysis of Aid Relations between U.S and South Korea in the 1950s and 1960s.

Abstract

빈곤 퇴치를 위한 세계적인 노력에 힘입어, 원조의 효율성에 대한 논의가 계속 되었다. 이러한 논의는 스스로 경제 발전과 원조의 사용에 관해 주인 의식을 가지고 결정 과정에 참여하는 원조 협력 대상국의 주인 의식에 관한 고찰로 이어졌다. 그러나 주인의식의 개념은 원조의 실질적인 효과성에 비추어 볼 때 역설적인 결과를 가져올 수 있다. 기존의 연구가 1960년대의 원조를 통한 능동적인 경제개발에 주로 초점을 맞추었다면, 이 논고는 1950년대 또한 한국은 원조의 자율성을 강하게 주장하였고 그에 따른 마찰을 빚었다는 사실을 간과해서는 안 된다는 것을 보여준다. 1950년대 이승만 정부를 거쳐 1960년대의 박정희 정부에 이르기까지의 한국의 경제발전을 살펴보면, 두 정부 모두 원조에 대한 자율성을 주장했다는 공통점을 지닌다. 이승만 정부도 미국의 원조 기관과 끊임없는 마찰을 빚었고, 박정희 정부 역시 모든 원조와 경제 정책에 대한 결정을 것을 미국의 제안대로만 결정한 것이 아니었다. 두 정부 모두 자율성과 주인의식을 주장했음에도, 경제적 성과는 다르게 나타났다고 평가된다. 이러한 점에서 원조를 통한 경제발전의 성공의 발판은 자율성과 주인의식 그 자체보다는 자율성에 대해 책임을 질 수 있는 역량과 주인의식의 올바른 방향성임을 이 논문을 통해 강조하고자 한다. 이 논고는 주인의식이 실질적 적용에 있어서는 복잡하고 모호한 개념일 수 있다는 점을 역설한다. 주인의식도 물론 중요하지만, 자율적으로 결정할 힘에 올바른 방향성을 부과하는 것은 수혜국의 역량강화임을 밝히고, 진정한 개발 주인의식에 대한 논의를 하고자 한다. 원조 협력 대상국의 역량이 향상되어 자율성에 대한 책임감을 질 수 있을 때 원조 협상 파워를 지니게 되는 과정 역시 원조협상모델을 통해 밝히고자 한다.

Although the global aid community has made unceasing efforts to eradicate world poverty, the academic society notice the quality of aid also matters generating a series of critical studies about aid efficiency. By suggesting that recipient countries should draw up and design own economic progress path, the academic society pinpointed the importance of ownership of recipient. However, the notion of ownership contains the paradox because it's not that simple thing when it comes to empirical application. For example, most of scholars only focus on autonomy of aid policy of Park-Chunghee administration with regard to South Korea economic prosperity, however, not only Park-Chunghee but also Rhee-Syngman claimed to participate in the allocation and disposition of the aid funds. Aid plan presented in 1950s and 1960s shared similar characteristics, which is government intervention. This is my first part of thesis raising question about notion of ownership because result of aid policy of Park regime is different compared to that of Rhees even though the fact that both regimes claimed aid policy autonomy seriously. The second part of my research is to find decisive factors of success of aid policy if ownership was not the panacea for the aid ineffectiveness. Specifically, the hypothesis that autonomy itself can be the answer of the development is questionable, thereby

the limits of ownership need to be discussed in this point, and also what is needed to build trust between donor and recipient. I would like to suggest the fact that capacity of nation as key role for positive environment of aid program by building trust between donor and partner. Third, the connection between donorship and ownership need to be examined. Unlike Rhee administration, however, Park started to recognize power of donor, which is mainly the United States

in politically and economically, he finally admitted the limits of autonomy. Then he began to change the economic strategy and aid disbursement compromising donors suggestion within the limits of ownership. Then, the Park government started to achieve an economic growth

ironically, his government got more ownership afterward giving up the ownership. Even, after gaining trust from recipient, his regime had aid negotiation power. In this point, I focus the power relation between donor and recipient. The notion of ownership is not a carte blanch for developing countries to draw up their development path, but rather a relative independence in the extent to which they may comply with international organizations and donors strategic framework and requirements for aid disbursement. Although a lot of papers imply that most donor-driven policy is evaluated as inefficient one, and has a detrimental effect on ownership although it has a good intention, but there is a paradox and complexity in ownership in terms of outcome of success empirically. The correlation between the ownership of recipient countries and success of aid program in real appears to be unforeseeable result. In this vein, the discussion about true ownership is needed.