A Comparative Analysis on the Path Dependence of Two-pillar ODA Implementation System: Case Study on Korea and Japan

Abstract

Previous studies on Koreas ODA have been emphasizing strong resemblance of Koreas ODA to that of Japan in various aspects including objectives implicitly based on national interest, patterns of aid allocation, institutional traits, under the premise that Koreas ODA has been developed by modeling on Japans ODA. The two-pillar aid implementation system stands out in the discussion of Koreas resemblance to Japans ODA and it has been as one of the core agendas for improving Koreas ODA since the 2000s as Korea took proactive measures to join DAC and New JICA emerged in Japan. This paper attempts to provide explanations on why two-pillar aid implementation system, one of the representative commonalities between Korea and Japan, was turned into the integrated system in Japan while it persists in Korea in spite of constant demands for integrated implementation system. This paper, employing analytical framework from path dependence of Historical Institutionalism, examines how each ODA institution (two-pillar system) in Korea and Japan was formed, sustained and changed through significant historical process. By defining and analyzing major historical sequences in both countries, the paper argues that Koreas two-pillar ODA system was not the direct result of Koreas deliberate emulation for Japanese ODA model, but the consequence of unique path-dependent process of its own intertwined with conflict of interministerial interests. After historical review on the course of development of ODA in both countries, the paper examines mechanisms of institutional reproduction and change in both countries by employing Mahoneys four modes of explanation. The analysis identifies that each country suggests different mechanism to better explain path dependence process of institutional reproduction and change—functional mechanism is the most persuasive for Japans case while power mechanism is most well-fitted for Korea. This paper can contribute to enrich other comparative analyses of ODA on Korea and Japan, as well as policy discussions for the reform of ODA implementation system in Korea.