공적개발원조 배분정책과 실적: 선진국과 한국의 비교

Aid Allocation Policies and Practice: DAC Members and Korea

2000년의 UN 세계정상회의에서 새천년 개발목표(MDG)가 합의된 후 OECD/DAC 공여국은 빈곤퇴치를 원조의 주된 목적으로 삼아왔다. 이러한 목적을 더욱 효과적으로 달성하기 위해 원조공여국과 수원국은 2005년에 원조효과에 관한 파리선언에 합의하고 그 실천과정과 달성 정도를 격년마다 점검하고 평가해 왔다. 그 점검 평가를 위한 2011년 고위급 세계개발원조총회가 한국의 부산에서 개최되었다. 본 논문은 DAC 회원국이 과연 어느 정도 이러한 빈곤퇴치의 목적을 달성하는데 도움이 되는 원조배분정책을 수립하고 실제로 실천하고 있는가를 2005~09년 자료를 이용하여 분석 평가한다. 또 급격히 증가하고 있는 DAC 비회원국의 원조배분정책과 실적을 분석 평가하기 위해, 한국이 DAC에 가입하기 전인 2005~09년 기간의 원조배분실적을 분석 평가하여 DAC 회원국 평균과 비회원국 간의 차이를 분석 평가하고 정책적 의미를 찾아낸다.

Ever since the UN Summit agreed on the MDGs in 2000, OECD/DAC member countries have taken poverty reduction as the main goal of their aid. To achieve this goal, all donors and recipient countries agreed on the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness in 2005. To monitor and evaluate the progress in the targets of the Declaration, all donors and recipients got together periodically, and the 2011 conference was held in Busan, Korea. As part of this effort, this paper aims to assess the extent to which DAC donors have allocated their aid to achieve the MDGs during the latest millennium era: 2005-2009. In addition, to compare the aid allocation performance between DAC members and non-DAC emerging donors, this paper also assesses the aid allocation performance of Korea (KOICA) for the same period. The analysis of this paper shows evidence contrary to the recent literature findings that donors tended to select, as their aid recipients, those countries that warranted more aid on account of their acute development needs, and good policies and institutions. The difference between the recent literature and this paper is attributed to the different sample periods and/or the weaknesses of the estimation models and methods adopted in the literature. This paper shows why a different estimation method is adopted and why its estimation results are more reliable and convincing. This paper also shows the difference between DAC and non-DAC donors in the aid allocation performance by analyzing aid allocations by the representative aid agency of Korea (KOICA), and recommends some policy measures to be taken by both DAC and non-DAC donors.