South Korea’s Foreign Aid as a Foreign Policy Instrument

Author(s):  
Jisun Song ◽  
Eun Mee Kim
Author(s):  
Clair Apodaca

The majority of countries around the world are engaged in the foreign aid process, as donors, recipients, or, oftentimes, both. States use foreign aid as a means of pursuing foreign policy objectives. Aid can be withdrawn to create economic hardship or to destabilize an unfriendly or ideologically antagonistic regime. Or, conversely, aid can be provided to bolster and reward a friendly or compliant regime. Although foreign aid serves several purposes, and not least among them the wish to increase human welfare, the primary reason for aid allocations or aid restrictions is to pursue foreign policy goals. Strategic and commercial interests of donor countries are the driving force behind many aid programs. Not only do target countries respond to the granting of bilateral and multilateral aid as an incentive, but also the threat of aid termination serves as an effective deterrent. Both the granting and the denial of foreign assistance can be a valuable mechanism designed to modify a recipient state’s behavior. Donors decide which countries will receive aid, the amount of aid provided, the time frame in which aid is given, and the channel of aid delivery. The donor’s intentions and the recipient’s level of governance determine the type or sector of foreign aid. States can choose between bilateral or multilateral methods of disbursing foreign assistance in order to pursue their interests. Although bilateral disbursements allow the donor state to have complete control over the aid donation, the use of multilateral forums has its advantages. Multilateral aid is cheaper, it disperses accountability, and it is often viewed as less politically biased. Foreign aid, once the exclusive foreign policy instrument of rich powerful states, is now being provided by middle-income countries, too. The motivation for foreign aid allocations by nontraditional donors parallels the motives of traditional Development Assistance Committee (DAC) donors. A main difference between traditional and nontraditional aid donors is that nontraditional aid donors generally do not place conditionalities on their loans. The issue of fungibility can obstruct the donor government’s purpose behind the allocation of foreign aid. If the preferences of the recipient government are different from those of the donor, the recipient can often divert the aid and use it for other purposes. A recipient government may reallocate its budget after it determines how much aid it is slated to receive. The recipient government will redirect its resources to areas it deems a priority that cannot be funded externally, for example the military or prestige projects.


An enduring concern about armed humanitarian intervention, and the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ doctrine that advocates its use under certain circumstances, is that such interventions are liable to be employed as a foreign policy instrument by powerful states pursuing geopolitical interests. This collection of essays critically investigates the causes and consequences, as well as the uses and abuses, of armed humanitarian intervention. Some of the chapters interrogate how the presence of ulterior motives impact on the moral credentials of armed humanitarian intervention. Others shine a light on the potential adverse effects of such interventions, even where they are motivated primarily by humanitarian concern. While some of these unwanted consequences will be familiar to readers, others have been largely neglected in the scholarship. The volume also tracks the evolution of the R2P norm, and draws attention to how it has evolved, for better or for worse, since UN member states unanimously accepted it over a decade ago. In some respects, the norm has been distorted to yield prescriptions, and to impose constraint, fundamentally at odds with the spirit of the R2P idea. This gives us all the more reason to be cautious of unwarranted optimism about humanitarian intervention and the Responsibility to Protect.


2002 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
GLENN PALMER ◽  
SCOTT B. WOHLANDER ◽  
T. CLIFTON MORGAN
Keyword(s):  

1967 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 253-273
Author(s):  
Krishna Nath Sharma
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Aleksey Vladimirovich Borisov

The article contains the critical analysis of the understanding of “soft power” in Russia as a state’s foreign policy instrument. The author notes that the strategic planning guidelines defining the fundamental principles, priorities, goals and tasks in the field of foreign policy and national security contain numerous references to the importance of “soft power” and emphasize the necessity of increasing Russia’s role in the global humanitarian space. However, the instrumental understanding contradicts the initial understanding of “soft power” as a way to legitimize a state’s foreign policy efforts and leads to refocusing from the evaluation of the effect of using humanitarian technologies to the evaluation of the humanitarian activity itself. In the author’s opinion, such approach hampers the appropriate usage of Russia’s resources of “soft power” for the purposes of its foreign policy, and sidetracks from the understanding that the efforts aimed at the cultivation of soft power are directed towards a state’s internal policy, whereas being only projected outwardly.   


2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 139
Author(s):  
Karina Utami Dewi

The main purpose of this research is to discuss about Japan’s foreign policy taken in ODA and the decision to have its foreign aid shifted towards more humanitarian issues, such as human security. This research will attempt to answer the question: how does the shift in Japan’s foreign aid influence the recipient countries in terms of Human Security? To measure such influence of policy, this research chose one of the elements in human security, which is health and selected six countries from Asia and Africa as the ODA’s recipient regions. There will be two focuses in this research. First, explaining the reason and the influence of the shift in Japan’s foreign policy to human security. Second, arguing the motivation behind the shift as well as Japan’s actual priority.


Author(s):  
Deborah Bräutigam ◽  
Yunnan Chen

This chapter examines China’s South–South relations and how it has been shaped by the nature of the Chinese state: a highly capable, developmental state that uses an array of instruments to promote its interests. In particular, it considers how, by means of foreign aid, economic cooperation, soft power, and trade, China aspires to be seen as a responsible global power. The chapter first looks at the history behind China’s engagement with countries of the Global South and the instruments that it has employed in this regard such as foreign investment, commercial loans, and soft power tools. It shows that Chinese ties with the developing world are shaped by long-standing foreign policy principles, including non-interference in the internal affairs of others, equality, and mutual benefit, along with its embrace of globalization and the growth of its multinational corporations. The chapter concludes with an assessment of concerns regarding China’s international engagement.


Worldview ◽  
1980 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 25-29
Author(s):  
Gustav Ranis

AbstractNo aspect of our foreign relations produces more yawns on Main Street or occasional discomfort along Pennsylvania Avenue than our programs of economic assistance to developing countries. If we rather arbitrarily date the beginnings of that effort to coincide with President Truman's Point Four Inaugural, we are now in the thirty-first year of an enterprise that has already cost us more than $150 billion, with no end in sight. As to results, the general feeling is one of frustration, of being overwhelmed and undercompensated. It does not help to have other international and domestic problems clamoring for attention while one developing country after another denounces either our indifference or our interference. Instead of success and gratitude we seem to be reaping continuous foreign policy debacles amongst erstwhile or current Third World aid recipients—from Nicaragua and Mexico to Afghanistan and Iran.


2020 ◽  
Vol 75 (3) ◽  
pp. 329-348
Author(s):  
Sam E. Morton ◽  
Judyannet Muchiri ◽  
Liam Swiss

The Government of Canada introduced its new Feminist International Assistance Policy (FIAP) to guide its foreign aid programming in June 2017. This feminist turn mirrors earlier adoptions of feminist aid and foreign policy by Sweden and echoes the current Canadian government’s feminist rhetoric. This paper examines the FIAP and its Action Areas Policies to ask what kind(s) of feminism are reflected in the policy and what groups of people it prioritizes. The paper examines the values, goals, and gaps of the policy in order to understand what feminist values and goals are being operationalized and pursued and what gaps and contradictions exist. By examining the FIAP’s Action Area Policies using a discourse network analysis of the groups represented in the policies, we demonstrate the failings of the FIAP to incorporate an intersectional approach. Our results show that the FIAP adopts a mainstream liberal feminism that excludes many peoples and groups from the core of Canada’s aid efforts.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document