An Examination and Development of Evaluation Criteria to Enhance Korea???s ODA Performance : Centering on Vietnam???s Case

??? ????????? ?????? ??????????????????(ODA)??? ??????????????? ????????? ?????? ???????????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????? ????????????. ????????? ????????? ?????? ODA??? ???????????? ??? ??????????????? ???????????? ??????????????? ????????????, ??? ????????? ???????????? ?????? 10?????? ?????? ODA??? ?????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????? ODA ??????????????? ??????, ????????? ODA?????? ????????? ???????????? ??? ??????. ???2??? ???????????? ?????? ????????? ????????? ????????? ??? ODA ??????????????? ODA ??????????????? ??????????????????. ?????? ????????? 2009??? OECD DAC ??????????????? ????????????, 2011????????? ?????? ??????????????????????????? ??????????????? ???????????? ??? ??????????????? ?????? ODA ????????? ??????????????????, 2017??? ?????? ????????????????????? 2???6359??? ????????? DAC 29??? ????????? ??? 14??? ????????? ?????????. ????????? ????????? ????????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????? ODA??? ???????????? ??????????????? ??????????????? ????????? ??????????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??????????????? ?????? ??????. ????????? ?????? ????????? GNI ???????????? 0.14%(DAC ?????? 0.3%, ?????? 24???)??? ????????????, ????????????????????? ????????? ??? ?????????, ????????? ????????? ?????? ??????????????? ??????, ????????? ?????? ???????????? ????????? ????????? ??????, ?????? ??? ?????????????????? ????????? ???, ????????? ????????? ??? ????????? ????????? ???????????????. ?????? ODA??? ?????? ??????????????? 2005??? DAC ?????????????????? ????????? ???????????? ??????, ????????? ???????????? ????????? ????????? ?????? ??? ???????????? ?????? ???????????? ??????. ????????? ?????? 2011??????2020??? ????????? 1, 2?????? ???????????? ?????? ?????????????????? ?????? ?????? ????????? ???ODA ?????????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????? ??????????????? ???????????? ????????????, ??????????????? ?????? ODA????????? ?????? ??????????????? ????????? ????????? ???????????? ???????????? ??????. ??????????????? ????????? ?????? ??????????????? ??????????????? ???????????? ??????????????????, ????????? ?????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????????? ????????? ????????? ????????? ??? ??????. ????????? ????????? DAC ?????? ?????? ??? 7?????? ?????? 2017??? ????????????, DAC??? 5?????? ????????????(?????????, ?????????, ?????????, ?????????, ???????????????) ?????? ????????????????????? ?????? ?????? ???????????? ??????????????? ????????? ??? ??????, ???????????????????????? ???????????? ?????? ??????????????? ????????? ???????????? ????????? ??????. ????????? ????????? ????????? ????????? ??? ????????? ??? ??? ?????????, ?????? ODA ???????????? ????????? ??????????????? ???????????? ??????????????? ??????????????? ???????????? ??????, 4??? ?????? 159??? ???????????? ODA???????????? ?????? ???????????? ????????? ????????? ????????? ??????. ????????? ???????????? ???????????? ????????? ??? ??????????????? ??????, ????????????????????? ????????? ?????? ????????? ????????? ?????????????????? ???????????? ??????, ?????? ????????? ?????? ODA ?????????????????? ???????????? ?????????(???????????? 5??????), ????????? ODA?????? ??????(???????????? 5??????) ?????? ???????????? ????????? ??????????????? ???????????????. ??????, ?????? ODA??? ???????????? ?????? ?????????????????? ??????????????? ?????? 10??? ?????? ??????????????? ????????? ?????? ODA?????? ?????????, ???????????? ????????? ????????? ???????????? ??? ????????? ???????????? ??????????????????, ????????? ??????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????????????. ?????? ?????? ???????????? 2016?????? ???????????????????????? ????????????????????????, 10??? ??? ?????? ?????? ????????? 176?????? ??? 113?????? ???????????? ?????? ???, ????????? ???????????? ????????? ????????? ????????? ?????? ????????? ????????????. ????????? ??? ???????????? ????????? ????????? ??????????????? ????????????????????? ??????????????? ???ODA ??????????????? ??????????????? ???????????????, ????????? ????????? ODA????????? ????????? ??? ????????? ????????????????????? ??? ??? ??????. ??????, ??? ????????? ????????? ??????????????? ?????? ?????????????????? ?????? ODA??? ?????? ????????? ????????????????????? ?????????, ?????????????????? ????????? ODA?????? ????????? ????????????????????????. ??? 2016??? ??? ??????, 5400??? ?????? ????????? ?????? ?????? ??????, ????????? ??????????????? ??????????????? ????????? ????????? ?????? ?????? ??????, ????????? ????????? ????????????????????? ?????? ????????? ?????????????????? ??? ????????? ???????????????, 3??? ?????? ?????????????????? ??? ????????? ?????? ?????????(?????????)??????????????? ?????????, ??? ?????????????????? ?????????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ?????? ???????????? ????????? ????????? ??????????????????(Global Citizenship Education)??????????????? ?????? ????????? ??????????????? ??????????????????, ????????????????????? ?????? ???????????????????????? ?????????????????? ????????? ????????? ODA????????? ???????????????. ?????? ?????????????????? 250%??? ?????? ????????? ???????????? ?????????????????? ????????? ??????????????? ??????????????? ?????? ?????????????????? ???IT ????????? ?????? ??????????????????????????? ?????????, ????????? ????????? ???????????????????????? ?????? ???????????? ?????????????????? ???????????? ????????? ?????? ????????? ????????? ???????????? ?????? ??????????????? ???, ?????? ????????? ???????????? ????????? ????????? ???????????? ????????? ODA ?????????????????? ???????????????. ??? ????????? ???????????? ODA??? ?????? ?????????????????? ???????????? ????????? ????????? ?????? ????????? ????????? ????????????, ODA ???????????? ????????? ????????? ????????? ??? ????????? ???, ODA??? ?????? ????????????????????? ????????? ?????? ??? ?????????????????? ?????? ????????? ????????? ????????? ??? ????????? ???, ?????? ????????? ?????? ???????????? ???????????? ????????? ??????????????? ????????? ODA?????? ????????? ????????? ???????????? ODA??? ???????????? ?????? ????????? ?????????????????? ???, ????????? ????????? ????????? ODA ??????????????? ??????????????? ?????????????????? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ??????. ????????? ??? ????????? ?????? ODA??? ??????????????? ???????????? ????????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????????? ??????????????? ???????????? ?????? ????????? ?????? ??????. ?????? ODA??? ????????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??????????????? ??? ?????????????????? ??????????????? ?????? ????????? ?????? ???????????? ????????? ?????? ??? ????????? ????????????, ????????? ??? ????????? ?????? ????????? ????????? ?????? ????????? ????????? ???????????? ????????????. ???????????? ?????? ?????? ODA ??????????????? ?????? ??????????????? ?????? ?????? ????????????, ?????? ?????????????????? ?????? ??? ??????????????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????????? ?????? ????????? ??????????????????, ????????? ?????? ????????? ???????????? ??? ?????? ODA ?????????, ????????? ?????? ????????? ???????????? ??? ?????? ????????? ???????????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???????????????. ????????? ??? ????????? ???????????? ?????? ????????? ????????????.This dissertation examines and analyzes evaluation principles and criteria for Korea???s official development assistance(ODA) performance to raise its effectiveness. It also determines the problems of evaluation criteria and finds ways to improve them to present new aid programme models particularly based on the examination of aid to Vietnam, the largest recipient of Korea???s ODA for the past decade. Korea is the first country in the world to have transitioned from a recipient to a donor since World War II. It became a full member of the Development Assistance Committee(DAC) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in 2009. As an emerging donor, it successfully hosted the High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in 2011 and ranks 14th among 29 DAC members in terms of annual aid budget for 2017 with 2.6359 trillion won. Despite the achievement in its global status in ODA, Korea faces many challenges that need to be dealt with to enhance the quality of aid. The country only ranks 24th among DAC members in terms of the size of aid, with its ODA standing at a mere 0.14 percent of GNI, compared to the DAC average of 0.3 percent. Its OAD still takes the form of both grant aid and loan and is fragmented. It also suffers the lack of experienced and competent professional staff and has the high percentage of loan and tied aid. Last but not least, Korea has yet to have evaluation and feedback systems in place. Their establishment has been included in the major tasks for the international development cooperation initiative for the period of 2011 through 2020. Evaluation has been all the more important to enhance aid effectiveness and hold donors and recipients accountable for their commitments since the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness was adopted in the Paris High Level Forum in 2005. For evaluation to be objective and fair and be used for feedback, there should be clear and specific principles and criteria. But since it joined the DAC in 2009, Korea has not been able to establish such evaluation principles and criteria that can be applied specifically according to sector, purpose or project -- except the five criteria laid out by the DAC: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability. This impedes improving aid effectiveness as well as achieving the objectives of programmes and projects which Korea, as an emerging donor, is actively carrying out to share its experience and know-how with developing countries. This dissertation aims to come up with enhanced evaluation criteria and prove their validity and reliability. To that end, it first analyzes existing criteria of Korea and other countries and presents new criteria suited to the Korean situation that include ???morality and accountability??? and ???Korean-style programme development??? each with five sub-indexes. Secondly, it evaluates the aid programmes and projects Korea has implemented for the last 10 years in Vietnam, the largest beneficiary of Korea???s ODA, using the new criteria presented here. For example, it uses the sub-index ???change in aid transparency??? under the ???morality and responsibility??? given that Vietnam needs more efforts to improve its transparency as it ranked 113rd out of 176 nations in the 2016 Corruption Perceptions Index by the Transparency International, remaining as corrupt as 10 years earlier. Thirdly, this dissertation presents new ODA programme models based on analysis and meta-evaluation of Korea???s ODA to Vietnam using the new criteria presented here. One model is a programme to nurture talents linking businesses, academics and civic education. It involves the linking of Korean companies doing business in Vietnam, whose number stood at 5,400 as of at the end of 2016Korean universities which have accumulated experience in educating talents since the industrialization of the countryand Vietnamese universities that are entrusted with the tasks of cultivating talents who will work for the Southeast Asian country, and includes in their educational programme a civic education like Global Citizenship that teaches moral values and accountability. Another model is to establish an IT-based remote public healthcare system that takes advantage of Korea???s top-notch IT technolgoies to improve public healthcare quality in Vietnam, where the bed occupancy rate is a whopping 250 percent. For the urban poor whose lives are put at risk due to industrialization and urbanization, this study suggests a housing welfare model that meets the needs of local people. This dissertation may serve as a cornerstone for studies on evaluation principles and criteria in ODA as few such studies exist in Korea. It also tries to grasp political implications of evaluation criteria by assessing ODA based on international political theories. It also conducts a country programme evaluation for aid to Vietnam, a departure from the usual evaluation practice that focused on the performance of individual programmes or projects, and presents new evaluation criteria and programme models. But this study has some limits. One is the failure to take a profound theoretical look at the problems of evaluation principles and criteria for Korea???s ODA due to the lack of relevant references to consult among existing studies in Korea. It also fails to look at enough overseas studies on the subject. Similarly, it fails to compare Vietnam with other countries in conducting a country programme evaluation also due to the lack of relevant references to consult as most existing studies focused on evaluating projects or sectors individually rather than as a whole. So, there is need for further studies.Docto