Analysing South Korea's ICT for Development Aid Programme

Abstract

Since the year 2000, there has been a significant growth in the ICT4D component of South Korea's aid programme. Given Korea's ICT capabilities and demands for ICT4D support from developing nations, this may make good sense. In this paper, though, we analyse a little deeper, starting to ask some initial questions about underlying perspectives and actual performance. We provide an overview of ICT4D expenditure levels, programmes, and key actors. We then reflect field data to date, which suggests some question marks over Korea's telecentre projects, some potential inequity in impacts, and a focus on Korean production of ICT goods and services. We analyse Korean ICT4D in terms of some basic concepts to find it associated with technological-determinism and techno-optimism, with the modernisation paradigm, with tied aid, and with the potential for creating dependency. However, Korea may not be unique among ICT4D actors in this and, in some ways, its techno-optimism may be a useful counter to the techno-pessimism that seems to have infected some Western donors. We conclude by noting some recommendations for Korea's ICT4D programme, and reflecting that Korea may be representative of a wider new wave of ICT4D donors such as India and China which may not follow quite the same line as Western donors.

A benefits framework for public access ICT4D programmes

“…Sufficient insight into methods of evaluating the effectiveness of these ICT projects on socio-economic development is lacking (Ashraf, Swatman, & Hanisch, 2008, p. 3). Various authors confirmed the finding by Rothenberg-Aalami and Pal (2005, p. 7) that there are no commonly agreed-upon techniques to assess the impact of rural telecentres (Ashraf et al, 2008;Colle, 2005;Grunfeld, 2007;Hedberg, 2010;Heeks, 2007;Lee et al, 2008;Parthasarathy & Srinivasan, 2006;Pather & Uys, 2010;Sey & Fellows, 2011).…”

“…Heeks () indicated that ICT4D outputs reflect a bias to action and not to knowledge, are descriptive, and are not analytical enough. Lee, Jang, Ko, and Heeks (, p. 2) reported a lack of hard evidence regarding the economic and social impact on development of ICT4D initiatives and voiced concern that the impacts are not universally beneficial (Lee et al, , p. 2).…”

Examining 'Digital Development': The Shape of Things to Come?

“…Overall, private sector investments in ICTs in the global South (from multinationals through to individual savings) now dwarf those from government and donor agencies (Heeks 2009), though the pattern is uneven. New sources of financing digital development are arising; for example through new aid donors of the global South or from social enterprises (Lee et al 2008). A number of these are collaborative models including public-private partnerships (Fife & Hosman 2007) and crowdfunding (Sow 2012, Owen 2014).…”

South Korean Development Cooperation in Africa: The Legacy of a Developmental State

“…Against this background, some contend that firms, communities, and individuals in developing countries are seen as nothing more than consumers of South Korean goods and services -a mere extension of the commercial focus of South Korean exporters. Some argue that far from representing a "new wave" of donor activity, South Korea's ICT projects instead resemble the activities of Western donors in the 1970s and 1980s (Lee et al 2008).…”