Assessing Motives in Northeast Asian Aid Allocations: China, Japan, and Korea as a Collective Group and as Individual Donors

Abstract

The landscape of global foreign aid is changing with the growing number of new donors, especially in Asia. While Japan is no longer overwhelmingly dominant, complexity grows as China is becoming increasingly influential as an emerging donor, and Korea is rising to be a considerable donor by joining the OECD's Development Assistance Committee. In this context, there have been numerous controversies concerning East Asian donors, and even debates about the East Asian model of aid apart from the more traditional Western models. However, only a handful of studies have examined donor behavior empirically. This study aims to assess the motives in the foreign aid allocations of China, Japan, and Korea as a group and as individual donors by methodically and empirically examining aid patterns and the East Asian model of aid. This research shows that the most important drivers of aid allocations of East Asian donor are economic, as opposed to political-strategic or humanitarian, which is viewed as typical for China, Japan, and Korea. Furthermore, this characteristic of valuing economic factors can be seen more clearly in Asia and other regions compared to in Africa. However, on an individual country level, economic motives are the primary determinants of aid allocations only for China. Japan prioritizes humanitarian factors over economic ones, and Korea does not reveal a clear pattern either way.

Africa beyond ‘South‐South cooperation’: A frame with limited resonance

“…Despite somerecently expanding-references to 'South-South cooperation' in Rwandan policy documents, for instance, existing research suggests that Rwandans tend to perceive China not as 'Southern' but as an Asian partner-similar to DAC members Japan and Korea-that acts in a supply-driven way and with a strong focus on tangible 'win-win' results, such as infrastructure delivery (Grimm et al, 2011, 54f;see Grimm, 2015). This resonates with broader debates about (East) Asian development cooperation models that cut across traditional 'North-South' divisions and thus challenge the relevance of mainstream terminology (see Sohn et al, 2020;Stallings & Kim, 2016).…”

Determinants for the Types and Distribution of China’s foreign-aided buildings in the global south

“…Relatedly, there is a large body of literature on the determinants of China's aid. In summary, it is often argued that China's provision of foreign aid is primarily driven by 1) the policy and economic interests of aid donors [19][20][21][22][23] and 2) the developmental needs of recipients ( [24,25]). Besides, some research also demonstrated these cross-border projects are normally driven by complementary needs, interests, and capabilities between the donor and recipient countries [20,23].…”

“…In summary, it is often argued that China's provision of foreign aid is primarily driven by 1) the policy and economic interests of aid donors [19][20][21][22][23] and 2) the developmental needs of recipients ( [24,25]). Besides, some research also demonstrated these cross-border projects are normally driven by complementary needs, interests, and capabilities between the donor and recipient countries [20,23]. Based on this literature, we make a hypothesis that the policy of China and the development needs of the recipients separately are two main drivers of China's building aid regarding the main architectural types and then try to validate this assumption by regression analysis in this research.…”

What motivates South Korean Official Development Assistance?

“…This means that the description of Korea's motives relative to Japan will shift depending on which motives are assigned to which explanatory variables (see Atkinson, 2018). For example, Sohn et al (2020, p. 123) found:

on an individual country level, economic motives are the primary determinants of aid allocations only for China. Japan prioritizes humanitarian factors over economic ones, and Korea does not reveal a clear pattern either way.

…”