2019, Vol.46, No.2

Korean Social Science Journal 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 0.06

pISSN : 1225-0368 / eISSN : 2196-4424
https://journal.kci.go.kr/kssj

With the increasing role of East Asian countries in global efforts for poverty reduction and development, an important question has emerged about their policy rationale for international development cooperation. Are East Asian countries using international development for their own economic and commercial advantage, or are they really pursuing the goal of global justice? This paper seeks to answer the question with reference to normative values and ideas, shedding light on the normative aspects of Korean official development assistance (ODA) policy. It first discusses normative theories that construct the moral duty and ethical obligation for international development assistance in order to set a normative reference. Secondly, this paper reviews the underlying policy rationale of Korean ODA. It argues that Korean ODA is strongly self-regarding, as Korean people have a very strong sense of pride about it, while they also feel an obligation towards international development assistance. In conclusion, this paper suggests a three-pronged approach to Korean ODA for the future, while incorporating the strength of Korean development experience and knowledge: aid for human freedom, aid for socio-economic and political development, and aid for the global public good.

One of the most frequently asked questions in the era of US-China rivalry is which country South Korea should side with. Although the Republic of Korea has been a staunch military ally with the United States ever since the end of the Korean War in 1953, it is also hard to ignore the fact that China is a rising economic powerhouse as well as a neighboring superpower. In this paper, I argue that we could wait until after the United States, at least, would decide. As America is still struggling with the question of how to handle China, South Korea doesn’t have to jump to a conclusion. I claim that when leaders in America try to manage the rise of China, they have hard time forming consensus. China strategies have differed from one administration to another, not to mention the positions of the Capitol Hill. Domestic preferences and pressures are equally critical for explaining the inconsistency and contradictions in Washington’s policy toward Beijing. Divisions within Republican and Democratic ranks over the benefits and costs of China’s economic rise have made it even more difficult than before for presidents to find common ground within their own parties, let alone to find consensus across party lines.

What makes people more willing to pay for fighting hunger and poverty, to give to charity, and to transfer a portion of their incomes to poorest regions? In this paper, I argue that the active participation in civic life that nurtures civicness in one’s mind reinforces the habits of the heart and instills a sense of solidarity and empathy toward less fortunate co-members of the community, thereby shaping preferences over social issues in favor of redistributive policies. By analyzing the 2017 Vietnam Provincial Governance and Public Administration Performance Index individual-level survey dataset, the paper shows that eight indicators of civicness of respondents, individually as well as collectively, prove strongly significant in explaining the variation in their willingness to pay for the poor in Vietnam.