Sharing East AsianExperiences with Africa
Japan’s Policy Dialogue and Korea’s
Knowledge Sharing

Izumi Ohno, National Graduate Institute for
Policy Studies (GRIPS), August, 2012

Background
JICA is implementing the 2nd-phase program of industrial
cooperation in Ethiopia—(i) institutionalization of Kaizenand (ii) industrial policy dialogue (II)—to support theimplementation of the five-year development plan, i.e.,
the Growth and Transformation Plan.
 An important new factor is South Korea’s engagement insharing Korea’s development experiences—following
President Lee Myung-bak’s visit to Ethiopia in July 2011.
 Japan welcomes the Korean initiative—because this will
greatly contribute to projecting the East Asian
perspectives into Africa’s development efforts.
Features of ODA: UK, UK, Japan and South Korea
Volume(ODA/GNI)USUKJapan

S. Korea$30,353 mn$13,053mn$12,958 mn$1,174 mn(0.21%)(0.57%)(0.20%)(0.12%)(2010: netdisbursement)

Regional
distribution(2009-10: % of total
gross disbursement)

Major aid use(2009-10: % of total
bilateralcommitments)

Grant share

1.Su-Saharan

1.Sub-Saharan

1.East Asia &1.East Asia &Africa (37.0%)
2.South & Central
Asia (24.7%)

Africa (53.0%)
2.South & Central
Asia (31.7%)

Oceania (43.6%)
2.South & Central
Asia (25.2%)

Oceania (29.7%)
2.South & Central
Asia (28.3%)

1.Social & admin.

1.Social & admin.

1.Economic

1.Economic

infrastructure(50.7%)
2.Humanitarianassistance(16.3%)

Infrastructure(44.5%)
2.Economic
infrastructure(10.6%)

infrastructure(41.3%)
2.Social & admin.
Infrastructure(25.8%)

infrastructure(45.6%)
2.Social & admin.
Infrastructure(40.1%)

52.3%

45.7%

100%

95.1%

(2009-10: % of totalODA commitments)

Source: OECD Development Assistance Committee (Statistical Annex of the 2011 Development Cooperation Report）

Trends of Net ODA from G7 Countries + Korea:
1981-2011 (net disbursement basis)
35 000in millions of US dollars

Canada
Italy
United States

30 000FranceJapan
South Korea

Germany
United Kingdom

25 000

20 00014,48915 00013,50813,23911,25910,952

11,021

10,6409,439 9,358

11,151

10 00013,126

12,163

8,880
8,922

8,965
7,342

9,134

9,847

9,069

9,601 9,457

5,634

5 000

4,319
3,171 3,023

3,761

10,604

11,136

9,283
7,697

3,797

Year
出所：OECD開発援助委員会（Statistical Annex of the 2011 Development Co-operation Report, CRS ）online database（2012.05.08）)

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

1988

1987

1986

1985

1984

1983

1982

1981

-

East Asian Perspectives of Aidand Development
Shared by Japan and Korea
 Non-Western donors, having “dual experiences”

of aid and development (recipients and donors)
 Latecomer perspectives, based on their own
catch-up experiencesGrowth strategy with “real-sector concern” (e.g., trade,investment, industries, technology, human resources)
Respect for the uniqueness of each countryLong-term perspective; development is a long-term
undertaking and path-dependant in nature
Realistic and pragmatic approach in aid delivery

Dynamic Capacity Development

What are comparative advantages ofJapan and Korea respectively?

Japan and Korea:
Strengths & Weaknesses
Japan’s strength—tailor-made flexibility and in-depth
teaching & doing, working jointly to actually
implement methods & solutions in local context.
 Japan’s weakness—lack of institutionalization andprojection of ideas and influence to the world.
Korea’s strength—strong political leadership,institutionalization, standardization, action in theglobal arena (G-20, Busan Initiative, Post-MDGs,
working with WB, UN Group, etc.)
 Korea’s weakness—limited impact beyond initial
learning, risk of superficiality and weak quality
management due to fast expansion of target
countries and extensive outsourcing.
Japan’s Intellectual Cooperation


Policy dialogue: an instrument for long-term and open-ended
engagement with partner countries, with flexibility embedded
With sufficiently long experience of being a donor, positioned
to provide “network-based cooperation” mobilizing knowledge
and human assets accumulated through its past ODA to Asia
Eg., Japan-Ethiopia industrial policy dialogue (mobilizingMalaysia & Thai experts); Malaysia-Zambia cooperation (TOH)

Acting as a trusted intermediary: sensitivity, humility andunderstanding in its engagement with recipient partners(ODI: Menocal and Denney 2011)
 Positioned to provide global & regional public goods tothe developing world.
Eg., Kaizen, science & math education, disaster management,
energy saving, environment, aging

Japan: Policy Dialogue with Developing Countries(Selected List)
Country
Argentina
Thailand
VietnamIndonesia

PeriodHead/key players

Purpose and content

1985-1987
Saburo Okita (former foreign minister) etc, Comperehesive study on agriculture and livestock farming, industry, transport and1994-1996
JICA
export promotion(follow up)
Shiro Mizutani (former MITI official),
1999
Study on the master plan for SME promotion policy
JICA
Large-scale joint study on macroeconomy, industry, agriculture, enterprise reform,
1995-2001 Shigeru Ishikawa (professor) etc, JICA
crisis management, etc.
2000

Shujiro Urata (professor), JICA

Policy recommendation for SME promotion

Myanmar1999-2002 Konosuke Odaka (professor) etc, JICA

Study on agriculture, rural development, industry, trade, finance, ITC, etc.

Mongolia

Hiroshi Ueno and Hideo Hashimoto (ex1998-2001 World Bank economist and professor),
JICA

Study on the support for economic transition and development

Indonesia

2002-2004

Laos

2000-2005 Yonosuke Hara (professor) etc, JICA

Study on macroeconomy, finance, state enterprise, FDI and poverty reduction, etc.

Vietnam

2003-current Japanese embassy, JICA, JETRO, JBIC

Bilateral joint initiative to improve business environment and strengthen
competitiveness through 2-year monitoring cycle of action plans

Ethiopia

GRIPS Development Forum (Kenichi
2009-2011 Ohno, Izumi Ohno), Japanese embassy,JICA

Kaizen, basic metals and engineering, productivity movement, policy procedureand organization, etc.

Takashi Shiraishi and Shinji Asanuma(professors) & 6 professors, JICA

Policy support for macroeconomic management, financial sector reform, SME
promotion, private investment promotion, democratization, decentralization andhuman resource development

Source: author’s research.
Abbreviations: MITI (Ministry of International Trade and Industry), SME (small and medium enterprises), JICA (Japan International
Trade Organization), JBIC (Japan Bank for International Cooperation), GRIPS (National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies).

Cooperation Agency), JETRO (Japan External

Note: This table lists policy dialogues that are large-scale or worthy of special attention. Besides these, Japan offers policy advice through dispatching advisors to headsof state or ministers, expert dispatches, drafting reports on development strategy, training courses and site visits, conferences and seminars, etc. in various scale and duration.

Example: Network-based Cooperation
Malaysia-Zambia Cooperation “Triangle of Hope(TOH)”

JICA implemented “Triangle ofHope” Project during 2006-09 to
support the improvement ofbusiness environment in Zambia
Dato Jegathesan was Deputy DGof the Malaysia Industrial
Development Authority (MIDA),
under ex-Prime Minister Mahathir.
TOH project formulated 12
concrete policy recommendations,and catalyzed Malaysian
investment in Zambia (a cedularcompany).
Currently, JICA is supporting
capacity development of Zambia
Development Authority (ZDA).

Korea’s Efforts for Intellectual Cooperation
 Knowledge Sharing Program (MOSF/KDI),(i) Modularization (database on exemplary cases & best practices); and(ii) Policy consultation

Source: Korean Development Institute (KDI)

 Consultation Program (MOFAT/KOICA), based on

the Korean Development Model
MOSF: Ministry of Strategy and Finance / KDI: Korean Development Institute
MOFAT: Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade / KOICA: Korea International Cooperation Agency

Example: KSP Modularization(Source) Taeyong Yoon, Director General, International Economic Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Strategy and Financeof Korea, “Bilateral Knowledge Sharing: What works with Korea’s Knowledge Sharing Program (KSP)?”,
presentation at the OECD Workshop on Knowledge Sharing, July 11-12, 2011.

Example:
KSP Policy Consultation
Combination of joint research, study tours, andseminars, with the involvement of senior
government officials in both sides (-- systematized)Each year, a different topic will be selected, and relevant expolicymakers, researchers, consultants will be mobilized.
Priority countries have 3-year program, while other countries startwith 1-year program (which can be extended).
Rapid expansion: 11 countries (2009) 16 (2010) 26 (2011)32 (2012 planned)

Dilemma?: As the number of KSP countries
increases, how to engage a group of experts familiar
with a particular country and have continuous
dialoguesM.

Japan’s policy dialogue

Korea’s knowledge sharing

Top politicalleadership

Weak or non-existent; lowrecognition even within
Japanese government

Strong initiative by President
Lee Myung-bak; integrated into
ODA policy

Lead ministry& agency

Usually MoFA-JICA; however,method & budget are notinstitutionalized

MoSF-KDI-EDCF(EximB) and
MoFAT-KOICA; but these twolines work separatelyPolicy
dialogueformat

Ad hoc, flexible & customeroriented in terms of topics,tools, period, members, etc.

Standardized selection, program& output; one-year cycle withpossible extension

Model cases

Any experiences from Japan,
Asia, or elsewhere are cited

Korean experiences only

How muchteaching?

Teach & use ODA to make,localize & implement policies

Offer information only;
application up to the country

Growth &global impact

No plan for expansion; little
global impact so far

Expanding rapidly; trying toproject Korea’s ideas to world

Involvementof ministry/agencyAmbassador, JICA, JETRO
etc. participate actively insetting agenda, research,strategy, ODA projects, etc.

Only few cases managed
directly by KDI or KOICA.
Usually leave content tooutsourced consultants