support for ODA in recent years, particularly as the Japanese economy has stagnated and the construction industry has been among the hardest hit. Consequently, national policy towards ODA must be reformulated so as to clarify its role and benefits for the Japanese public at large (particularly the taxpayers).

**Table 6. Share of Japanese ODA Loan Procurements by Nationality (Percentage)**

||1990|1991|1992|1993|**1994**|**1995**|**1996**|**1997**|**1998**|**1999**|**2000**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**Japan**|27.0|31.3|35.4|29.4|27.4|27.3|33.3|27.9|20.5|19.3|23.5|
|**Other Developed Countries**|21.2|20.8|12.9|17.6|15.4|12.9|13.5|11.6|<br>16.4|9.3|8.7|
|**Developing Countries**|38.0|38.6|40.5|35.2|34.7|34.2|25.5|28.9|35.8|38.0|35.9|
|**Local Counterpart Costs**|13.8|9.2|11.3|17.8|22.4|25.7|27.8|31.5|27.2|33.4|31.9|

_Note:_ Data include commodity loans. The share of procurements by developing countries is for yen-denominated ODA loans.

_Source:_ Japan Bank for International Cooperation.

# **3. A Large Share of ODA to Asia**

Another feature of Japanese ODA is that a high proportion of total ODA goes to Asia. Although Asia's share has declined from the range of 90 percent in the early 1970s, it remains high and has increased markedly in recent years following the East Asian currency crisis.16 In 1999, for example, Asia accounted for $7 billion out of the $10 billion total provided in bilateral assistance (Table 2). Asia's share is even greater when total official flows (including both ODA and OOF) are considered, since the relatively developed Asian economies are less eligible for outright grants. In 1999, for example, Asia accounted for $17 billion out of the $19 billion total provided in bilateral ODA and OOF. The five largest cumulative recipients of Japanese ODA are Indonesia, China, the Philippines, Thailand and India.

**Table 7. Total ODA to Five Largest Recipients by Donor Country 1990 and 1999 (in terms of annual net flows)**

||1990|1999|
|---|---|---|
|**Japan**|Indonesia, China, Philippines, Thailand,<br>Bangladesh|Indonesia, China, Thailand, Vietnam, India|
|**United States**|Egypt, Israel, Philippines, El Salvador,<br>Honduras|Egypt, Bosnia Herzegovina, Indonesia,<br>Colombia, Jordan|
|**European Union**|China, Egypt, India, Tanzania, Mozambique|China, Egypt, Tanzania, Bosnia Herzegovina,<br>Mozambique|
|**France**|Cote d'Ivoire, New Caledonia, French<br>Polynesia, Senegal, Morocco,|French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Egypt,<br>Senegal, Morocco|
|**Germany**|Egypt, Turkey, China, Jordan, India|China, FYR-Serbia, Egypt, Pakistan, Tanzania|
|**United Kingdom**|Bangladesh, India, Kenya, Pakistan, Malawi|India, Bangladesh, Uganda, Ghana, Tanzania|
|**Multilaterals**|Bangladesh, India, China, Pakistan, Kenya|India, Bangladesh, China, Honduras, Vietnam|

_Note:_ Includes grants and concessional loans only. If OA (aid to Part II countries) were included the five largest recipients would include Israel (in 1999 for the United States), Poland, and some countries of the former Soviet Union. _Source:_ OECD, DAC 16 Following the East Asian crisis, Japan announced assistance measures totaling about $44 billion (including financing on commercial terms) through the end of November 1998. This was followed by the New Miyazawa Initiative, announced in October 1998, whereby Japan agreed to extend concessional and non-concessional assistance totaling $30 billion to the crisis-affected East Asian countries.

11