takes up the thorny issues relating to the People's Republic of China. Finally, by way of conclusion, Section VI summarizes several recommendations for the future of Japanese ODA.

# **II.** JAPAN AS THE WORLD'S LARGEST DONOR NATION

# **1. Comparative and Historical Perspectives on Japanese ODA**

According to the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Japan has been the world's largest provider of ODA since 1991 (Table 1). In 2000, for example, the volume of Japanese ODA, at $13.1 billion, far exceeded that of any other major donor country, such as the United States ($9.6 billion), Gernany ($5.0 billion), the United Kingdom ($4.5 billion). or France ($4.2 billion), although it was about a half the aggregate amount of all European Union countries combined ($25.4 billion). Moreover, excluding contributions and subscriptions to multilateral institutions and including both ODA and other official flows (OOF), whose concessionality is generally lower than that of ODA, Japan has also been the largest provider of bilateral official assistance to developing countries, giving nearly $18.8 billion in 1999 (the latest year for which detailed breakdown is available).' The total amount of Japan's bilateral official assistance (including OOF) exceeded even the aggregate total of the EU countries combined, which stood at $17.0 billion.

**Table 1. ODA Flows Provided by Major DAC Members in Selected Years (Billion US dollars; percent of total in parentheses)**

||**Japan**|**USA**|||**Eur**|**opean**Uni|on|||Total|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||||Germ.|UK|France|Neth.|Denm.|**Italy**|**Total**|**Bilaterals**|
|**1990**|9.1<br>(17.2)|11.4<br>(21.5)|6.3<br>(11.9)|2.6<br>(4.9)|7.2<br>(13.6)|2.5<br>(4.7)|1.2<br>(2.3)|3.4<br>(6.4)|28.6<br>(54.0)|53.0<br>(100.0)|
|**1995**|14.5<br>(24.6)|7.4<br>(12.6)|7.5<br>(12.7)|3.2<br>(5.4)|8.4<br>(14.3)|3.2<br>(5.4)|1.6<br>(2.7)|1.6<br>(2.7)|31.7<br>(53.8)|58.9<br>(100.0)|
|1998|10.6<br>(20.4)|8.7<br>(16.8)|_5.5_<br>(10.6)|3.8<br>(7.3)|5.7<br>(11.0)|3.0<br>(5.8)|1.7<br>(3.3)|2.3<br>(4.4)|27.7<br>(53.3)|52.0<br>(100.0)|
|**1999**|15.3<br>(27.1)|9.1<br>(16.2)|5.5<br>(9.8)|3.4<br>(6.1)|5.6<br>(10.0)|3.1<br>(5.6)|1.7<br>(3.1)|1.8<br>(3.1)|26.8<br>(47.5)|56.4<br>(100.0)|
|**2000**|13.1<br>(24.6)|9.6<br>(18.1)|5.0<br>(9.5)|4.5<br>(8.4)|4.2<br>(8.0)|3.1<br>(5.8)|1.7<br>(3.2)|1.4<br>(2.6)|25.4<br>(47.9)|53.1<br>(100.0)|

_Note:_ Net disbursements, including bilateral ODA and contributions to multilateral institutions. Figures for 1990 include the debt forgiveness of non-ODA claims, except in total bilateral figures. Figures for 2000 are provisional. _Source:_ OECD, DAC.

' See Appendix Table C. According to the convention adopted by the DAC, an official flow must be aimed at promoting economic development and welfare in developing countries and be provided at concessional financial terms (i.e., with a grant element of at least 25 percent) in order to qualify as ODA. Otherwise, the official flow is classified as OOF. According to DAC practice, moreover, official flows that otherwise meet the ODA requirements are not considered as ODA if they are directed to countries on Part II of the DAC List of Aid Recipients (i.e., transition or high-income economies) or to multilateral institutions that primarily benefit them. Such aid is called official aid (OA) and is not included in ODA in Table I or Table 2.

2