한국형 ODA 모델 수립

경제·인문사회연구회 미래사회 협동연구 총서 12-02-01 (1)
산업연구원 연구보고서 2012-622 (1)

경제ㆍ인문사회연구회 미래사회 협동연구 총서
“한국형 ODA 모델 수립”
1. 협동연구 총서 시리즈
미래사회 협동연구
총서 일련번호
연구보고서명 연구기관
12-02-01 한국형 ODA 모델 수립 산업연구원
2. 참여연구진
연구기관 연구책임자 참여연구진
공동주관
연구기관
산업연구원 주동주
문종철
신윤성
안옥윤
윤정현
강지현
홍진기
이두희
김영수
한국개발연구원 차문중
강우진
김대용
우혜영
정세린
김지원
박예린
이종헌
대외경제정책연구원 권 율
박수경
이주영
정 철
강준구
김혁황
협조기관 한국농촌경제연구원 허 장
이대섭
정승은

연구기관 연구책임자 참여연구진
협조기관
정보통신정책연구원 고상원
김정민
홍승연
김은영
한국여성정책연구원 김은경
이수연
김원홍
신선미
양인숙
김경희
황정임
김은지
김경미

소속 성명 직위 연락처(이메일)
산업연구원 주동주 연구위원 djjoo@kiet.re.kr
산업연구원 문종철 부연구위원 jongchol.moon@kiet.re.kr
산업연구원 신윤성 부연구위원 ysshin@kiet.re.kr
산업연구원 안옥윤 책임전문원 oyahn@kiet.re.kr
산업연구원 윤정현 연구원 jhyoon@kiet.re.kr
산업연구원 강지현 연구원 jihyun.kang@kiet.re.kr
한국개발연구원 차문중 소장 mtcha@kdi.re.kr
한국개발연구원 강우진 연구위원 woojin.kang@kdi.re.kr
한국개발연구원 김대용 전문연구원 dykim@kdi.re.kr
한국개발연구원 우혜영 연구원 hywoo@kdi.re.kr
한국개발연구원 정세린 연구원 serinc@kdi.re.kr
한국개발연구원 김지원 연구원 jwkim1128@kdi.re.kr
한국개발연구원 박예린 연구원 yrpark@kdi.re.kr
한국개발연구원 이종헌 연구원 leejh@kdi.re.kr
대외경제정책연구원 권 율 연구위원 ykwon@kiep.go.kr
대외경제정책연구원 박수경 전문연구원 skpark@kiep.go.kr
대외경제정책연구원 이주영 연구원 jylee@kiep.go.kr
|연구진(총론편) |

7
총 목차
제1권 총론
요약························································································································· 17
Abstract ··················································································································· 19
Ⅰ. 추진배경(KIET) ······························································································· 23
Ⅱ. 한국ODA의성과및개선과제(KIEP) ································································ 51
Ⅲ. 한국의발전경험(KDI) ······················································································· 70
Ⅳ. 한국형ODA 모델기본계획(KDI) ····································································· 100
Ⅴ. 한국형ODA 모델사업프로그램구성······························································ 113
Ⅵ. 한국형ODA 모델추진방안·············································································· 145
부록························································································································ 197
제2권 경제 영역
Part 1. 경제일반 분야
요약························································································································ 29
Ⅰ. 경제일반 분야한국의발전경험과 ODA역량······················································ 33
Ⅱ. 경제일반 분야선정프로그램············································································ 57
Ⅲ. 결론················································································································ 279
참고문헌················································································································· 281
Part 2. 산업·에너지 분야
요약······················································································································· 291
Ⅰ. 산업/에너지분야 한국의발전경험과ODA역량················································ 295
Ⅱ. 산업/에너지분야 선정프로그램······································································· 317
Ⅲ. 결론··············································································································· 433
참고문헌················································································································· 439

8
Part 3. 국토건설 분야
Ⅰ. 국토·건설분야 한국의발전경험과 ODA역량·················································· 449
Ⅱ. 국토·건설분야 선정프로그램········································································ 465
Ⅲ. 결론················································································································ 603
참고문헌················································································································· 605
Part 4. 농어업 분야
요약······················································································································· 613
Ⅰ. 농어업분야 한국의발전경험과ODA역량························································· 615
Ⅱ. 농어업분야 선정프로그램 ·············································································· 635
Ⅲ. 결론················································································································ 773
참고문헌················································································································· 775
제3권 사회·거버넌스 영역
Part 1. 교육 분야
요약························································································································· 31
Ⅰ. 교육분야 한국의발전경험과 ODA역량······························································ 33
Ⅱ. 교육분야 선정프로그램···················································································· 53
Ⅲ. 결론················································································································· 197
첨부: 교육정보화 역사··························································································· 211
Part 2. 과학기술 분야
요약······················································································································ 223
Ⅰ. 과기분야 한국의발전경험과 ODA역량····························································· 231
Ⅱ. 과학기술분야 선정프로그램··········································································· 269
Ⅲ. 결론················································································································· 415
참고문헌················································································································· 420
첨부························································································································ 423

9
Part 3. 인적자원[직업훈련] 분야
요약······················································································································· 441
Ⅰ. 인적자원분야 한국의발전경험과 ODA역량····················································· 443
Ⅱ. 인적자원(직업훈련)분야선정프로그램···························································· 461
Ⅲ. 결론················································································································ 503
참고문헌················································································································· 505
첨부························································································································ 507
Part 4. 보건복지 분야
요약······················································································································· 519
Ⅰ. 보건복지분야 한국의발전경험과 ODA역량····················································· 525
Ⅱ. 보건복지분야 선정프로그램 ·········································································· 553
Ⅲ. 결론················································································································ 685
참고문헌················································································································· 688
첨부························································································································ 691
Part 5. 행정 분야
요약······················································································································· 701
Ⅰ. 행정분야한국의발전경험과ODA 역량························································ 703
Ⅱ. 행정분야선정프로그램················································································· 717
Ⅲ. 결론················································································································ 795
참고문헌················································································································· 779
부록························································································································ 805
제4권 미래 이슈 영역
Part 1. ICT 분야
요약························································································································ 29

10
Ⅰ. ICT분야한국의발전경험과ODA역량······························································· 33
Ⅱ. ICT분야선정프로그램 ···················································································· 53
Ⅲ. 결론················································································································· 133
참고문헌················································································································ 139
첨부······················································································································· 153
Part 2. 여성 분야
요약······················································································································· 167
Ⅰ. 여성분야 한국의발전경험과 ODA역량······························································ 169
Ⅱ. 여성분야 프로그램 ························································································· 189
Ⅲ. 결론················································································································· 271
참고문헌················································································································ 279
첨부······················································································································ 285
Part 3. 환경 분야
요약······················································································································ 297
Ⅰ. 환경분야한국의발전경험과ODA역량··························································· 301
Ⅱ. 환경분야선정프로그램················································································· 319
Ⅲ. 결론················································································································ 435
참고문헌··············································································································· 439
첨부······················································································································· 441
부록························································································································ 451

11
제 1 권
차 례
요약··················································································································· 17
Abstract ············································································································· 19
Ⅰ. 추진 배경(KIET) ·································································································· 23
1. 한국형ODA 논의와필요성··········································································· 23
2. 국제개발협력 논의동향················································································ 35
3. 본연구의의의····························································································· 48
Ⅱ. 한국 ODA의 성과 및 개선과제(KIEP) ···································································· 51
1. 한국ODA의추진현황···················································································· 51
2. 한국ODA의주요성과··················································································· 57
3. 한국ODA의개선과제··················································································· 65
Ⅲ. 한국의 발전경험(KDI) ·························································································· 70
1. 전후~1960년대초: 해방과전후재건을위한노력······································· 71
2. 1960년대초~1970년대말: 정부주도의강력한수출지향적성장정책········· 76
3. 1980년대초~1990년대말: 안정화·개방·시장원리의 강화······················· 81
4. 1990년대말이후: 외환위기 극복과미래에대한준비·································· 88
5. 한국발전경험의 교훈··················································································· 94
Ⅳ. 한국형 ODA 모델 기본계획(KDI) ········································································· 100
1. 한국형ODA 모델의이념, 목표및비전······················································· 100

12
2. 한국형ODA 모델의개념과구성요소·························································· 103
3. 한국형ODA 모델의기본방향과추진전략················································· 108
Ⅴ. 한국형 ODA 모델 사업 프로그램 구성·································································· 113
1. 한국형ODA 모델사업프로그램선정기준(KIET) ······································· 113
2. 분야별ODA 사업프로그램(KDI, KIET, KIEP) ··········································· 115
가. 경제/ 나. 사회/ 다. 거버넌스/ 라. 미래이슈
3. 기본프로그램 선정(KDI) ·············································································· 139
Ⅳ. 한국형 ODA 모델 추진방안················································································· 145
1. 통합적정책하의선택과집중(KDI) ···························································· 146
2. 성과중심의 단계별관리강화(KIEP) ····························································· 162
3. 민관협력기반확대(KIEP) ·········································································· 174
4. 국제개발협력파트너십 강화(KIEP) ··························································· 179
5. 인프라구축(KIET) ······················································································ 188
부 록 ······················································································································ 197
1. 한국형ODA 모델수립분야별연구책임자···················································· 199
2. 한국형ODA 모델TF 구성과활동································································ 200
3. 한국형ODA 사업프로그램 목록·································································· 201
4. 한국의발전경험··························································································· 206

13
표 차례
표Ⅰ‒1 한국의경제성장국제비교(1인당GNI, 경상) ············································ 27
표Ⅰ‒2 한국의시대별, 단계별산업화전략·························································· 27
표Ⅰ‒3 주요개도국사회·인간개발 지표비교(2010) ········································· 28
표Ⅰ‒4 한국의정보화관련지수의세계적위상··················································· 28
표Ⅰ‒5 연도별ODA 규모····················································································· 30
표Ⅰ‒6 한국ODA 국제비교·················································································· 30
표Ⅰ-7 OECD DAC 회원국ODA 지원현황·························································· 35
표Ⅰ‒8 2011년OECD DAC 회원국ODA 지원현황(순지출) ·································· 36
표Ⅰ‒9 파리선언, 아크라행동계획, 부산파트너십 구성원칙비교···················· 42
표Ⅰ‒10 주요공여국ODA 중점분야 및국가(2010) ·············································· 47
표Ⅰ‒11 한국형ODA 작업참여기관(협조기관포함) ············································ 49
표Ⅱ‒1 한국의ODA 규모추이·············································································· 51
표Ⅱ‒2 2011년DAC회원국ODA 규모증감률순위··············································· 52
표Ⅱ‒3 ODA 부문별실적(명목기준) ···································································· 53
표Ⅱ‒4 지역별ODA 지원현황(2006∼2010) ·························································· 54
표Ⅱ‒5 양자간ODA의주요국가별지원규모(2010) ·············································· 54
표Ⅱ‒6 소득그룹별 ODA 지원현황(2006∼2010) ··················································· 55
표Ⅱ‒7 분야별ODA 지원현황(2006∼2010) ·························································· 56
표Ⅱ‒8 최빈국에 대한유·무상지원비중(2006~2010) ······································· 61
표Ⅱ‒9 유상원조의 증여율증가추이····································································· 61
표Ⅱ‒10 비구속성원조비율확대········································································· 62
표Ⅱ‒11 우리나라언타이드 원조추진로드맵························································ 62
표Ⅱ‒12 녹색ODA 지원현황(2006∼2010) ···························································· 63
표Ⅲ‒1 한국경제발전정책과 교육정책의 연계······················································ 96
표Ⅳ‒1 한국의분야별비교우위·········································································· 107
표Ⅴ‒1 농업생산성의 증가·················································································· 117
표Ⅴ‒2 기본프로그램 선정기준·········································································· 140
표Ⅴ‒3 기본프로그램 목록················································································· 142

14
표Ⅵ‒1 프로젝트와프로그램형접근방법 비교···················································· 148
표Ⅵ‒2 수원국의 수를고려한ODA 관련국제비교············································ 149
표Ⅵ‒3 우리나라 양자/다자간ODA 추이···························································· 161
표Ⅵ‒4 기관별평가예산 및평가실적·································································· 169
표Ⅵ‒5 주요국의 유엔신탁기금출연현황(2004~2009) ····································· 184
표Ⅵ‒6 주요국의유엔기구 지정기여 규모(2008) ················································· 186
표Ⅵ‒7 KOICA의2010년지정기여 사업추진현황··············································· 187
표Ⅵ‒8 KOICA ODA 교육원프로그램································································· 192
부표Ⅲ‒1 한국의시대별ODA수원규모······························································· 217
부표Ⅲ‒2 수입및수출추이변화(1955~1970) ··················································· 222
부표Ⅲ‒3 한국의원조수원국으로서의 역사······················································· 237
부표Ⅲ‒4 주요국의 소비자물가 상승률······························································· 244
부표Ⅲ‒5 17개신성장동력(2009년기준) ···························································· 266

15
그림 차례
그림Ⅰ‒1 주요국제원조기구와 한국원조기구비교(2011) ··································· 32
그림Ⅰ‒2 DAC 회원국의다자/양자원조 규모변화··············································· 37
그림Ⅰ‒3 한국의다자/양자원조규모변화··························································· 38
그림Ⅱ‒1 DAC 회원국의 GNI 대비ODA 비율(2011) ·············································· 52
그림Ⅱ‒2 ODA 유·무상배분비율········································································ 53
그림Ⅱ‒3 우리정부ODA 추진체계및조정체제··················································· 59
그림Ⅱ‒4 KOICA 연수생초청사업분야별구분(2010) ········································· 65
그림Ⅳ‒1 한국형ODA 모델의개념····································································· 104
그림Ⅳ‒2 한국형ODA 모델의지향점································································· 108
그림Ⅴ‒1 여성발전의 단계별우선순위와 발전방향·············································· 136
그림Ⅴ‒2 분야별ODA 프로그램 정리단계개요·················································· 140
그림Ⅵ‒1 한국형ODA 5대추진전략··································································· 145
그림Ⅵ‒2 덴마크의 국별지원전략, 프로그램, 지원양식간의관계······················· 148
그림Ⅵ‒3 ODA 생태계형성················································································· 158
그림Ⅵ‒4 ODA 생태계위상변화········································································ 159
그림Ⅵ‒5 사업단계별수행체제··········································································· 162
그림Ⅵ‒6 대형ODA 사업추진프로세스····························································· 165
그림Ⅵ‒7 CPS 성과관리 및평가체제(안) ···························································· 170
그림Ⅵ‒8 CPS 성과관리 및단계별평가체계······················································· 172
그림Ⅵ‒9 B2B를위한PPP 프로그램의 사업단계별 내용····································· 177
그림Ⅵ‒10 민관협력을 위한패키지추진방향····················································· 178
부도Ⅲ‒1 EDCF 운용조직 및체계······································································ 259
부도Ⅲ‒2 외환위기 이후정부대응과 결과·························································· 264
부도Ⅲ‒3 녹색성장 국가전략··············································································· 281

요 약
한국형 ODA 모델 수립
한국은2010년OECD의개발원조위원회(DAC)에가입하면서2차대전후개발도상국
가운데처음으로원조를받는나라에서주는나라로변화하였다. 한국의원조공여액
은2011년GNI의0.12%인13.21억달러로국제사회기준으로는아직미약하지만, 빠르
게늘어나고있다.
원조규모의급속한확대에따라적절한원조수행전략을모색하는과정에서“한국
형ODA”의필요성에 대한 논의가 그동안 각계에서지속적으로 전개되어왔다. 이번
연구는 기존의 이러한 논의들을 반영하고 최근의 대내외 경제여건 변화에 유의하면
서우리의비교우위분야를체계적으로검토하여선택과집중하는ODA 전략을모색
한것이다.
한국의 비교우위에 입각한 ODA 콘텐츠 구축과 전략 제시
본연구는우선한국의개발경험과비교우위에 입각한ODA 컨텐츠를집대성하여
제시하였다. 이작업은국무총리실한국형ODA TF 주관하에산업연구원(KIET)이총괄
하면서한국개발연구원(KDI)과대외경제정책연구원(KIEP)이공동간사를맡고경제인
문사회연구회산하국책연구기관들과서울대학교, 한국연구재단등총18개기관의전

18 한국형 ODA 모델 수립 : 총론
문가들이참여하여이루어졌다. 연구분야는경제, 사회, 거버넌스, 미래이슈등4대영
역의11개분야이다. 각분야에서전문가들이중범위수준의패키지형프로그램을추
출하고총리실과주관연구기관들의협의를통해한국형ODA 모델로적합한159개프
로그램을선정한후40개의기본프로그램추출까지완료하였다.
이를바탕으로3개연구기관이공동작업하여한국형ODA 추진전략을제시하였다.
전체연구결과는3개공동주관기관이작성한총론과18개기관의연구내용을담은3
권의별책을더하여총4권의보고서로구성하였다. 한국정부는이결과를바탕으로
2012년9월14일제13차국제개발협력위원회에서새로운“한국형ODA 전략”을채택하
였다.
이번 연구는 그 동안 많은 논의에도 불구하고 실체를 제시하기 어려웠던 ‘한국형
ODA 모델’을수립했다는의의가있다. 그러나한국형ODA 모델수립은이번작업으로
완결되는것이아니라향후한국ODA 그자체의지속적인발전과국제사회의여건변
화에따라수정ㆍ보완ㆍ확대되어나가야할것이다.
마지막으로, 선정된 프로그램들이 실제 사업으로 수행될 때에는 KOICA와 EDCF를
중심으로ODA 시행기관들이개별수원국여건과국제규범을고려하여세밀한추진전
략하에성과중심의사업관리를해나가야할것이다.

Abstract
Research on Establishing Korean ODA Model
The Republic of Korea became the first among developing countries after the WWII to
have transformed itself from a recipient to a donor country by joining the OECD
Development Assistance Committee (DAC) in 2010. Korea’s ODA contribution marked 1.3
billion dollars in 2011, which was 0.12% of its GNI. Although the contribution level is still
low to meet the international standards, it has been rapidly expanded during recent years
and is expected to keep growing.
In the process of developing ODA policies, continued debates arose in Korea regarding
the need for establishing a proper Korean ODA model in response to the rising ODA
contribution. Reflecting on such debates and recent changes in the domestic and
international economic environment, this research was undertaken in order to help
establishing comprehensive ODA strategies by selecting and focusing on areas in which
Korea has comparative advantages.
Formulation of ODA Contents and Strategies based on Korea’s com-
parative advantages
This research consists of aggregated and articulated ODA contents that lie within Korea's

development experience and relative competitiveness. The research was undertaken under
the supervision of the Korean ODA Model Task Force of the Prime Minister's Office of
Korea. It was directed and managed by Korea Institute for Industrial Economics and Trade
(KIET), with co-assistance from Korea Development Institute (KDI) and Korea Institute for
International Economic Policy (KIEP).
Numbers of experts from 18 organizations, including government-sponsored research
institutes under the National Research Council for Economics, Humanities Social Science
(NRCS) and other organizations such as Seoul National University and National Research
Foundation of Korea (NRF), etc, participated in this research project. The research covered
11 sectors categorized under the 4 areas of Economic development, Social development,
Governance, and Future issues. Based on the middle range package programs extracted by
expert groups of each sector, the Prime Minister's Office and three managerial research
institutes, which are KIET, KDI and KIEP, formulated a program pool of 159 programs that
are identified as compatible as the Korean ODA model. Among these programs, 40 basic
programs were finally identified.
Then, KIET, KDI, and KIEP conducted the research together and made policy suggestions
for implementing strategies of the Korean ODA model. The final results of the research are
documented into four volumes; one general introduction and summary report by the three
managerial institutes and three separate-volumes consisting of the research results of 18
institutes. Based on these reports, the Committee for International Development
Cooperation (CIDC), which is the supreme ODA policy-making apparatus of the Korean
government, adopted the “Korean ODA Model” in her 13th meeting held on September 14,
2012.
This research marks its significance by establishing the first comprehensive Korean ODA
model which had previously been lacking substantial content despite continued debates.
However, this research does not signify the final conclusion of the Korean ODA model; the
Korean ODA model should be continuously enhanced through vigorous modification,

Abstract 21
supplementation and expansion reflecting the development of the Korean ODA itself and
the changing environment of international society.
Finally, for the implementation of selected programs, it should be kept in mind by the
ODA implementing agencies, including KOICA and EDCF, that each project should be built
upon the details of unique circumstances in each recipient country and international
recommendations. Also, it should be noted that result-based management and monitoring of
the project is always important.
* This research has been co-directed and managed by Dr. Dong-Joo Joo, KIET (djjoo@kiet.re.kr), Dr. Moon-Jung
Tcha, KDI (mtcha@kdi.re.kr), and Dr. Yul Kwon, KIEP (ykwon@kiep.go.kr).

Ⅰ. 추진 배경1)
1. 한국형 ODA 논의와 필요성
가. 한국형 ODA에 대한 주요 논의
□ 한국형 ODA에 대한 기본 인식과 정의
○ 한국은1945년독립이후미국등선진국과국제사회로부터받은약127억달러의
유무상 원조를 경제·사회개발에효율적으로 활용하여 빠른시간에 최빈국에서
탈피하고강력한산업국가로변신
‒ 빠른경제성장으로소득이증가함에따라1987년EDCF, 1991년KOICA를설립하
고본격적으로개발도상국에대한공적개발원조(Official Development Assistance :
ODA)를제공하기시작
‒ 2010년에는OECD의개발원조위원회(Development Assistance Committee)에가입
하여선진공여국대열에합류하였으며, 이는2차대전후개발도상국중첫사
례로국제사회의주목을받음
* 총 원조 공여 규모 : 약 79억 달러(1987~2010), GNI 대비율: 0.12(2010년)
○ 한국의ODA 규모가늘어나면서적절한원조수행전략을모색하는과정에서“한
국형ODA”라는개념이지속적으로논의되어왔음
1) 본 장은 산업연구원(KIET)의 주동주, 안옥윤, 윤정현, 강지현이 공동작업하여 주동주 연구위원이 총괄 집필하였음.

한국형 ODA의 개념 정의 주요 사례
① 기존의 공여국과 차별화되는 우리나라만의 고유한 특징과 비교우위를 가진 원조2)
② 국제적 원조규범을 존중하며 선진국 원조방식과 차별되는 비교우위 분야에 집중하여 우리 국력과
국가브랜드 가치를 높이는 사업3)
③ 한국의 여건에 입각하고 국제사회의 규범을 준수하면서 수원국의 필요를 반영하여 개발도상국의
발전과 지구촌의 빈곤퇴치를 적절히 지원할 수 있는 원조4)
④ 정부 주도로 성공적인 개발을 이끌었던 제도, 지식, 기술 등을 타 개도국과 공유하여 국제적 개발
목표 달성에 기여하는 사업으로서 한국이 산업기술적으로 비교 우위가 있는 분야의 원조5)
‒ 이는우리의강점과약점을반영한최적의원조전략이필요하다는인식위에서
무엇(what)이한국형ODA의내용이며, 어떻게(how) 그것을시행할것인가하는
문제제기와논의였음
‒ 그동안이에대한상당수연구가이루어졌고, 한국정부의원조정책도한국형
ODA에대한모색위에서단계적으로추진되어왔음
○ 그러나한국형ODA의구체적실체에대한사회적합의는아직부족
‒ 이는ODA가광범위한분야의활동을포괄하고상대방이있는국제협력사업으
로서우리만의것에대한연구로는온전한내용을담기힘든점에기인함
○ 본연구는한국형ODA의개념정의에서시작하여연역적으로콘텐츠를찾아가고
자한그동안의시도와달리한국이비교우위가있는콘텐츠들을먼저찾아본후
이를바탕으로한국형ODA의실체를파악하고추진방안을도출하는귀납적연구
방법을도입하고자함
‒ 이러한접근법에기초하여한국형ODA의콘텐츠를구축하는작업이이번연구
2) 권율 외(2006), 우리나라 대외원조의 선진화 방안, KIEP
3) 전승훈 외(2007), 한국적 개발협력 프로그램 발전방안 연구, KOICA
4) 주동주 외(2009), 선진국의 ODA 공여실태 분석과 한국의 대외원조 전략, KIET·EDCF
5) 정우진(2010), 한국형 개발협력모델, KOICA

Ⅰ. 추진배경 25
의주요부분을이루며, 그결과를반영한개념정의를제4장에서제시한후추
진방안을도출함
□ 한국 정부의 주요 정책 문서와 논의 동향
○ (국제개발협력 개선 종합대책) 2005년11월정부는ODA 체계의효율성제고를
위해국무총리실주관으로｢국제개발협력개선종합대책｣을마련
‒ 정부는새천년개발목표(MDGs) 달성연도인2015년까지개발협력의중장기비
전제시와대외원조시스템구축을목표로함
‒ 중점지원국을대상으로중기국별지원전략수립을결정하고, ① 한국형원조모
델정립, ② 원조추진시스템개선, ③ 원조효율성제고, ④ 인프라구축, ⑤ 국민
참여확대등5개항목의기본방향제시
‒ 동 대책에 따라2006년‘국제개발협력위원회’가 설립되었고, 2010년｢국제개발
협력기본법｣이 제정되었으며, OECD/DAC 가입 추진 및 국무총리실의ODA 정
책수립총괄조정기능이강화됨
○ (2008~2010 ODA 중기 국별원조전략) 2008년1월정부는원조의전략적제공과
예산의효율적집행을위해관련부처(국무조정실, 재정경제부, 외교통상부)
관련부처 합동으로 ｢2008‒2010 ODA 중기국별원조전략｣ 수립
‒ 중기국별원조전략은‘선택과집중’ 원칙에따라원조예산을효율적으로집행
한다는전략하에18개국의중점지원국을선정하고, 우리의비교우위분야를중
심으로최적의분야를지원하는방안수립
○ (국제개발협력 선진화 방안) 2010년 10월 국제개발협력위원회제7차 회의에
서관계부처합동｢국제개발협력선진화방안｣을의결함
‒ ｢국제개발협력협력기본법｣ 제3조기본정신의틀안에서우리의개발경험과국
제규범을바탕으로원조의효과성을높이면서수원국중심의개발협력을추진
한다는방침하에3대선진화전략을제시

국제개발협력 선진화 방안
□ 기본정신 : 개도국 빈곤감소, 여성 및 아동의 인권향상과 성평등 실현, 지속가능한 발전 및 인도주
의 실현, 협력대상국과의 경제협력관계 증진, 국제사회의 평화와 번영
□ 3대 가치
① 수원국에 희망을 ⇒ 개도국의 빈곤퇴치와 자립에 중점
② 국제사회에 모범을 ⇒ 국제사회의 보편적 가치 추구
③ 국민에게 자긍심을 ⇒ 우리나라의 국격 제고
□ 3대 전략
① 개발협력 콘텐츠 구축 : 개발경험, 사업기술, 감성 등 3대 분야로 나누어 부처별로 정리
＊(개발경험 8대 콘텐츠 분야) 경제, 보건의료, 인적 자원, 행정 ICT, 농어업, 국토건설, 산업에너지, 환경
② 원조시스템의 효과적 개편 : 유무상 통합전략하에 26개 중점지원국가 선정
③ 국제활동 참여 강화
○ 이와같이한국형원조모델수립에대한논의는국무총리실을중심으로정부의
원조정책에반영되어단계적으로정착되어왔음
나. 한국형 ODA 모델의 필요성
□ 한국의 발전 경험과 역량에 기반한 비교우위 활용
○ 한국형ODA 논의의출발점은국제사회에서독특한성공사례로평가받는우리
의발전경험과역량을반영하여비교우위가있는부분에집중하는것이우리와
수원국모두에효과적이라는인식임
○ 식민통치와한국전쟁등을거치면서우리나라는빈곤에시달리는전형적인개발
도상국이었으나, 반세기만에압축적인 경제성장을 이룩하면서 빈곤에서탈피하
고선진국의대열에접근하고있음

　 1965(A)* 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010(B) B/A
한국 130 270 1,810 6,000 9,790 20,757 159.7
브라질 270 440 2,190 2,800 3,650 9,390 34.8
아르헨티나 1,230 1,320 2,940 3,220 7,690 8,620 7.0
인도 110 130 270 380 450 1,270 11.5
인도네시아 ‒ 80(A) 500 620 570 2,500 31.3
이집트 180 230 530 810 1,490 2,420 13.4
케냐 100 130 440 380 360 810 8.1
자료 : World Bank DB에서 추출
주 : 상당수 개도국이 1960년대 독립한 관계로 그 이전 시기는 비교 어려움
‒ 1960년대 : 정부 주도의 수출지향형 산업화 전략 추진
‒ 1970년대 : 중화학공업 육성정책 추진으로 산업화의 기반 마련
‒ 1980년대 : 산업합리화 정책을 통해 산업의 경쟁력 제고
‒ 1990년대 : 기술향상을 통한 제조업의 비약적인 발전 달성
‒ 2000년대 : 미래 성장동력산업을 발굴하고, 녹색성장 발전전략 추구
표Ⅰ-1 한국의 경제성장 국제비교(1인당 GNI, 경상)
(단위 : 달러)
‒ 한국의1인당국민소득은1960년87달러였으나2010년에는2만757달러로반세기
동안약240배성장했으며, 2차대전후독립한개발도상국가운데이와같은사
례는싱가포르, 홍콩등일부도시국가와중동의소규모산유국들이외에는없음
○ 한국은부존자원없는농업국가에서열악한초기조건에도불구하고성공적인산
업화과정을거쳐세계적인경쟁력을지닌글로벌산업국가로발돋움함으로써개
발도상국들의많은관심을받고있음
‒ 수출지향형산업화의성공에따라한국의수출은1964년처음1억달러를넘은
이후2011년에는5,552억달러로세계7위를기록
‒ 한국은조선, 철강, 반도체, 디스플레이, 자동차, 석유화학등주요산업분야에
서세계5위권이내의생산기반을보유하고있음
표Ⅰ-2 한국의 시대별, 단계별 산업화 전략

　 성인문맹률 유아사망률 기대 수명 HDI 순위
한 국 　 5 80.6 15
브라질 9.9 21 75.9 84
아르헨티나 2.3 14 73.5 45
인 도 37.2 66 65.4 134
인도네시아 7.8 39 69.4 124
이집트 33.6 21 73.2 113
케 냐 13.0 84 57.1 143
World 19.1 58 69.8 　
자료 : UNDP (2011), Human Development Report 2011
지수명
[발표기관]
한국순위 (조사대상국가수)
주요국 순위(2010)
2005 2007 2008 2009 2010
전자정부 발전지수
[UN]
5
(191)
‒
6
(192)
‒
1
(192)
미국(2), 캐나다(3), 영국(4),
일본(17), 중국(72)
ICT 발전지수
[ITU]
1
(40)
‒
1
(181)
‒
1
(159)
스웨덴(2), 아이슬란드(3),
덴마크(4), 핀란드(5), 미국(17)
온라인 참여지수
[UN]
4
(191)
‒
2
(192)
‒
1
(192)
호주(2), 스페인(3), 영국(4),
일본(6), 미국(7)
네트워크 준비지수
[WEF]
24
(104)
19
(122)
9
(127)
15
(134)
10
(133)
스웨덴(1), 싱가포르(2),
핀란드(3), 미국(5), 대만(6), 일본(19)
디지털 경제지수
[EIU]
18
(65)
16
(69)
15
(70)
19
(70)
13
(70)
스웨덴(1), 덴마크(2), 미국(3),
핀란드(4), 대만(12), 일본(16)
자료 : 산업연구원(2011), ICT 분야 ODA 종합평가 및 개발효과성 제고방안 연구
○ 또한 한국의 경험은 수출 주도의 산업개발에 기반한 성공적인 경제성장과 함께
교육, 보건, 여성 등의 사회개발, 그리고 정치적인민주화를 동시에달성한사례
라는점에서더욱긍정적인의미를지님
표Ⅰ-3 주요 개도국 사회·인간개발 지표 비교(2010)
○ 특히최근에는IT 등미래산업에대한과감한투자를통해초일류정보화국가로
발전한경험이개도국의큰관심을끌고있음
표Ⅰ-4 한국의 정보화 관련 지수의 세계적 위상

국제무역과 무역정책이 어떻게 빈곤이 만연한 저개발국가를 한 세대만에 고소득 상태로 변화시킬
수 있는지에 대한 성공 사례를 들어보라는 질문을 받는다면, 그 답은 의심할 여지없이 한국이다
‒ Michael Todaro(2003), Economic Development, 8th Edition, p.589
○ 한국의이러한발전경험과비교우위를살려강점이있는분야에원조를집중하자
는 논의는 국제사회의 원조 분업을 통한 개발도상국 발전 지원이라는 대의에도
부합함
□ 한국의 개발경험 전수에 대한 개도국 수요 증대
○ 한국의압축적인고속성장은개발도상국발전의대표적인성공사례로국제사회
에서지속적인토론과학습의대상이되고있으며, 그경험을공유하고자하는요
청이늘어나고있음
* 경제발전론에서 대표적인 학습 사례로 토론
○ 실제로많은개발도상국들이한국과의정상회담이나고위급회담시한국의경제
개발경험공유를요청하고있으며, 다양한레벨의양자회담이나국제기구회의
를통해사업을요청하고있음
‒ 알제리, 인도네시아, 볼리비아, 이디오피아, 파라과이등많은개발도상국들이
정상회담에서개발경험전수를요청
○ 개도국들로부터의이러한개발경험공유요청에부응하기위해경제발전경험공
유사업(KSP)이 한국개발연구원(KDI)을 중심으로 2004년부터 실시되고 있으며,
KOICA를통한기술협력사업도증가추세
‒ KSP는2011년까지베트남의｢2011‒2020 경제사회발전전략수립｣ 지원 등총35
개국300여개세부주제에대한자문을완료하여, 많은성과를거두고있음
○ 특히고용과소득창출이가능한산업육성을통해빈곤을퇴치하고자염원하는개
발도상국들은한국의시대적, 단계적산업화이행과정을배우고자요청하고있음

2006 2009 2012 2015
ODA 435,039 1,039,247 1,907,992 (예산) 4,300,000 (추정)
ODA/GNI 0.05 0.10 0.15 (목표) 0.25 (목표)
‒ 2007~2009년간KOICA 기술협력사업의일환으로산업연구원(KIET)이알제리의
석유화학, 철강, 자동차, IT, 섬유, 의약품등6개산업분야와산업단지개발, 수
출촉진전략등자문
‒ 2012년에는인도네시아경제개발정책자문을위해양국정부와전문가들이참
여하는합동사무소가개설되어사업진행중임
□ 선택과 집중을 통한 원조 역량 한계 극복
○ 한국은개발도상국의빈곤퇴치를위한MDGs 실현에기여하기위해ODA를적극
늘린다는방침을정하고이를실제이행해오고있음
‒ ｢국제개발협력선진화방안｣에서는2009년GNI 대비0.1%인ODA를2015년까지
0.25%로늘린다는방침을정하였음
‒ 이에 따라2006년4,350억원이었던ODA 예산은2012년1조9,080억원으로 6년
동안4.4배증가하였으며, 2015년0.25% 달성을위한예산은약4조3,000억원에
달할것으로추정됨
표Ⅰ-5 연도별 ODA 규모
(단위 : 백만원, %)
○ 그러나 한국의ODA는 선진국들에 비해 역사가짧아 국제사회 기준으로는 아직
절대규모가작고경험과인력, 전문지식등사업기반도취약
‒ 한국의ODA 규모는DAC 회원국23개국가운데17위이며, ODA/GNI 비율은22
위를기록(2011년)
＊ 2011년 한국 ODA 규모(13억 2,000만 달러)는 미국(307억 달러) 대비 1/24, 일본(106억 달
러) 대비 1/8 수준임

○ 한국의유무상원조시행기관인KOICA와EDCF의예산및인력을주요선진국원
조기구와비교해보아도압도적인차이가남
＊ 한국(KOICA+EDCF) 인력은 USAID의 1/30, JICA의 1/6
‒ 이는비단예산및인력의부족뿐만아니라원조사업의경험및전문성, 수원국
과의네트워크부족등사업역량의전반적인취약성을반영하며단기간에쉽게
해결할수없는사안임
○ 이처럼많지않은예산, 인력, 경험등을고려하여우리의비교우위가있고효과
가높은곳에 사업을 집중하는‘선택과 집중’ 전략이 한국형ODA 논의의 근간이
되어왔음
○ ‘2008‒2010 ODA 중기국별원조전략’은‘선택과집중’ 원칙을표방하였고, ｢국제개
발협력기본법｣에서도중점협력대상국을선정하여원조효과를제고할수있도록
규정한바있음
○ 이러한기조는우리의현실적인원조역량을감안할때앞으로도계속지켜나가
야할것으로생각됨
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
ODA (백만달러) 455.3 696.1 802.3 816 1,174 1,321
순위 19 19 19 19 18 17
ODA/GNI (%) 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.12 0.12
순위 23 23 23 23 23 22
표Ⅰ-6 한국 ODA 국제비교

인력 현황 예산 현황
자료 : 각 기관 Annual Report 등 참조
주 : 일부 분명하지 않은 통계는 인터넷 자료 등에서 근사치 이용
그림Ⅰ-1 주요 국제 원조기구와 한국 원조기구 비교(2011)
□ 국제사회의 원조 경험으로부터 교훈 반영
○ 국제사회는1960년부터2011년까지 총2조4,000여억 달러의ODA를 개발도상국
에제공하였음. 이처럼막대한원조가국제개발에여러성과를가져오기도했으
나, 그실패에대한논의도지속되고있음
○ 특히구미선진국들과의식민지관계등으로원조가집중되었던아프리카국가들
의경제개발실패와빈곤심화는원조실패론들이거론하는치명적인사례가되
고있음
○ 한국은국제원조역사의이러한실패담을교훈삼아국민세금을낭비하는일없
이기대한성과를얻기위해수원국의발전에실제기여할수있는최적의원조정
책을수립해야함

원조 실패에 대한 담론들
○ 원조 피로(Aid Fatigue) : 60여년에 걸친 개발원조가 개도국의 발전에 별로 기여하지 못했다는 인
식에서 공여국에서는 국민 세금을 낭비했다는 비판이, 수원국에서는 공여국들이 개도국 발전 보
다 자국의 전략적 이해를 우선하고 있다는 비판이 동시 제기됨.
○ 원조의 덫(Aid Trap) : 원조가 자선(charity)으로 흘러서는 빈곤퇴치를 가져올 수 없고 사업
(business)으로 연결되어야만 궁극적인 효과가 있다고 주장(R.G. Hubbard W. Duggan)
○ 죽은 원조(Dead Aid) : 원조가 개도국의 선진국에 대한 종속과 부패, 빈곤을 심화시켜온 주요인이
라고 주장. 말라리아 퇴치를 위한 모기장 기부 사업이 현지의 영세한 제조업체들을 도산시킨 사례
등 거시‒미시 역설(macro‒micro paradox) 현상 주장 (D. Moyo)
○ 불한당 원조(Rogue Aid) : 자원 획득 등 경제적 이권 추구에 몰입하면서 국제원조 규범을 무시하
는 일부 공여국들의 원조에 대한 비판
다. 한국형 ODA 논의의 유의점
□ 한국 개발경험의 특수성과 공여국 중심주의
○ 우리의성공적인개발경험이유례를찾기힘든독특한사례인점은분명하지만,
그러한 경험이 시간적·공간적·사회문화적으로 다른여건에놓여 있는 개도국
에게그대로전수되기는어려움
○ 시기적으로우리의초기개발역사는2차대전후유럽, 일본등의재건과함께세
계경제가안정적으로성장하고동서냉전구도하에서미국이개도국에대해관
대한무역정책을허용하던시기에이루어졌음
‒ WTO의자유무역규범이지배하면서글로벌경쟁이심화되는한편미국, 유럽,
일본등선진권경제가동시침체되고있는현재상황에서과거한국과같은수
출드라이브정책이통용되기는어려운상황
○ 아울러 많은 개발도상국들이 바다가 없는 내륙국가이거나 자원 의존형 경제
이고,복수의 다민족이 정치적 갈등을 빚고 있는 등 자연조건과 사회문화적
환경이우리와는 크게 다름
* 나이지리아는 3대 민족 포함 460개 민족으로 구성

○ 또한우리의경험에는개발독재시대인권억압등급속한경제성장을추구하는
과정에서빚어진실패사례도다수존재하며, 이러한사례들을성공사례와분리하
여생각하기어려운측면도있음
○ 이와함께우리의비교우위분야로간주되는기술이나개발경험은가시적인성과
뿐만아니라끊임없는혁신과도전정신, 인적자원육성에대한노력, 근면성등이
바탕에있다는사실도공유되어야함
○ 공여국중심의일방적인원조가되지않기위해서는우리의경험이지닌이러한
특수성을충분히감안하고우리가선정한비교우위사업이수원국들의여건과수
요에맞게적용되도록세심한고민이필요
□ 국제규범과의 조화 여부
○ 국제사회는개발도상국들의빈곤퇴치를인류공동의문제로인식하고많은국제
회의를통해ODA를바람직한방향으로유도하기위한규범들을논의해왔음
○ 2000년대들어와서는UN이채택한MDGs가국제개발협력의최상위규범으로작
용하고 있으며, OECD 등을 중심으로 원조의효과성 제고를 위한 국제규범들이
만들어지고있음
○ 최근의ODA 관련한국제논의는“더많은원조, 더나은원조”(More Aid, Better Aid)
라는주제와신흥공여국및민간부문참여등을논하는원조체계(Aid Architecture)
에관한주제로집약할수있음
○ ODA는수원국이라는상대방이있고국제사회의규범이작용하는국제협력사업
인만큼우리만의 논리에 의한 일방적인 원조전략은 부작용을불러올수 있다는
점을충분히인식해야함

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2011 누계
ODA
총지출
48 72 79 156 296 309 505 664 601 1,185 1,413 1,474 24,776
ODA
순지출
46 65 67 132 261 287 543 589 539 1,078 1,284 1,335 22,107
순ODA/
GNI
0.51 0.48 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.33 0.33 0.26 0.22 0.33 0.32 0.31 ‒
자료 : OECD. StatExtracts
⇒ 결국 한국형ODA는 우리의 비교우위에 입각하되 수원국의 여건과 국제사회의 규범을 충분히
고려하고 존중하는 자세로 추진되어야 할 것임
2. 국제개발협력 논의 동향
가. 국제개발협력 동향
□ DAC회원국의 ODA 지원 현황
○ (원조규모) ODA의 총지출(Gross Disbursement) 기준으로 1960년부터2010년까지
DAC 회원국들은개발도상국에대략2조4,700억달러를지원하였음
○ 1980년대에200억달러를넘어선후, 2000년에는600억달러, 5년후인2005년에
는1,200억달러까지급증하였고2010년까지점진적으로증가하고있음
‒ 그러나ODA/GNI 비율은1961년0.54%를최고로이후다시그수준에접근하지
못하고, 2000년대에는계속0.3% 수준을기록하고있음
○ 2012년4월OECD가발표한2011년순ODA 지원규모상위5개국은① 미국307.5,
② 독일145.3, ③ 영국137.4, ④ 프랑스129.9, ⑤ 일본106.0억달러순
표Ⅰ-7 OECD DAC 회원국 ODA 지원 현황
(단위 : 억 달러, %)

순위 국가
2010 2011
증감률*
금액 ODA/GNI 금액 ODA/GNI
1 미국 30,353 0.21 30,744 0.20 ‒0.9
2 독일 12,985 0.39 14,533 0.40 5.9
3 영국 13,053 0.57 13,739 0.56 ‒0.8
4 프랑스 12,915 0.50 12,993 0.46 ‒5.6
5 일본 11,021 0.20 10,604 0.18 ‒10.8
6 네덜란드 6,357 0.81 6,324 0.75 ‒6.4
7 스웨덴 4,533 0.97 5,606 1.02 10.5
8 캐나다 5,209 0.34 5,291 0.31 ‒5.3
9 노르웨이 4,580 0.34 4,935 1.00 ‒8.3
10 호주 3,826 0.32 4,798 0.35 5.7
11 스페인 5,949 0.43 4,264 0.29 ‒32.7
12 이탈리아 2,996 0.15 4,240 0.19 33.0
13 스위스 2,300 0.40 3,085 0.46 13.2
14 덴마크 2,871 0.91 2,980 0.86 ‒2.4
15 벨기에 3,004 0.64 2,799 0.53 ‒13.3
16 핀란드 1,333 0.55 1,409 0.52 ‒4.3
17 한국 1,174 0.12 1,321 0.12 5.8
18 오스트리아 1,208 0.32 1,106 0.27 ‒14.3
19 아일랜드 895 0.52 904 0.52 ‒3.1
20 포르투갈 649 0.29 668 0.29 ‒3.0
21 뉴질랜드 342 0.26 429 0.28 10.7
22 룩셈부르크 403 1.05 413 0.99 ‒5.4
23 그리스 508 0.17 330 0.11 ‒39.3
DAC총계 128,464 0.32 133,515 0.31 ‒2.7
자료 : OECD. StatExtracts
주 : 환율 및 물가변동 감안한 2010년 불변가격 기준으로 계산
○ 최근경제위기상황을반영, 2011년에는16개국가가ODA 규모를축소하였고, 7
개국이확대하였음.
표Ⅰ-8 2011년 OECD DAC 회원국 ODA 지원 현황(순지출)
(단위 : 백만 달러, %)

자료 : OECD.StatExtracts
‒ 우리나라(+5.8%)를포함, 이탈리아(+33.0%), 스위스(+13.2%), 뉴질랜드(+10.7%),
스웨덴(+10.5%), 독일(+5.9%), 호주(+5.7%) 등7개국이ODA를확대하였음
○ 한국의2011년ODA 규모는23개DAC 회원국중17위(2010년18위)이며, ODA/GNI
비율은2010년과동일한0.12%를기록, 아직DAC 회원국평균수준인0.31%에는
많이못미치는수준임
□ 다자원조 현황
○ (원조규모) 2011년DAC 회원국전체ODA 규모는순지출기준1,335억달러이며,
이중다자원조는409억달러로전체원조금액의약31%임
‒ 1960년이후, 전체ODA 규모의35%를다자원조가차지하고있음
○ 최근다자원조는EC에의한지원비중(35%)이가장높으며, 그뒤를이어세계은
행(24%), 유엔(17%), 지역개발은행(85) 순(OECD, 2010년기준)
○ 양자원조가사회주의체제붕괴, 세계경제위기등에의해변동이심할때도다자
원조는안정적인수준을유지
그림Ⅰ-2 DAC 회원국의 다자/양자원조 규모 변화

자료 : OECD.StatExtracts
그림Ⅰ-3 한국의 다자/양자원조 규모 변화
○ (한국) 우리나라의ODA에서다자원조가차지하는비중은2011년27%이며, 대략
30%를전후한수준에서연도별로기복이심한편임
‒ 다자원조 기구별 지원은 세계은행(41%), 유엔(28%), 지역개발은행(24%) 순
(OECD, 2010년기준)
□ 신흥국의 부상
○ 최근OECD 회원국들과달리자국의경제적이해와자원외교차원에서원조를추
진하는중국과인도등신흥국들이등장하였음
○ (중국) 중국은DAC의수원국리스트에중저소득국(LMICs)으로분류되어있지만,
실제로는60여년간의경험을보유한원조공여국임
‒ 주권에대한존중과내정불간섭을기본원칙으로호혜주의를표방하면서대규
모원조를해왔음

‒
‒
2000년대부터 시작된 ‘중국·아프리카 협력 포럼(FOCAC)’을 매개체로 중
국의원조는약45%가량이아프리카에지원되고있음
아프리카원조와투자의40% 이상이인프라부문에집중되는등경제적이
해와자원외교차원의적극적인원조가이뤄지고있음
○ (인도) 인도역시중국과유사한원조원칙(Panchsheel*)을바탕으로원조신흥국
으로부상하고있음
* Panchsheel (Five Principles) : 영토 및 주권에 대한 상호 존중, 불침략, 내정불간섭, 평등과 호
혜, 평화공존
‒ 인도의원조는1990년대이후실리적, 경제적목적을추구하는원조형태로발전
되어왔으며, 남남·북남남차원의지원을하는특징을가지고있음
‒ 인도의원조규모역시그규모를정확히파악하기어려우나, UNESCAP(2011)은
2010년인도의남남협력규모를7억8,500만달러에서10억달러사이로추정하
고있음6)
나. 국제사회 논의 동향
□ 국제사회 원조 정책의 변화
○ 2차대전이후식민지들이독립하면서신생독립국들의경제사회발전을돕기위
한개발협력이본격화한이래선진국들의개발협력정책은많은시행착오를거치
면서새로운접근방법을찾아왔음
6) 정지원 외(2011), 국제사회의 남남협력 현황과 우리의 추진방안, KIEP
‒ DAC 회원국의보고체계와상이하여정확한ODA 공여실태를분석하기힘
지만, 2011년4월발표한중국대외원조백서에따르면, 1950~2009년누계가
약 369억 달러에 이르는 것으로 보고됨

국제개발협력 논의의 주요 담론 변화
○1950~1960년대 성장 중심 담론 : 개발도상국의 가장 시급한 과제는 경제성장이라고 진단하고 국
제원조를 통한 투자 증대에 역점
○1980~1990년대 거버넌스 중심 담론 : 국제원조의 성과 부진이 개발도상국의 거버넌스 문제에 있
다는 인식하에 IMF, WB가 주도한 신자유주의적 구조조정(Washington Consensus)을 통한 경제
거버넌스 체제 개혁이 주요 화두
○2000년대 빈곤퇴치 담론 : 많은 개발도상국의 장기적인 경제상황 악화로 빈곤이 심화되어 이에 대
한 처방이 시급하다는 인식하에 사회개발 중심의 빈곤퇴치에 역점
새천년 개발목표(Millennium Development Goals)
○ 2000년 9월 제55차 UN 정기총회에서 189개 국가 정상이 모여 만장일치로 채택한 새천년 선언
(Millennium Declaration)에 기초해 UN 사무국이 설정한 지구촌의 개발목표. 2015년까지 달성
해야 할 8가지 기본목표(Goals) 하에 21개 세부목표(Targets), 48개 측정지표(Indicators)를 설
정하고 있음.
○ MDGs의 8가지 기본목표는 ① 절대빈곤 및 기아퇴치, ② 보편적 초등교육 달성, ③ 양성 평등 및
여성 능력 고양, ④ 아동 사망률 감소, ⑤ 모성보건 증진, ⑥ HIV/AIDS, 말라리아 및 기타 질병 퇴
치, ⑦ 지속가능한 환경 확보, ⑧ 개발을 위한 범지구적 파트너쉽 구축
□ 원조 효과성 제고를 위한 논의
○ 2000년대들어와서는UN이설정한새천년개발목표(MDGs) 달성을위해ODA 규모
확대(More Aid), 품질개선(Better Aid) 등원조효과성제고를위한논의가이루어
져왔음
○ (원조 규모 확대 : More Aid) 1970년UN이GNP의0.7% ODA 제공을권고한이
래국제사회는그동안수많은국제회의를통해이목표를거듭확인했으나, 지
금까지DAC 전체로는실현된적이없음
‒ 2002년몬테레이UN 개발재원고위급회의에서MDGs 실현을위해0.7%
ODA달성이 필요함을 재확인하고 다양한 대책 논의

‒
‒
2008년세계금융위기를거치면서원조규모가축소될것을우려하여다양한
논의가전개되고있음
2011년기준DAC 평균은0.31%이며0.7% 목표를달성한나라는5개국임: ①
스웨덴1.02 ② 노르웨이1.00 ③ 룩셈부르그0.99 ④ 덴마크0.86, ⑤ 네덜란드
0.75%
○ (원조 품질 개선 : Better Aid) 오랜기간원조가지속되었음에도개발효과가크
게나타나지않으면서‘원조피로(Aid Fatigue)’ 현상이지적되고이에대한반성
으로원조효과성논의가제기되기시작함
‒ OECD는원조효과성에대한논의의장으로2003년제1차로마고위급회의(First
High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness : HLF‒1)를 시작으로 2005년 제2차 파리
(HLF‒2), 2008년제3차아크라(HLF‒3), 2011년제4차부산(HLF‒4) 회의를개최
‒ 로마선언(2003)에서는선진국의개발원조정책, 절차및관행이개발도상국의
시스템과조화를이루어야하며, 분석적인모니터링을통해원조효과성에대한
검토가필요하다는것을강조
‒ 파리선언(2005)은로마선언을보다구체적으로발전시켜, 원조규모확대와수
원국의거버넌스 강화 및개발성과 개선노력을 지원하기위해서효과성이 증
대되어야함을강조하며5대원칙및12개지표설정
＊파리 선언 5대 원칙 : ① 수원국의 주인의식(Ownership), ② 수원국 개발정책과의 일치
(Alignment), ③ 원조 조화(Harmonisation), ④ 성과관리(Managing for Results), ⑤ 공여국과
수원국의 상호책임성(Mutual Accountability)
‒ 아크라(2008)에서는수원국의주인의식강화, 효과적/포괄적파트너십구축, 개
발성과를위한이행과책임등을위해구체적인원조실천방향을제시하는‘아
크라행동계획(Accra Agenda for Action)’을발표함
‒ 한국의부산(2011)에서열린고위급회의에서는‘효과적인개발협력을위한부
산 파트너쉽(Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation)’을채택하
고4대공동원칙과4대행동방안에합의

부산 총회 8대 빌딩블록과 10대 이행지표
* 8대 빌딩블록 :
① 분쟁 및 취약국가, ② 남남 및 삼각협력, ③ 민간부문④ 기후재원, ⑤ 투명성, ⑥ 효과적 제도와
정책, ⑦ 결과와 상호 책임성, ⑧ 다양한 원조 채널 관리 및 분절화 감소
파리 선언 아크라 행동계획 부산 파트너십
개도국의 주인의식 개도국의 주인의식 개도국의 주인의식
공여국과 수원국의 일치 포용적·효과적인 개발 파트너십 포용적인 개발협력 파트너십
공여국간 조화
결과 중심 관리 결과 달성과 책임성 결과 중심 관리
상호책임성 투명성과 상호책임성
자료 : 강선주(2012), 부산 세계개발원조총회(HLF‒4)의 성과와 글로벌 원조구조 전망, IFAN(현 KNDA)
표Ⅰ-9 파리 선언, 아크라 행동계획, 부산 파트너십 구성 원칙 비교
□ 원조 효과성에서 개발 효과성으로 패러다임 이동
○ 부산총회를계기로원조의전달메카니즘개선에초점을두어온원조효과성논
의를넘어 개발도상국들의 자립과 지속가능발전을 중심으로 하는 개발효과성
논의가본격제기됨
‒ 부산총회에서는향후다양한이해관계자들이개발효과성에초점을맞춘논의
를지속해갈수있도록8개의중심의제(Building Block)와10대이행지표를제시
Ÿ ‘개발을 위한 파트너십’이 효과적일 수 있도록 수정된 원조 효과성 원칙이 제시됨
Ÿ 전통적인 원조공여국 뿐만 아니라 시민사회 등 새로운 이해관계자들의 참여와 남‒남 협력, 삼
각협력 등 다양한 개발협력 방법 강조

① 경제성장 중심 ② 글로벌 개발 파트너십 구축 ③ 범 지역별 이슈에 공동 대응
④ 민간부문의 참여확대 ⑤ MDGs 등 기존노력을 보완 ⑥ 성과지향
서울 개발 컨센서스 6대 원칙
* 10대 이행지표 :
① 수원국의 우선순위 반영, ② 시민사회의 참여와 기여, ③ 민간분야의 역량강화, ④ 개발협력에
관한 정보 공개, ⑤ ODA 예산 단기 및 중기 예측 가능성, ⑥ 모든 개발원조의 예산화, ⑦ 상호 책임
성 검토 참여, ⑧ 양성평등과 여성 역량강화에 대한 공공지출, ⑨ 수원국 시스템 활용 및 개도국 역
량 강화, ⑩ 비구속화
부산 글로벌 파트너쉽
‒ 장관급/국제기구 수장급 회의를 정기적으로 개최하고, 집행위원회와 OECD‒UNDP 공동사무국을
운영하여 부산총회 합의사항 이행에 대한 국제사회의 책임성을 강화
‒ 또한 모든 개발주체(stakeholders)가 참여하는 새로운 글로벌 파트너십(Busan
Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation) 구축에 합의하고, 2012. 6. 29
OECD 원조효과최종회의에서공식출범함
○ 한편빈곤퇴치를강조한MDGs 이후국제개발협력이기초욕구(Basic Human Needs :
BHN) 충족에치중하여 장기적인 소득창출의 기반이 되는 경제 및 산업개발의
문제를 등한시하고 있다는 비판도제기되면서성장중심개발론이 다시 제기되
기도함
‒ 2010년11월한국의주도로서울에서개최된G20 정상회의에서는‘복원력있는
성장(Growth With Resilience)’을 중심 의제로 선정, 서울 개발 컨센서스(Seoul
Development Consensus) 6대원칙과9대행동강령(pillars)을채택

① 인프라 ② 민간투자와 고용창출 ③ 인적자원 개발
④ 무역 ⑤ 금융 포용성 ⑥ 복원력 있는 성장
⑦ 식량 안보 ⑧ 국내 재원 동원 ⑨ 지식공유
서울 개발 컨센서스 9대 행동강령
‒ OECD에서도2011년“개발을위한정책개선권고안(Better Policies for Develop-
ment : Recommendations for Policy Coherence)”을통해경제성장과경제 거버넌
스의중요성을강조
□ 원조 체제(Aid Architecture) 개편 논의
○ 최근국제사회개발협력은신흥공여국, 글로벌펀드, NGO 등의참여확대로공여
주체가다양화되고있음
○ 중국, 인도, 브라질, 러시아등신흥공여국의등장은수원국들에게새로운원조채
널을제공하고무역과투자의확대를통해지속적인경제성장을달성하는대안적
인발전모델을제시하는데기여함
‒ 그러나 이들 신흥공여국들이 정치적불간섭원칙 하에 프로젝트·우대차관·
국유기업·구속성원조를중심으로무역·투자·원조를연계하면서자원획득
등자국의이익추구에집중하고있어비판이제기됨
‒ 이러한신흥공여주체들은기존DAC 회원국들이설정한원칙및기준과는주장
하는바가다르고, ‘자발성’을특히강조하고있어기존DAC 회원국들과의원조
조화를위한지속적논의필요
○ 이와함께최근에는민간재원을활용한원조사업이국제금융기구와OECD 등국
제기구의지지를받고있음
‒ 빌게이츠재단*, 보노, 워런버펫, 빌클린턴같이지난10여년사이에나타난글
로벌펀드들이막대한자산을기반으로개도국원조사업에참여하면서새로운
개발주체로주목받음

탄자니아 원조 분업(Joint Assistance Strategy for Tanzania, JAST)
‒ 2005년 수립한 ‘탄자니아 공동지원전략’에 따라 탄자니아 정부 주도하에 공여국별 선택과 집중
을 통하여 원조 분업 추진 중
‒ 스위스 보건, 독일 식수 등과 같이 전통적으로 비교우위가 있는 국가가 해당 분야에서 전문성과
경험을 바탕으로 다른 공여국을 선도하고 있음
* 빌게이츠 재단의 자산은 2010년 기준 374억 달러로 세계 최대 ODA 공여국인 미국의 한 해
ODA 규모 303억 달러를 넘어서고 있음
○ 이밖에도지난수십년간NGO의규모가꾸준히증대하고원조에대한참여도활
발해져각국정부, 공여기관들과동등한개발주체로서의제설정, 기획등에관여
하고있음
□ 국제분업과 원조 조화
○ 파리선언과아크라행동계획의핵심이행과제중하나인원조조화(harmonization)
는원조의중복성을없애고비용을최소화하기위해서공여국간비교우위분야를
통한분업을강조함
‒ 다수의공여국이적은재원을분산제공하면, 수원국의거래비용상승, 관리부
담가중등의문제가발생하여DAC 회원국중EU 국가들을중심으로이에대한
논의시작
‒ EU 국가들은각회원국들이비교우위를파악한후, 선택과집중에따라국제사
회의개발원조노력에자발적으로기여할것을장려
‒ 원조분업구도에서는각공여국·기관이비교우위가있는분야에집중하고그
외 분야에 대해서는전문성을 가진 다른국가에서 수행하도록 하여 원조의효
율성을제고하고자함

○ 한국은DAC 회원국중비교적원조규모가작고경험이부족한신흥공여국으로
서 원조효과성을 제고하고 국제 개발에 기여하기 위해서는 비교우위에 집중할
필요가있음
다. 주요 공여국 ODA 비교우위 분석
□ 원조 집중 분야와 수원국 분석을 통해 본 비교우위
○ 각국의 내부 역량에 입각한 비교우위를엄밀하게 정의, 분석하기는 힘들지만,
DAC 주요선진국의원조상황은그자체로각국의비교우위를보여주고있는것
으로판단됨
○ 2010년통계를기준으로주요국의분야별, 대륙별, 국별ODA 지원현황을비교해
보면각국이집중하고있는분야와국가에현저한차이가있음을알수있음
‒ 미국은인구정책및생식보건(17.8), 공공행정및NGO(17.2), 인도적지원(16.8)
등의분야에집중하고, 아프가니스탄, 이라크등분쟁국가에집중하고있음
‒ 일본은운송및저장(29.7), 에너지(17.6), 식수공급및위생(11.1) 등의분야에집
중하고 인도네시아, 인도, 베트남, 중국 등 성장잠재력이높은 아시아(46.6) 국
가들에집중하고있음
‒ 프랑스는교육(17.0), 부채관련지원(15.9), 환경보호(12.6), 기타부문(10.7) 등의
순으로지원하고, 아프리카(53.6%)의구식민지들에집중하는특성을보이고있
음
‒ 영국은공공행정및NGO(13.6), 환경보호(10.7) 등의분야에집중하고, 인도, 아
프가니스탄, 파키스탄, 나이지리아 등 역시 자신들의 구식민지에 집중하는특
성을보이고있음

집중분야 대륙별 배분 주요 수원국
미국
인구정책 및 생식보건(17.8),
공공행정 및 NGO(17.2),
인도적 지원(16.8)
아시아(32.6), 미지정 국가
(25.1), 아프리카(29.2),
아메리카(10.2), 유럽(1.9),
오세아니아(1.0)
아프가니스탄(10.1),
이라크(6.7), 파키스탄(3.1),
수단(2.8), 에티오피아(2.7)
일본
운송·저장(29.7),
에너지(17.6),
식수공급 및 위생(11.1)
아시아(46.6), 아프리카(25.7),
미지정 국가(21.3), 유럽(8.7),
오세아니아(2.4), 아메리카 (‒4.7)
인도네시아(9.1), 인도(8.8),
베트남(7.6), 중국(6.6),
필리핀(4.1)
독일
에너지(21.4), 교육(15.4),
공공행정 및 NGO(13.2)
아시아(32.3), 미지정 국가
(25.7), 아프리카(24.2),
아메리카(11.4), 유럽(6.3),
중국(4.3), 인도(4.1)
브라질(1.8), 이집트(1.4)
영국
환경보호(10.7), 물자지원 및
일반프로그램 원조(9.7)
아프리카 (38.4), 미지정 국가
(33.6), 아시아(25.7),
아메리카(1.6), 유럽(0.7),
인도(5.4), 에티오피아(3.1),
아프가니스탄(2.3), 파키스탄
(2.1), 나이지리아 (2.0)
프랑스
교육(17.0), 부채관련 지원
(15.9), 환경보호(12.6), 기타
다부문(10.7)
아프리카(53.8), 아시아 (19.9),
미지정 국가(12.9), 아메리카
(8.5), 유럽(3.0), 오세아니아
(1.9)
코트디부아르(5.5),
마요트(4.5), 콩고공화국
(4.0), 중국(3.2), 모로코(3.0)
노르웨이
농업·임업·어업(14.3)
미지정 국가(38.9), 아프리카
(26.6), 아시아 (19.2),
아메리카(12.2), 유럽(3.1),
브라질(15.2), 탄자니아(8.7),
웨스트뱅크 가자지구
(6.0), 수단(5.6)
한국
운송·저장(20.5), 교육
(17.9), 식수공급 및 위생
(15.6), 에너지(10.2)
아시아(65.2), 아프리카 (15.5),
아메리카(7.2), 미지정 국가(7.2),
유럽(4.3), 오세아니아(0.6)
베트남(8.2), 아프가니스탄
(5.9), 몽골(3.6), 방글라데시
(3.6), 스리랑카 (3.4)
자료 : OECD, Creditor Reporting System DB에서 추출
표Ⅰ-10 주요 공여국 ODA 중점분야 및 국가(2010)
(단위 : %)
□ 시사점
○ 한국은2010년기준운송및저장(20.5), 교육(17.9), 식수공급및위생(15.6), 에너
지(10.2) 등의분야에집중하고, 일본보다더욱높은비중(65.2)으로아시아지역
에집중하였음
○ 한국의분야별, 국별집중도는선진국들과비교할때연도별로기복이매우심함.

이는우리의원조가짧은기간에급속히확대되는과정에서아직비교우위에입각
한체계적인콘텐츠와전략을정비하지못하고외부요청에기초해온요인이큼
＊ 2005년에는 이라크 1개국이 47.0%, 수자원 및 위생 15.5%, 보건 13.8%, 운송 및 저장
12.6%, 교육 7.6% 등
3. 본 연구의 의의
□ 한국형 ODA 콘텐츠 구축
○ 본연구는한국형ODA에대한그동안의많은논의에도불구, 사회적합의가부
족하다는 인식 하에서 이를종합하고, 한국의 개발 경험과 비교우위에 입각한
ODA 콘텐츠를집대성하는시도임
‒ ODA가광범위한분야에걸친사업으로수행되고있어일부분야에대한연구
로는 온전한 콘텐츠를 담기 어렵다는 점에서 거의全분야를 망라한 종합적인
콘텐츠구축시도
○ 이를위해국무총리실주관으로경제인문사회연구회산하국책연구기관들과서
울대학교, 한국연구재단등총18개기관의전문가들이참여하여각분야별로프
로그램선정작업을수행함
‒ 작업분야는4대영역11개분야로구분, 분야별담당기관이중범위수준의패키
지형 프로그램을 추출하고 총리실과 주관 연구기관들의 협의를 통해 한국형
ODA 모델로적합한159개프로그램Pool 구성
‒ 159개프로그램Pool에 대한주관 연구기관들의분석작업을 거쳐기본프로그
램40개를추출함
＊공동주관기관: 산업연구원(KIET, 총괄) / 한국개발연구원(KDI) / 대외경제정책연구원(KIEP)
‒ 전체연구는3개공동주관기관이작성한총론과18개기관의작업내용을담은
3권의별책등총4권의보고서로구성됨

영 역 분야 담당 연구기관
총 론 KIET, KDI, KIEP
경제
경 제
1. 한국개발연구원
2. 대외경제정책연구원
산업에너지 3. 산업연구원(에너지경제연구원)
농어업 4. 한국농촌경제연구원
국토건설 5. 국토연구원(교통연구원)
사회
보건복지 6. 서울대학교(한국국제보건의료재단, 한국보건사회연구원)
인적자원 7. 한국직업능력개발원
8. 한국연구재단(한국교육개발원, 한국과학기술정책연구원)과학기술
거버넌스 행 정 9. 한국행정연구원
미래이슈
환 경 10.한국환경산업기술원
ICT 11.정보통신정책연구원
여 성 12.한국여성정책연구원
주 : 12개 기관은 경제인문사회연구회 위탁계약 체결기관, ( ) 안은 협조기관임
표Ⅰ-11 한국형 ODA 작업 참여 기관(협조기관 포함)
○ 이번연구는｢국제개발협력선진화방안｣에따라추진되고있는3개분야콘텐츠
구축작업과병행하면서이들을종합하여한국형ODA 표준모델을수립하는의
의를지님
‒ 선진화방안은｢개발경험+ 사업기술+ 감성분야⇒ 표준원조모델｣ 마련을명
시하고있음
□ ODA 환경 변화에 대응한 발전적 전략 모색
○ 본연구는최근의글로벌금융위기와부산HLF‒4 총회이후국제사회의ODA 논의
변화를반영하여2010년선진화방안을보완하고구체화시킨발전적원조전략을
모색하고자하는시도임
○ MDGs의 목표연도인2015년이 가까워지면서Post‒MDGs 의제에관한 논의가 본
격화되고있음

‒ 기초욕구충족위주의개발협력에집중했던MDGs나원조전달메카니즘개선
에 집중했던원조효과성논의를넘어개발효과성에집중하자는논의가본격
제기됨
○ 2008년미국발금융위기이후세계경제의위축속에서2011년일본의대지진발
생, 유럽국가들의재정위기심화등으로국제개발협력의여건도크게악화되고
있음
‒ 2011년 DAC의 순지출 ODA 규모는 전년 대비 2.7% 감소하면서 GNI 비율도
0.32%에서0.31%로감소
○ 한국도대내외경제여건의변화에유의하면서효율성있는ODA를추진하기위해
보다체계적으로우리의비교우위분야를검토하여선택과집중하는전략을추진
할필요가있음.
□ 한국 ODA의 비교우위 활용 전략 수립
○ 본연구에서선정한159개프로그램과40개기본프로그램을중심으로이를개발
도상국에효과적으로전달할수있는추진방안도출
‒ 국제사회의 규범을 존중하면서 우리의 비교우위에입각한프로그램을수원국
의현지여건에맞게쌍방향적인협의를통해수행하는데역점
○ 실제 사업 수행단계에서는KOICA와 EDCF를 중심으로ODA 시행기관들이 개별
수원국여건과국제규범을고려하여세밀한추진전략하에성과중심의사업관
리를해나가야할것임
○ 한국형ODA 모델수립은이번작업으로완결되는것이아니라그자체가살아있
는유기체로서향후한국ODA의지속적인발전과국제사회의여건변화에따라
수정·보완·확대되어나갈것임

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
백만 달러 752 455 696 802 816 1,174 1,321
(억원) 7,706 4,350 6,468 8,907 9,429 13,562 14,631
자료 : 기획재정부
Ⅱ. 한국 ODA의 성과 및 개선과제7)
1. 한국 ODA의 추진현황
가. 전체 원조규모
□ 우리 경제의 위상과 경제력 증대에 상응하여 ODA 규모 확대
○ 2011년우리나라의GNI 대비ODA 비율은DAC 회원국중22위기록
○ 유럽재정위기등세계적으로어려운경제여건하에서도2011년한국의ODA 규
모증가율은6위기록(전체리스트는표Ⅰ‒ 8 참조)
표Ⅱ-1 한국의 ODA 규모 추이
7) 본 장은 대외경제정책연구원(KIEP)의 권율 연구위원이 집필하였음

2011 2010
증감률*
규모 ODA/GNI 규모 ODA/GNI
1 이탈리아 4,241 0.19 2,996 0.15 33.0
2 스위스 3,086 0.46 2,300 0.40 13.2
3 뉴질랜드 429 0.28 342 0.26 10.7
4 스웨덴 5,606 1.02 4,533 0.97 10.5
5 독일 14,533 0.40 12,985 0.39 5.9
6 한국 1,321 0.12 1,174 0.12 5.8
7 호주 4,799 0.35 3,826 0.32 5.7
8 영국 13,739 0.56 13,053 0.57 △0.8
9 미국 30,745 0.20 30,353 0.21 △0.9
10 덴마크 2,981 0.86 2,871 0.91 △2.4
DAC전체 133,526 0.31 128,465 0.32 △2.7
주 : 환율 및 물가변동 감안
자료 : OECD/DAC 통계(2012.4.기준)
주 : 잠정치, 순지출 기준
그림Ⅱ-1 DAC 회원국의 GNI 대비 ODA 비율(2011)
표Ⅱ-2 2011년 DAC회원국 ODA 규모 증감률 순위
(순지출 기준, 단위 : 백만 달러, %)
나. 원조구성 및 배분
□(양자·다자비율) 전체원조에서양자원조는70% 수준을유지하고있으며, 2011
년양자비율은73.4%

Ⅱ. 한국 ODA의 성과 및 개선과제 53
2009 2010 2011 증감율(%)* 비중(%)
ODA (A+B) 816 1,174 1,321 12.5 100.0
양자간 ODA (A) 581 901 970 7.7 73.4
무상원조(KOICA 등) 367 574 558 △2.8
유상원조(EDCF) 214 327 412 26.0
다자간 ODA (B) 235 273 351 28.6 26.6
ODA/GNI(%) 0.10 0.12 0.12 ‒ ‒
자료 : 국무총리실
표Ⅱ-3 ODA 부문별 실적(명목 기준)
(순지출 기준, 백만 달러)
○ 지난5년간(2006~2010) 양자원조규모는총29억달러, 다자원조규모는총11억달
러기록하여양자원조비율은72.5%
□ (유·무상 비율) 국제 평균에 비해 유상비율은 높은 수준을 유지하고 있으며,
2007년까지유상비율이감소하다가최근증가추세
○ 2001년69.1%에달했던유상원조비중은2011년42.5%, 선진화방안에따르면2015
년까지무상원조와유상원조비율60:40 수준으로유지
그림Ⅱ-2 ODA 유·무상 배분비율

순위 국 가 양자간 원조 무상협력 양허성차관 비 중
1 베트남 96.0 32.4 63.6 10.6%
2 아프가니스탄 93.7 93.7 ‒ 10.4%
3 방글라데시 54.7 9.2 45.4 6.1%
4 스리랑카 43.5 11.6 31.9 4.8%
5 몽 골 39.1 29.0 10.1 4.3%
6 캄보디아 37.3 19.1 18.2 4.1%
7 우즈베키스탄 32.2 11.9 20.3 3.6%
8 필 리 핀 29.5 10.0 19.5 3.3%
9 라 오 스 27.8 14.1 13.7 3.1%
10 보스니아‒헤르체고비나 25.1 0.0 25.1 2.8%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 합계 비중(%)
아시아*(Total) 175.0 258.0 282.8 319.5 578.0 1,613.3 51.8
아프리카(Total) 51.4 73.8 107.1 97.5 142.6 472.3 15.5
중동 Middle East 72.2 71.1 30.9 21.7 34.6 203.5 7.6
유 럽 31.9 17.7 14.7 48.9 41.5 154.8 5.1
아메리카(Total) 26.7 55.5 70.5 57.4 66.2 276.2 9.0
오세아니아 1.8 4.3 2.7 1.9 5.6 16.3 0.5
지역미분류 42.5 45.1 70.0 68.9 64.7 291.1 9.5
합 계 401.4 525.5 578.7 615.8 933.2 3,054.6 100.0
자료 : 국무총리실(OECD, International Development Statistics Online DB)
주 : 아시아는 OECD 통계보고 상 Asia에서 중동을 제외한 수치를 반영
□(지리적배분) 아시아지역에대한지원비중이높고, 원조집중도(10대수원국배
분기준)가40% 수준
○ 지난5년간아시아지역에양자ODA의51.8%, 아프리카15.5%, 중남미9% 지원
표Ⅱ-4 지역별 ODA 지원현황(2006∼2010)
(총지출, 백만 달러)
표Ⅱ-5 양자간 ODA의 주요 국가별 지원규모(2010)
(순지출 기준, 백만 달러)
□ (소득그룹별 배분) 2010년 기준 최빈국(LDCs)에 대한 지원 비중은 양자 ODA의
37.0%, 하위중소득국31.1%, 기타저소득국18.7%

Ⅱ. 한국 ODA의 성과 및 개선과제 55
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
최빈국
(LDCs)
92.1
(24.5)
121.0
(24.7)
144.2
(26.8)
161.2
(27.7)
333.4
(37.0)
하위중소득국
(LMICs)
193.4
(51.4)
251.0
(51.1)
207.8
(38.5)
204.2
(35.1)
280.3
(31.1)
기타저소득국
(OLICs)
36.1
(9.6)
47.2
(7.6)
68.5
(12.7)
76.5
(13.2)
168.3
(18.7)
상위중소득국
(UMICs)
9.7
(2.6)
21.8
(4.4)
28.2
(5.2)
38.3
(6.7)
22.4
(2.5)
소득수준
미분류
44.7
(11.9)
59.5
(12.1)
90.5
(16.8)
100.5
(17.3)
96.2
(10.7)
합 계
376.1
(100.0)
490.5
(100.0)
539.2
(100.0)
581.1
(100.0)
900.6
(100.0)
표Ⅱ-6 소득그룹별 ODA 지원현황(2006∼2010)
(순지출, 백만 달러, %)
다. 분야별 지원현황
□ 사회·경제 분야 인프라 지원에 집중
○ 사회인프라및서비스지원비중이50.1%, 경제인프라에대한지원비중이33.7%
로양자ODA의80% 이상을차지
□ ODA 8대 중점협력분야 선정
○ 한국의개발및원조경험이풍부하고개발도상국의원조수요가많은8대분야*
선정
* 경제, 보건의료, 인적자원, 행정, ICT, 농어업, 국토건설, 산업에너지, 환경등(이
외에범분야로여성, 환경, ICT, 인권을지정)
○ 분야별로교통20.5%, 교육17.9%, 수자원및위생15.6%, 에너지10.2%, 공공행정
및시민사회8.5% 등으로지원순위가높음

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
사회 인프라 및 서비스
403.9
(59.7)
410.5
(39.0)
696.0
(47.8)
402.4
(27.8)
905.8
(50.1)
교육
135.2
(20.0)
160.2
(15.2)
112.5
(7.7)
139.0
(9.6)
324.4
(17.9)
보건
38.6
(5.7)
110.8
(10.5)
238.2
(16.4)
150.1
(10.4)
131.3
(7.3)
인구정책 및 생식보건
0.5
(0.1)
1.5
(0.1)
20.1
(1.4)
3.5
(0.2)
5.1
(0.3)
수자원 및 위생
80.8
(12.0)
74.5
(7.1)
269.7
(18.5)
70.7
(4.9)
283.2
(15.6)
공공행정 및 시민사회
141.6
(21.0)
57.2
(5.4)
43.5
(3.0)
25.9
(1.8)
153.7
(8.5)
기타
6.5
(1.0)
6.4
(0.6)
12.0
(0.8)
13.2
(0.9)
8.2
(0.5)
경제 인프라 및 서비스
171.0
(25.3)
402.9
(38.2)
544.5
(37.4)
876.6
(60.4)
610.4
(33.7)
교통
99.5
(14.7)
235.9
(22.4)
268.3
(18.4)
641.2
(44.2)
370.5
(20.5)
통신
65.3
(9.7)
88.2
(8.4)
91.3
(6.3)
114.7
(7.9)
49.3
(2.7)
에너지
5.0
(0.7)
74.6
(7.1)
182.0
(12.5)
119.1
(8.2)
184.8
(10.2)
금융 서비스
0.4
(0.1)
3.1
(0.3)
2.0
(0.1)
1.1
(0.1)
2.6
(0.1)
기타
0.8
(0.1)
1.0
(0.1)
0.9
(0.1)
0.5
(0.0)
3.1
(0.2)
생산
33.5
(5.0)
129.0
(12.2)
77.4
(5.3)
57.2
(3.9)
100.4
(5.5)
다분야
9.2
(1.4)
31.8
(3.0)
24.5
(1.7)
59.0
(4.1)
117.6
(6.5)
인도적 지원
24.6
(3.6)
35.5
(3.4)
55.8
(3.8)
14.1
(1.0)
20.7
(1.1)
행정비용
25.3
(3.7)
31.5
(3.4)
31.5
(3.8)
27.8
(1.0)
38.4
(1.1)
기타
8.9
(1.3)
4.9
(1.1)
4.2
(1.7)
5.3
(0.9)
13.9
(0.9)
합계 675.5 1,053.3 1,455.0 1,450.2 1,809.6
표Ⅱ-7 분야별 ODA 지원현황(2006∼2010)
(승인기준, 백만달러, %)

한국형 ODA 모델 수립

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais de K Developedia

Mais de K Developedia (20)

한국형 ODA 모델 수립