YÜKSELEN DONÖRLER VE KALKINMA İŞBİRLİĞİ MİMARİSİNİN DÖNÜŞÜMÜ: BİRLEŞİK KRALLIK VE GÜNEY KORE ÖRNEKLERİ ÜZERİNDEN BİR DEĞERLENDİRME

Öz

Bu makale, uluslararası kalkınma işbirliği mimarisinde son yirmi yılda yaşanan dönüşümü, yükselen donörlerin etkisi bağlamında analiz etmektedir. Çin, Hindistan, Brezilya, Güney Afrika ve Türkiye gibi ülkelerin kalkınma faaliyetlerine artan katılımı, geleneksel olarak OECD-DAC normları çerçevesinde şekillenen yardım mimarisini hem söylemsel hem de yapısal düzeyde zorlamaktadır. Bu çerçevede makale, kalkınma mimarisinde normatif, operasyonel ve kurumsal düzeylerde yaşanan değişimleri incelemekte ve Birleşik Krallık ile Kore Cumhuriyeti (Güney Kore) örnekleri üzerinden karşılaştırmalı bir analiz sunmaktadır. Birleşik Krallık, geleneksel donör kimliğini temsil eden, normatif öncülüğe ve çok taraflılık ilkesine dayalı bir yaklaşımı sürdürürken; Güney Kore, yardım alıcılığından donörlüğe evrilen, DAC üyeliği ile birlikte özgün bir donör profili sergilemektedir. Çalışma, nitel bir yöntemle hazırlanmış; literatür taraması, kurumsal belgeler ve nicel veri analizleri bir arada değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular, yükselen donörlerin kalkınma işbirliği söylemini dönüştürmekle kalmayıp, geleneksel donörlerin de söylem, yöntem ve kurumlarında değişime yol açtığını ortaya koymaktadır. Bu durum, kalkınma işbirliği mimarisinin daha çoğulcu, rekabetçi bir yapıya dönüştüğüne, geleneksel ve yükselen donör özelliklerinin giderek melezleştiğine işaret etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kalkınma işbirliği
• yükselen donörler
• Birleşik Krallık
• Kore
• OECD-DAC
• normatif dönüşüm

EMERGING DONORS AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION ARCHITECTURE: AN EVALUATION THROUGH THE CASES OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND SOUTH KOREA

Öz

This article analyzes the transformation experienced in the international development cooperation architecture over the past two decades in the context of the rising influence of emerging donors. The growing participation of countries such as China, India, Brazil, South Africa, and Turkey in development activities has challenged the traditional aid architecture—historically shaped by OECD-DAC norms—both discursively and structurally. Accordingly, this article examines the normative, operational, and institutional shifts in the architecture and provides a comparative analysis through the cases of the United Kingdom and Republic of Korea (South Korea). The United Kingdom maintains its traditional donor identity through a normative leadership and multilateralism-based approach, while South Korea, having evolved from an aid recipient to a donor and joined the DAC, presents a unique donor profile. This study adopts a qualitative methodology, combining literature review, institutional documents, and quantitative data analysis. The findings reveal that emerging donors not only reshape the discourse of development cooperation, but also induce changes in the discourse, methods, and institutions of traditional donors. This indicates a transformation of the development cooperation architecture into a more pluralistic and competitive structure, with increasingly hybrid characteristics between traditional and emerging donor models.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Development cooperation
• emerging donors
• United Kingdom
• Korea
• OECDDAC
• normative transformation

Kaynakça

1. Alesina, Alberto ve David Dollar. “Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why?”, Journal of Economic Growth, C. 5, No. 1 (2000), s. 33–63.
2. Appe, Susan. “Directions in a Post-Aid World? South–South Development Cooperation and CSOs in Latin America”, VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, C. 29, No. 2 (2018), s. 308–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11266-017-9838-0.
3. Becker, Berit. “Colonial Legacies in International Aid: Policy Priorities and Actor Constellations”. içinde Carsten Schmitt (ed.), From Colonialism to International Aid: Global Dynamics of Social Policy, s. 161–185. Palgrave Macmillan, 2020.
4. Berthélemy, Jean-Claude. “Aid Allocation: Comparing Donors’ Behaviours”, Swedish Economic Policy Review, C. 13, No. 2 (2006), s. 75–109.
5. Chung, Bong Gun. “The Korean Model of ODA: A Critical Review of Its Concept and Practices Reflected in Educational ODA”, International Perspectives on Education and Society, C. 29 (2016), s. 241–267. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-367920140000029017.
6. Clarke, Gerard. “UK Development Policy and Domestic Politics 1997–2016”, Third World Quarterly, C. 39, No. 1 (2018), s. 18–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2017.1369032.
7. Degnbol-Martinussen, John ve Poul Engberg-Pedersen. Aid: Understanding International Development Cooperation. London: Zed Books, 2005.
8. Dreher, Axel, Valentin Lang ve Bernhard Reinsberg. “Aid Effectiveness and Donor Motives”, World Development, C. 176 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2023.106501.

9. Francisco, Pedro, Sérgio B. Moreira ve Jorge Caiado. “Identifying Differences and Similarities Between Donors Regarding the Long-Term Allocation of Official Development Assistance”, Development Studies Research, C. 8, No. 1 (2021), s. 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/2 1665095.2021.1954965.
10. Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO). The UK Government’s Strategy for International Development. London: HM Government, Mayıs 2022.
11. Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office. International Development in a Contested World: Ending Extreme Poverty and Tackling Climate Change: A White Paper on International Development. London: HM Government, 2023.
12. Gülseven, Yahya. Old and New Foreign Aid Architecture. (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Middle East Technical University, 2019.
13. HM Treasury ve Department for International Development. UK Aid: Tackling Global Challenges in the National Interest. London: HM Government, Kasım 2015.
14. Ireton, Barrie. Britain’s International Development Policies: A History of DFID and Overseas Aid. 2013.
15. Kim, Eun Mee ve Jong Ho Kim ve Jae Eun Lee. “Aid Effectiveness and Fragmentation: Changes in Global Aid Architecture and South Korea as an Emerging Donor”. içinde Kim, Eun Mee ve Pil Ho Kim (ed.), The South Korean Development Experience: Beyond Aid, s. 101–122. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137278173_5.
16. Kim, Eun Mee ve Pil Ho Kim (ed.). The South Korean Development Experience: Beyond Aid. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137278173.
17. Kim, Jiho ve James Garland. “Development Cooperation and Post-Colonial Critique: An Investigation into the South Korean Model”, Third World Quarterly, C. 40, No. 7 (2019), s. 1246– 1264. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2019.1590775.
18. Kim, Sung-Hoon. “Korea in Africa: A Missing Piece of the Puzzle”. 2013.
19. KOICA. KOICA Annual Report 2020. Korea International Cooperation Agency, 2020. Lumsdaine, David ve James Schopf. “Changing Values and the Recent Rise in Korean Development Assistance”, Pacific Review, C. 20, No. 2 (2007), s. 221–255. https://doi. org/10.1080/09512740701306881.
20. Mawdsley, Emma. From Recipients to Donors: Emerging Powers and the Changing Development Landscape. London: Zed Books, 2012.
21. Mawdsley, Emma. “South–South Cooperation 2.0: London and the Rise of the New Development Cooperation Actors”, Geography Compass, C. 8, No. 7 (2014), s. 455–468.
22. OECD. OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: Korea 2024. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1787/889c6564-en.
23. Quadir, Fahimul. “Rising Donors and the New Narrative of ‘South–South’ Cooperation: What Prospects for Changing the Landscape of Development Assistance Programmes?”, Third World Quarterly, C. 34, No. 2 (2013), s. 321–338.
24. Puspaningrum, Vira. Ideas, Interest, Institutions, and Organizations in Development Aid Policy of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Yüksek lisans tezi. International Institute of Social Studies, The Hague, Hollanda, 2017.
25. Rajan, Raghuram G. ve Arvind Subramanian. “Aid and Growth: What Does the Cross-Country Evidence Really Show?”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, C. 90, No. 4 (2008), s. 643– 665.
26. Riddell, Roger C. “Does Foreign Aid Really Work? An Updated Assessment”, Political Economy – Development: International Development Efforts & Strategies eJournal, 2014. https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:111085815.
27. Sachs, Jeffrey D. The End of Poverty. New York: Penguin Press, 2005.
28. Six, Clemens. “The Rise of Postcolonial States as Donors: A Challenge to the Development Paradigm?”, Third World Quarterly, C. 30, No. 6 (2009), s. 1103–1121. https://doi. org/10.1080/01436590903037366.
29. Taylor, Peter, Kate Macdonald, Sarah Huckstep ve Yujie Sun. “Shifting Norms, Multiplying Actors, Turbulent Times: An Emerging Landscape of International Development Co-operation”, Development Policy Review, C. 41 (2023), e12686. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12686.
30. Watson, Iain. “Global Korea: Foreign Aid and National Interests in an Age of Globalization”, Contemporary Politics, C. 17, No. 1 (2011), s. 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2011.5 52688.
31. Watson, Iain. “Governments and NGOs in Asian Overseas Development Assistance: Assessing South Korea’s Model of Foreign Aid”, Asian Studies Review, C. 36, No. 1 (2012), s. 79–103. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10357823.2011.652067.
32. Watson, Iain. Foreign Aid and Emerging Powers: Asian Perspectives on Official Development Assistance. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014.
33. Woods, Ngaire. “Whose Aid? Whose Influence? China, Emerging Donors and the Silent Revolution in Development Assistance”, International Affairs, C. 84, No. 6 (2008), s. 1205–1221.
34. Yoon, Mi Young ve Chung-in Moon. “Korean Bilateral Official Development Assistance to Africa Under Korea’s Initiative for Africa’s Development”, Journal of East Asian Studies, C. 14, No. 2 (2014), s. 279–301.
35. Zimmermann, Felix ve Kimberly Smith. “Policy Arena: More Actors, More Money, More Ideas for International Development Cooperation”, Journal of International Development, C. 23, No. 5 (2011), s. 722–738.