This volume represents the effort to help formulate a Korean model of development cooperation. The chapters herein provide potentially important lessons that Korea should take into account. Korea is playing an increasingly important role in global development policy. Because the EU has been involved in this field for decades, it might be helpful for Korea to analyze EU's experience and draw some of the lessons from the EU’s evolution and challenges as a development actor. Furthermore, Korea and the EU are likely to increasingly work as partners in the field of development, notably as part of the Busan Partnership. Therefore, better understanding how the EU works in the field of development should be interesting for Korea, and should ultimately help improve the quality of partnership. From the role of European Parliament regarding ODA, Korea can draw lessons as follows. First, as in the case of the EU whereas the Korean government and its development agencies play a key role of planning and execution, the Parliament of Korea should play a role of an anchor. Second, the scattered governance structure in the government needs to be integrated. Third, it is desirable that Korea’s laws allow flexibility in terms of legislation, for example, in certain specific areas concerning the portion of tied and untied ODAs. The Federal Republic of Germany has a strong tradition of giving ODA and much experience and knowledge to share with Korea. During this important start-up phase of Korea's ODA practice, it makes sense for the Korean government to look to and learn from other countries for best practice examples. Certainly, some aspects of the German situation are comparable to that of Korea, including its history of going from aid recipient to donor, its regional economic and trading strength, a complex and strong manufacturing industry, few legacies from colonialism and a stable and strong democracy supported by sound financial structures. In addition to those similarities, many of the challenges facing Germany are also problems Korea must deal with, as most of today's issues are of a global scale. Along these lines, Germany could be a role model with respect to Korean ODA in the following areas: political structures and organization, financing, development policies and strategies, and finally, measures to improve efficiency and effectiveness of ODA both within the country and on site. It seems also that South Korean politics of development assistance should initially consider the French experience, particularly in Africa. Much knowledge has been produced on this continent, specifically on major demographic and economic challenges facing most African countries south of the Sahara. On the other hand, it would be useful if aid policies proposed by Korea are known and implemented in discussion with the French and European authorities by registering in consultation frameworks in African countries, as well as within DAC/OECD, in order to avoid the risk of opacity that currently exists with other emerging donors such as China. As Africa denounces the impact of Chinese competition on employment, Korea should be wary of opening its market to Africa. While African governments appreciate the amount of Chinese aid, they criticize the fact that it is tied to Chinese exports, and African NGO denounces its opacity and its lack of concern on environment. As a country that advocates green growth, Korea should maintain its good image in the future as well. Korea should aim at providing budget support and untying its aid to Africa. The analysis of the World Bank’s aid policy in Vietnam raises important issues related to Korean development aid. The question of what Vietnam needs the most, money or knowledge, has to be asked by Korea as well as by the World Bank and other donors. Indeed, successful Korean development policies conducted over the past decades could undoubtedly keep on inspiring Vietnam as they have in the recent past. Another major issue is Korea’s coordination with the World Bank and with other donors, now that it has joined the Development Aid Committee, especially concerning the breakdown between budget aid and projects. North Korea as a case study shows how Korea can collaborate with “traditional” donors and how they accept or reject the principles promoted by multilateral organizations. It compares the approaches of different Western and “new” donors, and shows how aid is implemented in the field taking into account the obstacles to optimal effectiveness
