日本のODA政策の現状と課題

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "日本のODA政策の現状と課題"

うきえひらみね
4 years ago
Views:

1 ESRI Z ESRI No.3 ODA By February 2003 Economic and Social Research Institute Cabinet Office Tokyo, Japan

3 ODA by 2003 NGO

4 ODA ODA 1999 ODA ODA ODA 1997 ODA IMF ODA public management ODA 1 OECD DAC ODA ODA OOF ODA ODA i

5 Abstract Japan s Official Development Assistance has expanded by four-fold over a period of 15 years, from $3.8 billion in 1985 to its peak of $15.3 billion in The Japanese government eagerly increased official aid to dampen pressure from abroad to recycle its huge accumulated trade surplus, and to take commensurate responsibilities as an economic global superpower in the international development community. Due to the prolonged recession in Japan, however, the public sector is currently undergoing financial difficulties, and Japan s ODA budget will be reduced substantially over the next few years. Upon publicizing the ODA mid-year policy in 1999, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that Japan would no longer have the goal of increasing its total ODA, but would instead improve the quality of ODA it provides. To make the process of implementing ODA policies more transparent and accountable to taxpayers, the government intends to promote partnership with a variety of groups, such as of experts, NGOs, private firms, and of citizens, in the planning, execution, and evaluation of ODA projects. This paper attempts to analyze the historical and institutional features of Japan s ODA from the aspect of public management, while keeping the following questions in mind: 1) Is information on the distribution and appropriation of ODA resources fully disclosed to the public? 2) Does the government properly evaluate the results of ODA based on the targeted goals? 3) Do the government agencies properly monitor ODA projects and their executing parties? 4) Does the ODA budget reflect the preceding evaluation, as well as strategic consideration? 5) Does ODA management facilitate efficiency, effectiveness and transparency throughout the project cycles? The analysis of this paper, however, falls short to fully answering the above questions, and further research remains to be carried out. Section 1 surveys the capital flows from the donor countries to the developing countries, and empirically tests the transfer paradox by using the CGE model. Section 2 examines the different types of bilateral assistance, and discusses Japan s reaction to the requests of releasing debts and increasing grants. It also demonstrates a strategic feature of ODA by applying the two-party game model. Section 3 studies a recent trend of multilateral assistance to reduce poverty in the heavily indebted poor countries. The agency model is applied to donors (clients) of ODA to demonstrate importance of monitoring executing agencies (agents). Establishment of the Information Disclosure Law and the Policy Evaluation Guidelines in 2001 in Japan has greatly changed people s perception of the public policies, and motivated them to request the public decision-making processes to be more open. In implementing ODA policies, people s agreement and support are essential along this line. Today, a consensus is being built on the following: Under today s tight budgetary conditions Japan s ODA should be more focused and strategy-oriented to achieve Japan s national interests, as well as the interests of the developing countries and the international society as a whole. ii

6 ...i Abstract...ii iii

7 1-1 DAC ODA ODA ODA GTAP DAC ODA DAC ODA ODA NGO DAC iv

9 ( ) ( ) 1944 (IMF) (IBRD) 1960 (IDA) IBRD ( ) 1947 (GATT) ODA (1) DAC (OEEC) 1961 (OECD) OEEC (DAG) (DAC) 1 22 (EC) DAC 2 a) b) c) d) (1968 ) (1982 ) (1984 (1984 ) (1989 ) DAC 1969 (ODA) (OOF) ODA ( ) DAC 3 GNP ODA ODA 1 The Story of Official Development Assistance, OECD/DCD(94) DAC 22 (EC) 3 Development Co-operation, Annual Report of OECD/DAC 1

10 ODA (OOF) ODA DAC (2) a) b) (UNCTAD) (UNDP) 1966 (ADB) UNCTAD a) b) c) d) 1997, pp IDA 1975 (IDB) 1993, p Reporting Directives for the Creditor Reporting System, OECD, DCD/DAC/TD/ECG(90)1 2

11 3

12 (3) (BIS) IMF IMF 1998, pp

13 (SAL) IMF (HIPC) , G7 DAC Heavily-indebted Poor Countries, 1996 IMF 1993 GNP GNP ODA p World Bank, World Debt Tables 1996, vol. 1, p.37 5

14 1,690 IMF HIPC 7 HIPC ODA 100 ( PRSP) PRSP , p (4) (p.89) 7 HIPC IDA 1996 HIPC 8 World Bank, Global Development Finance

15 / ,400 6,400 7, ( p ) (UNDP) 1990 a) b) c) 1 (HDI) ( p.16) HIV/ (5) (1989) ODA (1991, pp ) (1994, pp ) (UNDP) (UNEP) (GEF) JBIC (JBIC) JBIC 7

16 A B C A IDA JICA (WSSD) 1992 ( 10) (6) IMF social safety net Stiglitz IMF IMF 2000, pp (CDF) Meltzer ODA 1999 pp Report of the International Financial Advisory Commission, US Congress, March

17 IMF IDA 1980 ( ) (AMF) ( ) IMF () (2002, pp.1-17) p.27 9

18 2 2 ODA a) ODA NGO ODA b) ODAODA ODA c)oda ODA ODA (1) 1960 ODA 1985 ODA ODA 1992 ODA a) b) c) d) ODA ODA DAC ownership partnership 14 (1991, p.47) ODA 1990 pp

19 (2) ODA (p.9) a) ODA ODA ( )700 OOF ( )

20 a) b) IMF c) ODA ODA ODA NGO b) 1997 JBIC (5) (JSDF) (JFPR) pp

21 (3) a) ODA JICA ( ) JBIC 2 JICA JBIC 20 ODA 2001 JICA 1, (ODA ) ODA ODA ODA JICA 2 5 ODA JBIC ODA ODA a) b) c)oda NGO JBIC ( ) 2 ODA ( ) ( ) 13

22 14

23 b) NGO DAC NGO 7 NGO (UNHCR) OXFAM CARE NGO NGO UNHCR NGO NGO NGO NGO NGO NGO NGO NGO c) DAC ODA UNHCR Geldolph Everts DAC Good Procurement Practices for Official Development Assistance 15

24 (2)b) DAC ODA 2002 JICA JICA JICA JBIC JBIC 2000 ODA ODA OOF OOF (4) a) DAC 500 ODA DAC ODA 1982 ODA ODA 25 ODA 2000 p.24 16

25 a) b) c) DAC ODA relevance effectiveness efficiency a) b) c) a) b) a) b) c) governance (4) GDP Results-based managementrbm p.130 RBM b) JBIC (NPV) NPV (IRR) IRR 26 World Bank 1998, Assessing Aid What Works, What Doesn t, and Why, Oxford University Press 17

26 ( 2001, pp.80-81) (, p.116) New Public Management 27JBIC 28 c) 1981 DAC a) b) c) d) e) 5 DAC 29 JICA (6) JBIC JICA JBIC ODA 30DAC ODA ODA a)oda b) c) d) e)oda ODA ODA 27 (1999) pp JICA JBIC 31 OECD/DAC 1999, Development Co-operation Review Series, No.34 Japan, p.18 18

27 ODA ODA 33 (5) DAC ODA ODA 34 ODA ODA ODA 2002 OOF ODA (JIU) FAOITUWHO Sumihiro Kuyama, Enhancing Governance Oversight Role, JIU/REP/2001/4 19

28 (6) DAC a) ODA b)oda DAC ODA DAC (UNDP) (SIDA) a) b) c) 37 (OMB) 38 (USAID) HIV/ USAID ODA a) b) 1996 a) b) ODA JICA JBIC (p.491) (p.495) 36 Development Co-operation Review Series, OECD/DAC/1996~ 37 OECD/DCD(99)6, para pp

29 () 2000 ODA p.11 p.75 ODA ODA 15 21

30 3 Eaton (1989) a) b) c) d) panel data (1) GNP 5~10 25~40 GNP 5~8 (p.12) 1 99 a) ( ) b) c) d) Eaton (1989, pp ) 41 ( ) 40 World Bank, Global Development Report 1985, pp Dixit (1983) Jones (1985) 22

31 42 1 ( ) (immiserize) welfare ( ) Keynes (1929) Ohlin (1929) Yano and Nugent (1999) ~1990 GDP Mosely et al. (1987) (2) Harrod(1939)Domar(1946) Keynes s a g = s /a Solow (1956)a Harrod-Domar 1 1 f(k) g n 1 k* Sollow 1960 (1967, pp ) 1 (2000, pp.79-89) Harrod-Domar McKinnon (1964)Chenery and Stout (1966)Findlay (1973) 2 43Chenery and Stout 42 Krugman and Baldwin (1987) 43 Eaton (1989, pp ) 23

32 (p 1 /p 2 ) * (p 1 /p 2 ) y(t) y * f '(k t ) = n y t = f (k t ) y t = n k t y t = s * f(k t ) k * k(t) 24

33 Easterly (1999) (2001, p.80) Harrod-Domar (4) Dacy (1975) Mosley (1980) GNP (1998, p.23) 1990 cross-country data (p.28) (3) r c u(c) 1 Solow f(k) r k u( ct ) e 0 pt dt (2000, pp ) 1 (dk/k) 1 A 1 1 A A rt ( 0 ) = z( 0) + { f ( k) φ ( dk k ) k} he dt 0 44 Eaton (1989, pp ) 25

34 c* c*= dz/dt = {f (k)h(dk/k) kh} + rzc* (p.115) = K/(hL) { f(k)(dk/k)k }h A(0) c* 1 GDP f(k)h 25 (1960 ) 1 GDP GDP 40 1 GDP (p.118) 1982 (4) (2) , pp a) Dollar and Easterly (1999) 34 Harrod-Domar 1 2 Riddle (1987) displacement effect 26

35 b) Burnside and Dollar (1997)56 Ravallion (1997) Dollar and Svensson (1998) Hansen and Tarp (1999)Burnside and Dollar Feyzioglu, Swaroop and Zhu (1998) ( ) 1998 Burnside & Dollar 2002 a b c d 46 (5) (2000) Burnside and Dollar Hansen and Tarp a) b) c) DAC ODA 45 World Bank (1998), Assessing Aid What Works, What Doesn t, and Why 46 World Bank, Global Development Finance 2002, pp.96 27

36 ODA GDP GDP 0.23 ODA , pp ODA 4 a) b) c) d) ODA , pp cross-country data ODA ODA 1 GDP 28

37 4 3 (1) ( ) 1992 GTAP(Global Trade Analysis Project) CGE CES Stone-Geary (1998) 29

38 30

39 1-9 GDP Equivalent Variation

40 32

41 33

42 34

43 Kawasaki(2002) ( ) ( ) GTAP 35

14 ) 2 ( ) 1 3 2

2000 3 pp1 45 1 ( ) National Interest National 19 14 ( ) ( ) 20 14 ) 2 ( ) 1 3 2 ) (NGO ) ( ) 4 ( ) 3 4 < > ( ) ) ) ) ( ) ) 5 ( ) ) ( ) 5 20 6 ) ) ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ) ( ) 1970 ( ) 1990 10 (