Journal Search Engine
Search Advanced Search Adode Reader(link)
Download PDF Export Citaion korean bibliography PMC previewer
ISSN : 2233-4165(Print)
ISSN : 2233-5382(Online)
Journal of Industrial Distribution & Business Vol.10 No.1 pp.69-76

Recipient Countries’ Financial Development and the Effectiveness of ODA

Hyeonmi Ahn*,Danbee Park**
* First Author, Associate Research Fellow, Korea Corporate Governance Service, E-mail:
** Corresponding Author, Assistant Professor, Department of International Trade, Kangwon National University, Tel: +82-33-250-6185, E-mail:
December 17, 2018. Revised January 03, 2018. January 10, 2019.


Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to empirically investigate the effectiveness of Offcial Development Assistance (ODA) in recipient countries' economy. ODA is designed to mitigate poverty and stimulate economic growth in the developing countries. We classify total ODA into bilateral ODA and multilateral ODA depending on the number of donor countries. If the ODA flows from one donor country to one recipient country, it is classified as bilateral ODA. If the multiple countries simultaneously become donor countries through the international organizations such as United Nations and World Bank, it is classified as multilateral ODA. This paper compares the effect of bilateral ODA and multilateral ODA in determining recipient countries' economic development, and tries to provide policy implications to Korean ODA.
Research design, data, and methodology - Our primary explanatory variables are bilateral and multilateral ODA. Private credit in recipient countries is adopted as additional explanatory variables to capture the level of financial development in recipient countries. We measure the ODA effectiveness using economic growth and quality of life of the recipient countries as the dependent variable. We collect 142 recipient countries' data from OECD statistics, during the period from 1970-2014. Panel least squares estimation with country fixed effect is employed as the empirical model.
Results - Our results support that ODA variable has a negatively significant impact on recipient countries' economic growth, while it is positively correlated with human development index. Recipient countries' private credit is positively correlated with economic growth and human development index. The interaction variable of ODA and financial development turns out to be significant in general. We find that the positive effect of ODA depends on recipient countries' financial market development and this effect is stronger in multilateral aid than bilateral one.
Conclusions - From the analysis, we have confirmed that the recipient countries financial development is the necessity condition to achieve positive effect of ODA. Based on these results, we suggest that Korean government should increase the share of multilateral funding and pay attention to recipient countries' financial market development to maximize the effectiveness of ODA.

JEL Classifications: O19, O16, F35.

금융시장발전과 공적개발원조의 효과성: 양자간・다자간 원조를 중심으로






    1. Ahn, H., & Park, D. (2018). Donor Country’s Fiscal Status and ODA Decisions before and after 2008 Global Financial Crisis. International Journal of Industrial Distribution & Business, 9(1), 25-38.
    2. Alfaro, L., Chanda, A., Kalemli-Ozcan, S., & Sayek, S. (2004). FDI and economic growth: the role of local financial markets. Journal of international economics, 64(1), 89-112.
    3. Ang, J. B. (2010). Does foreign aid promote growth? Exploring the role of financial liberalization. Review of Development Economics, 14(2), 197-212.
    4. Arestis, P., & Demetriades, P. (1997). Financial development and economic growth: assessing the evidence. The Economic Journal, 107(442), 783-799.
    5. Baek, S. (2015). Financial and Economic Cooperation in ASEAN+3 and Institutional Quality: Evaluation and Prospect. Review of International Money and Finance, 5(1), 5-43.
    6. Bourguignon, F., & Sundberg, M. (2007). Aid Effectiveness? Opening the Black Box. American Economic Review, 97(2), 316-321.
    7. Burnside, C., & Dollar, D. (2000). Aid, Policies, and Growth. American Economic Review, 90(4), 847-868.
    8. Calderón, C., & Liu, L. (2003). The direction of causality between financial development and economic growth. Journal of development economics, 72(1), 321-334.
    9. Chenery, H. B., & Strout, A. M. (1966). Foreign assistance and economic development. The American Economic Review, 56(4), 679-733.
    10. Choi, G. (2016). Cases for a Paradigm Shift toward a Open Platform Economy in Asia. Review of International Money and Finance, 6(2), 5-24.
    11. Chung, T. (2014). Effectiveness of Korean Official Development Assistance. International Business Review, 20(4), 211-229.
    12. Dalgaard, C.J., Hansen, H., & Tarp, F. (2004). On the empirics of foreign aid and growth. The Economic Journal, 114(496), 191-216.
    13. Dang, H. A., Knack, S., & Rogers, F. H. (2013). International aid and financial crises in donor countries. European Journal of Political Economy, 32, 232-250.
    14. Eom, Y. H., Hwang, J. Y., & Jung, H. J. (2014). An Empirical Analysis of the Determinants of Tied South Korean Aid. Korean Journal of Public Administration, 52(1), 123-144.
    15. Easterly, W. (2003). Can Foreign Aid Buy Growth?, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17(3), 23-48.
    16. Ferrarini, B., Hinojales, M., & Scaramozzino, P. (2017). Chinese Corporate Leverage Determinants. Journal of Asian Finance Economics and Business, 4(1), 5-18.
    17. Frot, E. (2009). Aid and the financial crisis: Shall we expect development aid to fall?. Available at SSRN: or
    18. Hwang, J., Park, H., Lee, S., & Lim, H. (2016). An Empirical Study on the Aid Effectiveness of Official Development Assistance and Its Implications to Korea. Journal of The Korean Regional Development Association, 28(5), 177-197.
    19. Kang, Y. (2014). The Problems and Improvements in Institutions of Official Development Assistance of Korea. Korean Public Administration Quarterly, 26(3), 601-630.
    20. Koo, J., & Kim, D. (2011). World Society and Official Development Assistance: Explaining Determinants of Korean ODA, 1989-2007. Korean Journal of Sociology, 45(1), 153-190.
    21. Kosack, S. (2003). Effective aid: How democracy allows development aid to improve the quality of life. World development, 31(1), 1-22.
    22. Lee, C. (2011). New Trends of International Official Development Assistance and Korea's ODA Policy. Journal of Industrial Economics and Business, 24(2), 777-808.
    23. Lee, M. (2018). Do Firm and Bank Level Characteristics Matter for Lending to Firms during the Financial Crisis?. International Journal of Industrial Distribution & Business, 9(5), 37-46.
    24. Levine, R. (1997). Financial development and economic growth: Views and agenda. Journal of economic literature, 35(2), 688-726.
    25. Levine, R. (2002). Bank-based or market-based financial systems: Which is better? Journal of financial intermediation, 11(4), 398-428.
    26. Maizels, A., & Nissanke, M. K. (1984). Motivations for aid to developing countries. World Development, 12(9), 879-900.
    27. Milner, H. V. (2004). Why Multilateralism? Foreign Aid and Domestic Principal-Agent Problems. Delegation and agency in international organizations, 107.
    28. Minoiu, C., & Reddy, S. G. (2010). Development aid and economic growth: A positive long-run relation. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 50(1), 27-39.
    29. Mishra, P., & Newhouse, D.L.. (2007). Health aid and infant mortality. International Monetary Fund (No. 2007-2100).
    30. Neumayer, E. (2003a). The determinants of aid allocation by regional multilateral development banks and United Nations agencies. International Studies Quarterly, 47(1), 101-122.
    31. Neumayer, E. (2003b). Is respect for human rights rewarded? An analysis of total bilateral and multilateral aid flows. Human Rights Quarterly, 25(2), 510-527.
    32. Ram, R. (2003). Roles of bilateral and multilateral aid in economic growth of developing countries. Kyklos, 56(1), 95-110.
    33. Williamson, C. R. (2008). Foreign aid and human development: The impact of foreign aid to the health sector. Southern Economic Journal, 75(1), 188-207.