GXErtYN3

1Developing a ROK-EU Oriented PPP Trilateral Cooperation Model
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13Kyung Hee University International Studies 
14Min Hyuk Hong
15 					    Hee Won Koo
16  Yonsei University Global Leadership Division
17 Jung Mun Park
18
19Thesis Advisor
20Kyung Hee University 
21Graduate School of Pan-Pacific International Studies
22Professor Jae Sung Kwak
23
24
25초록 
26
27
28
29본 연구는 ‘개발효과성’(Development Effectiveness)의 제고와 지속가능 개발(SDGs)의 실현을 위해 현재 실행되고 있는 민관협력사업(Public-Private Partnership)의 재원조달 방식에 대해 문제를 제기한다. 이를 바탕으로 한국과 유럽연합이 활용하는 개발형 모델을 분석하고 각국의 비교우위를 활용하여 새로운 개발협력형태의 모델을 제시한다.
30
31우선, 한국과 유럽연합의 민관협력사업 형태, 파트너 그리고 주된 분야와 지역을 분석하여 두 국가의 공통된 사업지역과 분야를 찾고 비교우위를 제시한다. 이를 통해 서로의 한계를 상호 보완하는 최적의 개발형태 모델, 즉 '3국 민관협력 모델'(PPP Trilateral Cooperation Model)을 도출한다. 또한, 이 모델형태로부터 비롯될 수 있는 잠재적인 문제점을 ‘죄수의 딜레마'(Prisoner’s Dilemma)을 통해 설명하며 민관협력 규제와 타당성조사 지원의 방법을 해결책으로 제시한다.
32
33
34마지막으로, 본 연구는 모델의 타당성과 유용성을 평가하며 한국과 유럽연합의 잠재적인 개발협력의 전망을 예측한다.
35
36
37
38
39
40키워드: 개발협력, 민관협력사업, 3국 민관협력 모델
41
42
43Summary
44 
45This thesis seeks to create a development cooperation model that is oriented to the current system utilized by the Republic of Korea and the European Union. Moreover, it seeks to do so in a manner than reflects the current international trend of development cooperation, in which private finance is becoming increasingly mobilized through Public Private Partnerships. In order to do so, this thesis will examine the PPP systems of South Korea and the European Union, thereby elucidating upon the development model, development partner, and development profile of each entity. Through this analysis, this paper will provide a comparative analysis of the two sovereign stakeholders in order to reveal the systematic similarities and differences of the two entities. Consequently, it will become apparent that the Republic of Korea and the European Union have a development system that optimally complements the PPP model of the other entity. In addition, this thesis will identify potential areas in which cooperation can be attained, as doing so is imperative for initiating cooperation efforts. Taking this into consideration, this paper will propose its idea of PPP Trilateral Cooperation through elucidating upon its conceptual definition, necessity, implementation process, and effectiveness. Subsequent to this, this thesis will analyze this idea through the perspective of the prisoner’s dilemma in order to identify the potential problem of reduced data collection that may be instigated by this solution. Accordingly, it will also elaborate upon the PPP regulations and feasibility study support mechanisms that may assist in overcoming this problem. Finally, this thesis will conclude through evaluating the plausibility and utility of this model, while providing potential prospects for development cooperation between the Republic of Korea and the European Union. 
46
47
48
49
50
51Keywords: Development cooperation, Public-private partnerships, Trilateral cooperation
52
53
54Table of Contents 
55
56I. Development Cooperation									4
57             1. Status Quo										4
58             2. EU-ROK Relations								4
59             3. Research Design									5
60II. Institutional Analysis									6
611. Republic of Korea									6
62A. Development Model							6
63B. Development Partners							7
64C. Development Portfolio							7
65        	2. European Union									8
66A. Development Model							8
67B. Development Partners							9
68C. Development Portfolio							9
693. Model Comparison									11
70A. Similarities									11
71B. Differences									11
72III. PPP Triangular Cooperation								12
731. Conceptual Definition								12
742.  Necessity										13
753. Implementation Process								13
764.  Effectiveness									15
77IV. Potential Obstacles: A Prisoner’s Dilemma Analysis					15
781. Definition and Application								16
792. Potential Solutions									16
80            	A. PPP Regulations								16
81            	B. Feasibility Study Support							17
82V. Conclusion: Prospects and Assessment							17
83
84
85
86I. Development Cooperation
87
88
891. International Trend
90 
91The contemporary paradigm of development cooperation can be epitomized by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which accentuates the need to strengthen global partnership as its final goal (UN 2017). The significance of such partnerships can be attributed to the insufficient nature of public finance, as only 0.3% of the pledged 0.7% of GNI is currently being provided (OECD 2015). Because of this, and due to the large scale nature of the SDGs, a 2.5 trillion US dollar financial deficit currently exists in international development (UNCTAD 2014). Accordingly, the concept of aid effectiveness is emerging within development cooperation, as is the procurement of additional finance.
92 
93Regarding this, the Busan High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness declared that "effective development cooperation requires acknowledging the private sector as a development actor (as well as) calibrating and re-focusing efforts to maximize the benefits of private sector engagement in the development process" (OECD 2011, P37). In addition, the Addis Adaba Action Agenda (AAAA) emphasized the imperative role of the private sector in promoting effective sustainable development through recognizing the importance of Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) and the need to enter into such partnerships (UN 2015). Regarding this, PPPs refer to a joint-project actualized between the public and private sector in which both sectors share the risks and duties of the project. Finally, further elucidating upon the rising significance of PPPs and private finance, JICA reports that over 70% of all development finance can be attributed to private funds (JICA). Therefore, although development cooperation has mainly featured the public sector and civil sector, it has shifted to incorporate the private sector as well through PPPs.
94 
952. European Union and Republic of Korea Relations
96 
97Concerning the relationship held by the European Union (EU) and the Republic of Korea (ROK) within development cooperation, these two nations have formed a Framework Agreement which seeks to improve bilateral cooperation through the exchange of information on policies and programs within third party countries (South Korea-Trade-European Commission). Through this, South Korea has become the only nation to have actualized both a Strategic Partnership Framework Agreement and a Free Trade Agreement with the EU (South Korea - Trade - European Commission). Moreover, because South Korea is a member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development - Development Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC), it shares many of the same interests and practices as the EU (Castillejo 2014). Consequently, due to the strategic utility and mutually respected values held by both entities, the prospects for increased cooperation between the EU and the ROK within international development can be perceived as both plausible and impending (Park 2014). Yet, although South Korea has established strong bilateral relationships with individual European states, its holistic cooperation with the EU is relatively insufficient as institutional actions have yet to be taken (Park 2014). Therefore, it can be understood that the direction of such cooperation is relatively unclear.
98 
993. Research Design
100 
101This thesis seeks to elucidate upon this direction by formulating a development model that is oriented to the strategies and practices utilized by the EU and the ROK. In order to do so, this paper will begin by evaluating the development models of the EU and ROK through analyzing the development strategy, partners, and portfolios of each entity. This is to identify the respective similarities and differences of these entities. Through determining the similarities of the two countries, this thesis will provide potential sectors and regions in which cooperation can be pursued, as well as the potential extent of the cooperation. Moreover, building upon the differences of the two nations, this thesis seeks to identify the comparative advantages held by each country within development cooperation. Accordingly, this paper will propose its solution: PPP Trilateral Cooperation. In order to do so, the conceptual definition, necessity, implementation process, and effectiveness of the proposed model will be elucidated upon. In addition, this paper will analyze this model through the perspective of the Prisoner's Dilemma in order to identify the potential weaknesses of this model and will provide the mechanisms needed to overcome these altercations to ultimately achieve optimal effectiveness. 
102 
103<Figure 1> Research Design
104
105
106II. Institutional Analysis
107
108
1091. Republic of Korea
110
111A. Development Model
112 
113         The ROK provides development assistance through partnerships within the domestic and international sector. In the domestic sector, Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA) provides bilateral grants (KOICA website), while the Economic Development Cooperation Fund (EDCF) provides concessional loans in order to fund development projects (EDCF website). In the international sector, the ROK, in partnership with Japan and China, has institutionalized the Trilateral Cooperation Secretariat (TCS). This institutional platform enables for the three nations to communicate and undergo knowledge sharing through compiling a shared database (TCS website). In addition, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance (MOSF) has initiated the Knowledge Sharing Program (KSP) in order to abridge the knowledge gap between the ROK and its partner countries (KSP website).  
114
115B. Development Partners
116 
117The PPP system of South Korea primarily incorporates the civil sector within its development framework. To begin with, KOICA mainly utilizes the civil sector because of their experience. This can be empirically supported as KOICA provides 127,818 hundred million won (67%) in financial support to NGOs, yet only 21,929 hundred million won (11%) to firms (한재광 2011). On the other hand, the EDCF supports large-scale PPP projects through providing loans to private companies (EDCF 2014). However, it should be noted that South Korea’s bilateral aid is primarily comprised of KOICA, as KOICA provides 63.3% of the ROK’s bilateral grants while the EDCF accounts for 36.7% of bilateral loans (Korea ODA). In addition, 81% of all PPPs for the past 21 years were actualized in partnership with the civil sector (한재광 2011). Accordingly, the civil sector prioritized by KOICA primarily represents the PPP system of South Korea (Korea ODA). 
118 
119C. Development Portfolio
120 
121To start off, the development assistance of South Korea primarily focuses on Asia and Africa, respectively accounting for 46.3% and 23.9% of total finance in 2015 (Korea ODA). Moreover, the bilateral development finance of the Republic of Korea primarily targets social and economic infrastructure development, accounting for about 73.9% of total development financing from 2010 to 2014 (Korea ODA). Finally, the ROK provides a total of 1395.8 hundred million dollars in bilateral development finance (Korea ODA).
122
123 
124<Figure 2> Sectoral Aid Share of Bilateral ODA (2010-2014) (Korea ODA)
125
126 
127<Figure 3> Bilateral ODA by Region (2008-2015) (Korea ODA)
128
1292. European Union
130
131A. Development Model
132 
133The European Union provides development assistance through integrating three complementary sources of finance: public sector grants, public sector loans, and private sector investment. However, due to the continuous stagnation of Official Development Aid and the increasing significance and scale of private finance, private investment plays a bigger role in the contemporary development cooperation (EDFI Flag Report 2016). Regarding private investment, the European Development Finance Institutions (EDFI), a government-backed institution comprised of fifteen financial institutions of EU countries, provides equity, loans, and government guarantees in order to finance development projects (EDFI). In addition, a knowledge sharing system exists within the EDFI in order to strengthen cooperation (EDFI 2014).
134
135 
136<Figure 4> DFIs as a Growing Source of Finance (EDFI Flag Report 2016)
137
138B. Development Partners
139
140The EDFI primarily incorporates the private sector within its PPP projects (EDFI 2014). Moreover, on a national level, other development agencies employ the civil sector to provide further developmental support (Rixen 2016). However, because the EDFI is the main funding mechanism for the EU’s PPP projects, it can be understood that the private sector leads the PPP projects of the EU (The European Files 2013).
141
142C. Development Portfolio
143
144 The consolidated portfolio of the EDFI mainly concentrates on development within Sub-Saharan Africa (31%), Latin America and the Caribbean (20%), and South Asia (14%) (EDCF Flagship Report 2016). In addition, the EDFI mainly focuses on certain sectors such as financial services (30%), power services (18%), and industry as well as manufacturing (16%) (EDCF Flagship Report 2016). Finally, the EU provides 36 billion Euros in bilateral development finance (EDFI 2014).
145
146  
147<Figure 5> European DFI Portfolio by Region, 2015 (EDCF Flagship Report 2016)
148
149 
150<Figure 6> European DFI Portfolio by Sector, 2015 (EDCF Flagship Report 2016)
151
152
153
1543. Model Comparison
155 
156         	A. Similarities
157 
158         	Through this national analysis, it can be affirmed that the regional and sectoral portfolios of each stakeholder mutually overlap. To start off, the regional similarity can be narrowed down to African and Asian countries. This can be understood at the EU spends 31% of its finance within Africa and 14% in Asia while the ROK spends 23.9% of its funds on Africa and 46.3% of its funds on Asia. Moreover, the sectoral similarity of both entities lies in infrastructure. This can be viewed as KOICA heavily focuses on economic and social infrastructure, which incorporates the EDFI’s main concentration on power, industry, and manufacturing. Such overlapping sectors amount to 26.4%. Therefore, it is clear that overlaps exist within the economic infrastructure and services of Africa and Asia, thereby representing potential areas for cooperation.
159 
160         	B. Differences
161 
162         	The scope of partnership differs between South Korea and the European Union, enabling each stakeholder to mutually complement each other. To reaffirm, South Korea primarily incorporates the civil sector within their PPP partnerships (손혁상 2014). Regarding this, the benefits of cooperation with the civil sector is that they have more experience and understanding of the targeted region, thereby enabling projects that accurately target the specific needs of the country (한국국제협력단 2016). However, the weakness of the civil sector can be attributed to its lack of technical expertise, thereby reducing their developmental impact (Gallart 2014).
163
164In contrast, the EDFI accentuates the significance of private sector partnerships within its PPP projects, as the technical expertise and business skills of the private sector enable efficient procurement of projects into targeted countries (World Bank 2016). Differing from these benefits, the challenges that the private sector face is that they lack information and experience regarding and within the target region (OECD). Taking this analysis into consideration, it is clear that the advantages of the private and civil sector compensates for the other’s respective weaknesses. Therefore, the complementary nature of civil and private sector cooperation would attain mutual benefit as well as higher developmental impact.
165
166
167III. PPP Triangular Cooperation
168
169
1701.	Conceptual Definition
171
172	Triangular cooperation refers to a form of development cooperation which incorporates a traditional donor, an emerging donor, and a recipient country in order to improve effectiveness and efficiency (Marx 2013). To elucidate, a traditional donor refers to a nation that is historically considered to be developed, while an emerging donor refers to a nation that has recently joined in the spectrum of development aid. These emerging donors are influential players in aid politics as they enable greater access to aid while providing a wider array of options to utilize such funds (Sato 2010, p2). Through this relationship, each entity can specialize in their area of comparative advantage, enabling aid effectiveness. Regarding this, the traditional donor typically possesses additional development expertise while the emerging donor typically has more experience in development experience (Fordelon 2009). In this context, the EU plays the role of the traditional donor, while the South Korea plays the role of the emerging donor, as exemplified by the Korean-German joint cooperation agreement in Nepal (Castillejo 2014). 
173
174Yet, the form of development cooperation that this thesis is proposing seeks to apply the trending concept of triangular cooperation to the emerging mechanism known as PPP. To elucidate, this paper is arguing that a PPP trilateral cooperation be formed between the civil sector of the ROK, the private sector of the EU and the recipient country. Such a relationship is both mutually complementary and plausible in the infrastructure sector of Asia and Africa, which is the area that such cooperation should be initially pursued. Therefore, this thesis is proposing that a knowledge sharing platform is institutionalized between the EU and the ROK in order to improve the cooperation between the respective private and civil sector of these two entities. 
175
1762. Necessity
177
178The implementation of PPP Triangular Cooperation is imperative as it enables for the enhancement of aid effectiveness through reducing potential overlaps in the distribution of capital and by enabling efficient allocation of resources. To start off, reducing overlaps in capital distribution is made possible because such a knowledge sharing system would enable the two entities to have better understanding of each other’s development projects (Marx 2013). Through this, each of the public sector of each entity can procure PPP projects in a manner that does not reduce the effectiveness of the other’s development projects while improving the effectiveness of one’s own. This is possible because overlapping development projects have overlapping sectors and populations that the projects seek to assist. Consequently, without a proper understanding of the other entity’s projects, competition rather than cooperation is instigated within the process of aid provision, thereby reducing the developmental impact of the PPP project. Hence, through this knowledge sharing system, such overlapping projects can be avoided.
179
180Furthermore, this knowledge sharing platform also enables for the efficient allocation of resources and efforts. To elucidate, in situations in which overlaps are inevitable (Mark 2013) or even necessary, having a proper understanding of the other entities’ development projects enable both entities to utilize their various resources in a manner that complements each other. In addition, because the civil and private sector can access information regarding development projects through this platform, stakeholders entering the target sector or region may take such information into consideration in order to compensate for the lack of experience and expertise that they may have in the target sector and region. Thus, through this system, coordination between development projects can be attained.
181
1823. Implementation Process
183 
184<Figure 7> PPP Triangular Cooperation
185
186PPP Triangular Cooperation between the private sector of the EU and the civil sector of the ROK should be facilitated through utilizing a public-sector operated mechanism such as, but not limited to the example of ROK’s Knowledge Sharing Program. This cooperation should be initially pursued bilaterally, with the eventual goal of integrating with the EU as a whole. This is for the sake of plausibility, as building relationships with consenting nations would reduce potential delays and stagnations in progress. Moreover, because the KSP is managed by the ROK’s Ministry of Finance, it can be considered to be an ideal model to build upon because the public sector is in possession of information regarding to the development projects of KOICA and the EDCF. To elaborate, the KSP utilized by the ROK currently manages three primary functions: Policy Consultation for Partner Countries, Modularization of Projects, and Joint Consulting Program with Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) (Kim 2012). In addition to these functions, which emphasize support from the public sector, this thesis asserts that two additional functions must be added: A shared database system and A communication platform. 
187
188 To start off, a shared database system which integrates and shares information regarding the development projects of the EU and the ROK should be developed. Such information is to include financial information, evaluation reports, as well as any other information that is deemed to provide utility. This information is then to be utilized freely in order to improve the developmental impact of an entity’s own development project. Moreover, the Ministry of Finance for each respective nation should strive to connect struggling partners or those seeking additional assistance with the appropriate partner that can provide complementary services. Subsequent to this, a platform that can be utilized to facilitate communication between relevant entities in the EU private sector and the ROK civil sector must be institutionalized. Consequently, relevant stakeholders will be able to independently contact the development partners that they deem adequate to their services and request for necessary support. Through this, information flow and communication between the PPP partners of the EU and ROK can be improved, and PPP Triangular Cooperation can be achieved.
189
1904. 	Effectiveness
191
192The effectiveness of this model can be epitomized by the information that will be made available to the private and civil sector partners that rely on such information to implement development projects. To elucidate, the ROK currently is in a knowledge sharing relationship with Japan and China through the Trilateral Cooperation Secretariat, while the EU shares information within itself through the knowledge sharing efforts within the EDFI (Park 2014). Thus, through enabling respective bilateral knowledge sharing between the Trilateral Cooperation Secretariat and ROK and between the EDFI and EU, relevant entities will be able to indirectly aggregate the necessary knowledge and therefore access a more comprehensive scope of information. Yet, this information is also qualitatively significant as well, as South Korea has more experience within Asia, while the EU has more experience in Africa (Marx 2013). Through providing the PPP partners of the ROK and EU with information that is necessary to implement their development projects, potential altercations can be avoided and effective methods and processes can be adopted. Consequently, it is clear that the overall development impact of PPP projects can be enhanced.
193
194	
195IV. Potential Obstacle: A Prisoner's Dilemma Analysis
196 
197
1981. Definition and Application
199 
200However, this thesis acknowledges that no solution is perfect, and that each action instigates a potential reaction. Regarding this, this paper applies the concept of the Prisoner's Dilemma in order to identify the potential altercation that may result from the model proposed in this paper. To elucidate, the Prisoner's Dilemma refers to a situation in which two entities are given the choice to cooperate or pursue self interest. However, through choosing to protect them at the expense of the other entity, detriment is incurred to both parties (Investopedia). Yet, it must be considered that choosing to cooperate, regardless of immediate utility, attains an optimal result for both parties. Therefore, it is necessary that measures are taken to procure such a result. 
201 
202 Applying this concept into the model proposed by this thesis, it can be observed that the two entities refer to the civil sector of the ROK and the private sector of the EU. Moreover, it can be understood that the two choices available to these stakeholders is to cooperate in collecting and sharing information or to solely rely on the information accrued from this platform. Regarding this, it must be understood that the information collection process is both length and costly, and often undertaken independently (Yasui 2013). However, through the model proposed in this paper, the necessity of such processes is reduced as relevant stakeholders assist in the accumulation of such information. Thus, an individual entity may be able to reduce the financial costs of its PPP project through solely receiving information, while not assisting in its collection. Accordingly, if both entities were to pursue such an individualistic approach, the amount of information holistically available would be reduced. Hence, although the utility of the proposed model would still exist, the total potential of its effectiveness would be weakened in the long term. Yet, if both parties were to cooperate in collecting information, the total amount of information available would be significantly enhanced as would the environmental and social impact of relevant projects. Therefore, two potential mechanisms that may be utilized in order to secure such benefits will be subsequently provided. 
203 
2042. Potential Solutions
205 
206A. PPP Regulations
207 
208To start off, regulations within the PPP procurement process can be utilized in order to ensure the mutual provision of necessary information. To elaborate, some PPP processes require that the private sector entity provides a final report that contains crucial information to the public sector in order to receive the final stages of finance. To provide an example for the EU, Germany's DEG utilizes a develoPPP program which provides final payment after a final report regarding the project is published (Findeisen 2013). In regards to South Korea, KOICA requires that an evaluation report is written in both English and Korean for the evaluation process and the subsequent provision of finance to conclude (Korea International Cooperation Agency). Thus, because the acquirement of public finance is imperative for the private and civil sector, the provision of such information can be ensured through this mechanism. Therefore, through adding this process and enforcing its adherence, the optimal effectiveness of the proposed model can be procured.
209 
210B. Feasibility Study Support
211 
212In addition, the feasibility study support provided in various PPP programs can be utilized to guarantee the mutual provision of information. In regards to this, feasibility study support refers to the public finance of the overseas research necessary to undergo project implementation. Such a mechanism is incorporated in both the PPP models of the EU and ROK, as it enables for the public sector to reduce to risk of the private and civil sector undergoing project implementation. In consideration to the EU, Germany's DEG provides a maximum of 50 percent, or up to 200,000 Euros, of the costs of a feasibility study (KFW 2016). On the other hand, KOICA also provides feasibility study support, as it had provided up to 9 million US dollars in financing during fiscal year 2015 (KOICA 2015). Therefore, through reducing the risk of the private and civil sector in pursuing relevant research, the collection of information can be incentivized and the optimal effectiveness of the proposed model attained.
213 
214
215VI. Conclusion: Prospects and Assessment
216 
217
218Building upon the increasing importance of private finance, this thesis proposed a trilateral cooperation model which expands the ROK's Knowledge Sharing System to include a platform which integrates the civil sector of the ROK and the private sector of the EU. Moreover, this thesis provided a variety of sectors and regions in which cooperation can be pursued, which is information considered to be imperative to initiating the improvement of current cooperation efforts (Marx 2013). In addition, this paper elucidated upon the significance of utilizing such comparative advantage by stating that the private and civil sector have certain strengths that mutually complements the other's weaknesses. Finally, this thesis offered numerous means to deter and alleviate the potential ineffectiveness of this rectification.
219 
220Thus, through beginning projects in these mutually assisted areas, both the ROK and the EU can optimize their developmental impact by improving the coordination necessary to enhance aid effectiveness. This enables for the successful accumulation of completed joint-projects, which can be evaluated by the advanced PPP evaluation system utilized by the EU (Park 2014). Hence, because the EU has already expressed its desire to enter into such cooperation through its Framework Agreement, empirically ensuring the development impact of trilateral partnerships provides the incentive needed for other EU states in enact such partnerships with the ROK. In addition, the success of this cooperation will reduce the risk of the EU private sector in regards to enacting PPPs, as lack of information and experience is one of the primary factors hindering PPP participation (OECD). Consequently, this improved competition deriving from this additional participation will assist in acquiring the innovation and effectiveness that epitomizes the private sector, thereby further enhancing developmental impact (Witters 2012). Therefore, this proposed model can be assessed as both plausible and effective in its ability to improve institutional relations between and the developmental impact of South Korea and the EU.
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228Reference
229
230Castillejo, Clare.2014. “New donors, New partners? EU strategic partnerships and development”. ESP. http://fride.org/descarga/ESPO_EU_strategic_partnerships_and_development.pdf).
231Economic Development Cooperation Fund. 2014. “Shaping the future with EDCF” http://ehf.koreaexim.go.kr/File.down?file=/attach_file/bbs/BBS_4/%BF%B5%B9%AE_EDCF_AR_2014_%5BEN%5D1.pdf
232Economic Development Cooperation Fund. http://211.171.208.43/edcfeng/what/loan/type.jsp (Accessed March 1 2017)
233European Development Finance Institutions. 2016. EDFI Flag Report 2016.
234European Development Finance Institutions. EDFI - European Development Finance Institutions. EDFI, n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2017 http://www.edfi.be
235European Development Finance Institutions. "EDFI - the Association of European Development Finance Institutions." EDFI - European Development Finance Institutions. EDFI, 2014. Web. 27 Mar. 2017.http://www.edfi.be/about/edfi.html
236The European Files. 2013. “Public Private Partnerships in Europe: A New Growth Dynamic” http://www.eipa.eu/files/repository/20130322092835_MBU_EuropeanFiles_PPPinEurope.pdf.
237Findeisen, Clemens. 2013. “Partnering and Financing Opportunities for Biogas Projects in Developing and Emerging Countries”. Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. https://www.giz.de/fachexpertise/downloads/2013-en-findeisen-partnering-financing-opportunities.pdf
238Fordelone, Talita Yamashiro. 2009. “Triangular Co-operation and aid effectiveness”. OECD. http://www.oecd.org/dac/46387212.pdf
239Japan International Cooperation Agency. “Public-Private Partnerships”. https://www.jica.go.jp/english/our_work/types_of_assistance/partnership/index.html. (Accessed March 1 2017)
240KFW. 2016. “Financing of Feasibility Studies”. https://www.deginvest.de/DEG-Documents-in-English/Range-of-Services/Special-Programmes/Feasibility-Studies_Overview_2016_10.pdf
241Kim, Yulan. 2012. “ Introduction to the knowledge sharing program of Korea”. Korea Economic Institute. http://www.keia.org/sites/default/files/publications/kei_koreacompass_tcha_final.pdf
242Korea International Cooperation Agency. 2015. 2015 KOICA Annual Report. http://www.koica.go.kr/upload/pr/annual/2015_Annual_report_en.pdf
243Korea International Cooperation Agency. http://www.koica.go.kr. (Accessed March 1 2017)
244Korea International Cooperation Agency. Evaluation System. http://www.koica.go.kr/english/schemes/schemes_evaluation/evaluation_system/index.html (Accessed March 2 2017)
245Korea Official Development Assistance. 지원실적. .https://www.odakorea.go.kr/ODAPage_2012/T02/L03_S01_01.jsp (Accessed March 2 2017)
246Korea Official Development Assistance. Region & Country https://www.odakorea.go.kr/eng.result.RegionCountry_Overview.do (Accessed March 2 2017)
247Korea Official Development Assistance. Sector. https://www.odakorea.go.kr/eng.result.Sector.do (Accessed March 2 2017)
248KSP. “KSP is”. http://www.ksp.go.kr/ksp/ksp.jsp (Accessed March 1 2017)
249Marx, Axel. 2013. “EU-Korea Relations in a changing world”. KU Leuven. https://ghum.kuleuven.be/ggs/publications/books/rapport-ggs-eu-korea-relations-in-a-changing-world.pdf
250Molina-Gallart, Nuria. 2014.  “Strange bedfellows? NGO-corportate relations in international development: an NGO perspective. Development Studies Research. http://rsa.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21665095.2014.915617
251Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2003. “Private Finance and Economic Development : City and Regional Investment”
252Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2011. “Busan High Level Forum on aid effectiveness: Proceedings”.P37. https://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/HLF4 proceedings entire doc for web.pdf https://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/HLF4%20proceedings%20entire%20doc%20for%20web.pdf
253Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2015. ODA preliminary Data.
254http://www2.compareyourcountry.org/oda?cr=20001&cr1=oecd&lg=en&page=1
255Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. “Private Finance and Economic Development: City and Regional Investment”.
256Park, Sung Hoon. 2014. “South Korea and the European Union: A promising partnership for development cooperation?” ESP. http://fride.org/download/PB_15_South_Korea_and_the_European_Union.pdf).
257Rixen, Jan. "EDFI Flagship Report 2016." EDFI - European Development Finance Institutions. EDFI, 2016. Web. 27 Mar. 2017 www.edfi.be/news/news/38-edfi-flagship-report-2016.html
258Sato, Jin. 2010. “How do Emerging donors differ from traditional donors?”. P 2. JICA Research Institute. https://www.jica.go.jp/jica-ri/publication/workingpaper/jrft3q00000022dd-att/JICA-RI_WP_No.2_2010.pdf
259South Korea- Trade- European Commission. "European Commission Directorate-General for Trade. http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/south-korea (Accessed March 1 2017)
260Staff, Investopedia. "Prisoner's Dilemma." Investopedia. N.p., 19 Nov. 2009. Web. 27 Mar. 2017. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/prisoners-dilemma.asp
261Trilateral Cooperation Secretariat website. “Trilateral Cooperation Secretariat”. http://en.tcs-asia.org/en/tcs/overview.php. (Accessed March 1 2017)
262United Nations. 2015. “Addis Ababa Action Agenda”. http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/AAAA_Outcome.pdf
263United Nations. 2017. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs (accessed March 1 2017)
264United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. 2014. “Developing countries face $2.5 trillion annual investment gap in key sustainable development sectors” http://unctad.org/en/pages/PressRelease.aspx?OriginalVersionID=194  
265Witters, et al. “The Role of Public-Private Partnerships in Driving Innovation”, The Global Innovation Index 2012)
266World Bank Group. "About Public-Private Partnerships." Public private partnership. World Bank Group, 2016. Web. 27 Mar. 2017. https://ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/node/335/).
267Yasui, Takehiro. 2013. “Jica’s Private Sector Partnership Activities”. Japan International Cooperation Agency.  https://wpqr4.adb.org/lotusquickr/cop-mfdr/PageLibrary482571AE005630C2.nsf/0/181D652082C320AC48257B630052B8AF/$file/s7b%20ADBI%20Presentation_yasui_JICA.pdf
268손혁상. 「국제개발협력을 위한 한국의 민관협력사업(PPP) 연구」
269http://www.publication.gsis.snu.ac.kr/?download_doc_id=6205
270한국국제협력단. 2016. 「KOICA Public Private Partnership Program for the Year 2016」
271한재광. 「국제 개발 협력분야 정부-시민 사회 협력 관계 연구」