Whole‑of‑Government Approaches to Development Co‑operation: Korea
Table of contents
This country note provides an overview of key characteristics of whole-of-government co-ordination in development co-operation in the Republic of Korea (hereafter, Korea) based on desk research and interviews held with relevant stakeholders. This note complements the OECD DAC peer-learning exercise, Whole-of-Government Approaches to Development Co-operation (OECD, 2026[1]). The note highlights institutional arrangements, co-ordination mechanisms and quality assurance processes in place to support a whole-of-government approach to development co-operation. Data in this note reflect the latest available year, 2024.
Korea’s development co‑operation system combines strong central leadership with a broad range of implementing actors, creating both opportunities and co-ordination challenges. The Committee for International Development Co-operation (CIDC), chaired by the Prime Minister, provides strategic direction and oversight to the dual system jointly managed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) and the Ministry of Finance and Economy (MOFE). This institutional structure builds on several cross-governmental bodies and mechanisms to co-ordinate the more than 34 implementing line ministries and central agencies. While this enables the mobilisation of specialised expertise across government, it requires strong co-ordination efforts to align policies, strategies, budgets and operations, including at the country level. The 2020 revision of the Framework Act on International Development Co-operation, the pilot packaging of official development assistance (ODA) and the strengthened performance management systems, reflect Korea’s efforts to improve cross government co-ordination.
Strong central mechanisms support co-ordination in Korea’s complex development co-operation system. The CIDC is the highest development co-operation decision making body setting policy direction and budget allocation. The Secretariat of the CIDC is housed within the Office for International Development Co-operation of the Government Policy Co-ordination (OPC) and supports alignment with national priorities and co-ordination across government. The CIDC reviews and approves the development co-operation Five-Year Comprehensive Strategy, which sets overall priorities and is operationalised through the Comprehensive Annual Implementation Plan. It also endorses the mid-term assistance strategies by sector, region and country, bringing together ODA projects and budget requests across all ministries and agencies (Committee for International Development Cooperation, 2025[2]).
Korea’s development co-operation system is built on a dual institutional structure, with leadership shared between two lead ministries. The MOFA, responsible for grants, manages bilateral and multilateral co-operation, and oversees the Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA), which is the main grant-based implementing agency. The MOFE, responsible for concessional loans, manages co-operation with international financial institutions and oversees the Export-Import Bank of Korea (KEXIM), which operationalises the Economic Development Co-operation Fund (EDCF) (Committee for International Development Cooperation, 2025[2]). Both lead ministries review budget requests from implementing agencies before submission to the CIDC, and co-ordination between them is facilitated through both formal and informal channels (see Infographic 1).
The 2020 revision of the Framework Act on International Development Co-operation serves as a legal foundation for strengthening a coherent, cross-government approach. The 2010 Framework Act established the first legal basis to align development policy across government (Government of Korea, 2020[3]). Over time, Korea has progressively amended the Framework Act to reflect global commitments and policy priorities. The 2020 revision strengthened the integration and co-ordination function of the CIDC to help overcome the separate supervision of loans and grants by reinforcing its strategic and planning oversight (OECD, 2024[4]). This revision also signalled a more coherent, cross-government approach to implement a larger ODA budget and a stronger emphasis on performance management (Quality assurance). Required under the Framework Act and prepared every five years, the Comprehensive Strategy is the government’s overarching ODA roadmap. The Fourth Strategy (2026–2030) sets the policy direction and strategic objectives, including building an integrated system to improve the effectiveness and quality of Korea’s development co-operation (ODA KOREA, 2026[5]).
Source: Based on Committee for International Development Cooperation (2025[2]), 2024 Korea ODA White Paper, https://www.odakorea.go.kr; OECD (2024[4]), OECD Development Co‑operation Peer Reviews: Korea 2024, https://doi.org/10.1787/889c6564-en.
While KOICA and KEXIM are the main implementing agencies, more than 34 other line ministries and central agencies also implement bilateral ODA in line with their area of expertise (OECD, 2024[4]). This broad institutional set-up enables Korea to mobilise specialised expertise across government, drawing on KEXIM’s financial capacity, KOICA’s technical co-operation, and the sectorial knowledge of 34 national and sub-national public entities in areas such as information and communication technology, healthcare and green growth (OECD, 2024[4]). At the same time, such a dispersed implementation model (separating grants and loans) requires strong co-ordination. Following a period of sustained growth with ODA budget increasing by around 80% between 2020-2024, Korea’s total ODA reached USD 3.9 billion in 2025 (preliminary data), representing a 2.3% decrease in real terms from 2024 (OECD, 2026[6]; OECD, 2024[4]). According to Korea’s White Paper, MOFE managed 9% of ODA, mainly for contributions to multilateral development banks, while MOFA managed 20% of ODA, largely for humanitarian and multilateral support. EDCF loans accounted for 34% of ODA, mainly for infrastructure, while KOICA’s grants represented 22% of ODA, involving technical and social programmes. Line ministries managed the remaining 15% of ODA channelled through implementing agencies and institutions, such as those working in health, agriculture and environment (Government of Korea, 2025[7]) (see Figure 1).
Note: While ODA budgets are allocated to line ministries, project implementation is typically carried out by affiliated or specialised agencies under their respective ministries. Currency KRW 100 million.
Source: Committee for International Development Cooperation (2025[2]), 2024 Korea ODA White Paper, https://www.odakorea.go.kr/eng/bbs/GalleryList?bbs_id=eng_105.
Strategic packaging is a pilot effort to bundle ODA programmes and projects across government and instruments at the planning stage. The “package ODA” initiative, led by OPC, links grants, loans, and public and private ODA across the multiple government entities managing it to increase project size and build synergies (OECD, 2024[4]) The CIDC’s annual implementation plans also highlight opportunities for bundling grants and loan operations to reduce duplication and promote integrated ODA (Government of Korea, 2023[8]). Between 2021 and 2024, 19 packages were identified across 10 countries. The initiative operates through two models: programme-based packages led by a single implementing agency to scale sector strengths, and the proposal-type package combining EDCF loans with grant-based technical assistance from the design stage. Early examples, include Bali electric vehicle package involving MOFA, the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (see Example of thematic co-ordination), as well as the EDCF-funded Egypt Railway Electrification and Modernisation package, which brings together the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and the Ministry of Health and Welfare to improve rail safety and efficiency and integrate capacity development and emergency medical transport. These packaging efforts are yet to result in an integrated approach to programming across implementing partners, as each partner continues to plan, programme and evaluate its ODA and efforts individually (OECD, 2024[4]).
Korea relies on multiple formal co-ordination bodies to help steer and align development co‑operation across government. At the strategic level, the CIDC provides overall strategic direction, approves key policies and plans, and ensures that ministry budgets align with national priorities. It is supported by the Committee on Grant Strategy (chaired by the MOFA) and the EDCF Fund Management Council (chaired by the MOFE), which establish grant and loan ODA strategies by sector and region (OECD, 2024[4]). The MOFA has also established an Inter-agency Grants Committee to co-ordinate grant‑implementing agencies, reviews project proposals to prevent duplications and through sub-committees and working-level meetings, it identifies potential synergies to align sectoral interventions and support coherent programming. The EDCF Council sets financing direction and operational principles for concessional loans, and delegates project identification, implementation, and evaluation to KEXIM. In 2020, the Cross-Ministry Project Deliberation Committee (chaired by the MOFE), was created to promote inter-ministerial co-ordination to reduce duplication and integrate grants and loans from one entity with grants and technical assistance from another during the identification and selection of projects in priority countries (OECD, 2024[4]). According to the CIDC’s 2024 Comprehensive Implementation Plan, co-ordinated projects amounted to 144 cases involving 294 projects in 2024 (Government of Korea, 2025[7]). This layered structure allows Korea to combine strong central oversight with sectoral expertise, while also providing formal entry points for co-ordination across instruments and implementing agencies, and has led to a growing number of joint or linked projects, reflecting efforts to improve coherence across instruments (see Table 2).
Source: Committee for International Development Cooperation (2025[2]), 2024 Korea ODA Whitepaper: Sharing Hope, Sharing Future, https://www.odakorea.go.kr.
While co-ordination is embedded in strategic and planning processes, it remains complex and largely procedural. Grant and loan committees chaired by the lead ministries provide early-stage strategic planning with OPC’s co-ordination support, acting as brokers to resolve overlaps and manage trade‑offs between grant-funded technical assistance and loan-financed infrastructure projects. Working level co-ordination relies mainly on joint planning and project-level consultations, rather than fully integrated programming. Specialised implementing agencies, KOICA and KEXIM, continue to develop their own general strategies and operational plans, as well as regional and sectoral strategies and plans (OECD, 2024[4]). The 2026–30 Fourth Comprehensive Strategy underscores persisting challenges in aligning strategies at different levels with agency-led projects, which are often identified independently and aligned with foreign policy at a later stage, limiting the OPC’s central co-ordination role to support coherent whole-of-government outcomes (ODA KOREA, 2026[5]). This complexity can be confusing to partners who may not understand why they are being approached by different entities or agencies in Korea's development architecture and which strategy applies (OECD, 2024[4]).
Korea’s cross-government co-ordination at the country level operates within a centralised system. While embassies and field offices, including KOICA country offices, play an active role in identifying, implementing and monitoring projects, decisions on project changes and budget adjustments remain largely with headquarters. The CIDC sets the Country Partnership Strategies (CPS) as the main country engagement framework, and embassies facilitate co-ordination across sectors and instruments, as well as country level consultation. Project proposals developed by implementing line ministries and agencies1 are incorporated into Korea’s annual ODA planning process. The OPC reviews their consistency with national development co-operation priorities, CPS objectives and cross-cutting policy goals, while budgetary aspects are examined through the government’s ODA budgeting process. The CIDC subsequently deliberates and approves the annual implementation plan. This approach helps maintain strategic consistency across the system, but limits flexibility to adapt programmes in response to evolving country contexts.
Country-level c-ordination takes place in a context of several strategic demands and limited capacity. In 2024, 61% of Korea’s bilateral ODA went to 27 priority partner countries, for which the OPC has published Country Partnership Strategies. These bilateral frameworks coupled with the large number of implementing agencies operating in partner countries, require sustained co-ordination. Korean embassies and KOICA country offices often support line ministries and implementing agencies without a local presence, which can affect their availability to ensure strategic dialogue with local stakeholders and deliver on the country programme. As seen in Uzbekistan, where 34% of Korea’s ODA is implemented by other agencies attached to the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, the Embassy and KOICA facilitate field visits and liaise with national authorities to support project implementation (OECD, 2024[4]).
Korea is strengthening its system-wide approach to evaluation and performance management. The 2020 Framework Act established the Expert Committee for Evaluation under the CIDC (see Infographic 1).
to provide strategic oversight and a common evaluation framework. Implementing agencies conduct self-evaluations that inform annual plans and budgets, and the OPC carries out meta-evaluations to assess their quality and consistency. The CIDC also commissions institutional reviews and country evaluations to assess system-wide performance, identify synergies across instruments and strengthen alignment of implementing ministries and agencies. Given that ODA is not the core business of several implementers, the Evaluation Committee is leading a cross-government institutional capacity review to assess their institutional systems for planning, monitoring and evaluation, with the aim of informing project screening and budget discussions. These capacity reviews target implementing ministries and agencies with ODA budgets exceeding KRW 1 billion (approximately USD 770 000), and agencies identified as having capacity gaps receive tailored support to strengthen performance management and internal evaluation systems (ODA Korea, 2026[9]; OECD, 2024[4]). However, differences in institutional capacity and evaluation practices continue to limit the consistency and comparability of results across the system (ODA Korea, 2026[9]).
While Korea is linking evaluation, planning and budgeting, there is a strong emphasis on accountability and systematic learning remains uneven. The Framework Act provides a legal basis for integrating evaluation findings into decision making and programming, but the uptake varies across agencies. Strong accountability requirements, including multiple institutional evaluation and audit processes led by the Board of Audit and Inspection and the National Assembly, create a high reporting burden and can limit time for reflection and learning (OECD, 2024[4]). In practice, learning often remains within individual institutions rather than shared across the system (ODA Korea, 2026[9]; OECD, 2024[4]). Additional challenges include fragmented results frameworks and limited use of outcome-level indicators, as well as frequent staff rotation, which weaken institutional memory and reduce the ability to use evidence consistently to inform decisions.
Korea is reforming its ODA information systems by merging them into a single integrated portal. By streamlining its two ODA information systems – the Integrated ODA Information Portal used by implementing agencies and ODA Korea designed for public disclosure – Korea aims to improve reporting functions and connect planning, implementation, evaluation and post project management information (ODA KOREA, 2026[5]). This real-time, integrated ODA Information Portal2 can also facilitate information sharing across the government and create incentives for co‑ordination by helping identify synergies between programmes at the country level. Such efforts can encourage entities without a permanent country presence in partner countries to work more closely with those that are present. Effective knowledge sharing, however, requires operational experience, particularly held by KOICA and KEXIM-EDCF (OECD, 2024[4]).
Korea integrates climate action across government through a whole‑of‑government approach linking domestic priorities, foreign policy and development co‑operation. The 2021 Green New Deal ODA Strategy sets out Korea’s commitment to greening ODA, reflected in the significant increase of the share of its bilateral ODA for climate change reaching 66% in 2023-2024, above the DAC average of 35.4% (OECD, 2024[4]; OECD, 2026[6])3. Climate objectives are embedded in key policy instruments, including the ODA Basic Plan, Green ODA strategies and Country Partnership Strategies (CPS). The CIDC supports strategic direction and inter-ministerial co-ordination on climate action, particularly at the planning stage, through mechanisms such as pre‑screening processes and EDCF’s inter‑ministerial reviews – involving the MOFA, MOFE, Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy – to ensure projects align with climate and development priorities. At the implementation level, co-ordination reflects Korea’s dual system: KOICA delivers grant-based support focused on technical co-operation, capacity building, and policy advice, while KEXIM-EDCF finances infrastructure investments. Tools such as environmental safeguards, Rio markers and the EDCF Green Index further support coherence across instruments.
Korea’s Bali electric vehicle package illustrates how whole‑of‑government co-ordination operates in practice across sectors and institutions. The package brings together three complementary projects led by different ministries: an electric vehicle and charging infrastructure project led by the Ministry of Environment and implemented with the Global Green Growth Institute; a transportation information system led by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport; and an electric vehicle deployment component led by MOFA (OECD, 2024[4]). Designed as a single package, these projects combine infrastructure, technology and policy support to help Indonesia accelerate e‑mobility, reduce emissions and meet its national climate targets (Global Green Growth Insitute, n.d.[10]). The package reflects Korea’s ambition to shift towards more integrated programming by aligning multiple actors and instruments from the design stage, and by linking technical co‑operation with investment. At the same time, it highlights the continued need to strengthen joint planning and co-ordination across implementing partners to move beyond linked projects towards fully integrated programmes.
While central oversight and leadership provide a solid foundation for Korea’s whole-of-government approach, the dispersed delivery model creates co-ordination challenges. The CIDC’s strategic direction and the shared leadership of the MOFA and MOFE, supported by a legal framework and planning system help align policies, budgets and actors. Although the multi-actor delivery model helps mobilise technical expertise across government, the separation of grants and loans adds complexity to the system and risks fragmentation and inconsistent engagement with partner countries.
Scaling up Korea’s ODA places growing demands on adequate resources and capacity to support whole-of-government co-ordination, particularly at country level. The large number of implementing actors increases the need for stronger co-ordination to ensure alignment and manage priorities, as well as for qualified development co-operation expertise across the government. Limited staffing and high turnover remain challenges for Korea, especially in embassies, which play a co-ordination role convening multiple actors. Strengthening in-country capacity, including positioning KOICA as a focal-point, and exploring alternative ways to support actors without a local presence is key to achieving coherent delivery, responsiveness to partner-country needs and locally grounded co-operation (OECD, 2024[4]).
Multiple co-ordination mechanisms exist but remain largely procedural. Korea has built an extensive architecture of committees, strategies, plans and review processes that can support alignment and identification of synergies. However, co-ordination often takes place through project-level consultations rather than fully integrated programming, and multiple overlapping strategies can create complexity for both domestic actors and partner countries.
Efforts to promote an integrated approach are promising but still at an early stage. Integration initiatives, such as “package ODA”, enable joint planning and stronger linkages across instruments and actors. Early examples show potential to improve synergies but needs to be grounded at the country level. More integrated programming will require stronger incentives for joint planning, collaboration and identification of lead entities responsible for delivering packages. The 2026–30 Fourth Comprehensive Strategy4 is a promising step towards building an integrating system and strengthening the CIDC’s co-ordination role by prioritising capable implementing agencies, increasing project size and adopting results-based management (ODA KOREA, 2026[5]).
Performance management strengthens accountability but needs to be balanced with learning. Korea has made progress in linking evaluation, planning and budgeting. However, fragmented results frameworks, a strong focus on compliance and uneven capacity limit system-wide learning. The cross-government performance management review offers an opportunity to prioritise ODA towards high performing implementers. Developing common results frameworks – particularly at the country level – and strengthening knowledge sharing across the system can help rebalance accountability with learning (OECD, 2024[4]).
References
[2] Committee for International Development Cooperation (2025), Sharing Hope, Sharing Future: 2024 Korea ODA Whitepaper, https://www.odakorea.go.kr/eng/bbs/GalleryList?bbs_id=eng_105.
[10] Global Green Growth Insitute (n.d.), Piloting Electric Vehicle Systems and Developing a Green Transportation Investment Roadmap for Bali, Indonesia, https://gggi.org/project/piloting-electric-vehicle-systems-and-developing-a-green-transportation-investment-roadmap-for-bali-indonesia/.
[7] Government of Korea (2025), (제52-1호)25년 종합시행계획(확정액 기준).pdf 다운로드 [(No. 52-1) 2025 Comprehensive Annual Implementation Plan], https://www.odakorea.go.kr/kor/bbs/PlanAndResulList?bbs_id=kor_001.
[8] Government of Korea (2023), (제48-1호) 24년 국제개발협력 종합시행계획 [(No. 48-1) 2024 Comprehensive Implementation Plan for International Development Cooperation], https://www.odakorea.go.kr/kor/bbs/PlanAndResulList?bbs_id=kor_001.
[3] Government of Korea (2020), Framework Act on International Development Cooperation, https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/lsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=218113&viewCls=engLsInfoR&urlMode=engLsInfoR#0000.
[5] ODA KOREA (2026), The 4th Basic Plan for International Development Cooperation (February 26, 2026), https://www.odakorea.go.kr/kor/cont/ContShow?cont_seq=21.
[9] ODA Korea (2026), Results of the 2025 International Development Cooperation Evaluation and the 2026 Evaluation Plan, https://www.odakorea.go.kr/kor/bbs/PlanAndResulList?bbs_id=kor_001.
[6] OECD (2026), Development Co‑operation Profiles: Korea, Development Co-operation Profiles, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/development-co-operation-profiles_04b376d7-en/korea_d358baed-en.html.
[1] OECD (2026), Whole‑of‑Government Approaches to Development Co‑operation: Insights and Lessons from Practice, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/05846ace-en.
[4] OECD (2024), OECD Development Co‑operation Peer Reviews: Korea 2024, OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/889c6564-en.
This work is issued under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD, and does not necessarily reflect the official views of OECD Member countries.
This Country note is a result of a collaboration between the Development Co-operation Directorate (DCD) and the Korea Development Institute (KDI). Korea provided valuable input for this note and overall funding for the exercise.
This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
The full book is available in English: OECD (2026), Whole-of-Government Approaches to Development Co-operation: Insights and Lessons from Practice, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/05846ace-en.
© OECD 2026
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. By using this work, you accept to be bound by the terms of this licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Attribution – you must cite the work.
Translations – you must cite the original work, identify changes to the original and add the following text: In the event of any discrepancy between the original work and the translation, only the text of original work should be considered valid.
Adaptations – you must cite the original work and add the following text: This is an adaptation of an original work by the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed in this adaptation should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its Member countries.
Third-party material – the licence does not apply to third-party material in the work. If using such material, you are responsible for obtaining permission from the third party and for any claims of infringement.
You must not use the OECD logo, visual identity or cover image without express permission or suggest the OECD endorses your use of the work.
Any dispute arising under this licence shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Arbitration Rules 2012. The seat of arbitration shall be Paris (France). The number of arbitrators shall be one.
← 1. Implementing agencies develop project proposals based on consultations with partner countries, sectoral initiatives and feasibility studies.
← 2. According to the 2026–30 Fourth Comprehensive Strategy, the ODA Information Portal will help track implementation changes, strengthen project management and prevent duplication of projects.
← 3. The share of climate-related ODA rose significantly in 2021, largely due to an increase in loans targeting climate adaptation, which jumped from an 8% share of total bilateral ODA in 2019 to a 50% share in 2022.
← 4. The 2026–30 Fourth Comprehensive Strategy plans to extend capacity reviews across implementing agencies and strengthen project screening, aiming at reducing their number by more than half.