Crises facing the world today are complex and intertwined. Since the outbreak of COVID-19, we have witnessed the onset of simultaneous infectious diseases that revealed vulnerabilities in pandemic response systems. The climate crisis is ongoing, and the risk of conflicts, such as the Russia-Ukraine war, persists. Tensions between major powers are triggering concerns of further instability. Recent global crises are distinct in that they are multifaceted and interconnected, and thus difficult to resolve through isolated approaches. Four experts gathered at KOICA to discuss the intensifying global polycrisis and our way forward.

Today’s global crises are characterized by complexity, connectivity, simultaneity, diversity, and indiscrimination. How would you define the global polycrisis? What are some key problems as a result?

Prof. Choi: The global polycrisis refers at once to the combining of numerous crises, and the creation of new crises through multiple crises. Due to its complex nature, the polycrisis is difficult to predict, respond to, or resolve afterward. Because the global polycrisis represents the amalgamation of diverse factors beyond a single phenomenon, in which one crisis can trigger or exacerbate another, it presents a significant challenge for us. The polycrisis encompasses digital transformation, and socioeconomic, technological transformation based on the existing hegemonic structure. Even so, we need to respond on a global scale, because opportunities and crises coexist in an era of transition. Moreover, we cannot forget ESG transformation, which encompasses corporate and economic activities. Such phenomena can be seen as a paradigm shift, or a grand transition, rather than as a crisis. Countries and companies that fail to respond to the period of transition will face a significant crisis. However, on the global level, other factors for opportunities may emerge following crises.

Professor Kim Eun-joo from Hansung University, College of Social Sciences

Prof. Kim: Since the beginning of this year, the term 'global polycrisis' was mentioned in various media as a buzzword. The onset of the complex global crisis, characterized by the simultaneous occurrence of multiple crises, can be traced back to the COVID-19 pandemic three years ago. At that time, it was believed that the health crisis caused by COVID-19 would persist for 2-3 years while the economic and social crisis would have a longer-lasting impact. Though an end to the pandemic was declared this year, the global polycrisis continues to have a complex impact in politics, economy, and society. The Russia-Ukraine war has been ongoing for over a year and a half. As U.S.-China tensions rise, the global value chain crisis is leading to an economic crisis. The defining point of the global polycrisis is that it cannot be resolved through the efforts of a single country alone. In the past, the experience of developed countries served as a guide for solving problems in partner countries. However, the current polycrisis is challenging because both developed and partner countries are experiencing it simultaneously.

Prof. Park: Defining the global polycrisis in a single word is difficult, but one thing is clear: uncertainty has become a certainty. Factors that increase uncertainty include not only climate change or shifts in the dynamics of international politics and economy but also rapid technological changes. Science and technology have undoubtedly contributed to the prosperity of mankind, but they also introduce new risks. The core issue lies in the "pacing problem": technological advancements progress at an exponential speed while the social norms, institutions, and laws to address them evolve linearly. In that sense, global cooperation on responsible technology development is paramount.

CD Lee: Crisis is inevitably accompanied by damage. From the perspective of KOICA, an organization that implements international development cooperation, we face challenges in that developed countries who have shown leadership in resolving global crises in the past are now equally exposed to today’s global polycrisis. At the same time, the crisis disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, vulnerable countries, and countries facing chronic instability in governance, and it is difficult to mobilize financial resources to address these challenges. In a situation where funding is limited, the involvement of the private sector – companies – becomes crucial. Moreover, the development cooperation field faces challenges in establishing norms amidst growing competition among countries rising from geopolitical instability, disruptions in supply chains, and technological advancements. To steer this situation in the most favorable direction, Korea should encourage the engagement of emerging donor countries and foster partnerships that prioritize international norms and order. 

Due to the impact of multiple global crises, social systems are collapsing, and many countries have declared default. What is the underlying cause of this phenomenon, and what measures can be taken to prevent the collapse of governance?

Professor Choi Chang-yong from Seoul National University's Graduate School of Public Administration

Prof. Choi: The textbook role of international development cooperation is to establish a virtuous cycle between developed and developing countries on a global level, transcending national boundaries to address issues such as poverty, healthcare, and gender discrimination in education. However, due to the global polycrisis and ensuring domestic crises, international development cooperation has also become a vehicle for pursuing national interests. Nonetheless, proponents still advocate for expanding the use of public goods based on the core principles of international development cooperation. As a result, a ‘discord of purpose’ is emerging in international development cooperation, signaling that it might be time to renew our fundamental agreement. In this process, the role of Korea and KOICA is significant. Indeed, the existing model of international development cooperation has been limited in reflecting the perspectives and positions of partner countries, primarily focusing on the purity or scale of funding. Korea, as a recipient-turned-donor, and KOICA, as a grant provider, are relatively familiar to both developed and developing countries and should thus take on active roles amid this discord of purpose. For example, Korea and KOICA can prepare for a post-SDGs global agenda and reassess project priorities in a global context, and thus strengthen its implementing and leadership capabilities.

CD Lee: I was just wondering what perspectives you have regarding the post-SDGs era. The 2023 SDG Summit will be held in New York in September, and opinions abound. Some suggest we need to revisit the goals because achievement of the SDGs by 2030 is unrealistic, while others say we need to reemphasize the importance of the SDGs and produce multilateral consensus. Additionally, with the rise of emerging donors, sharing methodologies and engaging in discussions together with the international community has become an important issue.

Prof. Kim: DR Congo, Sudan, Ukraine, and other regions worldwide are actually experiencing conflicts, but from the perspective of vulnerable countries in desperate need of help, support strategies are unclear. Amid a hegemonic competition, we are seeing actions to restructure the international order, and international development cooperation is also becoming subject to geopolitical conflicts. We are seeing a trend of strengthening cooperation between countries that share common values. As the SDGs enter their 8th year in 2023, I expect discussions on a turning point. Though a little early, discussions on the post-SDGs agenda will also begin in the near future. Korea needs to examine trends in the international community and respond strategically.

Prof. Park: I believe the current situation is not a collapse but rather a clash in governance: the structure of competition between countries that share the values of a free trade order and democracy, and revisionist countries. Development cooperation has not been exempt from this clash of norms and values. Since the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2000, there have been discussions on aid effectiveness led by the OECD. Since the launch of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC) in Busan in 2011, there have been voices, revolving around China, that challenge long-standing principles like transparency and aid harmonization. The attention on the role of private participation, trade and civil society, following difficulties in the mobilization of development cooperation funds after the 2008 global financial crisis, could also be seen in the context of evolving norms. It is necessary to continuously envision the possibility of development cooperation in which various actors collaborate without being confined to the concept of ODA (Official Development Assistance). This year marks a turning point for the SDGs, which are targeted for 2030. However, due to the pandemic, achievement has become difficult in almost all the SDGs. We should focus our attention on how voices that have been critical of the SDGs so far will be reflected in the SDG Summit, and how discussions on a new development cooperation governance will be formed.

How should Korea's ODA respond in the era of global polycrisis? What is your advice on specific areas or strategies, and what should KOICA’s role be in this regard?

Prof. Kim: Since 2010, with the participation of numerous organizations in ODA, the management of ODA projects has been enhanced for more systematic operation at the government level. Consequently, this has brought about the advantage of improved efficiency in the structure and implementation of the ODA system, but it has also inevitably increased bureaucratic elements. For instance, the project planning phase alone often takes more than two years. This prolonged timeline can be an obstacle, particularly in crisis situations that demand swift or immediate responses. While it may be difficult within Korea's current annual budget system, exploring ways to enable immediate responses to global crises is crucial. Among the cases of other countries, Germany is responding to frequent crises by establishing a development cooperation program positioned between urgent humanitarian response and long-term perspectives as a new form of 'transitional development cooperation.' Simultaneously, there is a need to change the quality of partnerships with partner countries. There are sector-specific donor meetings in each partner country, and we must ask ourselves, in how many of these sectors is Korea taking leadership and leading discussions? In addition, we must respond agilely by establishing a local policy network, informing headquarters of the local situation and inducing rapid support.

Prof. Choi: I read the report on the reconstruction plan of Ukraine published by Brookings Institution, and was struck by a particular point. The report analyzed the similarities and differences between the Ukraine’s reconstruction plan and the Marshall Plan in various aspects, including scale of funding, priorities, policy coordination, and the measurement of performance. In the reconstruction of Ukraine, multiple donor countries are involved, and various actors - public, private, and international organizations - participate. Given the diverse sources of aid, differences in priorities may occur. While each discussion may be individually necessary and valid, disagreements can arise when brought together as a group. In this process, Korea should pursue ODA that aligns with its national interest, enhances its national stature, and aligns with the international community’s agenda. At the same time, leading development cooperation organizations, including KOICA, must mediate conflicts and foster collaboration among different stakeholders. I would like to emphasize a flexible and organic response. Development cooperation can be likened to an art form constantly demanding flexible responses and creativity. Even in domestic policy, it can be challenging to anticipate and predict the policy impact of resource input. Therefore, in overseas development cooperation, we need to avoid a mindset of excessive efficiency-oriented thinking based solely on precise input and output. Considering Korea's capacity only 40-50 years ago, evaluating its growth potential or predicting future results was impossible. Even if a country’s current capacity is insufficient, development cooperation is an area where breakthroughs can be achieved through high expectations and national vision.

Professor Park Kyung-ryul from KAIST Graduate School of Science and Technology Policy

Prof. Park: KOICA plays a significant role as a knowledge repository in the field of development cooperation. It possesses abundant human resources, including volunteers and local experts, who can serve as a foundation for future advancement into the international community. I believe supporting young professionals helps strengthen Korea's ODA muscles. I worked as a KOICA cooperative officer in Tanzania from 2004 to 2007. My experience of working alongside local residents in a village that lacked water and electricity during the worst drought in East Africa, is valuable above any other experience I’ve had. Of course, that experience proved extremely beneficial in my subsequent work on the scene in an international organization and conducting policy research. Development cooperation can be described as a "comprehensive art." It requires convergent thinking, harmony between theory and practice, knowledge in various fields, and demonstrating respect for and serving the local community. As a donor country, we need to acknowledge that we cannot accomplish everything within a short period through our cooperative projects. It is possible to prioritize by adjusting our sectors of cooperation and partner countries, but the most important thing is a systematic approach and connectivity between projects. Detailed strategies tailored to the specific location of partner countries within the global industrial structure are also crucial. The digital sector presents an opportunity to enhance linkages between projects through data sharing and digital transformation. Considering Korea's strengths in this area, it is time to incorporate a separate digital strategy in the Country Partnership Strategy (CPS), as some donor countries have. Securing development cooperation funding in the next few years will not be easy due to the global economic downturn and quantitative easing measures implemented during the pandemic. In this situation, it is significant that Korea is one of the few OECD DAC countries to increase its ODA budget after COVID-19. Now is the opportune time to focus on qualitative growth beyond mere quantitative expansion.

Director Lee Dong-hyun, Ghana Office

CD Lee: Ultimately, I believe that strategy is priority. If you have 100 resources, you allocate them in order of priority. The same applies to international development cooperation projects. In Korea alone, there are dozens of organizations active in development cooperation. Formulating a plan to concentrate limited resources among various actors and partners is challenging, often resulting in the even distribution of resources. Similarly, you could say that the SDGs are an expression of the international community's desire to encompass a wide range of objectives and priorities. In response to the global polycrisis, KOICA is considering a system that simultaneously addresses both emergency response and long-term development. We hope to see visible results by next year. On the other hand, KOICA has also begun preparations for a disaster monitoring system utilizing open-source data. While actively engaging in the international community and advocating for decision-making processes, KOICA intends to concentrate its efforts on project sites where its capabilities are strongest.