This study analyzes global trends and shifting policy agendas in Aid for Trade (AfT) and compares the AfT implementation systems of major donor countries, including the Republic of Korea, to draw policy implications for improving Korea's AfT policy.

AfT currently faces a challenging funding environment. Total Official Development Assistance (ODA) from members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) fell by 23.1 percent year-on-year in 2025 to USD 174.3 billion, marking the sharpest decline on record. This decrease was driven by simultaneous cuts from the five largest donors, namely the United States, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Japan, with the United States alone recording a 56.9 percent reduction. This decline in development finance is also expected to have a significant impact on Aid for Trade (AfT), although responses vary across donor countries. While European donors have reduced both the share of AfT within ODA and its absolute volume, Japan has instead expanded both its AfT share and overall commitments, maintaining its position as the largest AfT donor since 2022.

Globally, AfT continues to center on economic infrastructure and productive capacity building―accounting for 56.7 percent and 40.6 percent of total AfT in 2024, respectively―while its policy agenda has steadily broadened from global value chain participation and regional trade integration (2011-2015) to the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and climate action (2016-) and supply chain resilience and digital trade (2021-). Korea's AfT expenditure nearly doubled from USD 0.58 billion in 2015 to USD 1.12 billion in 2024, ranking among the top seven donors, with an AfT share of ODA (about 31 percent) exceeding the global share of 18.1 percent. However, Korea's portfolio remains disproportionately concentrated in economic infrastructure (68.9 percent, above the global share of 56.7 percent), while trade policy and regulation support accounts for only 0.9 percent. Meanwhile, its digital economy and innovation share has grown rapidly, from 8.2 percent in 2015 to 23.4 percent in 2024, the highest share among major comparator donors.

A comparative analysis of Japan, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Australia identifies common features across policy, governance, financing, and performance management: these donors explicitly reference AfT (or trade-development linkages) in top-level policy documents, institutionalize consultation channels between development and trade authorities, and separately manage, brand, and communicate AfT outcomes through international platforms such as the AfT Global Review. Japan, in particular, coordinates across different ministries through Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), an integrated grant-and-loan implementing agency, and a cabinet-level coordination council, explicitly linking economic security and supply chain connectivity to its development cooperation charter.

Benchmarked against these cases, Korea's AfT implementation system reveals clear gaps in policy strategy, governance, and performance management. No single authority is responsible for AfT planning and inter-ministerial coordination―a structural consequence of the bifurcation between grant aid (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) and concessional loans (Ministry of Economy and Finance), as well as the presence of a separate trade ministry (Ministry of Trade, Industry and Resources). As a result, Korea's AfT achievements remain scattered across individual ministry reports and are undervalued both domestically and internationally, while its participation in the AfT Global Review has been limited to survey-level monitoring and evaluation reporting.

This study argues that Korea's AfT challenge lies not in a lack of resources or performance, but in how AfT is recognized and institutionally designed: Korea already possesses proven achievements―such as the export of the UNI-PASS customs system to seven African countries and Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA)'s smart farm projects―that have yet to be integrated into a coherent AfT policy framework. This governance gap also entails a strategic opportunity cost, as emerging AfT agendas in which Korea holds comparative advantages―supply chain security and critical minerals, digital trade rules, and climate-trade linkages―are being shaped by other donors while Korea remains largely absent from the discussion.

The study proposes five institutional tasks for building a Korean AfT implementation system: (1) establishing a cross-cutting integrated policy framework by reclassifying AfT-relevant content scattered across regional and sectoral strategies; (2) formalizing governance through official consultation channels among the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Economy and Finance, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Resources, KOICA, and the Economic Development Cooperation Fund (EDCF); (3) developing verified achievements such as UNI-PASS and smart farm projects into impact stories and elevating Korea's engagement in the AfT Global Review to the level of session hosting; (4) building an integrated performance management system to consolidate and report AfT outcomes across ministries; and (5) proactively engaging in the formation of emerging trade-development agendas through the WTO Committee on Trade and Development and the AfT Global Review. The 10th AfT Global Review, to be held in Geneva in October 2026 to mark the 20th anniversary of the AfT Initiative, represents the nearest opportunity for Korea to demonstrate progress on these tasks.

Ultimately, building an AfT implementation system is not merely a matter of improving aid efficiency and effectiveness. It is about positioning AfT as a policy instrument linked to Korea's trade and economic diplomacy strategy, and laying the groundwork for Korea to serve as a norm-setter amid the ongoing reshaping of the global geoeconomic order.

요 약

제1장 서 론
　제1절 연구 배경과 목적
　제2절 최근 AfT 환경 변화와 연구 질문
참고문헌

제2장 AfT의 국제적 흐름과 정책의제 동향
　제1절 AfT의 개념과 데이터 체계
　제2절 AfT의 국제적 흐름
　제3절 AfT 정책의제의 변화
　제4절 AfT 지원 체계의 구조와 변화
　제5절 소결 및 시사점
참고문헌
부 록

제3장 한국 AfT의 현황과 국제 비교
　제1절 한국 AfT의 규모 및 추이
　제2절 한국 AfT의 정책의제 동향
　제3절 한국 AfT의 지원 체계 및 주요 사업 사례
　제4절 소결 및 시사점
참고문헌
부 록

제4장 주요 공여국의 AfT 추진 체계 사례 분석
　제1절 공여국 사례 분석의 목적과 분석 방법
　제2절 일본의 AfT 추진 체계
　제3절 영국의 AfT 추진 체계
　제4절 네덜란드의 AfT 추진 체계
　제5절 호주의 AfT 추진 체계
　제6절 소 결
참고문헌

제5장 한국의 AfT 추진 체계에 대한 시사점
　제1절 공여국 사례 종합 분석과 시사점
　제2절 한국 AfT 추진 체계의 현황 진단
　제3절 한국의 AfT 추진 체계 개선 방향
참고문헌

제6장 결 론

ABSTRACT