earticle

영어

This study compares the determinants of climate-related development finance by Korea and Japan. Using a 2010–2021 donor–recipient panel (115 recipients), we estimate PCSE models on Rio Marker “principal” climate finance. Explanatory blocks cover climate risk (INFORM), donor strategic interests (trade, military share, distance), recipient need (income, under-five mortality, LDC), and recipient merit (government quality, tertiary education, priority-partner status), with standard controls. Results show a common rule: higher climate risk is associated with larger allocations; trade links raise, and distance lowers, disbursements. Japan systematically reduces funding to recipients with higher military spending and places greater weight on government quality, whereas Korea displays a strong priority-partner effect. Both donors allocate relatively less to LDCs and exhibit path dependence through strong lag effects. A historical-institutionalist reading links these patterns to Japan’s ASEAN-centered strategy and environmental diplomacy–human security framing, and to Korea’s diplomatic– economic origins, learning from Japan and DAC convergence, and policy legacies in green growth and water infrastructure. Policy implications include re-targeting toward highly vulnerable countries, managing regional bias, and developing KOICA–JICA joint, risk-based programs that also strengthen recipient institutions.