Kim posits that North Korea during the 1950s and the 1960s was part of a broader fabric of global urban experiments, receiving substantial foreign architectural aid for urban construction, more swiftly than other socialist countries, including Vietnam. This influx of aid facilitated North Korea’s early adoption of advanced architectural technologies and theories, placing it ahead of South Korea in urban development. However, the intricate relationships and evolving aid dynamics with fraternal socialist countries within the Cold War paradigm later emerged as one of the motivating factors for North Korea to prioritize independent architectural development. Meanwhile, ROK technical assistance to Africa is often discussed in the context of post-1968 aid in form of doctors, ambulances, and equipment. As Jung points out, this style of aid is generally regarded as part of diplomatic recognition from post-colonial allies, with South Korea seeking exclusive recognition from its partners, effectively blocking North Korea’s position² Similar forms of Cold War competition took place between Taiwan and the PRC (People’s Republic of China), the two Germanys, and the two Vietnams, occupying much of the three decades spanning the 1950s through the 1970s.³ In the case of South Korea, the nation would not “catch up” to North Korea until some point in the mid to late 1970s, still a subject of scholarly debate.

The two papers appearing here continue the special issue theme, focusing on technical aid to Africa, and an ethnographic account of what this style of practice might look like in the present-day. John DiMoia’s paper looks at the pre-1968 formulation of outreach to Africa, which began as early as the Chang Myon government (1960–1961), when Korean diplomats recognized that post-colonial African nations were starting to grow in number. In fact, there was a considerable amount of activity in Africa prior to 1968, as the South Korean government sought to form a body capable of controlling and regulating its overseas activity, an institution later known as KODCO (Korean Overseas Development Corporation).⁴ Adding to this, Young-su Park’s paper looks at medical aid to Ethiopia, with an emphasis on a lack of fit between the donor party and the recipient nation. Park reads this in terms of motivations deriving from the New Village Movement (Saemaul Undong) of the 1970s, which targeted South Korean villages, and which was revived in spirit under President Park Geun-hye (2012–2017).

Park’s paper shows these issues through an emphasis upon “rationalization,” a stress on metrics and quantitative style, without paying close attention to the needs of local communities on the ground. Indeed, this issue remains a common problem in global health practice, as medical aid bodies tend to be responsible first to their home government, patrons, and international bodies. Similarly, the New Village Movement, from which this present form of aid takes many of its ideas, provided training, materials, and ideology to Korean villages for much of the 1970s. Even today, the distinct blue and orange roofs of many rural areas mark those areas which once received these materials, as the construction tended to produce a certain uniformity. For Park, a medical anthropologist, the echoes between these two types of campaigns offer insights into the ongoing problems of providing global health. The issue is no longer one dominated exclusively by powerful nations, as even post-colonial partners, who went through similar types of experiences, may have difficulty understanding.

Along similar lines, scholars from a range of fields have begun to point to these types of cases, with examples coming from diverse areas of expertise. Sarah van Beurden of Ohio State University has analyzed the politics of South Korean aid to the Congo, where the building of a national museum reflects diplomatic ties linked to mineral rights.⁵ Jon Sangkhamanee, a Thai scholar, offers village examples comparable to those explored by Park, with Thai villagers singing Korean songs from the 1970s, while likely lacking awareness of their militarized content.⁶ Although these cases reflect a growing body of scholarship, to date there has been little effort to synthesize, to offer a frame that goes beyond the Park Chung-hee period (1961–1979). Indeed, the gap between these recent examples and the existing historiography is a conspicuous one, with the mid-1960s and the early 1990s appearing frequently as the end points, and with much less attention devoted to the intervening period.

For this intervening period, there remains a great deal of potential for research, with these papers offering a starting point. The broader literature on “science diplomacy” offers another point of entry, with Jaehwan Hyun’s work in this area offering a specific focus on South Korea.⁷ Jamie Doucette of the University of Manchester offers another perspective, with his frequent work on urban spaces, and his forth-coming book on the restructuring of the Korean economy since 1997.⁸ Scholars such as Jim Glassman (Thailand) and Young-sun Hong (Germany) focus on other regions and nations in partnership with Korea, while offering an interesting take on relations within the context of their primary focus.⁹ The point here remains that both the domestic (gender, labor, regionalism) and the international (Southeast Asia, Middle East) offer great potential for moving beyond a tight focus on Park Chung-hee, and key developmental institutions such as KODCO have scarcely been analyzed to date.¹⁰