The International Journal of the History of Sport

ISSN: 0952-3367 (Print) 1743-9035 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fhsp20

From Development of Sport to Development

through Sport: A Paradigm Shift for Sport
Development in South Korea

Jae-Pil Ha, Karam Lee & Gwang Ok

To cite this article: Jae-Pil Ha, Karam Lee & Gwang Ok (2015) From Development of
Sport to Development through Sport: A Paradigm Shift for Sport Development in
South Korea, The International Journal of the History of Sport, 32:10, 1262-1278, DOI:
10.1080/09523367.2015.1062756

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09523367.2015.1062756

Published online: 20 Oct 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 77

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fhsp20

Download by: [Gazi University] Date: 05 February 2016, At: 18:19

 The International Journal of the History of Sport, 2015
Vol. 32, No. 10, 1262–1278, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09523367.2015.1062756

From Development of Sport to Development through Sport:

A Paradigm Shift for Sport Development in South Korea
Jae-Pil Haa, Karam Leeb and Gwang Okc*
a
Department of Physical Education, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju, Republic of Korea;
b
Yulhyeon Middle School, Suwon, Republic of Korea; cDepartment of Physical Education,
Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Republic of Korea

During the past several decades, South Korea has gained tremendous international
recognition by achieving an excellent performance in a variety of international sport
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 18:19 05 February 2016

competitions and hosting numerous mega-sporting events. Although success in elite

sport (i.e. Development of Sport approach) has contributed to making South Korea one
of the sport powerhouses in the world, South Korea has paid very little attention to the
role that sport can play as a tool for social and personal development (i.e. Development
through Sport approach). Similarly, scholars also paid little attention to the
‘development through sport’ approach in South Korea while predominantly focusing
their attention in taking the ‘development of sport’ approach. In recent years, however,
the South Korean government has begun to show interest in the ‘development through
sport’ approach to become a truly advanced sporting nation. Thus, the purpose of this
paper is to explore how South Korea’s paradigm in sport has historically shifted from
‘development of sport’ to ‘development through sport’ in its socio-political context.
Keywords: development of sport; development through sport; elite sport; South Korea;
sport for all

Introduction
Considering the geopolitics, territorial size, and population of South Korea (hereafter
referred to as Korea), its athletic performance in international sports competitions has been
outstanding. Specifically, from 1984 onwards, Korea has maintained a top 10 ranking in
the medal standings at every Summer Olympic Games, with the exception of the 2000
Sydney Olympics ranking at 12th place. Likewise, Korea has achieved a high level of
success at the Winter Olympics since winning its first Winter Olympic medal in the 1992
Albertville Olympics. In light of hosting mega sporting events, Korea has become one of
the six countries in the world who have hosted four major international sporting events,
such as the Summer Olympic Games in 1988, FIFA World Cup in 2002, the World
Athletics Championships in 2011, and the forthcoming Winter Olympic Games in 2018.
Furthermore, Korea has been selected as a host country for the Asian Games three times
during the last three decades: 1986 in Seoul, 2002 in Busan, and 2014 in Incheon. Owing
to such tremendous achievements in hosting mega sporting events and demonstrating
excellence in elite sport, Korea today is internationally regarded as a sporting powerhouse
at the level of elite sport.1 Although the emphasis on the elite sport achievements at
international stages and hosting numerous mega sporting events may have contributed to
gaining significant international recognition and national pride and prestige, much less has

*Corresponding author. Email: gwangok@yahoo.com

q 2015 Taylor & Francis

 2 Paradigm Shift for Sport Development 1263

been scrutinized or documented about the fundamental values and social implications of
sport in the context of contemporary Korea.2
Historically, as noted above, Korea has primarily maintained the ‘development of
sport’ approach, which focuses on elite progression with an emphasis on ensuring sporting
organizations attract and nurture talent to encourage elite level representation.3 This
approach predominantly focuses on performance in elite sport.4 While the true value of
sport has often been jeopardized by the outcome-obsessed sports culture, which is mainly
derived from the ‘development of sport’ approach, this approach has undergone criticism.
In an effort to overcome this critique, Korea has attempted to utilize the true value and
power of sport as a vehicle for various personal and social developments as well as
positive social change since the beginning of the twenty-first century. This approach is
known as the ‘development through sport’ or ‘sport for development’, which primarily
focuses on the role sport can play in contributing to social development and social change.
This is echoed in the United Nations’ explanation and justification for the ‘development
through sport’ approach:
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 18:19 05 February 2016

By its very nature sport is about participation. It is about inclusion and citizenship. Sport
brings individuals and communities together, highlighting commonalities and bridging
cultural or ethnic divides. Sport provides a forum to learn skills such as discipline, confidence,
and leadership and teaches core principles such as tolerance, cooperation, and respect. Sport
teaches the value of effort and how to manage victory as well as defeat. When these positive
aspects of sport are emphasised, sport becomes a powerful vehicle through which the United
Nations can work towards achieving its goals.5
Even though there are long-standing beliefs about the power and pro-social character
of sport in Korea, the ‘development through approach’ has been widespread in earnest
after the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were established at the UN
Millennium Summit in September 2000.6 Domestically, numerous sport for development
(SFD) programmes and initiatives are currently facilitating such social improvements as
reinforcing social integration and inclusion, promoting tolerance and non-discrimination,
advocating healthy lifestyle among others. Most of these programmes are targeting those
at risk and vulnerable circumstances (e.g. youth, ethnic minorities, women, and people
with disabilities).7 For instance, with the rapid increase of immigrants and foreigners in
Korea,8 assistance for their adaption into a new society has become a critical issue.
To address this social issue, there has been a substantial increase in the use of sporting
programmes to help multi-ethnic people integrate into Korean society based on central and
local government support.9 In the similar vein, Korea is also actively participating in
various international SFD programmes as part of international cooperation and assistance.
One of the most representative programmes is the Pyeongchang Dream Program.10 This
programme is being hosted by the Pyeongchang Organising Committee for the 2018
Winter Olympic Games to provide hands-on experience of winter sports for youth and
children in developing countries where winter sports are not available. It also helps to
foster closer ties among nations and enrich the participants through cultural exchange.
Based on the aforementioned discussion, it is argued that sport in Korea is now in the
process of a paradigm shift from ‘development of sport’ to ‘development through sport’.
As such, this paper aims to explore how historically this paradigm shift has occurred in
Korean sport based on political and social perspectives. Specifically, this article first
presents a brief conceptualization and overview of two approaches (i.e. development of
sport and development through sport) with regard to sporting development. It is then
followed by a history of ‘development of sport’ and ‘development through sport’ in Korea
by considering its socio-political context. At the end of this paper, the authors proposed
 1264 J.-P. Ha et al. 3

future direction of international cooperation through sport in light of the ‘development

through sport’ approach. Since historical perspective is adopted, this study is mainly
grounded in qualitative research such as a literature review and document analysis.

Two Approaches in Sport Development: Development of Sport and Development

through Sport
Generally, sport development refers to sport participation itself and promoting the
opportunities and benefits of its participation.11 The concept of sport development has
mostly been covered in the fields of sports sociology and sports management.12 In the
literature, sports development has been studied from various approaches, but the main
approaches have been the development of sport and the development through sport. While
both approaches associate with facilitating sports participation, there are differences in
purposes and desired outcomes. In addition, competing values exist between the two
approaches.13 First, development of sport is considered to be a traditional approach,
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 18:19 05 February 2016

representing the creation and enhancement of sport (e.g. the provision of sport coaching
and facilities) intended to build sport capacity.14 In other words, the development of sport
refers to the development of sports itself. Accordingly, it centres on ‘the need for sport
organisations to ensure a sustainable future by attracting and nurturing participants likely
to progress through the system and represents a sport at the elite level’.15 Traditionally, the
development of sport approach has been dominated by the Pyramid Model, which
illustrates the connection between a wide base of sport participants at the lowest level and
the elite athletes at the top.16 According to the Pyramid Model (Figure 1), the objective is
to recruit/attract a large number of people (particularly children and youth) into sports and
then to develop those with talent into high-calibre performers. In the pyramid model, there
are two perspectives: (a) bottom-up or trickle-down effect and (b) top-down or trickle-up
effect.17 The former perspective is about injecting more resources at the bottom of the
pyramid (i.e. mass sport) expecting that a wide base will produce many excellent elite

Figure 1 Pyramid model of sport development (development of sport approach)19

 4 Paradigm Shift for Sport Development 1265

athletes. On the other hand, the latter is about allocating more resources at the top (i.e. elite
sport). Of the two perspectives, during the last four decades Korea has solely focused on
the top-down perspective to elevate national prestige through successful performance at
international sporting events.18
The second approach of sport development is development through sport (also referred
to as SFD), which is a more recent approach. This approach views sport as a powerful
engine to drive various development schemes that cover the followings20:
. Resolution of inter-group conflict (facilitating diplomacy in international relations).
. Human development (physical and psychological benefits).
. Promotion of cultural understanding.
. Development of infrastructures (physical, social, and community).
. Health promotion and disease prevention.
. Empowerment (often on how sport can empower girls and women).
. Social integration and the development of social capital.
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 18:19 05 February 2016

. Driving of economic development (as seen through national development strategies

of some low-income countries that aim to encourage an increase in foreign direct
investment and sport tourism through, for example, staging sports events).
As a matter of fact, for example, sport has been successfully used in improving
diplomatic relationships among various countries throughout history (i.e. resolution of
inter-group conflict).21 Thus, development through sport ‘focuses on the role sport can
play in enhancing the well-being of individuals, communities, and societies and
participation in sport is understood to be inherently good and contributes to healthy
communities both physically and socially’.22 While this approach was relatively well
known among sport policy-makers in the past, the SFD movement has not been fully
recognized by many nations until the UN MDGs were established in 2000. Indeed, since
then, there has been a considerable increase in the number of SFD programmes and
initiatives around the world to address identified social issues and problems. Specifically,
numerous SFD programmes have been ‘implemented to redress discrimination and
encourage respect for ‘others’; bridge social, cultural and ethnic divides; combat HIV/
AIDS; eliminate non-communicable diseases; contribute to gender equality; and heal
psychological wounds among traumatised victims of disasters, civil unrest or war’.23 As of
July 2014, there are a total of 572 organizations involved in SFD programmes worldwide,
ranging from sporting federations, to local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to
government agencies.24
Looking at a brief history of the SFD movement, the movement originally gained
momentum in 2001, when Kofi Annan, who was former UN Secretary General, nominated
Adolf Ogi as the first Special Advisor to the UN Secretary General on Sport for
Development and Peace (the current Special Advisor is Wilfried Lemke). Adolf Ogi
attempted to use sports as a tool mainly to promote and achieve the UN MDGs.25 With the
increasing importance of SFD, UN Resolution 58/5 in 2003, entitled ‘Sport as a means to
promote education, health, development and peace’, was passed and called for various
stakeholders (e.g. governments, sport institutions, and NGOs) to promote sport as part of
development programmes and policies.26 The Resolution 58/5 was a driving force to
declare 2005 the International Year of Sport and Physical Education (IYSPE) and promote
the significance of sport as a tool for development and peace across the world. On the basis
of the momentum for the Resolution, the Sport for Development and Peace International
Working Group (SDP IWG) was established in 2004 to ‘articulate and promote the
adoption of policy recommendations to governments for the integration of sport and
 1266 J.-P. Ha et al. 5

physical activity into their domestic and international development strategies and
programs’.27 The SDP IWG also reemphasized the importance of sport as a vehicle for
achieving the MDGs. Table 1 explains the potential contribution of sport corresponding to
the MDGs. More recently, to further raise awareness of the SFD movement, the UN
General Assembly proclaimed 6 April as the International Day of Sport for Development
andPeace (IDSDP) and the first IDSDP was celebrated on 6 April 2014.
Since the beginnings of the new millennium, the UN and its agencies and the
International Olympic Committee (IOC) have produced several publications about the
value, implementation, and evaluation of the SFD movement.29 A common thread in these
publications was emphasizing the critical role that sport can play in promoting
development schemes at individual, regional, national, and international levels as it is
understood in SFD movement to have a transformative power. The publications called for
NGOs, government organizations, international and national sport federations, and
corporations to integrate sport into their development initiatives and programmes.
In light of the SFD movement, sport-based Official Development Assistance (ODA)
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 18:19 05 February 2016

activities are briskly arising among developed countries (e.g. US, UK, Australia,
Germany, and Norway) and international sports organizations.30 The ODA activities are
mainly implemented to promote international cooperation and friendship among various
nations around the world. In recent years, Korea is also taking part in ODA activities
through sport in an effort to become an advanced, first-rate country, in the area of sport.31
By doing so, it is argued that Korea would be a country who is fostering both international
competitiveness in athletic performance and international cooperation through sport.32

Table 1 Potential contribution of sport corresponding to the millennium development goals28

MDGs Contribution of sport

1. Eradicate extreme poverty and
hunger
2. Achieve universal primary
education
3. Promote gender equality and
empower women
4. Reduce child mortality
5. Improve maternal health
6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria,
and other diseases
7. Ensure environmental
sustainability
8. Develop a global partnership
for development
1 Participants, volunteers, and coaches acquire transferable life
skills, which increase their employability
1 Sport can help prevent diseases that impeded people from
working and impose health care costs on individuals and
communities
1 School sport programmes motivate children to enrol in and
attend school and can help improve academic achievement
1 Sport helps improve female physical and mental health and
offers opportunities for social interaction and friendship
1 Girls and women access leadership opportunities and
experience
1 Sport can be used to educate and deliver health information to
young mothers, resulting in healthier children
1 Sport-based vaccination and prevention campaigns help
reduce child deaths and disability from measles, malaria, and
polio
1 Increased fitness levels help speed up post-natal recovery
1 Sport programmes can be used to reduce stigma and increase
social and economic integration of people living with HIV/
AIDS and other diseases
1 Sport-based public education campaigns can raise awareness
of importance of environmental protection and sustainability
1 SPD and Peace efforts catalyze global partnerships and
increase networking among governments, donors, NGOs, and
sport organizations worldwide
 Paradigm Shift for Sport Development 1267

Development of Sport in South Korea

President Park Jung-Hee’s military-based regime (1961 –1979), which is the Third and
Fourth Republics, is historically considered a starting point for the development of modern
Korean sport. Prior to the 1960s, Korea was unable to pay attention to sport due to
economic poverty, political chaos, and social instability mostly derived from the Korean
War.33 As a result, the Korean government could not afford to include provision for sport
in the national budget before Park’s regime. However, the rise to power of President Park
was a sign foretelling tremendous changes in sport.
Just like authoritarian regimes in other countries, sport, during Park’s regime, was used
as a tool to promote political ideology as well as to establish political legitimacy.34
Particularly, following the Korean War, the ideological confrontation on the Korean
peninsula offered Park’s regime favourable environments to use sport as a political and
ideological tool so the authoritarian government employed sport as a means of increasing
nationalism and securing the regime’s legitimacy.35 As a consequence to this tactic, much
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 18:19 05 February 2016

attention was paid to the development of elite sport during that period. Indeed, President
Park expressed his commitment to elite sport at the opening ceremony for the Korean
Sports Council Hall in June 1966 by stating that:
We must know that our athletes going abroad to participate in international games and
achieving splendid records have achieved more than hundreds of our foreign diplomats
spending large budgets ever have.36
Kwan-Sik Min (1918 –2006), one of the pioneers in Korean sport by serving as a
President of the Korean Amateur Sports Association (KASA) during the 1960s,
emphasized the importance of sport science and facilities for the development of elite
sport right after South Korea showed poor performance at the 1964 Tokyo Olympics.37
This was evidenced in the construction of a national training centre for national athletes,
called ‘Taeneung Athletic Village’, in 1966. The Village still plays a critical role in
achieving elite sport success at international sport competitions. In addition, there are
several further meaningful achievements for the development of Korean elite sport. First,
the ‘Athletic Specialist System’ in 1972, which was institutionally designed to develop
talented young athletes in school sport, helped to lay the foundation of Korean elite sport.
Regardless of their academic performance, the system provided an opportunity for young
athletes to enter high-quality schools with sport scholarships as long as they advanced to
the semi-finals in national athletic tournaments.38 However, despite the good intent of the
system, it brought about problems such as infringement of student-athlete’s learning
rights, failure of integrating them into general school life, violence, maltreatment of
student-athletes by coaches, and so on.39 Second, the KASA, currently known as the
Korean Olympic Council (KOC), introduced the ‘Life Pension System’ for elite athletes
who won medals in major international sporting events. After selection as a host country
for the 1986 Asian Games and the 1988 Seoul Olympics, the pension name was changed to
‘Performance Enhancing Research Pension’.40 The pension system which motivated
athletes to excel in performance was ‘indicative of the philosophy of the government
towards elite sport success and reflected the growing concern of the government over elite
sport development’.41 Tables 2 and 3 display the current method of point evaluation and
monthly payment for the pension system, respectively.42 Another aspect that contributed
to the development of elite sport during Park’s presidency was the ‘Military Service
Exemption Law’ for elite athletes enacted in 1973. This law gave an exemption benefit for
the mandatory military service to athletes who achieved excellent performance in
international sporting events.43 Thanks to this law, the athletes continued to carry on their
 1268 J.-P. Ha et al. 7

Table 2 A method of point evaluation for the performance enhancing research pension

Gold Silver Bronze 4th 5th 6th

Types of competitions medal medal medal place place place
The Olympic Games 90 70 40 8 4 2
The Paralympics and The Deaflympics 90 70 40 – – –
The World Athletic Championships
4-year cycle 45 12 7 – – –
2 – 3-year cycle 30 7 5 – – –
1-year cycle 20 5 2 – – –
The Asian Games, The Universiade, and The 10 2 1 – – –
Military (CISM) World Games
Source: http://www.kspo.or.kr/?menuno¼ 105

sport careers. The enactment of the law was considered the government’s strategic plan in
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 18:19 05 February 2016

providing benefits for elite athletes in pursuit of sport excellence.

Shortly after President Park’s assassination in 1979, Chun Doo-Hwan, another
military-based regime, took over the government (the Fifth Republic, 1980– 1988). Like
Park Jung-Hee, he became the president of Korea through a military coup so that the
legitimacy of government was problematic as well. Owing to this, Chun’s regime
continued to use sport or mega-sporting events as a political tool for the establishment of
the government’s political legitimacy.44 It has also been argued that the Chun’s regime
utilized sport to divert the public’s attention from politics as a political strategy.45 By
doing so, Chun’s regime was able to induce political indifference among most citizens,
making his control of the public easier.
Specifically, three professional sports, namely the Korean Professional Baseball
League, the Korean Professional Soccer League, and Korean Professional Traditional
Wrestling (known as Ssirreum), commenced in the early 1980s. Additionally, the
government’s successful bids for the 1986 Asian Games and 1988 Olympic Games
accelerated the nation’s elite sport development. To successfully host the two mega-
sporting events, the Ministry of Sport was established in 1982. The establishment of the
Ministry of Sport was clear evidence of the government’s commitment to elite sport
development.46 It is worth noting that the Ministry’s importance during the Fifth Republic
was manifested by selecting key figures as the Ministers of Sport such as Roh Tae-Woo.
He was the second ranked politician during Chun’s regime and later became President of

Table 3 A way of monthly payment for the performance enhancing research pension based on
point evaluation (Table 2)

Points Monthly payment Criteria (unit: won)

20 – 30 300,000 – 450,000 won From 20 points 150,000 won per 10 points
30 – 100 525,000 – 975,000 won (1,000,000
won for Olympic gold medal)
75,000 won per 10 points
100– 110 1,000,000 won (upper limit) 25,000 won per 10 points
Above 1,500,000 won per 10 excess points (5,000,000
110 won for Olympic gold medal only)
Note: For Olympic gold (90 points), silver (70 points), and bronze medals (40 points), 1,000,000 won, 750,000
won, and 525,000 won are paid, respectively.
Source: http://www.kspo.or.kr/?menuno¼ 105
 8 Paradigm Shift for Sport Development 1269

Korea in 1988. Below is Roh Tae-Woo’s inaugural speech as the first Minister of Sport
that emphasized the importance of sport development:
The Ministry of Sport was established with the purpose of fully committing to the preparation
for the Seoul Asian Games and Olympics and . . . [being ready to become a] developed sport
nation. To achieve the aim, we will put every effort into talent identification, training coaches,
sport science, remodelling old facilities, strengthening the sport organizations such as Korean
Sport Council (KSC) and National Sports Federations, and developing school and society,
military sport.47
It is also important to note that the Fifth (President Chun’s regime: 1980– 1988) and
Sixth Republics (President Roh’s regime: 1988 –1993) started to construct specialist sport
schools across the nation with the aim of nurturing and promoting talented athletes in the
future.48 These schools include: the Korea National Sport University in 1983, Gyeongnam
Physical Education High School in 1984, Chungbuk Physical Education High School in
1988, Kangwon Physical Education High School in 1991, and Chungnam Physical
Education High School in 1992. Furthermore, the Armed Forces Athletic Corps (known as
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 18:19 05 February 2016

Phoenix Sangmu) was established in 1984 and played a crucial role in the development of
elite sport because this provided male athletes an opportunity to continue to play as
athletes during military service.49 Accordingly, the two regimes from 1980 to 1993
achieved much in the area of elite sport despite severe criticism for undemocratic politics.
The government played the principal role in the process of modern development in sport
during this era.
However, one of the main critiques about sport development policies in the 1980s was
the lack of governments’ interests in mass sport participation with the concept of ‘Sport for
All’.50 As a consequence, the Korean sport development system was a reversed pyramid in
which elite sport was not based on mass sport participation. However, unlike the previous
military-based governments in the 1980s, each government, during the period dating from
1993 to today, has put an emphasis on ‘Sport for All’ to promote mass sport participation.
This is largely due to rapid changes in socio-cultural environments such as the
implementation of a five-day workweek system, the increase in national income, and the
orientation towards individualism.51 According to the Five Year National Sport Plan by
President Roh Mu-Hyun’s government (2003 –2008), the ultimate goal of the government
was to raise the mass sport participation rate above 50 percent (according to the Ministry
of Culture and Tourism). This is one of the clear evidences that the governments since
1993 have been stepping up their effort to promote mass sport participation.
In contrast, elite sport was given relatively little attention during the period.
In particular, the financial crisis (also known as the IMF crisis) in 1997 tremendously
damaged elite sport development. During 1997– 1998, over 50 business-based unpopular
sports teams (e.g. athletics, handball, and gymnastics) disappeared and approximately 430
athletes, coaches, and managers lost their teams.52 Even though the government’s interests
in elite sport development has decreased since 1993, it is unreasonable to say that the
government showed indifference in elite sport. From 1993 onwards, each government
announced the Five Year National Sport Promotion Plans and the plans kept stating that
Korea aimed to finish in the top 10 at the Olympic medal standings.53 In addition, the
government’s concern on elite sport was evidenced in hosting various international mega-
sporting events: the 1997 East Asian Games, the 1997 Winter Universiade, the 1999
Winter Asian Games, the 2002 Summer Asian Games, the 2002 Korean-Japan World Cup,
the 2003 Summer Universiade, the 2011 World Athletics Championships, and the 2014
Asian Games. Further, South Korea is scheduled to host the 2015 Summer Universiade
and the 2018 Winter Olympic Games. Of these events, the Korean government has spent
 1270 J.-P. Ha et al. 9

approximately 2,300 billion won to host the 2011 World Athletics Championships.54 This
is clear evidence of how much emphasis Korea puts on hosting a mega-sporting event to
develop elite sport.

Development through Sport in South Korea

Before discussing ‘development through sport’ in Korea, it should be noted that sport was
often employed to develop better community and citizen life outcomes through a ‘welfare
state’ process.55 This is quite consistent with the definition of ‘development through sport’,
which focuses on public and community well-being.56 Thus, it is reasonable that
‘development through sport’ can be approached with the perspective of welfare.
As mentioned previously, although the concept of ‘development through sport’ has
long been introduced, it has been garnering attention around the world in earnest after the
establishment of UN MDGs in 2000. Coinciding with this trend, Korea also began to
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 18:19 05 February 2016

participate in various ‘development through sport’ programmes and initiatives both

domestically and internationally. The main target groups of these are underprivileged
people in disadvantaged areas, such as women, ethnic minority individuals, people with
disabilities, at-risk youth, refugees, and elderly people.57 Domestically, ‘Sport Equipment
Support Program’ and ‘Sport Camp’ are annually operated by the central government for
the target groups mentioned above. For instance, in 2012, a total of 19,956 items of sports
equipment were distributed to 10,600 local child centres, elderly facilities, and social-
welfare facilities across the nation.58 Particularly, considering the dramatic increase of
people with multi-cultural backgrounds, numerous SFD programmes have been running
for them since 2006. Specifically, such programmes as ‘Sport Class’, ‘Eowoolrim
Festival’, ‘Eowoolrim Sport Camp’, and ‘Family Camp’ were provided for multi-cultural
groups to help them adapt well to Korean society. The success of these programmes can be
observed from statistics gathered in 2012 stating that over 150,000 people took part in the
above programmes.59 In addition to the central government level, SFD programmes are
actively operated by the local government and private levels. In particular, these
programmes were operating based on cooperation between municipal governments and
professional sport teams/star players in various sports.60 However, despite such efforts for
the SFD movement, there are two main problems of the SFD programmes.61 First, most
SFD programmes running in the domestic level remain a one-time event without
considering any long-term strategic plans. Second, the SFD programmes would rather
foster ‘social exclusion’ as opposed to ‘social inclusion’ because most programmes are
designed and implemented only for the disadvantaged groups limiting participation with
their counterparts (i.e. the general public). Of course, it goes without saying that the SFD
programmes should be initially designed to target the disadvantaged groups. However, as
time passes, the programmes should be ultimately implemented to make the two groups
participate together for ‘true social integration’, which is consistent with the concept of
‘development through sport’.
Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, Korea has also been actively involved
in various SFD programmes and initiatives to promote international cooperation and
relationships. Indeed, the Five Year National Sport Promotion Plan announced by the Roh
Mu-Hyun administration (2003 –2007) in 2003 has started to emphasize the importance of
international cooperation via sport.62 The Korean Sports Promotion Foundation (KPSO)
has also rapidly increased the budget for international cooperation and exchange in the
twenty-first century, from 4,000 million won in 2004 to 411,990 million won in 2013.63 It
is worth noting that the main reason for participating in international development through
 10 Paradigm Shift for Sport Development 1271

sport is that Korea would like to become a ‘truly advanced country’ in sports. A truly
advanced sporting county refers to one that it is showing success at elite-level international
sporting events and hosting the events, as well as the contribution to international
cooperation through sport.64
One of the most representative programmes with regard to international development
through sport in Korea is the ‘Sport Partnership Program’. This programme assists and
cooperates with other countries, particularly developing countries. The programme is
designed to provide sports equipment and joint athletic training services, and to despatch
athletic coaches to various developing countries such as Nigeria, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan,
Bhutan, and so forth.65 In particular, South Korea is vigorously utilizing Taekwondo, which is
the Korean traditional martial art, as a tool for promoting international cooperation. In 2012,
the government allocated 1,150 million won to despatch 23 Taekwondo masters to 23
developing countries.66 Korea is also involved in sport-based international development via
mega-sporting events. For example, Incheon strategically proposed the ‘Incheon Vision 2014’
programme to be selected as a host city of the 2014 Asian Games in 2007. The programme is a
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 18:19 05 February 2016

joint initiative between Incheon Metropolitan City and the Olympic Council of Asia (OCA).
Backed by a US $20 million budget over eight years (2007–2014), the programme offers
assistance to National Olympic Committees (NOCs) in Asia who need help in closing the gap
on the richer and more powerful teams at the Asian Games.67 Since 2007, numerous athletes
from underdeveloped sport countries in Asia have participated in the programme.
Although Korea’s involvement in international development assistance and
cooperation through sport began in the early twenty-first century with the UN MDGs,
the milestone of participation in international SFD programmes was set by joining the
Development Assistance Committee (DAC) in the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) as a donor country. Upon joining the OECD
DAC in 2010, Korea has continuously improved its ODA system by enacting the
Framework Act on International Development Cooperation (Framework Act), and
devising the Strategic Plan for International Development Cooperation (Strategic Plan) as
well as the Mid-term ODA Policy for 2011 – 2015.68 Since then, Korea is officially
regarded as a country whose status has changed for an aid-recipient country to a donor
country. With such change of national status, South Korea has announced a hallmark
programme, known as ‘Dream Together’, in an effort to enhance international cooperation
and assistance through sport in 2013. As a way of returning the benefits Korea has received
from the international community, the programme offers an opportunity for developing
countries to learn from Korea’s expertise, experience, and know-how in sports that it has
acquired in the process of becoming one of the sporting powerhouses of the world.
Looking specifically at the Dream Together programme, the programme consists of
three sub-programmes under the direction of the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism:
(a) educating next generation sporting administrators in developing countries; (b)
educating sport coaches in the developing countries; and (c) training invited athletes in the
developing countries at the Jincheon National Training Center.69 The first programme
aiming at educating future sport administrators in developing countries gives selected
people involved in sport administration or athletes who have ever had experiences in any
Olympics or World Championships a chance to earn a Master’s degree in sport
management and administration. The two-year programme is a 36-credit programme that
embraces a wide range of topics, composed of 10 themes (three modules per theme) plus
two consulting projects (Table 4).70 What makes it more attractive is that the two-year
educational programme also covers all tuition fees, airfares, and living expenses during the
participants’ time in Korea and provides the highest level of education by acclaimed
 Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 18:19 05 February 2016

1272

Table 4 A curriculum for educating next sport administrators (Dream Together)

J.-P. Ha et al.

Theme 1: sport Theme 2: sport event Theme 3: sport marketing and Theme 4: sport organization Theme 5: sport media and
humanities management sponsorship and governance communication
Module Sport sociology Hosting sport events Strategic planning in sport marketing Sport organization and Sport media
1 management
Module Sport philosophy and Preparing and operating Sport market analysis and research Sport governance Sport journalism
2 ethnics sport events methods
Module Sport history Facility management Sport sponsorship and social Human resource Sport public relations
3 responsibility management in sport

Theme 6: sport finance Theme 7: sport law and Theme 8: sport development Theme 9: sport negotiation Theme 10: international
and economics arbitration sport cooperation

Module Sport finance Sport contract law Sport policy and development Principles of negotiation International cooperation
1 theory and practice
Module Sport economics Sport labour law Sport and health promotion Sport negotiation Sport and international
2 cooperation
Module Sport industry Sport arbitration Sport science and Korean cases of Sport negotiation exercise International sport
3 elite-sport development management
Note: Consulting Project 1 (team project for consulting) and Consulting Project 2 (individual project for thesis).
11
 Paradigm Shift for Sport Development 1273

Table 5 Budget allocation plan for international cooperation through sport in 2013– 2017 (unit:
million won)
Programmes 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total
1. Dream Together 2,636 5,900 7,500 7,500 7,500 31,036
Educating sport administrators 1,500 4,400 5,800 5,800 5,800 23,300
Educating sport coaches 700 1,000 1,200 1,200 1,200 5,300
Training Invited Athletes in Jincheon National 436 500 500 500 500 2,436
Training Center
2. Sport partnership programme 1,340 2,000 3,000 5,000 5,000 16,340
3. Despatching Taekwondo peace corps 2,000 2,200 2,420 2,662 2,928 12,210
4. Despatching Taekwondo Masters 1,150 1,265 1,390 1,529 1,680 7,014
Total 7,126 11,365 14,310 16,691 17,108

professors in cooperation with international sporting organizations and overseas

universities. As of 2013, there are 18 students enrolled in the programme from 16
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 18:19 05 February 2016

countries.
Among many countries in the world, the majority of them do not fully enjoy the value
of sport. Korea, also, used to be one of such countries. However, it has now become a
sporting powerhouse in the world. Thus, in light of development through sport, Korea is
striving to share its sporting experiences accumulated over the past decades with
developing countries, which in turn contributes to enhancing international cooperation
through sports. Accordingly, the Korean government continues to step forward to utilize
sport as a tool for international cooperation by increasing the amount of money in various
programmes for the enhancement of international cooperation through sport. Table 5
displays an estimated budget for the programmes from 2013 to 2017.71
However, despite the fact that Korea is now making tremendous efforts to participate in
international cooperation programmes through sport, it has been argued that the
programmes have some issues to be addressed.72 First, most programmes are predominantly
focused on the development of elite sport in developing countries rather than mass sport
participation (i.e. Sport for All). This is not consistent with the UN MDGs, which can be
achieved through sports. For instance, the aforementioned Dream Together programme is
just designed to target people and athletes involved in elite sport, and not those involved in

Figure 2 Future direction for international cooperation through sport in South Korea
 1274 J.-P. Ha et al. 13

public sport. Second, although the sport-based international cooperation programme is

grounded in the ‘development through sport’ approach, they would be rather largely
inclined to take the ‘development of sport’ approach. In other words, the programmes are not
aiming at utilizing sport as a tool for social development in developing countries, but aiming
in developing sport itself in those countries (i.e. development of sport). To alleviate the two
problems above, the authors of this paper propose the future direction of international
cooperation programmes through sport in Korea (Figure 2). Figure 2 shows that with regard
to future sport-based international cooperation programmes, Korea needs to place more
emphasis on ‘sport for all’ and ‘development through sport’ perspectives than on ‘elite
sport’ and ‘development of sport’ perspectives in order for Korea to become a truly
advanced sport country. Lastly, the international cooperation programmes through sport are
mostly operated at provider-centred perspectives (i.e. South Korea) without considering
economic, societal, and political conditions in developing countries.
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 18:19 05 February 2016

Conclusion
The interweaving of sport and politics is evident at domestic and international levels. Sport
generates politically usable resources, while in modern times governments have viewed
sport as a crucial agent of political socialization.73 More specifically, when a government
emphasizes sport activities for public enjoyment and value, it improves its image in the eyes
of its citizens.74 With that in mind, numerous political leaders in the world have made efforts
to associate themselves with high-profile athletes and teams that have been successful in
international sporting events – Korea is no exception. During the period of 1961 to 1993, the
military-based governments employed elite sports or mega-sporting events (i.e. Olympics,
Asian Games) as a tactic to overcome the military regimes’ lack of political legitimacy. As a
consequence, many systems and programmes (e.g. Athletic Specialist System, Life Pension
System, Military Service Exemption Law, and Constructing Specialist Sport Schools)
fostering the success of elite sport in international sport competitions have been created.
In contrast, after the military regimes, the Korean governments’ interests in the
development of elite sport has been relatively reduced while emphasizing mass sporting
development. However, it is worth noting that the governments still wanted to focus on the
success in elite sport as a way of increasing national prestige.
While Korea primarily focused on development of sport itself in the past, the nation has
begun to be interested in utilizing sport as a vehicle for various social development schemes
since the twenty-first century when UN MDGs were established. That is to say, the paradigm
on sport in South Korea has started to change from ‘development of sport’ to ‘development
through sport’. Thus, a number of SFD programmes have emerged in both international and
domestic contexts. Particularly, in an effort to promote international cooperation through
sport, the Dream Together programme is currently operating as a hallmark project to share
Korea’s sport experiences accumulated over the past decades with developing countries.
The driving force behind the emergence of the programme was due to joining the OECD
DAC as a member in 2010. However, such programmes designed to enhance international
cooperation through sport have some limitations such as focusing largely on elite sport and
taking a mainly ‘development of sport’ approach. Considering these limitations, it is
proposed that international cooperation programmes through sport should focus more on
‘sport for all’ and the ‘development through sport’ approach than the counterparts.
Conclusively, the success in elite sport at international sporting competitions has made
Korea to be considered a sporting powerhouse in the world. However, the success has been
criticized because it has generated an outcome-obsessed sporting culture while focusing
 14 Paradigm Shift for Sport Development 1275

on the development of sport itself, particularly elite sport. Accordingly, it should never be
forgotten that it is essential for the Korean government to make efforts to foster
participation in international cooperation activities through sport in order to become a
‘true advanced country’ in sport by focusing on ‘sport for all’ and ‘development through
sport’ perspectives.

Notes on Contributors
Jae-Pil Ha is an assistant professor in the Department of Physical Education, Gyeongsang National
University, Jinju, South Korea. Most of his research lies in sport for development, international sport
cooperation, and sport consumer behaviour. He has published in various journals including Journal
of Sport Management, International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, Journal of
Management and Organization, and among others.
Karam Lee is currently working for Yulhyeon Middle School, South Korea. He also serves as a
director of the Korea Society for History of Physical Education, Sport, and Dance. His main interest
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 18:19 05 February 2016

of research is the history of sport.

Gwang Ok is Associate Professor at Chungbuk National University, South Korea, and an editorial
board member of The International Journal of the History of Sport and the Asia Pacific Journal of
Sport and Social Science. He has published in The International Journal of the History of Sport, the
Korean Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, and the Korean Journal of Physical
Education.

Notes
1. Joon-Ho Kang, ‘Sport Korea Beyond the Horizon’, http://www.ii.umich.edu/ncks/
eventsprograms/conferencessymposia/perspectivesoncontemporarykorea/rediscoveringsport/
rediscoveringsportinkorea_ci
2. G. Ok and K. Park, ‘Cultural Evolution and Ideology in Korean Soccer: Sport and
Nationalism’, The International Journal of the History of Sport 31, no. 3 (2013), 363– 75.
3. D. Shilbury, K.P. Sotiriadou, and B.C. Green, ‘Sport Development Systems, Policies and
Pathways: An Introduction to the Special Issue’, Sport Management Review 11 (2008), 217–
23. In this article, Shilbury and his colleagues clearly explained conceptual difference between
‘development of sport’ and ‘development through sport’.
4. E. MacIntosh, and K. Spence, ‘An Exploration of Stakeholder Values: In Search of Common
Ground within an International Sport and Development Initiative’, Sport Management Review
15 (2012), 404– 15.
5. UN Inter-Agency Task Force on Sport for Development and Peace, ‘Sport as a Tool for
Development and Peace: Towards Achieving the United Nations Millennium Development
Goals’, http://www.un.org/sport2005/resources/task_force.pdf
6. Sport has been recognized as a viable and practical tool to assist in the achievement of the eight
UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The eight MDGs include: (1) Eradicate extreme
poverty and hunger; (2) Achieve universal primary education; (3) Promote gender equality and
empower women; (4) Reduce child mortality; (5) Improve maternal health; (6) Combat HIV
and AIDS, malaria, and other diseases; (7) Ensure environmental sustainability; and (8)
Develop a global partnership for development. See http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/sport/
home/sport/sportandmdgs
7. J.P. Ha and A. Lyras, ‘Sport for Refugee Youth in a New Society: The Role of Acculturation
SFDP Programming’, South African Journal for Research in Sport, Physical Education and
Recreation 35, no. 2 (2013), 121– 140.
8. As of July 2014, there were approximately 1.57 million foreigners living in Korea. This
indicates that a total number of foreigners in Korea have been increased by 76% (about
680,000) from 891,000 in 2008. See http://www.edaily.co.kr/news/NewsRead.edy?
SCD¼JG31&newsid¼02355046606150584&DCD¼A00703&OutLnkChk¼Y
9. J.P. Ha and S.H. Park, ‘Understanding of Newcomers’ Acculturation and Ethnic Identity
through Sport Activities’, Korean Journal of Sport Science 23, no. 1 (2012), 105–20.
 1276 J.-P. Ha et al. 15

10. The Pyeongchang Dream Program was initially launched in 2004 as part of its bid for the 2010
Winter Olympic Games. Since 2004 (2004 –2013), a total of 1,246 youths (58 have disabilities)
have participated in the programme, which is typically organized for 10 days between January
and February.
11. Shilbury et al., ‘Sport Development Systems’, 217.
12. While working on this research paper, the authors of the current study identified that almost all
articles covering the topic of ‘Sport Development’ were found in journals from sport sociology
and management fields. Those include the International Review for the Sociology of Sport, the
Journal of Sport and Social Issue, the Sociology of Sport Journal, the Journal of Sport
Management, and the Sport Management Review.
13. MacIntosh and Spence, ‘An Exploration of Stakeholder Values’, 406– 7.
14. B.C. Green, ‘Building Sport Programs to Optimize Athlete Recruitment, Retention, and
Transition: Toward a Normative Theory of Sport Development’, Journal of Sport Management
19 (2005), 233– 53.
15. Shilbury et al., ‘Sport Development Systems’, 218.
16. J. Eady, Practical Sports Development (London: Pitman, 1993); Green, ‘Building Sport
Programs’, 235; and K. Sotiriadou, D. Shilbury, and S. Quick, ‘The Attraction, Retention/
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 18:19 05 February 2016

Transition, and Nurturing Process of Sport Development: Some Australian Evidence’, Journal
of Sport Management 22 (2008), 247– 72.
17. Stotiriadou et al., ‘The Attraction, Retention/Transition and Nurturing Process’, 250.
18. J.W. Park, ‘Elite Sport Development in South Korea: An Analysis of Policy Change in the
Sports of Athletics, Archery and Baseball’ (PhD diss., Loughborough University, 2011); and
U. Merkel, ‘Sport, Politics and Reunification – A Comparative Analysis of Korea and
Germany’, The International Journal of the History of Sport 26, no. 3 (2009), 411.
19. Green, ‘Building Sport Programs’, 235.
20. R. Levermore, ‘Sport in International Development: Time to Treat it Seriously?’ Brown
Journal of World Affairs 14, no. 2 (2008), 55 – 66; and Sport for Development and Peace
International Working Group, ‘Harnessing the Power of Sport for Development and Peace:
Recommendations to Governments’, 4– 10, http://assets.sportanddev.org/downloads/rtp_sdp_
iwg_harnessing_the_power_of_sport_for_development_and_peace.pdf
21. V. Cha, ‘The Asian Games and Diplomacy in Asia: Korea-China-Russia’, The International
Journal of the History of Sport 30, no. 10 (2013), 1176– 87.
22. Shilbury et al., ‘Sport Development Systems’, 218.
23. N. Schulenkorf, ‘Sustainable Community Development Through Sport and Events:
A Conceptual Framework for Sport-for-Development Projects’, Sport Management Review
15 (2012), 55 – 66.
24. Sportanddev.org, ‘All Organization’, http://www.sportanddev.org/connect/organisations/
organisations_list/
25. UN Inter-Agency Task Force on Sport for Development and Peace, ‘Sport for Development
and Peace: Towards Achieving the Millennium Development Goals’, http://www.un.org/wcm/
webdav/site/sport/shared/sport/pdfs/Reports/2003 interagency_report_ENGLISH.pdf
26. Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly, 55/2. United Nations Millennium Declaration,
http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm
27. ‘Harnessing the Power of Sport for Development and Peace’, III.
28. Ibid., 11 – 12.
29. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, some notable publications on the SFD movement
have been produced by the UN and the IOC. Some titles of the publications are as follows:
‘Sport for Development and Peace: Towards Achieving the Millennium Development Goals’,
and ‘Harnessing the Power of Sport for Development and Peace: Recommendations to
Governments’.
30. S. Kim, M.H. Park, I.S. Kang et al., Uri Sports Seong-gong Sare: ODA Hwalyoung Jeong-ryk
Yeong-gu [A successful case of our sport: A study on ODA utilization strategy] (Seoul: World
Economic and Social Research Center, 2013).
31. Ibid., 20.
32. S.H. Park, ‘Sports-waegyo-ui Jisok-ganeungsung Chugureul Tonghan Sunjinhwa Bang-ahn’
[A study on the advanced strategies through the sustainability of sport diplomacy], Korean
Journal of Sport Science 24, no. 3 (2013), 515– 6.
 16 Paradigm Shift for Sport Development 1277

33. N.G. Ha and Y.J. Lim, ‘Sport, Power and Society (I): Developmental Aspects of the Sports
Movement in Korea, 1945–1992’, Korean Journal of Physical Education 40, no. 4 (2001), 63.
34. S.Y. Kim, ‘A Study of the Sports Policies of Korean Regimes’ (PhD thesis, Chosun University,
2004), 13 –61.
35. Park, ‘Elite Sport Development’, 111– 2.
36. N.G. Ha and J.A. Mangan, ‘Ideology, Politics, Power: Korean Sport-Transformation, 1945–
92’, The International Journal of the History of Sport 19, no. 2 (2002), 231.
37. Park, ‘Elite Sport Development’, 117.
38. Kim, ‘A Study on the Political Ideology and Sport Policy’.
39. S.H. Park, J.P. Ha, and S.J. Han, ‘A Discourse on the Future Study and Policy Development of
the Korean School Elite Sports System’, Korea Journal of Sports Science 18, no. 2 (2009),
587– 93.
40. See http://www.youngkbblog.com/250
41. Park, ‘Elite Sport Development’, 119.
42. A detailed information on ‘Performance Enhancing Research Pension’ are available at http://
www.kspo.or.kr/?menuno¼105.
43. Park, ‘Elite Sport Development’, 119– 20.
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 18:19 05 February 2016

44. Y.H. Cho, ‘Broadcasting Major League Baseball as a Governmental Instrument in South
Korea’, Journal of Sport and Social Issues 32, no. 3 (2008), 243.
45. Ibid.
46. E. Hong, ‘Elite Sport and Nation-Building in South Korea: South Korea as the Dark Horse in
Global Elite Sport’, The International Journal of the History of Sport 28, no. 7 (2011), 983.
47. Ibid., 983.
48. H.R. Lee, Hankook Sports Baeknyeon-sa [The 100-year History of Korean Sport] (Seoul:
Korean Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 2000).
49. Park, ‘Elite Sport Development’, 130. See also G. Ok, The Transformation of Modern Korean
Sport: Imperialism, Nationalism, Globalisation (Elizabeth, NJ: Hollym, 2007).
50. For example, during the period of 1988– 1992, while the Korean government allocated
approximately 38 – 42% of its overall sport budget to ‘Elite Sport’, only 0.5– 5% of its budget
was allocated to ‘Sport for All.’ Likewise, the Korean Sports Council’s and most
conglomerates’ support for sport have solely focused on ‘Elite Sport’. See Park, ‘Sports-
waegyo-ui Jisok-ganeungsung Chugureul’ [A study on the advanced strategies through the
sustainability of sport diplomacy], 8.
51. Park, ‘Elite Sport Development’, 135. See also J.A. Mangan, G. OK, and K. Park, ‘From the
Destruction of Image to the Reconstruction of Image: A Sports Mega-Event and the
Resurgence of a Nation – The Politics of Sport Exemplified’, The International Journal of the
History of Sport 28, no. 16 (2011), 2339– 64.
52. H.L. Lee, Hankook Sports Yuksa-eui Young-gu’ [A study of Korean sport history] (Seoul:
Kookhak Jaryowon, 2003), 697.
53. Park, ‘Elite Sport Development’, 134.
54. C.K. Lee, ‘2011 Daegu World Yuksang Sunsu-kwon’ [Economic effect and its development
issues of the 2011 Daegu World Athletics Championships], 102, https://www.kcti.re.kr/
UserFiles/File/955b2e13-0aab-4d6b-80a8-bbba86ffe41c.pdf
55. J. Skinner and D.H. Zakus. ‘Development through Sport: Building Social Capital in
Disadvantaged Communities’, Sport Management Review 11 (2008), 253.
56. Shilbury et al., ‘Sport Development Systems’, 218– 9.
57. Ha and Lyras, ‘Sport for Refugee Youth’, 121–2.
58. Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, 2012 Sports White Paper (Seoul: MCST, 2013).
59. Ibid., 156– 8.
60. J.P. Ha, ‘Damunhwa Sidae-ui Esperanto, Sports’ [Esperanto in multi-cultural society and
sport]. Sport Nest, 15 January 2013, http://www.sportnest.kr/1656
61. Ibid.
62. See 2012 Sports White Paper, 269– 70.
63. See http://www.kspo.or.kr/?menuno¼91
64. Kim et al., Uri Sports Seong-gong Sare: ODA Hwalyoung Jeong-ryk Yeong-gu [A successful
case of our sport: A study on ODA utilization strategy], 20.
65. Ibid., 138– 46.
66. Ibid.
 1278 J.-P. Ha et al. 17

67. Ibid., 151– 4.

68. Prime Minister’s Office, ‘History of Korea’s ODA’, http://www.odakorea.go.kr/eng.overview.
History.do
69. Kim et al., Uri Sports Seong-gong Sare: ODA Hwalyoung Jeong-ryk Yeong-gu [A successful
case of our sport: A study on ODA utilization strategy], 132–8.
70. Seoul National University, Program Brochure: 2013 Dream Together Master Program (Seoul:
Global Sport Management Graduate Program at SNU), 1 – 9.
71. Kim et al., Uri Sports Seong-gong Sare: ODA Hwalyoung Jeong-ryk Yeong-gu [A successful
case of our sport: A study on ODA utilization strategy], 132.
72. Ibid., 157– 9.
73. Ibid.
74. Ibid., 1693.
Downloaded by [Gazi University] at 18:19 05 February 2016