Japanese Official Development Aid in the 1970's and 80s was often criticized as ‘too much economic infrastructure oriented’ or ‘too much loan oriented’, and also ‘strictly tied’. In response to these critiques, Japanese ODA during last decade tried hard to ‘correct’ those features. Also Japanese ODA responded to the cry for the importance of ‘social development’. That changing process of Japanese ODA was, in a sense, imitating and catching up to ‘Western aid style’. Now this Western aid style became a “global standard” of the development discourse. ‘Development Aid’ is a human activity which is highly bound by ‘donor's own culture. Therefore, currently prevailing development discourses such as ‘humanitarian’ aid, ‘grant-oriented’, or ‘participatory’ development are mainly based on Western, Christianity culture and their aid experiences during last 30 years. Similarly, ex-Japanese ODA style had its roots on Japanese society, culture, historical background and technical ability of Japan. But having imitated Western Aid, Japanese ODA now, to the author's eye, seems became rootless and lacking self-confidence. Monopolization of development discourse is not desirable from tow reasons. First, developing countries have different situations and cultures. Some of the countries may not suitable for receiving western aid culture, but without having another choice, they are compelled to receive socially unsuitable’ or abandon aid. Developing countries should have choice what kind of Aid they will take according to their own social, cultural assessment. Second, ‘Western Aid style’ is not necessarily the best way of giving aid. Of course ‘social development’ is very important, but ‘participatory approach is not always suitable manner to mobilize local resources and not always guarantee the of the project. ‘Western Aid style’ is supported academically by the ‘development studies’. This development studies have been grown with western aid experiences, their success and failure Unfortunately in Japan, we don't have development studies, mainly because we have not share owe own aid experiences among aid workers, government officials, and academic people. We should develop our own ‘development studies’ based on Japan's unique experience and culture. To diversify development studies is essential contribution.
