This article is based on an online conversation between Ms. Jinkyung Choi (Korea Social Value and Solidarity Foundation-SVF) and SSE partners in the Philippines moderated by Dr. Benjamin Quiñones, Jr. (ASEC Founder Chair) on December 9, 2025.
Ms Jinkyung Choi highlighted the example of a private foundation called the Korea Social Value and Solidarity Foundation (SVF). It raises funds from the Korean commercial banks, and social economy organizations such as credit unions and consumer cooperatives.
SIB in Korea was adopted by local government and it provide the regulatory framework needed. The first local ordinance on SIB was issued by the Seoul Metropolitan Government (SMG) in 2014. From thereon until 2022, 18 more local governments adopted ordinances on SIB until 2022. These local governments were able to follow easily the example set by the SMG.
Stakeholders Involved in the SIB
The projects commissioned by the local government are confined within their respective administrative districts/regions. The government only pays for results, not just activities. To cite an example, the local government of Geonggi designed its basic livelihood support project, with the aim of providing microloans to the target group/beneficiaries, offering job training, and extending child care services to the families of the beneficiaries.
On the other hand, the one SIB project commissioned by private venture companies (e.g. the Social Innovation Finance, and the Pan-Impact Korea) had a nationwide coverage and aimed at mitigating the depression of the youth. They use online solutions to check the mental health of the youth beneficiaries, and minimize the incidence of suicide among them. Private investors take the initial financial risk, making it a form of Pay for Success (PFS) or Results-Based Financing (RBF).
The users of the funds are called “service providers” who provide solutions to achieve the project goal. They are usually a consortium of social enterprises or NGOs working at the local level. They undertake a number of interventions in various aspects because the projects are dealing with complex social issues. In countries like UK, sometimes the project manager is also the service provider. In which case the service provider participates in designing the project and they also manage the implementation of the project.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Korea SiB
The most important strength is that the Korea local governments were able to create ordinances to fit their development projects. The local governments that pioneered on SIB in Korea started with strong political initiative. The local political leaders pursued it because they had interest in it. But the more strategic civil servants at the policymaking level felt it was very hard to understand the operational process for implementing the SIB. It was new to them, they needed a new ordinance to make it work. The implementing process was the most challenging part for us in Korea. We believe this is the main reason why the number of SIBs in Korea did not increase rapidly.
Potential for the Adoption of SIB in the Philippines
Ms Jinkyung Choi recommended that the Philippine stakeholders to make the “control tower “of the SIB project at the higher level of the local government inasmuch as several departments of the local government will be involved to achieve the project goal. It is advisable that the “control tower” of the SIB project should be an inter-department agency in the local government which can go through the project process more smoothly.
While the Koreas had innovated however the Korean SIBs also need to develop a lot. We also need that kind of mutual learning from other countries. We are quite interested in the Japan case, they tried so many projects and also the Singapore case and other ASEAN countries who are now starting with very strong initiative. So, it would be great if there’s some kind of mutual learning about SIBs and we can share our experience.
A full report is enclosed for further reading and study.