I have to say I kind detest saying “developing countries”, because it clearly means those countries are underdeveloped. Who am I to state that? Who am I to consider myself developed and superior to those people who (for instance) were born in Africa, the cradle of mankind?
I
understand that “Third World Countries” somehow creates a hierarchy among
States, also because it leads people thinking about a rank, where “Third World
Countries” come after a First and a Second world. Well, this is false. In fact some people forget that the phrase has just a political
grounding, because it was used during the Cold War for labelling those countries
that once were not linked to NATO nor the Soviet block. Moreover, an expression
like “Third World Countries” (unlike “Developing Countries”) referring to “third parties” doesn't target any social, political, and economic
inferiority. The phrase “Developing Countries”, on the contrary, compares poor countries to the rich ones - OECD countries, as to say the United States
“Third world countries” today is probably used in a pejorative way by somebody, somebody who doesn't know the origin of the expression, but I honestly don’t think that “Global South”, “Developing Countries” or “Emerging World” are less offensive and wrong in describing poorer countries. First of all to be poor is not a pride, OK, but it is not a shame either. Let's go into details. “Global South” is a stupid term because, for instance, Australia is in the south part of the globe, but it is way more advanced than the USA and most EU countries; “Developing Countries” and “Emerging World” underline that those countries have been struggling to attain steady economic development (meant as “richness” and “welfare”), which is historically false!… BTW, emerging from what? The shit where colonialism sank them? Do we still want them to copy us after we imported there just problems?
In any case, I believe one could use the expression “Emerging World” 30 years ago for referring to the Asian Tigers, or 15 years ago to those countries that today we call the BRICS. Countries that made it! How could we label Haiti, for instance, as an Emerging Country? Wouldn't it be hypocrite?
Today most countries belonging to the OECD are facing an economic decrease and social involution. Could we still consider them “Developed Countries”? Are the USA, with their incredible high rate of gun-related killings, a developed Country? Is Greece, with 27% unemployment and where many families don't have money for going to hospitals or buying medicines, nor having homes, and when they do, they cannot afford paying for electricity, gas, heating and running water, a developed Country? Is Italy, European leader in corruption, censorship and nepotism, a developed Country?
Anyway, is the following the model poor countries should copy?
Only after they became “developed” like the USA or the EU they will be treated with respect?
In my opinion the role of the several organisations financing projects in poorer countries should be aimed at providing them with our knowledge (in terms of organisation and maximisation of local resources, starting with local cultural and human resources) and our technology (especially in terms of treating health problems, providing clean water and the sustainable production of energies), and not to force them absorbing our culture, for making them just more lobotomised “final customers” of a world based on consumerism and waste of natural resources.
We should stop considering African, Asian or South American people like stupid kids. We should respect them and their culture. And if there is something we absolutely need to teach them is how avoiding the innumerable mistakes we – as so called “developed countries” - have made.
Hi Fabrizio,
ReplyDeleteI saw your post in LinkedIn. Maybe it could work better the definition Global creditor countries (instead of developing countries) and global debtor countries (instead of developed countries), as degrowth theory states.
Any definition has a political intention behind and using "developed" and "developing" means that some countries reached the paradise status of capitalistic development and some others didn't (yet).
Degrowth proposal wants to underline that "developed" countries are such because they have historically stolen the resources of the countries so called "developing", so that the inequal situation of the 2 groups is not because of the lack of capacities, but because of a long history of violence, robberies, pollution, etc.
Moreover, as developed countries are actually consuming the 80% of resources, developing countries will never reach any developement the way classic economy means it.
It's just to start the discussion.
Bye,
Maria Grazia Pressacco
International Development Cooperation Professional
I use lesser-developed, under-resourced, less wealthy, low-income, impoverished, marginalized and disadvantaged nations/economies instead of third world because, as you note, some feel third-world has a negative connotation. The term originally referred to non-aligned nations during the Cold War so you are correct that it was not intended to be pejorative but it has fallen out of favor in some circles. Whether to continue using it is a matter of personal preference.
ReplyDeleteEvery label has issues. I refrain from using the Global South/North because they don't really describe conditions on the ground or make much practice sense geographically. I prefer to use labels which indicate that relative to the West, developing nations still have fewer resources to address collective concerns.
We need new paradigms to capture the progress that countries like South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, and China have made. Is China still developing or something between developed and developing? China is also becoming a "global creditor" nation as it engages with Africa. European economies are regressing on some fronts yet retain their developed status.
Transitional was popular at one point to describe economies which were once a part of or affiliated with the Soviet Union. Perhaps we could re-purpose that adjective? Every once in a while you get new phrases like low-income countries under stress, least-developed countries, and post-conflict, which focus on a particular aspect of the problem(s)needing attention. The issue always becomes "who" belongs to these categories.
Dear Fabrizio,
ReplyDeleteA paragraph below, written by an intelligent and aware young student could be of interest to read.
"Leave us alone. Nature has given its bounties to every part of this earth. We don't suck your resources. Stop sucking our resources. We don't like to immigrate to your developed countries, but we are lured into this.
Don't define globalization and development for us. Don't be afraid to leave us alone. We won't bomb you out of existance. Leave us, and while leaving us, take our governments, armies, mafias and networks with you back to your developed world. Leave us alone".
John Ballyn • Hate to say it, but it's been much the same for thirty years or more. The technical vocabulary or jargon is the official language of international development agency workers, who evolve them to suit their own motivation. The recipient, beneficiary, stakeholder, project partner, are actually "target communities" in "developing countries".
ReplyDeleteI don't remember a time when it was anything other than top-down, creating the jargon, designing the projects for people who are regarded as being incapable of managing either projects or money. Daily news reports come in about mismanagement of international funding by.... donor agencies, government agencies, implementing agencies or NGOs who are accusing the poor of the world of incompetence. Go and ask the communities about how much influence they have over projects designed for their community?
You have choices. If you want to work in the sector, then check out your ethical status and humanitarian beliefs, and thicken your skin; they will all be put to the test.
Many people are well aware of the failings of the international development processes. many consultants have raised issues with agency representatives, only to be told that it is none of their business. It, like global political and economic systems, are outdated and need to be change, but vested interests have no intention of changing an activity which ensures continuity of employment to agency staff members, while communities suffer ill-conceived programmes.
Nellie K. Adaba • John is right
ReplyDeleteDaniel Mirabal • Hi Fabrizio: I totally agree: I do not know how to call those countries, or how to name the current global situation. I am from Venezuela, and 20 years ago, I think, we were a "developing country", but now, since our democracy became a theater of the absurd under the dictatorship of Hugo Chavez, Venezuela is an underdeveloping country. Our production capacity in every sector, including petroleum, our only current productive industry, have reduced or disapeared. Now we are importing gasoline, because our biggest refineries exploded, and we still sell it so cheap that you can fill the tank of your car with less than 25 cents of a dolla. In general, Latin America is adoopting the Cuban nightmare as their under developing.or involv ing model.
ReplyDeleteI moved my family to the USA, because of security issues (life or death issues) and we arrived here five years ago under the worst economic depression of the last 50 years. To my surprise, everything you buy here is made in Malaya, India, China and so. American enterprises are producing their goods, even services, in those "developing" countries where they pay little salaries, reducing or extinguishing US production capacity more and more. Here everybody is selling things produced outside the USA. When deciding where to move, we could´nt find a country in Europe were to move in terms of the economy, social issues or language (we speak English, Spanish, and some Italian).
So, I totally agree. I don´t know how to name the emerging, the underdeveloping or theoretically called developed countries any more. I hope this group will help me figuring it out.
Daniel, an interesting concept of 'underdeveloping countries'> I havent thought of that. Jason
DeleteEran Spiro • Hello Fabrizio. You are asking a very difficult question. All countries are at a different stage of development. "THird World Countries" is a term from the "Cold War" when so called "Non-Aligned" countries formed a national political block to be able to define themselves. In today socio-economic political financial interwoven by information communication technology we are all one. Some are rich and getting richer and some are poor and getting poorer. When socialism failed in its quest for social justice and Capitalism runs amok what other system do we have for governance that is beneficial for humanity?
ReplyDeleteI like your blog and you do have a great mind, lets us all explore how do we build up from where we are...
Peace and Love
Eran
Marc Older • Wow, both "developing" and " 3rd world" once had a meaning, but have now become titles that cover up more than they explain. Is Greece "un-developing:?, "preparing to enter the 3rd world"? And they are inaccurately pejorative. High income countries where a small % of the population has high incomes and the rest don't are not attractive role models.
ReplyDeleteC. Ross Croulet • I believe it to be pejorative and frankly a bit racist to describe countries other than OECD ones as "Third World". The term implies something strange and exotic, relating to those who are not part of "us" in the so-called "First World". My preference is to use the term "emerging market" first, and then, second "developing". The former is more positive and optimistic as far as the chances of a country to progressively mainstream itself with more "developed" countries.
ReplyDeleteNellie K. Adaba • Thanks for sharing the blog. It's interesting.
ReplyDeleteRebecca Robertson • Hi Fabrizio,
ReplyDeleteI think you raise some very important issues. In my opinion, the truth is that "third world" countries are oppressed countries. And where ever there is oppression there is someone benefiting. I live in Canada, and just by virtue of my birth and living here, I benefit, like it or not. I believe that only by looking at these issues honestly, and naming them for what they are can we begin to change things and help to end suffering, inequality and oppression.
I have also heard the term "fourth world" to describe "third world" living conditions in a "first world"country. This is the situation of many of Canada's aboriginal peoples, and the shameful way there are marginalized here.
Thank you for starting this important discussion.
Rebecca Robertson
Tomas Halasz • Global creditor countries, as Rebecca pointed out, sounds reasonable but from the view of general public this term would/will be to hard to use widely. How long it took to replace the term ,,third world" with ,,developing" countries?
ReplyDeleteBut it is a very interesting topic to discuss. I think the term ,,developing" also simplifies the image of those countries in western public. It doesn't reflect the huge potential of those countries in skipping part of industrial revolution and jumping on the way of 21st century economics. Then many people are surprised that there is a internet in Africa.
Either way, looking forward for this needed discussion. As a NGO (photo)journalist I'm keen to use the right terms for better cause.
Maria Cecilia Peralta • Hi everyone: I think that there are many differencies about "third world" countries and developing. Generaly we analyse country´s growth but we have to see more than this tip. A developing country is the one that was a third world country and had improvements in some human and economic items that shows better human and economic standards and started to be more developing than before. Some items are: productivity, health, education, growth, external factors vulnerability, child mortalily, etc. If you need more information about this you can see this page: http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/
ReplyDeleteDennis Bours • I'd like to use the 'economies in development' term.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Pritchard • I actually view 'developing countries' as a fairly positive term. It doesn't explicitly state, like 'less-developed', that it is comparative to the Western so-called 'ideal'. It hasn't (yet), at least in my mind, become pejorative, as the "Third World" label clearly has. Granted, all countries are developing in some way or the other, but at least it indicates that impoverished countries can, and indeed ARE, developing. The blunt truth is, regardless of whether or not the planet can sustain it (which is a different argument!), many people in low- or middle-income countries DO want to reach Western standards of living. That is what development means, in the long term, to many leaders and populations. Almost ANY term which is useful as a short-hand descriptor is going to fall victim to the sheer diversity of the world - one word simply cannot adequately describe so many different countries and contexts. So any short-hand way of referring to countries that are low (or lower) income than the West will probably end up becoming seen as pejorative, or negative, or politically incorrect in some way. I don't think that'll change, even if the word does...
ReplyDeleteHi! In my Global Studies program, we were taught to use the term "majority world" instead of "third world" or "developing". "Third world" is starting to be considered pejorative, and people are starting to use "minority/majority nation" or "global north/south". The previous commenters do have a point that there's a difference between the two terms, but using "minority world" to describe privileged nations like the US and "majority world" to describe most nations where the average income was less than $5,000 and are less "developed", is a bit more PC for us.
ReplyDeleteHas anyone else heard these terms or do they use them?
By Erica Yuen
Maria - Your use of "developing" is rather novel. Third world was a political term which referred to those nations that were unaligned with the U.S. or U.S.S.R. during the Cold War era. Today developing encompasses members of what was the second and third world. Many countries have made significant strides since the end of communism and colonialism yet still would be considered developing. Developing indicates that the standard of living for most residents is not sufficient relative to their more "developed" peers.
ReplyDeleteBy H. C. Paul
Oh dear...More anguish and navel-gazing over semantics by guilt-plagued first world citizens. The euphemisms change, but the meaning stays the same. 'Emerging' or 'developing' countries is incorrect if they are not developing, like the DRC, or un-developing as in the case of Mali. The Economist uses 'developing' or 'emerging' for countries that really are, like Malaysia and Brazil. Call the others chronically poor, third world, or whatever you will, it won't change the reality. Wall-papering over facts with nice euphemisms is just as condescending.
ReplyDeleteThere are loud cacaphone of phrases describing a state of being which we must note differs from a concept.A state of being imposed on others through extensive debauchery that has lefr most of the resources devalued by doing so turned the people against the very source of their being. Despite all these deluge of appelages with ethnocentric colorations Africa and countries in the South refuse to be used as laboratory of social vivisectomy to appraise pretentiously universalistic paradigms.The issue on front burner to Africa is not in finding new perjorative paradigms but how development translate to yam and garri for the people. You may wish to give us any name but note that your Eurocentric norms are not true reflections of development.
ReplyDeleteYes Paul, a few decades ago the term was a political term; but currently this term it´s a human and economical term. This term have a big influence of the role of the state in the economy and public policy debate and the improvement in human and economic rates in many countries.
ReplyDeleteBy Maria Cecilia Peralta
Majority/minority world doesn't sound like much of an improvement and might create more conceptual confusion. Center/periphery is an alternative paradigm which would work better metaphorically. Global North/South has little meaning outside of development circles because people don't think about the world in those terms.
ReplyDeleteBy H. C. Paul
Center/periphery not only global, it´s a big debate in blocks too, like European Union for example and how the central goverments manipulate periphery goverments and economies; but i think that that is another discucion.
ReplyDeleteBy Maria Cecilia Peralta
Why use an adjective at all? They are countries.
ReplyDeleteBy Richard Clowes
Fabrizio, yours is a relevant question. I agree with Matthew in part. I would not agree that many people in developing countries want to live like the west. This argument (aspiring to be like the west) reinforces the notion that the west is superior in almost all societal aspects-and this is a fundamental error on the part of neoclassical economists. Those of us who live in the southern Hemisphere aspire a certain lifestyle, and so do those who live in the Northern hemisphere. An ideal is not the west, an ideal is an utopia which we all aspire. Moving on to the third world debate, you might recall that the term was coined by a french demographer, Alfred Sauvy, to define countries which were not aligned with the NATO countries-which was considered as first world; and the communist bloc -which was second world. Switzerland and Austria although developed, were part of the third world-because there were part of the non aligned bloc. The term was then hijacked in development economics, and became the basis of categorising the world based on human development Index. Like many other western developed concepts and ideas on how developing countries should be labelled or defined, in political science and indeed in my field of development economics, the term is now considered colonial and 'imposed'. Debates are infact moving away from developing countries to emerging countries, for political correctness purposes. N way, a long diatribe, but just some shades for discussion!
ReplyDeleteBy Jason Musyoka
Some wise people said "call everyone as he wants to be called". In this forum we should only contribute the people from those countries affected by the term but... What we are talking about?
ReplyDeleteI'm Spaniard and my country suffers a debt, political, social, economic crisis since 2008. Our leaders show themselves incapables to solve our problems. So Spain, being the country 23 by Human Development Index, is a developed country??
In other hand we have countries like Costa Rica 69 by HDI but the first one by Happiness’ index. Why is bellow Spain by HDI?
So as we see that the Development is not related to citizen’s development we could talk about “more resilient” countries and “less resilient” countries?
I repeat my question. What we are talking about?
By Juanjo Del Pozo
Juanjo, interesting point. I think though the resilience label complicates things further. That would suggest analysis of social, economic and political vulnerabilities, a very broad framework of analysis. In this regard, 90% of the world would be less resilient...if the tripartite indicators are considered. Not even would the United States, or European economies survive this indicator. But may be that would be an equalizer? Not?
ReplyDeleteBy Jason Musyoka
Include dependence on external ressources and external conflicts. Do is developed a country that has militar fighting overseas?
ReplyDeleteBy Juanjo Del Pozo
In the actual version of the technical jargon, the expressiion "third world countries-twc" - if I well remember - has been dismissed (since the 80-90) as it recalls the 60/70 decades of the past century when it was formulated. At that time the world was extremely polarized and divided between URSS and USA, while the last colonized countries were becoming independents, Cuba succeeded, etc. The expression twc was formulated by the anti-capitalistic and internationalistic élite and was accompanied by the creation of mouvements, around the world, with a strong political inclination in favour of social and political struggle against the imperialism. So, nowadays the "politically correct" choice of the international cooperation is to adopt a softer language to present itself with a more "neutral" attitude. It's a complex story...
ReplyDeleteBy Laura De Clementi
Yes, now they mostly use "developing countries".
ReplyDeleteBy Nellie K. Adaba
Dear all
ReplyDeleteAny human being is a gifted force, given the opportunity, east or west, wisdom says to build a peaceful, progressive world will need to look for, I appreciate and quote " Hon. Laura De Clementi, above "a softer language to present itself with a more "neutral" attitude towards human. Best Regards MMK
By Muhammad manzoor Khan
When I was studying development, the same discussions arose. You are right, people from developing countries felt the terminologies offensive because they created the perception of backwardness among the people living in such countries. The fact that most people living in developing countries are brown and not white merey punctutated the perception. A different term used by some has been low income countries, made easier with the term LIC. The UN likes acronyms and this one seems to appeal to people from LICs bcause it has few jagged edges.
DeleteWell, if you want me to comment I shall do so. A few years ago I wrote to two large foreign NGOs, mentioning a project of affordable housing complexes for Africa. A complete and detailed feasibility study was enclosed.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to the houses the project included the construction of a factory park that would have allowed the low income buyers of the houses to work in the factories and repay the purchase cost of their houses out of their salaries. In both cases the NGOs replied that they were not interested. A few months later I was surprised to note that both NGOs had stolen my idea and implemented part of the project while neglecting the factory park part of it. As expected the houses that were destimed for low income workers in my project were sold instead to highly paid bank employees, and the factory park never saw the light of days. This story confirms the statement of John Ballyn:
" Many people are well aware of the failings of the international development processes. many consultants have raised issues with agency representatives, only to be told that it is none of their business. It, like global political and economic systems, are outdated and need to be change, but vested interests have no intention of changing an activity which ensures continuity of employment to agency staff members, while communities suffer ill-conceived programmes."
By George Sabat
Dear George - Your experience is unfortunately not unique. International NGOs competing for aid funds routinely steal each other's ideas and even conduct industrial espionage on each other to get ahead. They invite other organisations be be partners on a bid, then when they get the money they cut you out of the work and funds. The aid industry is not qualitatively different from any other industry.
DeleteSeth - thank you, thank you, thank you. The endless search for politically correct euphemisms falls right in line with the use of cryptic acronyms so loved by the social sciences crowd in the development business. Why not discuss something that actually matters???
ReplyDeleteBy Jamie Kyles
The intent of such a discussion is not to discover new euphemisms or to be condescending. The intent is to be introspective and acknowledge that words have the power to shape reality.
ReplyDeleteWhen circumstances change, language should as well. The circumstances of many countries has evolved considerably so there is nothing wrong with trying to arrive at a new or more accurate way of describing present conditions. Frans Schuurman points out that paradigms are gradually replaced once they outlive their usefulness. The limitations of the developing/developed paradigm are readily apparent.
The story of Babel underscores why it is important to use a common vocabulary when working towards common goals. If everyone is using idiosyncratic language (a large problem in the social sciences) then that hampers collective action and collaboration. While we may not reach consensus on what language to use, understanding the perspective of others is not a waste of time.
By H. C. Paul
Paul: I agree with you
ReplyDeleteBy Maria Cecilia Peralta
Hi George... after reading your statement and other members comments, I sympathized how you felt...and the turmoil you may have been after the findings of the NGOs betrayal.
ReplyDeleteWe have been in many African countries for the past 50 years and being through so much... my husband is an FSC forestry auditor/consultant and I´m an H.R.
A similar project to your proposal was presented in Mozambique by a friend of ours to private companies and, by the time we returned 2 years a go he was doing very well.
May you tell me in which part of Africa you aimed such housing project and which type of construction materials would be applied?
Mining and Oil companies are the most interested and there are many of them in Mozambique. There is a new project up north and we were involved with it for a wile...
At the moment we live in West Africa and I´m in a new housing project for an Oil/Gas company in the city where we live, aiming to build 1500 houses for black workers and is quite interesting indeed...
Are you still active and interested to get involved in a new project?
Keep well and thank you... :))
By MAGGIE MARQUES
Again, the term "Third World" is a pejorative, and I take to be racist. The term implies a perpetual condition of subservience and inability to climb the so-called ladder to "First World" status. A more positive term which would suggest positive progress of countries termed as such would be "emerging market". This term suggests that such countries are progressively moving into a status more integrated and mainstreamed into the global economy.
ReplyDeleteI also associate with other comments here on the subjugation of countries called "Third World" by the Corporate State of the World. In fact, all of us regardless of our citizenship and status are progressively being enslaved by mega multinational, monopolistic corporate elites that are also assuring the greater concentrations of wealth into the super rich.
By C. Ross Croulet
there are issues with "emerging markets" as well. emerging markets is usually used with those countries that attract the interest of foreign investors namely the BRIC or BASIC economies. emerging also fails to answer emerging from what exactly? given your definition of emerging, how does that differ from developing?
DeleteHi Maggie, I can certainly provide you with a great deal of information in my possession on the subject. At the time, the estimated cost of a 53 square meters house ( 2 bed rooms, dining cum sitting room, bath, kitchenette) came to $13,000 each, excluding the cost of the land of course. It was estimated that two working adults in the familyh would be contributing some $80 per month each, out of their salary toward the cost of the house, over a period of ten years.I have of course all the estimates including internal roads in each compound of 500 houses, electricity and water distribution within the compound and an appropriate sewage system. The entire project was for 5,000 houses in all.The project was initially destined for the Dominican Republic and was approved by the President of the Republic at the time. Houses could be built very rapidly, using mostly unskilled labor who could be rapidly trained on the ground. So if you want more information, let me know and we can take it from there.
ReplyDeleteI think if you find yourself trying to use the term 'developing countries/ third world countries' etc, then you're already making a generalisation that is not going to be meaningful. The problem is with lumping all countries outside the G20 (for example) together - not what to call them! What does Peru have in common with Zambia, other than development agencies spending money there?
ReplyDeleteLet's bring it down to specifics - are you talking about fragile states? Countries with poor accountability processes? Countries that have a low human development index? Countries with high inequality? Or poor quality infrastructure? If you start to be specific about the problem you're actually talking about, contributing to that solution will be more focused and hopefully less of a challenge.
The term “third world” as you and so many people already noted evolved from its original intended meaning during the Cold War to delineate allies and foes and others to one that described poor countries and throughout the subsequent years lost favor with a lot of stakeholders for various reasons. Currently the terms “developing countries” and “emerging markets” seems as if governments, aid agencies and various financial institutions misuse these terms not to accurately describe countries that are measurably in the process of developing but as a marketing ploy, a way to put a positive spin on all countries who have not yet reached a certain level of wealth regardless of those countries vast economic differences, almost in the same vein as a car dealer using the term “pre-owned” instead of “used” to push sales. I don’t necessarily think there is anything wrong by labeling countries as “developing” and “emerging” if one, you attach a specific definition or parameters to those terms (i.e. specific economic reforms, steady rise in incomes, etc.) and two, if you apply it to countries that fall within those set parameters as opposed to using it as blanket statement for all poor countries. If we can’t take the step to accurately describe countries economically what chance is there to assist them in overcoming some of their obstacles.
ReplyDeleteManal Sorour • Fabrizio , honestly I do not agree on either the labeling of the "third world countries" or 'developing countries" , I believe all countries of the world are just to be named by their name and region ; each has its own culture, tradition, technology, developments and developing issues. I agree with you totally when you said who gave the superiority to those regions who call them selves developed ones?? Even though, on the contrary, those countries that donors call developing countries they all have the most cultural heritage and most rich resources ever.. and believe me that is very well acknowledged by those who think they are superior and advanced. Don't think I am biased because I am an Egyptian and African, this is an opinion from a social develoopment person.
ReplyDeleteIf these terms are used only for the reference stratification to group together the countries at similar level of economic level then it is understandable from the academic point of view, but if this division is done to segregate the groups in the ladder of hierarchy then it needs to be re-considered. I have seen that the tourists and the people from 'developed' countries visit the 'developing' countries with an attitude, which in sometimes very insulting and ethnocentric. Sometimes, they have to face the consequence of it when the people of 'developing' countries give then back. One more thing, even among those visitors, not all of them are affluent. They are as mediocre as the middle class people of the 'developing' countries but still... It is not what term should or should not be used, rather, in my opinion, it is the associated attitude and reactions, which lead to ethnic wars. Diversity is the law of nature but the attitudes attached with it make it a complex issue.
ReplyDeleteBy Anima Sharma
Hi Fabrizio, nice article!
ReplyDeleteI feel it does not matter what term is used, it is a crude way to distinguish what context one is working in/ talking about and, depending upon how they are used, any of these can be used to imply that there is a "civilised" way of doing things and a relatively "backward" or "primitive" way. So, what worries me more are the assumptions that people make when they use the term global south, third world, developing, etc and whether they also imply that there is a right and wrong way, civilised and barbaric approach. I believe scholarship has now moved to the point where professionals can recognise that:
(1) the context can change very quickly even within small geographical areas and different solutions may be needed even within the same "community" at different times ;
(2) there are lessons to be learnt from all cultures and all ways of life, as approaches that evolved over millenia came to be because they were conducive to survival of humans in that place at that time. (For example, the knowledge of tribal fishing communities in managing natural resources such as fish stocks)
So, I am more worried when professionals and scholars use terms like these in a throw-away sense, implying similarities between Sudan and Turkey just because they are both "global south", or east and west Africa, because they are both Africa (which the development community seems to treat as one country). This for me reflects an insensitivity and narrowness of thinking that is not suitable for intellectuals, least those working for the development of all people. On this note, I wonder also about the use of the term "international development" : what does it mean? Is it really "international" or does it serve only to draw a red line around certain countries (or continents) to suggest that they need development, and that this development should follow a set trajectory to meet set international standards and that the only way to achieve it is through international support?
Rachna
By Rachna LEVEQUE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXJwNSkdTH0
ReplyDeleteBy Rebecca Robertson
I understand all and Iam agree with you about diversity and culture, but, Iam an economy and public polity technician and sometimes I have to group countries to compare them and I can´t compare countries that are very differents, so, How do you think that economist can compare countries if we do not see their development?
ReplyDeleteBy Maria Cecilia Peralta
Third world,developing countries or what ever Africa is called,we are Africans and we'll remain. Africans.The simple truth is the fact that we refused to hold fast to our culture and values and improve on our social order and local technologies to which countries like Islamic Iran(1st,2nd or 3rd world)don't really know which category it belong to.However,amongst the leading countries in technological advancement and social order.
ReplyDeleteBy Bello Bamalli
Hi Fabrizio,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your post. I would just like to add a fact that I am aware of, being mainly French, and that can support the point of view expressed in your first paragraphs:
"Third world" was labelled by French historian Alfred Sauvy, and refers to the analogy with "third state" or "tiers état" during the French revolution, which meant those that were neither part of the aristocracy or of the Church. Thus, you see things right when you say it is mainly political. The meeting of the 3 states brought them to ask for rights, as it represented the majority of the population.
I agree with all the rest of your demonstration.
Kind regards,
Pierre
Dear Fabrizio,
ReplyDeleteThat's a political term used by North developed countries. I think the analysis must done deeply and taking into account the wrong concept in terms of calculating the PIB that's imposed by the IMF. Such concept of development must be changed to know exactly what means be developed.
Rgds.
By Alyrio da Silva
The UN security Council failed to be justice and UN security council is representing THOSE who consider them selves developed!? developed in WHAT in creating justification for their injustice.
ReplyDeleteBy Iman Awad
Oh! I invented right now how so called "civilized" world must call us!
ReplyDelete"Uncivilized world"!!! :-)
Of course those who presuppose themselves "good guys" by the logic must call us "bad guys", I will not be surprised if they are already doing it not in public. :-)
By Alexander Dzisko
We need a revolution across our planet calling for civilization, fair distribution of each country resources among its citizens, free basic social services all over the word.
ReplyDeleteBy Iman Awad
@Iman. Current powerholders would die rather than let your idea happen. This why the "Arab Spring" is so interesting. Get enough people out there in the street, campaigning against injustice and governments fall ....... and you get teargassed, shot, arrested and disappeared. Such manifestations of discontent by the people will probably continue until the system crashes. At present, governments keep printing synthetic money, buying off the powerful and privileged just to keep it all up and running. Have to remember that capitalism, totalitarianism, and many many other ....isms are all simply appalling hallucinations. Politicians are actually performance artists polishing their egos and bank balances!
ReplyDeleteBy John Ballyn
Dear Fabrizio, I do not like any of the terms listed - third world, developing countries, emerging world.....As you say , these terms include a political aspect. In my eyes they highlight clubs of interests and power and a hierarchy of markets and norms with hidden and strange flows between these markets! Ordinary people in the so-called developing world pay a high price because their rights and "current and future generations" are not seriously taken - look at Syria now!
ReplyDeleteBy Roudaina Al Khani
The correct approach that one should adopt whend faced with corruption in high spheres would be to carefully examine the system that is currently in place, find its errors and its weaknesses, seek the appropriate and effective solutions in each separate case and offer them as an alternative. Yes, I know, it is a long and difficulty process but there is no other way out otherwise all the revolutions will unfailingly end up like what is presently happening in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Syria. Chaos, mass killings and destructions to the point that the citizens may sometimes end up regretting the tyrants they got rid of.
ReplyDeleteBy George Sabat
Being politically correct is accepting the case of the missing monkey...I mean the one that says 'do no evil', which the usual three do not say. I personally think in terms of 'have nots', which can be expanded to any one or anything since who has it all? At least it focuses on having or not having something. The others,I prefer to think in terms of 'should nots' as they are quite active in devising means through market forces to see that the real have nots remain have nots. David Cameron suggesting that the binding force between EU nations be the market tells it all. Like the Friedmanian economics was spread in South America with the well recorded consequences, he suggested Indians be trained at LSE. God forbid.
ReplyDeleteBy Vetury Sitaramam
I think the issue here is the connection between language and thought.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the problem must be considered from the other perspective: is not possibile to find a "neutral" word to label those countries because we are trying to describe a concept that is not and cannot be neutral.
When we are trying to identify the difference between "us" and "them", we feel superior and any word we can find will have that judgment in it.
Hey, guys! Are you sure you are seeking those tyrants in the right place? :-)
ReplyDeleteAre you sure those tyrants not wear neckties and not smiling all the time? :-)
Are you sure all those "facebook revolutions" were made by native citizens and CIA was not involved? :-)
Never allow to fool yourself - that will be your first step to the better future.
By Alexander Dzisko
i am from africa...and let me say this, things arent easy here, we work thrice as hard to be at par, we work extra hard to achieve, we are in developing economies but we have first world minds, we fight through unemployment, poor infrastructure and uninformed governance, we are paying for colonization sin, we could have been far if we were free. settlers chased our forefathers in their lands and placed them in reserves, when they left they still own the same highlands with plantations, we are buying back our lands with current rates when they took it from us for free. we were left at a place, i remember they say colonial governments allowed their own people to plant tea and coffee and denied africans a chance which could have propelled us to greater heights. we had information and a dream to where we wanted to go, only we needed modernization. now, we are getting our footing and when that is established...we will be equal. we need information, we need seeds, we need mentoring, we shoulders to lean on, in africa we are hardworking, we work many times to get what other worlds work once to have. we are developing countries, third world is out of earth...may be mars. thanks good people of the world!!
ReplyDeleteBy Nicholas kibet siele
Yes, Nicholas, I understand and feel what you feel. I was born in Cairo, that is in Africa. I lived many years in Kenya in the fifties and in Nigeria in the nineties. I know exactly how you feel and I wish you good luck from the bottom of my heart. Yes, Nicholas, it is not easy, but somehow you and your people will prevail. Keep working hard and keep seeking information and mentoring, as you said it, and you will get there.Good luck!
ReplyDeleteBy George Sabat
Hi Nicholas,
ReplyDeleteYou do have a point and clearly stated it but, look around globally … not only in the city where you live, as Africa is huge and, there are many countries in a worse situation than Kenya. Of course you care and are concerned about the new generation … by raising your voice you can make a difference!!!
I´m an African but, not from Africa… more African than many that were born in the continent… why do I feel this way and show it?
Well, let me tell you a little bit about myself… I was born in Portugal and came to Africa at the age of 6 with my parents and a brother. My husband is from Zimbabwe and left the country 15 years ago to go and work in Zambia.
I lived in Mozambique for 25 years, in South Africa for another 22 years, 3 years in Angola and now, I´ve been in Equatorial Guinea for a year.
During all these years, I visited other cities on professional basis as well on vacation… and, although I spent 15 years in Portugal, I cannot turn my back on Africa as I consider it to be my MOTHER LAND.
I have been to several cities in different countries and, at times, have stayed in quality hotels … Lovely to see such luxury but, unfortunately only for a bunch of privileged people! Very sad to see the poor state of these cities on the roads from and to the airport… made feel sick inside!
I have seen a lot of conflict, poverty and sickness around but, to me, Africa is the continent that is in most urgent need of the basics essential for survival!
I don´t even want to mention Africa Wars and colonial conflicts, I have been there too, but I wouldn´t be able to finish what I have to say in this comment…
There are many who are responsible for this disastrous state of affairs and are aware of it but some of them are so ignorant that they consider themselves the saviours of Africa!! Freedom comes in many forms and, most of the time there is a price tag for it! Poverty is not a legacy but, in Africa, due to conflicts of interest we live with our forefather’s legacy created when their dreams were great but available resources were few! Today we cry for help…
Many mistakes have been made, and still are, but the bottom line is that we all need to combine our knowledge and efforts and invest for the future! People within any society will never be equal but yes, we can share our dreams and ambitions through our determination to challenge inequality and ultimately achieve our goal of passing a much healthier legacy on to our children.
Remember, those who would say it´s easy, never had to struggle for survival… they had it all dished up on silver trays and took it all for granted every step of the way!!
Trust in your instincts and stand by your beliefs for “God helps those who help themselves”.
Keep well and God bless Africa.
By MAGGIE MARQUES
Dear all
ReplyDeleteThere are 196 countries on the globe. All countries are at its different stages of development. Past is a past, good or bad, but some countries became stable because of a combinations of so many events, natural or manmade, there are long histories through which all these 196 countries went through. Undoubtedly, there has been a great struggle for survival among the countries---it’s a natural phenomenon. Some countries have passed through these tests and have become stable and progressive and developed and some are still struggling, succeeding and failing say developing. We feel bad to be called ourselves belonging to developing countries. There is some truth, rather all truth, about what developed and a developing country are? What are those characteristics that differentiate them from each others? Many, but let me narrate a few of them in simple way.
Characteristics Developed Countries Developing Countries
1. Money value strong poor
2. Food availability to people Easily available and enough Little and difficultly available
3. Shelter (houses) Abundance, accessible Little, difficult,
4. Clothing Abundance, accessible Little, difficult
5. Civil and justice system Strong, accessible weak
6. Education System Strong, accessible weak
7..Health Care Strong, accessible weak
8. industry Strong, empowered weak
And so on and on---
Then what happens, a brain drain, leaving the developing countries further weaker and weaker, and also looking for food and other help from the developing countries. These differences are the true differences, the characteristics that have value; these values are weighed in the open global market and the countries are automatically ranked on a scale of developed and developing.
Simply feeling bad about what that is true (developed or developing countries) may not help. Any country can become a progressive (developed) country by utilizing its natural resources and its people. Wisdom is there (at least look around) if it’s not ruled off by selfishness. In a country, if the peoples are empowered and respected, then that country is ought to become progressive, and developed.
Best regards
Muhammad Manzoor Khan
thanks for the support maggie and george, in Africa, almost same scenarios replicates everywhere, i havent been to any other country, have just cleared my first degree but i am committed to the future of africa...as th economies are now shaping up in africa..ten years from now i will be here with a different story. pillars of vibrant economic society includes...
ReplyDelete1) infrastructure
2) education
3) health
4) political stability and good legislations.
once the macro environment is conducive, taking care of micro is not that challenging once governance and ethics are rooted...
Africa will come of age and a bit by bit, we are tryng to change our immediate ground as we expand our borders and appreciating opportunities occuring to us.
By Nicholas kibet siele
Before we categorize countries as poor countries we need to know the resources of those countries and where it goes and who has the influence and the power for ensuring fair distribution of its resources. For example Yemen consider poor, is it really poor or there is intended systematic wasting of resources.
ReplyDeleteBy Iman Awad
Dear Iman, your remark is very pertinent. I would say that the Yemenis ought to categorize themselves. I am talking of course of citizens who have the qualifications and the knowledge to analyze their country's economy and categorize it accordingly. They must provide the necessary justification for that categorization. What are the country's resources?, To what extent are they being developed? Is Yemen making full use of these resources? If not, what does the country need for that purpose? But here, we are talking only economics. We should also assess the country's needs in terms of education, health, social services and social security etc.in order to determine its rank among the other countries of the Middle East.
ReplyDeleteBy George Sabat
Dear all
ReplyDeleteGod help (bless) those who help themselves. Its a matter of unite together as a nation, standing on your own feet, a hard job, but doable. Best regards:MMK
By Muhammad manzoor Khan
Thanks for such a thought provoking discussion.
ReplyDeleteIn my view, be it an individual, society, communiy, or nation, if it is not developing, then it is decaying. Isn't America too developing, or has it stopped developing now, after getting a label of 'Developed Country'? This classification of Developed and Developing or Least Developed countries itself is wrong. With time and scientific progress that mankind has made, every country is progressing, and attempting to make the quality of life better for its people. It is and it has to be a continuous process of development for one and all, together.
Prof. Jagdish Khatri
Life is a continnum, so is everything in creation. Development in itself is not static. Branding of continent or countries or towns and villages is what man evolved to look down on its fellow-man. Howbeit, every country or location is bound to develop at its capacity - spiritually and physically as there is no stand-still in creation in order to surmount decay and collapse. A new English Lexcion is needed for derogatory politically phrases used by man against man.
ReplyDeleteI prefer to say development partners rather than developed countries. Developed countries may refer to some injustices states that ruling the world. Development partners are those people who even though they come from developed countries, but concern in development and building capacities of third world people who need and willing to improve situation of their communities.
ReplyDeleteBy Iman Awad
As far as I know, the label “Third World” is a remnant from the era during which socialism (headed by the USSR) was a second bloc (the one being capitalism) under which nations lined up. The “third” was meant to refer to those nations which belonged to neither of the blocs. Both the capitalist as well as the socialist blocs liked the label made for those countries and, in fact, there has been an apparent derogatory sense in the label, because both blocs wanted the nations, which did not belong to and aligned with them, feel themselves as stupid, undeveloped and even not developing. I don't know why the term is still hanging on our necks today as well, perhaps there is some reason! As much contradiction is in the use of the term “developing countries” too. Well, I don't see any problem to be referred to by that term, insofar as we are really developing, and God bless those who call us “developing, a wonderful name to be called by. But it is important to ask this: “Which other countries are not developing, because they have so much developed that there will remain nothing more for them to pursue and achieve?”
ReplyDeleteBy Abebe Zewge