Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
One of the first questions I get from most students taking this course centers on the
name of the course itself. While we've all likely heard the term "third world," we often
have little sense what exactly it means. We may even think the term itself is discriminatory,
reflecting an inherent hierarchy in the world with the United States, Europe, Australia
and other western powers at the top, and the vast majority of the world's population at
the bottom. Under this framework, First World, sometimes
also called the West or the global north) is rich, with a relatively small population,
long life expectancies, and low child mortality. The Third World, by contrast, is usually defined
by its poverty and its large population with short life expectancies and high levels of
child mortality. The truth is somewhat more complicated than
that. The term "third world" actually has very specific
historical origins. It was first used following the 1955 Bandung Conference, where the Non-Aligned
Movement emerged. Remember that at that time, the Cold War was in full force. Both the United
States and the Soviet Union were actively recruiting allies. And many countries in the
global south were emerging from colonialism, having only gained independence a few years
earlier. The 29 countries participating at the Bandung
Conference shared a common interest in developing their own developmental path. Most rejected
both American capitalism and Soviet communism as economic and political models, preferring
instead to develop their own political and economic systems appropriate to their specific
histories, cultures, and societies. They saw this as a "third way," a path between American
capitalism and Soviet communism. That "third way" became closely associated with the term
"Third World," which was closely tied to the principles of anti-imperialism, regional solidarity,
and non-alignment that were articulated at the Bandung Conference.
By anti-imperialism, the Third World was expressing its disapproval of the system of colonialism
from which most of its members had only recently emerged. At the Bandung Conference, they thus
committed themselves to opposing colonialism and imperialism where it continued to exist,
such as in much of Africa and Asia. They also committed themselves to working
together to collectively solve their problems on a regional level. This idea, usually expressed
as regional solidarity, suggested that cooperation within and between Africa, Asia, and Latin
America would be key to achieving development outside the American and Soviet models.
Finally, by nonalignment, the "third world" was committing itself to avoid the system
of American and Soviet alliances that were increasingly dominating the global system.
They sought for neutrality in the Cold War. The political significance of the term "third
world" has largely been lost today, and the term has begun to fall out of favor in some
circles. In its place, countless other terms have been proposed. Each has its own strengths
and weaknesses. Perhaps the most common phrase is "developing"
world. This is the term you find in World Bank literature and most development textbooks.
It is seen as being fairly neutral, avoiding some of the political baggage of "third world."
But it is also problematic. Some accuse the phrase "developing world" of privileging a
particular kind of development, and particularly of casting development as a linear process
along which countries steadily move. As we'll learn later in the course, development is
neither a linear nor a uniform process. Historically, the phrase "industrializing"
country was often used. This term, however, has fallen out of favor, both because it privileges
a particular form of development (namely, industrialization), and because many "industrialized"
countries have now moved into a "post-industrial" era. This is particularly true in the United
States and Western Europe, where vast majority of economic activity now takes place not in
the industrial but in the service sector. Under these conditions, it doesn't really
make sense to talk of industrialization as defining feature of development or as a way
to differentiate between regions of the world. In recent years, the designation "global south"
has become more common. This term captures the geographic division of the world, largely
into two hemispheres, by the Brandt line (noted in blue on the map here).
Of course, this term is also problematic, as some developed countries (like Australia
and New Zealand) are in the geographic south while some developing countries (like Mexico,
Kazakhstan, Mongolia, and others) are in the geographic north.
In short, there is no perfect or uniformly agreed term to describe this group of countries,
and we'll likely move back and forth between several terms throughout the course.
But whatever term we use, there are some common features that unify this group of countries.
First, this group of countries tends to be relatively poor and often share an economic
structure centered around the export of primary commodities like foodstuffs, oil, or minerals.
They often have a disproportionate share of the population engaged in subsistence agricultural
production. The informal sector of the economy is often large. They also often have relatively
high levels of foreign external debt. And finally, they almost all share a common, often
recent, experience of colonization. Yet these similarities also mask many differences.
In terms of both population and area, countries in the developing world can range from large
landmasses with relatively low population densities (like Botswana), to countries and
regions with high population densities (like Lagos, Nigeria).
There are also important differences in terms of relative wealth. Some countries, like South
Korea and China, have experienced rapid economic growth, while others, like Mali and Chad,
remain quite poor. While we'll focus on many of the common themes
and challenges faced by countries in the global south throughout this course, it's important
to keep in mind that we're painting with a broad brush, and that many developing countries
will not fit neatly into any specific box. What's true for one group of countries may
not hold for another. And it's important to keep these differences in mind.