Define Third World

[straight_man]

@pinguin

Classify countries according to the level of income. As simple as that. There are poor countries, middle class countries, rich countries, and obsenely rich countries.

The term “Third world” means nothing simply because some “developed” countries are getting poorer, and some “developing” countries are getting richer. The term industrilized countries, means not much either, considering how much “industry” countries like the Europeans and the U.S. has lost to Asia.

Anyways.

But just pure GDP/capita isn’t really that informative — social development, political development, income distribution, etc. are all extremely important factors in how a country functions. An economist might find it convenient to just use level of income — but a political scientist certainly would not! If you do, you end up with the Gulf States clumped with western Europe, for example.

[Chronos]

Quoth pinguin:

Is Korea part of the Third World?

You do realize that there are two different countries on the Korean Peninsula, right? One of them is highly developed and industrialized, and the other is a cesspool.

[Evil_Captor]

I always thought Third World referred to countries that were not Old World: Europe, Russia and Turkey, basically … or New World: the Americas … leaving the Third World: Everybody else.

[Wesley_Clark]

It was originally designed to refer to nations not part of the industrialized west (the first world) or the USSR (the second world). I have heard some use the term ‘fourth world’ to define deeply impoverished failed states like Somalia.

However you can’t compare Somalia with Brazil, or China with Liberia even if they are all lumped in as third world.

So now terms like middle income or low income are used. Plus there are a variety of indexes that show massive variance among the nations. Plus within a nations boundaires you can find massive discrepancies between urban and rural. Certain urban parts of China are likely first world (I’ve never been there, but that is what I hear) and rural parts are third world.

Some new terms used are BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) since they will form a big part of the new global economy. They already have a combined 10 trillion or so in GDP, and are predicted to have a combined GDP bigger than the G7 by the 2030s.

N-11 (next 11) is another term used.

So I really don’t know. A lot of nations in latin America and Asia are lifting their way out of poverty, and you can’t compare them with some of the nations you’d find in Africa or the middle east for levels of democratization or economic development.

[pinguin]

@Wesley_Clark

So I really don’t know. A lot of nations in latin America and Asia are lifting their way out of poverty, and you can’t compare them with some of the nations you’d find in Africa or the middle east for levels of democratization or economic development.

Absolutely

[Mr.Excellent]

@even_sven

Nobody seriously uses “third world,” anymore. People tend to talk about high, high-middle, low-middle and low income countries. They may also refer to advanced emerging economies, newly industrialized countries, and failed states.

Things like theHuman Development Index try to give a more nuanced view than simply focusing on GDP can.

Obviously no small set of generic categories is going to catch the nuances of a single country, much less all of them. But it is sometimes useful to say things like “We plan to market this in countries roughly like Guatemala, Malawi and Laos and not countries roughly like Sweden, Canada and Japan.”

If you want a quick-and-dirty list of the most highly developed states, the membership list of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is a good place to start as well. It’s essentially a rich-and-upper-middle-income club, with the quibble that it’s also very much a Western-oriented one. China is conspicuous by its absence, for example. http://www.oecd.org/pages/0,3417,en_36734052_36761800_1_1_1_1_1,00.html

ETA: In fact, none of the BRIC states (Brazil, Russia, India, China) are members. But oh well.

[wmfellows]

@even_sven

“Developed/Developing” is falling out of favor

Says who? American academics? Rest of critique seems to so imply.

It’s a big arrogant to assume that everyone’s goal is to become just like us, and even if they wanted to, there are not enough resources to go around for it to work.

First, given mass attempts to emmigrate to Europe and other wealthy nations from the Third World, I would say that a very good working standard is, yes everyone does want to in general want to be as wealthy as the West (of course as in the West there will always be the mumblers and artistic types who are against anything and everything all at once). The second part of the issue is a separate problem (and I am not convinced true, same kind of things were said 30 yrs ago re Asia).

No, not arrogant at all to assume that most people want to be as wealthy as in the West. All empirical evidence indicate it to be generally the case. May not want to being Wii playing layabouts, arguing over abortion rights, but that’s a detail.

[Farmer_Jane]

We use develop/developing in our curriculum in DPS.

But really? Isn’t the OP posting 40 threads about the same topic? Didn’t I just discuss this one?

[even_sven]

@wmfellows

No, not arrogant at all to assume that most people want to be as wealthy as in the West.

Of course people would love it if the wealth of the West fell on their laps, but in reality people vary in what steps they are interested in taking to get to that wealth, and what they think the path to that wealth looks like.

China has paid an enormous health and environmental price for their wealth. Brazil has created immense inequality. It’s worked out for (most) of them, but other countries may or may not feel that is worth it. Would a moderately well-off Mongolian herder family, with a satellite dish, a truck, and a pastoralist lifestyle trade in their lifestyle for cable TV, an SUV and a 9-5? Maybe, maybe not. Would a smallholder farmer in Mali trade in his land to work that same land as paid labor on an industrial plantation? Probably not, and schemes like that often require coercion. France is happy to allow a degree of economic stagnation as the price for keeping their social services. Japan has held on pretty tightly to it’s traditional culture, while the US has opened it’s arms up wide. There are different choices to make, and “maximum wealth” is not, but not always the single overriding goal.

Then there are questions about “how do countries become wealthy?” In the 1950s, the West held an essentially Marxist view that countries step progressively through rather discrete economic steps, and the early foundations of development are based on that. But in reality, China became wealthier in a completely different way than India became wealthier, and neither of those were the way that Europe became wealthy. Our attempts to usher Africa through these steps largely failed, and it’s now that Africa is able to use it’s own strengths to develop their own paths that many African countries are finding success. And then there are the theories that are just totally different- like those who believe the wealth of rich countries comes at the expense of poor countries. You may not agree with them, but that’s no reason to semantically exclude them.

Anyway, I use developed/developing in casual conversation and general discussion. But if I were writing or preparing something for use in the field, I’d want to use something more specific.

[wmfellows]

@even_sven

Of course people would love it if the wealth of the West fell on their laps, but in reality people vary in what steps they are interested in taking to get to that wealth, and what they think the path to that wealth looks like.

That’s not the same problem, now is it?

China has paid an enormous health and environmental price for their wealth.

Shrug. So have lots of places, again entirely different issue.

Brazil has created immense inequality.

They always had immense inequality, ever since the colony was created.

It’s worked out for (most) of them, but other countries may or may not feel that is worth it.

Indeed, however all the objective signs are everyone with half a decent shot at developing the wealth levels of the West is trying to.

The rest is mere academic hand waving or confusing side cultural issues for the core objective.

France is happy to allow a degree of economic stagnation as the price for keeping their social services.

Uh yeah that’s why there is a huge crime and rioting problem in the suburbs. Right bloody happy all those kids who can’t get jobs, right bloody happy.

Anyway, I use developed/developing in casual conversation and general discussion. But if I were writing or preparing something for use in the field, I’d want to use something more specific.

Shrug. American academics are constantly wrapping themselves into knots over pointless language quibbles. Rest of the world marches on.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@pinguin

Define Third World. What countries are part of the Third World and what aren’t?

No countries are now part of the Third World. When the term had meaning, jayjay’s descriptor is easiest: the countries which were part of the Non-Aligned Movement, or at any rate not especially friendly with NATO or the Warsaw Pact states.

Now it’s a pejorative term, and you should feel free to use it to describe any poor state.