“third world nation” is a commonly used phrase to describe the poorer nations who rely on the export of unfinished goods. One hardly ever hears “first world nation”, and I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone use “second world nation” to describe any country. My understanding is that first world refers to the US and the Western powers. Second world referred to the USSR and Eastern bloc nations. Are these terms valid in the post cold-war world? What are the second world nations and how are they classified as such today? (Not meant to be a GD, just looking for facts please)
Yeah, I saw that. The link I mentioned says pretty much the same thing. I’m more interested in knowing if it has relevance today and if the criteria have changed. Do the former Eastern bloc nations who have abandoned communism and joined NATO belong in the “second” world or the “first”? If so, why? If not, why not? I hope that makes it clearer.
I’ve never heard “second world” actually used, and it would seem to be even less useful now that the cold war is over. Your definition of third world countries in the OP seems as relevant today as it was in the 50s.
My understanding, drilled into my head by some PhDs from Calcutta, is that in the 1950’s Asian conference, when the terms were coined, the “first and second worlds” were those of American style capitalism and Soviet style communism, and that the Asian countries were trying to develop a “third world” order, independent of the major powers (and as many countries are still nobly attempting). Of course when the Americans got their hands on the terms, their meanings changed, and the “Third World” became “undeveloped countries,” the usage that seems to be used today. The original issue was ideological, not developmental. First World (“Capitalist/ American”) has been transformed into First World (“developed” (American)). You see the ideological shift here in a sort of naturalization of the identification of Capitalism with civilized.
There has actually been another classification made for this sort of country, which show no sign of industrialization, stability, economic improvement, etc. You guessed it: Fourth World.
First World: West, Developed Asia
Second World: (former) Soviet bloc
Third World: nascent Asian tigers, Ivory Coast, Ghana, PRC,
Fourth World: poor African/ S.A. nations (Congo…)
Fifth World: impoverished nations–Burkina Faso, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Mali…
Admittedly, outside of Washington’s Beltway, no one uses these terms much anymore and no one, other than a handful, ever spoke of Fourth or Fifth World nations. Now it’s the very P.C. Developed and Developing Countries, which itself no doubt offends some ears.
i’ve heard first/third world nations called nations of the ‘north’ and ‘south’ in a few publications that seemed to imply that was the current nomenclature for them. i couldn’t really find a convincing argument why this would be better, though, and it seems to me that it would make things more confusing. i’m not surprsied that it hasn’t seemed to catch on…
The description as cited by Cecil above is correct, the second world were the communist countries or controlled economies; and the Third World were the developing and undeveloped countries. That usage has become obsolete in practice, since there is no “second world” to speak of (China and Cuba, I suppose) but the expression “Third World” is still commonly applied to mean undeveloped, poor.
The fact is that classifications are all inconsistent and inadequate.
Quick example: The World Bank bases its classifications on per capita income levels, so Kuwait is “developing” because of the high per capita income (vast oil wealth in the hands of a small minority of the population.)
The term “developing nation” is being replaced with “emerging economy”, which is seen as more sensitive. Nobody wants to be called “undeveloped” or “developing.”
So the classifications of nations today tend to be either into two categories (developed and emerging) or three (developed, developing/emerging, and undeveloped). But that still raises the question, do you put the Congo and Poland in the same category?
In short, the term “Third World” is a holdover and used today as a euphemism for “dirt poor” but has no real usefulness any more in classifying countries.
Core nations are the most economically advanced nations (US, Japan, Western European nations, etc.)
Semi-Periphery - Those nations that are experiencing rapid economic growth and development due to industrialization and/or modernization of their economies. These are principally (but not always) situated near the core nations. This would include the former communist countries of Eastern Europe and Russia; many Latin American countries (Mexico, Chile, Brazil, etc.); and the emerging economies of East and Southeast Asia (South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, etc.).
Periphery - all the other countries not experiencing industrialization/modernization. Poorest nations principally in Latin America, Africa, and Asia.
Of course, this categorization is not without its problems (Where does one put Albania - Semi-Periphery or Periphery?).
Likewise, NIC (Newly Industrialized Country) is often used to label countries that are “developing” as a result of their expanding industrial capabilities. In addition, OEC (Oil Exporting Country) is often used to label countries that are acheiving rapid economic growth and development due to their production and exportation of oil (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc.).
Also, the HDI (Human Development Index) is used by the United Nations and others to rank countries according to their level of development. Crude and somewhat simplistic, it does incorporate “quality of life” measures in the index. The HDI attempts counter the notion that “development” is strictly an economic concept - one also needs to consider such things as life expectancy, literacy rates, mortaility rates, health care, and others in gaging how “developed” a country is.
