I’ve been ranting about this for several years now: the continued use of the term “third world” to describe countries currently in development, also known as “developing countries”. While I don’t get into heated discussions about it’s use, as most people are simply uninformed of how improper it is, I do think it’s worth exploring where this term came from and why it’s no longer a proper term to use.
I also think it’s worth arguing how I believe the term “third world” is actually doing more harm than good among those working in development. And although this blog post is likely to ruffle the feathers of many organizations even using the term in their names, I stand by my argument. Books could be written about the topic and I’m sure dissertations have been written about it as well. But, as blog posts go, I’m keeping this short and to-the-point. Please feel free to comment.
Definitions & Beginnings
The term “third world” originated in the Cold War in order to define countries who were either non-aligned or neutral to the two battling forces of the time: NATO (representing capitalism) and the Soviet Union (representing communism).
Generally speaking, those countries aligned with NATO and in support of capitalism were considered “First World”, while those aligned with the Soviet Union and in support of communism were considered “Second World”. All others were lumped into the “Third World” category.
“This definition provided a way of broadly categorizing the nations of the Earth into three groups based on social, political, and economic divisions.”
While most would be quick to assume that the “third world” was an American creation, it is actually a European creation with French origins. I’m not going to go into detail, but I encourage you to read up on the etymology of the third world here.
Associations
Now, you’re probably wondering what connection this term has to do with today’s associations, broadly spoken of as the world’s poor, developing countries, the developing world, the Global South, etc, etc.
In the Cold War, those nations non-aligned or neutral were, for the most part, nations who were just coming out of imperialism of the previous two centuries and in the process of building their economies from the ground up. The Cold War was a war of immense world powers coming together and those caught in the sidelines, i.e. developing countries without military capacities and strong economies, were instantly marginalized as being a part of the “third world”. They either were unable to involve themselves in the war effort, or were simply uninterested and wanted to stay out of the war altogether because of their own internal challenges they were facing.
The Case Against “Third World”
Before I became involved in development, I was as guilty as anyone else in using the term. I tossed the language around without even considering what it actually meant. But being informed of origins and histories when working in development can be your most valuable asset. One day I asked myself, “Why in the world are we still using this archaic term? The Soviet Union doesn’t even exist anymore.” Thus my research began.
An excellent point to make against the use of the term, was the case made by developmental economist Peter Bauer:
“In the 1980s, economist Peter Bauer offered a competing definition for the term Third World. He claimed that the attachment of Third World status to a particular country was not based on any stable economic or political criteria, and was a mostly arbitrary process. The large diversity of countries that were considered to be part of the Third World, from Indonesia to Afghanistan, ranged widely from economically primitive to economically advanced and from politically non-aligned to Soviet- or Western-leaning. The only characteristic that Bauer found common in all Third World countries was that their governments “demand and receive Western aid” (the giving of which he strongly opposed). Thus, the aggregate term “Third World” was challenged as misleading even during the Cold War period.”
Mr. Bauer took the case against the term another step by stating that it was never even correct to begin with. The term “third world” was loosely thrown around by politicians and journalists and based entirely on non-measurable characteristics of a nation. The Cold war was a time of political alliances and the three-world system made it easy to characterize who was who in the war effort for the media, politicians and academia.
Today’s Alternatives
Today, more and more NGO’s (non-governmental organizations), government agencies, aid groups, and journalists are using new, modern terminology to describe countries that once fell under the third world. The term most commonly used today is developing country, although there is no strict definition or standard for even measuring what this is. While some agencies have their own metric of measurement and classification, the complications of development and economics prevent any sort of system from being adopted across the board. Over the next 20 years, the definition of a developing country is likely to go through an evolution of its own and we will likely see several more alternatives pop up with even more standards being created.
Another alternative that stems more closely from academia, and is definitely worth noting, is the “Global South“, although there are dilemma’s in geography. I, personally, find this study to be very fascinating and worth a read if you are interested and have a knack for sociology and development like myself.
Putting it to Rest
It’s long overdue to put the term “third world” to rest. I have long advocated to use the term “developing country” for many reasons. One, the “third world” term is archaic, historically inaccurate, and without measurable characteristics as described by the late Peter Bauer and others. Two, although it is hard to truly define economies that are developing, developing countries comes closest to define what is happening in the world today in a more practical way.
Today’s developing countries are growing by leaps and bounds, largely due to the exponential pace of technology. It would probably not be an exaggeration to say more growth has happened in the past 10 years than the past 50 due to technology in its many forms. While the etymological arguments against the third world term are plenty to validate its expulsion from our vocabulary, many still use it today. I believe the public perception between the two terms of “third world” and “developing country” could be measured in a way to show one is looked upon more positively than the other. And with more people today than ever before involved in anti-poverty efforts, it is time we define these countries by the proper terms and make a conscience effort to change public perception of these nations. This change starts with knowledge and much of the burden rests upon the shoulders of the media and academia.
Much more can be said about this topic, but hopefully I have provided an impetus for discussion. Feel free to comment and provide your own insights into this topic below.
