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.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider sharing it!
Hi, I think this is a very interesting argument. I am currently doing a research project titled ‘Is the term the ‘third world’ still relavent in todays international order?’ so this has helped me a lot. I am interested to know though whether you think the term is used in a derogatory manner? It has been suggested that to a certain extent it is a term used by more economically developed countries to suggest they are superior. Also, why do you think the media still use it now? Surely someone would of informed the media that the third world is no more or is it just a matter of habit in your opinion? Thank you.
Hi Danielle,
Thanks for your comment. I’m not sure so much that the term is used in a derogatory manner consciously, but I do believe undoubtedly that it carries a negative connotation with it. I also know that I am far from alone in my argument, as many of the more progressive development economists and professionals believe it is an archaic term as well.
As to why the media still uses it? My opinion is out of pure laziness. I believe it would take several prominent journalists to address the matter directly before we actually begin to see a change in the semantic patterns. It is so much ingrained in the media culture that it will take a long time to change. There is still that “us and them” mentality that continues to feed the lack of cultural sensitivity within journalism. And by the time it changes there will likely be pushes to put the term “developing country” to sleep, as there already is today.
Nevertheless, I think it is all about awareness. I think we need to tackle this type of terminology as a part of helping to re-brand other parts of the world that may not be as developed as the United States and Europe. The world is getting smaller and more connected and the need to move across differences has never been more important than today. Best of luck with your studies.
-Josef
Thank you, your comment helped me to know more about this term that yes, it carries a negative connotation. Also, I believe that the term “developed countries” should be revised.
Is there a term that is unoffensive that describes poorer countries? Until now, I had no idea the term ’3rd World’ was offensive, I thought it merely a grouping of countries with a large percentage of poverty and famine ridden occupants. What terms are used then, that describe areas or countries with this that are not derogatory?
(I agree with you on the subjectand appreciate your article. I’m not challenging your opinion in any way.)
Hi Lan,
Thanks for your comment. If I’m not mistaken, most development economists prefer the term “developing countries” over ‘third world’ if not for more technical reasons than for the potentially offensive third world terminology. But I also know that some other alternatives are starting to appear, such as emerging markets, etc. that have a stronger economic connotation rather than the geopolitical connotation of the third world term. A wise (and logical) move in my opinion.
As I mentioned earlier, the term ‘developing countries’ brings up a whole different set of issues. How do you measure a developing country? When is a country not a developing country? Are the BRIC countries emerging markets or developing countries?
I don’t have the answers to those questions, but I find the discourse very interesting indeed and well worth talking about. Thanks again for chiming in.
-Josef
another term that is being used recently is “emerging markets”
There are certainly problems with the term, “the third world.” Of course, there is substantial baggage associated with “developing country” (same negative connotations). The Global South sounds better but is it more accurate? Not at all.
In academia, there are many “third world studies” programs. Generally, this refers to poorer countries, but this is also inconsistent (often China, Indonesia, Brazil, and India are all included; all countries with fast economic growth). It could be argued that this refers to all countries outside of the USA, Canada, Russia, and Europe. Yet, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand are usually excluded. And what about eastern Europe?
So, we are left with the problem: what are we talking about and how do we refer to it?
Here is an excellent post summarizing the most recent developments in the war on words I suggest everyone read: http://www.whydev.org/war-of-the-words/
I am a citizen of Ecuador. I am Ecuadorian. I never refer to myself as a person from the “Third World”, but I have heard many people talk about my country using that term. I have never in my life liked that term as it is derogatory by nature.
I don’t even like to use the term developed and developing, because it says that some at least developed than others…in what sense? Are other people superior? Have they attained perfection? Have they no more issues to worry about? Are they just basing this in terms of material wealth? What about the larger rates of suicide, overweight, killing of unborn human beings, drug use, STDs, etc.? Are the not striving to have holistic development of their people?
When people use this term for my country, I also know they assume the land is only jungle, that we eat mostly tortillas, rice and beans. They are ignorant.
I appreciate your efforts to educate people. I have also talked about this issue, especially with my husband since he is from the United States. I have also got in trouble with American and Europeans for not having the same mindset and not believing of myself less and them as superior.
I would recommend the website http://www.gapminder.org which gives fact-based, graphical and easy to understand accurate view of the world and the need for people to change their mindset. Their moto is “Does your mindset matches your dataset”.
I see the need all over the world to treat each other with dignity, to value what we have, and recognize that we need to grow in many areas of our lives. We also need to humble ourselves. That is not easy as pride is human nature.
I personally find strength to think and act right in God.
Thank you.
I look forward to reading your replies.
-Cecilia
I work for a development org, and my sister just pointed out how offensive the phrase “3rd world” was, especially since I’ve been using it in the context of my Facebook posts.
But I entirely see the derogatory implications of using “3rd” world to refer to developing countries (it could be interpreted as meaning “3rd rate, less than, not good enough…etc).
Words do matter, and no nation (or person) should ever be viewed as being “less than” another, regardless of what you really think…so from now on, 3rd world is hereby banished from my vocabulary…developing country sounds more humane…