As with any field of study, international development is constantly evolving. The academic literature surrounding international development evolves too. As a result, academics and development practitioners alike must be ever vigilant to stay on top of what vocabulary is the most up-to-date, accurate, and, most importantly, politically correct.
One of the most important and difficult to label concepts in international development is the category of countries/regions/areas that experience high levels of poverty/social issues/poor quality of life/etc. Even describing the category is challenging!
Post World War II, this category was classified as the “third world”. Capitalist countries were the first world, communist countries were the second, and everyone else was the third world. This term was dropped after the fall of the Soviet Union since the categories were no longer accurate. Also, the ranking of first to third was considered offensive.
Next came the distinction of industrialized versus industrializing countries, associated with modernity theory. These terms were all well and good, until academics began to realize that becoming “industrial” may not be the ideal thing for all nations. Modernity theory was also tossed out the proverbial window.
Next came developed and developing countries. These terms are still used today. However, some academics pointed out that these terms are patronizing: they insinuate that “we” are what “they” should become. Considering our problems with mass consumption and pollution, this is not particularly accurate.
Another, theoretically less dictatorial, set of terms is Global North and Global South. This based on the Brandt Line, a visual depiction of the North-South divide. Basically, North means wealthy and privileged, while South means impoverished and vulnerable. Considering the obvious flaws with this geographical divide (ahem, Australia!), this term, though still current, is also contested.
Really, it is exhausting for a mere student to keep straight.
I have most commonly used the developed versus developing terminology or Global North versus Global South, sprinkled in with some “emerging economies” and “impoverished nations” for good measure. However, my favourite textbook this summer, Geographies of Developing Areas by Williams, Meth, and Willis, pointed out the quandary about using the terms Global North and Global South. And it got me thinking…
Just how important is terminology? If I say developing countries and you say Global South, does it matter as long as we all know what we are talking about? How does public perception factor in?
I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter!
