How do you refer to developing countries
July 29, 2010 2:44 PM Subscribe
What terms should be used to refer to developing countries. "Developing countries?" "The Global South?" "Emerging Countries." They all feel problematic, so
While the use of "first world" vs "third world" is out; has there been a better phrase to refer to developing countries and areas (areas not in developing countries)?
A friend likes to use the term "global south" but to me it carries "political baggage" and feels divisive?
FWIW, this is to be used for a book title.
While the use of "first world" vs "third world" is out; has there been a better phrase to refer to developing countries and areas (areas not in developing countries)?
A friend likes to use the term "global south" but to me it carries "political baggage" and feels divisive?
FWIW, this is to be used for a book title.
Seconding PercussivePaul. Lower-Income Countries, or LICs.
posted by ethnomethodologist at 3:00 PM on July 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by ethnomethodologist at 3:00 PM on July 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
The World Bank uses these terms:
Income group: Economies are divided according to 2009 GNI per capita, calculated using the World Bank Atlas method. The groups are: low income, $995 or less; lower middle income, $996 - $3,945; upper middle income, $3,946 - $12,195; and high income, $12,196 or more.
posted by mdonley at 3:05 PM on July 29, 2010
Income group: Economies are divided according to 2009 GNI per capita, calculated using the World Bank Atlas method. The groups are: low income, $995 or less; lower middle income, $996 - $3,945; upper middle income, $3,946 - $12,195; and high income, $12,196 or more.
posted by mdonley at 3:05 PM on July 29, 2010
One of the problems is that there are degrees of "development" - obviously conditions in Liberia or Haiti are worse than in Mexico or Thailand, although both are considered "developing" (even though some may not have seen much progress in decades). Then there's China, which has enormous global clout and powerful industry but plenty of desperately poor people as well.
I'd say the best term would be the one that fits the particular countries the book is about - if it mostly addresses China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, etc., then you can use "emerging economies" or "industrializing world" - if you're talking about sub-Saharan Africa then "least developed countries" (a UN classification) might be better. "Developing countries" is probably the safest catch-all, though, and I believe still the standard academic terminology.
posted by theodolite at 3:05 PM on July 29, 2010
I'd say the best term would be the one that fits the particular countries the book is about - if it mostly addresses China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, etc., then you can use "emerging economies" or "industrializing world" - if you're talking about sub-Saharan Africa then "least developed countries" (a UN classification) might be better. "Developing countries" is probably the safest catch-all, though, and I believe still the standard academic terminology.
posted by theodolite at 3:05 PM on July 29, 2010
In my experience, people who live in developing countries don't care as much about political correctness. FWIW, in Asia I've heard "developing countries" used the most.
posted by smorange at 3:05 PM on July 29, 2010
posted by smorange at 3:05 PM on July 29, 2010
In the context of political science, I've heard "least developed countries" or "less developed countries" (LDC's). Here is wikipedia and the UN with the term.
posted by andoatnp at 3:06 PM on July 29, 2010
posted by andoatnp at 3:06 PM on July 29, 2010
Another term I've heard used by social justice campaigners is the 'majority countries' because they contain the the majority of the world's population (and to remind us in the developed countries that we are not the dominant situation).
posted by Kerasia at 3:10 PM on July 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Kerasia at 3:10 PM on July 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
Imho it'd also depend on the subject of the book. For example, if refering to business in any way, than Emerging Markets or lower income markets seems to fit better than many other phrases. Global South is definitely out. The Bottom of the Pyramid or BoP (as in CK Prahalad's The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid) refers across country lines to the lower income markets around the world, particularly in developing countries. However, of late, I have found developing countries to be a misnomer when considering entities like India and China which have uneven development, in fact I have heard a business say that they now call these countries "unevenly developed markets" (heh)
Give us a clue about the topic of the book.
I disagree with smorange, while we may not understand it as "politically correct", we certainly don't like being called the third world or "global south" and others of that ilk
posted by infini at 3:15 PM on July 29, 2010
Give us a clue about the topic of the book.
I disagree with smorange, while we may not understand it as "politically correct", we certainly don't like being called the third world or "global south" and others of that ilk
posted by infini at 3:15 PM on July 29, 2010
BOP [(bottom | base) of pyramid] appears to be increasingly common, particularly in the context of technology / infrastructure development in LDCs.
posted by holgate at 3:16 PM on July 29, 2010
posted by holgate at 3:16 PM on July 29, 2010
Another term I've heard used by social justice campaigners is the 'majority countries' because they contain the the majority of the world's population (and to remind us in the developed countries that we are not the dominant situation).
I like that - it's positive without being euphemistic and makes those countries harder to marginalize. Unfortunately 99% of your readers will have no idea what you mean.
posted by theodolite at 3:16 PM on July 29, 2010
I like that - it's positive without being euphemistic and makes those countries harder to marginalize. Unfortunately 99% of your readers will have no idea what you mean.
posted by theodolite at 3:16 PM on July 29, 2010
I personally have started using OECD nations and "rest of the world" or outside the OECD - interestingly I think Singapore, which recently qualifed to become the first "developed" country in Asia, is now considered part of the OECD
posted by infini at 3:16 PM on July 29, 2010
posted by infini at 3:16 PM on July 29, 2010
Response by poster: Thanks guys, it's primarily about urban areas, and we're getting pushback on the term "global south" by the series editor (my feeling is that he's correct).
I agree that the term should spotlight the group of countries being focused on, but its meant as a more general reader on urbanization in developing countries. I feel that neutrality and generalizablity are important (there are poor cities in developed countries too); rather than political correctness per se.
posted by stratastar at 3:21 PM on July 29, 2010
I agree that the term should spotlight the group of countries being focused on, but its meant as a more general reader on urbanization in developing countries. I feel that neutrality and generalizablity are important (there are poor cities in developed countries too); rather than political correctness per se.
posted by stratastar at 3:21 PM on July 29, 2010
interestingly I think Singapore, which recently qualifed to become the first "developed" country in Asia, is now considered part of the OECD
Before Japan? I don't think so. The OECD includes a few Asian countries, BTW.
posted by smorange at 3:24 PM on July 29, 2010
Before Japan? I don't think so. The OECD includes a few Asian countries, BTW.
posted by smorange at 3:24 PM on July 29, 2010
Japan has never been considered poor Asia since it has always been firmly brought into the industrialized developed first world Global North as in "USA, Germany and Japan today went on a hike, etc"
posted by infini at 3:27 PM on July 29, 2010
posted by infini at 3:27 PM on July 29, 2010
I was going to suggest "non-OECD countries" as well.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:27 PM on July 29, 2010
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:27 PM on July 29, 2010
The World Bank should not be your go-to on matters of terminology, as it's one of the prime culprits when it comes to prolonging systemic poverty.
The author and activist mentions the term "poor countries" briefly in an otherwise personal blog post:
[Impoverished is] a word that is used often to describe countries from the old global “South,” countries like Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka. [In my thesis]...I argued against the idea that there were “rich” countries and “poor” ones, rather than what was the case, a trans-national capitalist class that is alive and well in every country, as were the so-called poor. There were certainly imbalances, but they were internal to each country, between the rich and the poor of that country, and they were transnational between the rich in wealthier countries and the rich in poorer nations. I refused to use those old terms, “developed,” “developing,” and “underdeveloped,” choosing instead to define the terms to more appropriately reflect our biases, as “industrially advanced” for instance.
posted by soviet sleepover at 3:29 PM on July 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
The author and activist mentions the term "poor countries" briefly in an otherwise personal blog post:
[Impoverished is] a word that is used often to describe countries from the old global “South,” countries like Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka. [In my thesis]...I argued against the idea that there were “rich” countries and “poor” ones, rather than what was the case, a trans-national capitalist class that is alive and well in every country, as were the so-called poor. There were certainly imbalances, but they were internal to each country, between the rich and the poor of that country, and they were transnational between the rich in wealthier countries and the rich in poorer nations. I refused to use those old terms, “developed,” “developing,” and “underdeveloped,” choosing instead to define the terms to more appropriately reflect our biases, as “industrially advanced” for instance.
posted by soviet sleepover at 3:29 PM on July 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
Perhaps what you want then is to call the undeveloped/poor places agrarian, or dominantly agrarian.
posted by fleacircus at 3:32 PM on July 29, 2010
posted by fleacircus at 3:32 PM on July 29, 2010
In the international development industry, the standard is "developing countries." LDCs works too, but only if you're actually talking about LDCs. Which some developing countries aren't.
posted by charmcityblues at 3:36 PM on July 29, 2010
posted by charmcityblues at 3:36 PM on July 29, 2010
In my anthropology class we use the terms "the periphery", "semi-periphery", and "the core." It's in reference to global trade, exploitation, and the way wealth and resources move from the periphery to the core. Here's some more information.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 3:37 PM on July 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Solon and Thanks at 3:37 PM on July 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
Industrially advanced is interesting. I'd hesitate with agrarian if the book is about urban areas. "Cities" / "slums" or rather "megacities"; referring to the rapid and humongous urbanization taking place in most of these countries has become a factor of note these days - to highlight some interesting bits are the recent BBC documentary on Lagos, Nigeria, the MapKibera project of Nairobi, Kenya, entreprenuership in Dharavi, Mumbai and of course, the mushrooming malls of Soweto, South Africa.
posted by infini at 3:43 PM on July 29, 2010
posted by infini at 3:43 PM on July 29, 2010
We're all from developing countries, I guess. What country isn't on the road to 'developing', whether it's a more just court system, greater social equality, or the next fried Snickers bar?
Maybe developing is fine, but needs a modifier -- would "economically developing countries" work?
posted by A Terrible Llama at 3:44 PM on July 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
Maybe developing is fine, but needs a modifier -- would "economically developing countries" work?
posted by A Terrible Llama at 3:44 PM on July 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
I like Solon and Thanks' answer. "Cities in the periphery" has a ring to it.
posted by fleacircus at 3:50 PM on July 29, 2010
posted by fleacircus at 3:50 PM on July 29, 2010
"Cities in the periphery" has a ring to it.
I agree with fleacircus but to quibble, how about Cities of the periphery?
posted by infini at 3:52 PM on July 29, 2010
I agree with fleacircus but to quibble, how about Cities of the periphery?
posted by infini at 3:52 PM on July 29, 2010
"global south"?
The global south is first world - Australia and New Zealand are both developed.
The only way that global south seems to make any sense is from a terribly US-centric worldview, where "global" means "the Americas", and "south" means south of Texas. Or maybe south is a euphemism for backwater?
Weird phrase. Never heard it before. I wouldn't use it.
posted by -harlequin- at 4:09 PM on July 29, 2010 [3 favorites]
The global south is first world - Australia and New Zealand are both developed.
The only way that global south seems to make any sense is from a terribly US-centric worldview, where "global" means "the Americas", and "south" means south of Texas. Or maybe south is a euphemism for backwater?
Weird phrase. Never heard it before. I wouldn't use it.
posted by -harlequin- at 4:09 PM on July 29, 2010 [3 favorites]
Ooof: meant to say "The author and activist Ru Freeman mentions the term "poor countries" briefly in an otherwise personal blog post" Sorry for the awkward omission!
posted by soviet sleepover at 4:14 PM on July 29, 2010
posted by soviet sleepover at 4:14 PM on July 29, 2010
Weird phrase. Never heard it before. I wouldn't use it.
Global south is a jargon term. It has a meaning and a context to those in the field; you would
see evidence of this if you Googled it. The same is true of "developing countries", "lower-income countries", and other terms.
You shouldn't invent a new term to describe your field. Instead, you should use the term that is most accurate, most likely to be easily recognized by potential readers, most likely to be keyword-searched by potential readers, and least likely to cause confusion, controversy, or distraction.
What you really should do here is punt and ask the series editor.
posted by PercussivePaul at 4:25 PM on July 29, 2010
Global south is a jargon term. It has a meaning and a context to those in the field; you would
see evidence of this if you Googled it. The same is true of "developing countries", "lower-income countries", and other terms.
You shouldn't invent a new term to describe your field. Instead, you should use the term that is most accurate, most likely to be easily recognized by potential readers, most likely to be keyword-searched by potential readers, and least likely to cause confusion, controversy, or distraction.
What you really should do here is punt and ask the series editor.
posted by PercussivePaul at 4:25 PM on July 29, 2010
Poor countries. There's no reason to dance around the fact that they're poor and that the US, Canada, western Europe, etc. are rich. The Economist regularly simply calls these rich and poor.
Global South ignores South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand.
posted by luke1249 at 4:29 PM on July 29, 2010
Global South ignores South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand.
posted by luke1249 at 4:29 PM on July 29, 2010
I personally have started using OECD nations and "rest of the world" or outside the OECD - interestingly I think Singapore, which recently qualifed to become the first "developed" country in Asia, is now considered part of the OECD
The OECD doesn't seem to consider it part of the OECD and continues to leave it off its list of member countries, and also off its list of accession candidate countries and enhanced engagement countries.
posted by biffa at 4:48 PM on July 29, 2010
The OECD doesn't seem to consider it part of the OECD and continues to leave it off its list of member countries, and also off its list of accession candidate countries and enhanced engagement countries.
posted by biffa at 4:48 PM on July 29, 2010
Clearly, interests in different aspects of nations will produce different names. There doesn't exist any one term that would encompass every fact and potential about the, nor any one perfect, non-problematic way to describe them; there will in every case be an agronomist or economist or sociologist or social justice campaigner or humanitarian or Chinese construction firm whose interests will be different from yours, and who therefore would be inclined to describe these nations differently. So the answer to your question might be contingent upon what the nature of your interest is.
posted by clockzero at 4:53 PM on July 29, 2010
posted by clockzero at 4:53 PM on July 29, 2010
Yeah, we do care about the terminology, even if we're not thinking in terms of political correctness.
We'll call ourselves the "third world" in a tone that clearly indicates the quotation marks when we are referring to "first world" attitudes towards us, for example. The quotation marks disappear when we're using the term ourselves. I'd never thought about it, but this is quite similar to the way in which African-Americans might refer to themselves with a word that would be extremely offensive when used by someone who isn't African-American.
"Developing country" is usually used fairly neutrally. We don't ever call ourselves the 'global south' (although I always found that an interesting term, since it seemed the only way it was an improvement was recognizing that the world can't really be meaningfully divided into East and West if you're talking about socioeconomic development.)
It's not clear who the target audience of your book is, so I don't know how useful my perspective is. My personal view is that "developing countries" may be somewhat inaccurate, and certainly outdated, but would still be the most easily understood and least offensice shorthand for the general group of countries usually referred to as global south/Third World/underdeveloped world/etc. Sadly, I don't believe academia is capable of taking such a common-sense approach. What does your editor suggest?
posted by bardophile at 5:12 PM on July 29, 2010
We'll call ourselves the "third world" in a tone that clearly indicates the quotation marks when we are referring to "first world" attitudes towards us, for example. The quotation marks disappear when we're using the term ourselves. I'd never thought about it, but this is quite similar to the way in which African-Americans might refer to themselves with a word that would be extremely offensive when used by someone who isn't African-American.
"Developing country" is usually used fairly neutrally. We don't ever call ourselves the 'global south' (although I always found that an interesting term, since it seemed the only way it was an improvement was recognizing that the world can't really be meaningfully divided into East and West if you're talking about socioeconomic development.)
It's not clear who the target audience of your book is, so I don't know how useful my perspective is. My personal view is that "developing countries" may be somewhat inaccurate, and certainly outdated, but would still be the most easily understood and least offensice shorthand for the general group of countries usually referred to as global south/Third World/underdeveloped world/etc. Sadly, I don't believe academia is capable of taking such a common-sense approach. What does your editor suggest?
posted by bardophile at 5:12 PM on July 29, 2010
"Global south" isn't just geographically problematic, in the ways others have pointed out. And it's not just offensive to the countries at issue. It's also offensive to the American South, at least if I understand the metaphor correctly. I.e. I assume it's a slangy way of saying "backwards" or something -- not unrelated to the fact that if someone is telling a funny story and needs a voice for a stupid person, it's almost always a (vaguely) southern twang.
Turns out Southerners don't like these connotations and metaphors. Just sayin'.
posted by kestrel251 at 5:29 PM on July 29, 2010
Turns out Southerners don't like these connotations and metaphors. Just sayin'.
posted by kestrel251 at 5:29 PM on July 29, 2010
Everyone's points about the "global south" being geographically inaccurate are fine but to people who actually study these things, these words have different meanings. It's not as if we're just pulling these words out of thin air so it's kind of a bad argument. But my real question is -- how are you writing a book about this topic if you don't know what people call it?
posted by proj at 6:01 PM on July 29, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by proj at 6:01 PM on July 29, 2010 [2 favorites]
The problem with euphemisms, IMO, is that they inevitably absorb the negative connotation that they were intended to overcome or obscure or deny, and have to be replaced. And it doesn't seem to make much difference if the negative is real or only perceived.
As long as enough people perceive third world countries as being poor because their nature, culture, and institutions prevent them from accumulating wealth, changing the category name every 15 or 20 years isn't going to help.
posted by Bruce H. at 7:47 PM on July 29, 2010
As long as enough people perceive third world countries as being poor because their nature, culture, and institutions prevent them from accumulating wealth, changing the category name every 15 or 20 years isn't going to help.
posted by Bruce H. at 7:47 PM on July 29, 2010
Response by poster: The series editor wanted something with Third World, which we of course pushed back . The book will be aimed at undergrads, possible ways of avoiding the whole controversy would be to use the term "Global Development" so Cities and Global Development, Urbanization and Global Development. etc...
posted by stratastar at 9:16 PM on July 29, 2010
posted by stratastar at 9:16 PM on July 29, 2010
Best answer: You so cannot have this discussion without being aware of the Yes, Minister bit about TPLACs.
Jim: Well anyway, why are we having an official visit from this tin pot little African country?
Sir Humphrey: Minister, I beg of you not to refer to it as a tin pot little African country. It's an LDC.
Jim: A what?
Sir Humphrey: Buranda is what was used to be called an under-developed country, however this term was largely regarded as offensive, so they became known as developing countries and then as less developed countries or LDC's. We are now ready to replace the term LDC with HRRC.
Jim: What's that?
Sir Humphrey: Human resource rich countries.
Jim: Which means?
Sir Humphrey: That they're grossly over-populated and begging for money.
It's also offensive to the American South, at least if I understand the metaphor correctly
You misunderstand the metaphor. It refers to the fact that the rich countries are almost wholly in the Northern Hemisphere. I have never seen it used to extend the metaphor of the American South.
As to the OP: Personally, I feel that the terminology ought to be obvious from at least one of a) your material, b) your political or academic focus, c) your audience. For instance, a term like "global south" is going to attract a certain class of reader, probably a niche one full of Chomsky devotees, whereas "less developed countries" is going to come across as an economics study to be referred to but not read. Then there's the Thomas Friedman approach which is to try to tie things together with an overarching metaphor, like "the world is flat". This would be more likely to reach a popular audience.
posted by dhartung at 10:03 PM on July 29, 2010
Jim: Well anyway, why are we having an official visit from this tin pot little African country?
Sir Humphrey: Minister, I beg of you not to refer to it as a tin pot little African country. It's an LDC.
Jim: A what?
Sir Humphrey: Buranda is what was used to be called an under-developed country, however this term was largely regarded as offensive, so they became known as developing countries and then as less developed countries or LDC's. We are now ready to replace the term LDC with HRRC.
Jim: What's that?
Sir Humphrey: Human resource rich countries.
Jim: Which means?
Sir Humphrey: That they're grossly over-populated and begging for money.
It's also offensive to the American South, at least if I understand the metaphor correctly
You misunderstand the metaphor. It refers to the fact that the rich countries are almost wholly in the Northern Hemisphere. I have never seen it used to extend the metaphor of the American South.
As to the OP: Personally, I feel that the terminology ought to be obvious from at least one of a) your material, b) your political or academic focus, c) your audience. For instance, a term like "global south" is going to attract a certain class of reader, probably a niche one full of Chomsky devotees, whereas "less developed countries" is going to come across as an economics study to be referred to but not read. Then there's the Thomas Friedman approach which is to try to tie things together with an overarching metaphor, like "the world is flat". This would be more likely to reach a popular audience.
posted by dhartung at 10:03 PM on July 29, 2010
Best answer: Yikes. "Third World" on a textbook published in 2010?!
I'll re-state my initial suggestion a little stronger. According to my classmate, who is a PhD student working in global public health and someone who, I can assure you, knows what he's talking about, the currently accepted correct technical term used by people in this field is "lower-income countries". The correct term used to be "developing countries" and I think that's still considered acceptable, but "lower-income countries" is currently preferred, for reasons I could speculate about but don't actually know for sure. I would guess because it's less ambiguous and more precise. It's possible that this preference does not extend universally across fields that would use one of these terms -- for instance, "developing counties" is still all over the UN website -- but my only knowledgeable source was pretty clear on it. Plus, ethnomethodologist backed me up and with a sciency name like that I figure he knows his stuff too.
To be clear, these are not euphemisms, or metaphors. They are attempts at shorthand, technical jargon that allows practitioners to communicate more efficiently: they specify both a name and a membership criterion of a set of countries. There are different terms because they mean different things. "Global South" is shorthand for something like "given that countries can be split along a rich/poor divide, the set of countries that are on the poor side of this divide, which historically are mostly in the southern half of the world". "Lower income countries" is shorthand for something like "given that there is income disparity across countries such that there exist a set of high-income countries, the set of countries whose GDP's fall below this standard." "Third World" is largely deprecated (or should be, though it's still out there in the wild) because its precise definition is rooted in the Cold War and not relevant today.
Though frankly I think your "Urbanization and Global Development" approach might be the best, as it lets you avoid having to specify the set of countries that your book is about.
posted by PercussivePaul at 11:56 PM on July 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
I'll re-state my initial suggestion a little stronger. According to my classmate, who is a PhD student working in global public health and someone who, I can assure you, knows what he's talking about, the currently accepted correct technical term used by people in this field is "lower-income countries". The correct term used to be "developing countries" and I think that's still considered acceptable, but "lower-income countries" is currently preferred, for reasons I could speculate about but don't actually know for sure. I would guess because it's less ambiguous and more precise. It's possible that this preference does not extend universally across fields that would use one of these terms -- for instance, "developing counties" is still all over the UN website -- but my only knowledgeable source was pretty clear on it. Plus, ethnomethodologist backed me up and with a sciency name like that I figure he knows his stuff too.
To be clear, these are not euphemisms, or metaphors. They are attempts at shorthand, technical jargon that allows practitioners to communicate more efficiently: they specify both a name and a membership criterion of a set of countries. There are different terms because they mean different things. "Global South" is shorthand for something like "given that countries can be split along a rich/poor divide, the set of countries that are on the poor side of this divide, which historically are mostly in the southern half of the world". "Lower income countries" is shorthand for something like "given that there is income disparity across countries such that there exist a set of high-income countries, the set of countries whose GDP's fall below this standard." "Third World" is largely deprecated (or should be, though it's still out there in the wild) because its precise definition is rooted in the Cold War and not relevant today.
Though frankly I think your "Urbanization and Global Development" approach might be the best, as it lets you avoid having to specify the set of countries that your book is about.
posted by PercussivePaul at 11:56 PM on July 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
Then the Singaporean newspapers have been "ra ra ing" based on hopes and wishes perhaps :P
posted by infini at 12:10 AM on July 30, 2010
posted by infini at 12:10 AM on July 30, 2010
It was a flurry of news around this topic that led to my assumption.
posted by infini at 12:22 AM on July 30, 2010
posted by infini at 12:22 AM on July 30, 2010
Incidentally "Global South" refers to the fact that there is a strong positive correlation between latitude and wealth within the Northern Hemisphere. Most of the world's poor live in the Northern hemisphere because most of the world's land is there. All of India, Bangladesh, and China, most of Africa are in the Northern hemisphere. Only South America is mostly in the Southern hemisphere and there the southern most countries are also the wealthiest!
posted by atrazine at 3:38 AM on July 30, 2010
posted by atrazine at 3:38 AM on July 30, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by PercussivePaul at 2:51 PM on July 29, 2010 [1 favorite]