In many parts of the world, the term, ”third world” triggers visions of impoverished nations constantly struggling to meet the most basic human needs. Such a notion may be true in contemporary societ. However, the origin of the term can be traced back to the countries that lacked an alliance during the Cold War with either the former Soviet Union or the U.S. In recent years this term has largely been used in describing nations with high rates of poverty, lack of basic human necessities such as food, shelter, and water as well as economic instability. In this light and with regards to the “worlds” system, nations are ranked from the first to the third world. Those nation in the third world categories are the ones that did not pick a side during the cold way including most of Latin America, Asia, and Africa (Berger, 1994, 257). Those in the second sphere include nations that lean considerably more towards a socialist form of society and during the Cold War and were in generally allied with the Soviet Union. These include certain Turn states, China, Poland, and Russia. Those considered to be in the first world are nations that are more industrialized and with developed societies. These are the capitalist societies which aligned with NATO and the U.S during the cold war. Such countries include Australia, Western Europe, Japan, and North America. However, with the emergence of newly industrialized and developed nations, the Third World concept is becoming more and more problematic by the day. The development that has been experienced in East and Southern Asia and especially in China has to a large extent altered the meaning of “third world” (Randall, 2004, 41). However, despite these developments, the term “Third World” is still alive and has evolved from its political meaning during the cold war to the contemporary economic meaning.
For decades, there has been intense debate regarding the rise of a multipolar system. According to Zoellick (2010, 32), it is time for the world to appreciate the different global economic parallel. According to him, 1989 marked the termination of what was termed as the “Second World” following the end of Communism, and as such it is politically correct to say that 2009 is a year that marked the end of what has been in the past termed as “Third World.” The world is today in a different, quickly developing and multi-polar global economic environment. It is an economy where some developing nations such as India and China are evolving into economic powerhouses; other economies are turning into extra growth poles while others are trying to reach full potential in the new world order (Migdal, 2015, 99). Today, East and West, North and South are compass points and not economic destinies. It is true that poverty, failed states and other worldwide issues are still there and need to be handled, but the approach towards resolving this is changing. Today, the old-fashioned categorization of third and first world, supplicant and donor, led and a leader no longer fit.
The end of the Cold War to a large extent contributed to the dramatic globalization of electoral and economic democracy. However, the significance associated with the substance of the democratic transitions as well as global capitalism within the past few years are subjects of great debate. The end of Cold War according to some observers represented the triumph of liberalism. According to this school of thought, it was only a matter of time before the Former Soviet Bloc, as well as other newly industrialized nations in East and South Asia, arrived at the democratic stability and capitalist prosperity that was previously only seen in Japan, Western Europe, and North America. By nature, humans categorize, and economists are no different. The World Bank has for many years used and produced income classification when grouping nations (Smit, 2010, 5). The high, lower-middle, upper-middle, as well as low-income groups are each associated with a Gross National Income (GNI) per-capita threshold level which is updated annually while the middle and low-income groups are termed as the developing world, a term closely related to “Third World.”
Originally, the term “Third World” did not refer to geopolitics. A French demographer, Alfred Sauvy was the first individual to use it in its contemporary sense during the French revolution when he drew a parallel with the “third estate” (Kalter, 2017, 116). Sauvy in 1952 noted that it is an aspect that exploited, ignored, and scorned the third world, who like the third estate wants to achieve something. The cold war terminology suggested that the third world nations have little to no room for any form of independent maneuver, these nations either aligned themselves with one side of the cold war or go ground between millstones. The nations are today becoming something totally different: engines of the global economy. According to the World Bank, since 2008, these nations have contributed to almost everything that economic growth has been so far (Khokhar, 2015, 4). For instance, in the 1980s these nations contributed a whopping 33.7% of global income at purchasing power parities. The share has hit over 50% today. Such trends have been ongoing for years, but the end of the recession has drastically speeded them up (Khokhar, 2015, 4). To date, richer nations are yet to recover fully considering that their income remains below what it was prior to the crisis. However, the poorer nations, especially in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, have an income that exceeds the pre-crisis levels by a considerably wide margin.
The above factors are some of the aspects that have or at least should have changed the attitude towards the low and middle-income nations. In the past, the term “third world has to a large extent meant dependent and poor. In the 1960s and 1950s, an economic branch known as “dependency theory” emerged with Fernando Henrique Cardoso, one of its most eloquent voices becoming Brazilin president. The third world nations were almost by definition economic failures success such as those experienced within East Asia were termed as special cases. The Third Word nations often ran irresponsive monetary and fiscal policies and even in the cases of fast growth, they still depend on the west for markets and capital (Berger, 1994, 257). A section of this picture remains true. The world to a large extent is still binary considering that over a billion people live on less than a dollar a day, a number that is higher compared to the time when the term “third world” was coined. Many people today live in nations such as India and Brazil which seem to have escaped the third world status. Further, about sixty small and developing nations still portray third world characteristics such as violence, corruption, and aid dependency. In this light, it might be correct and economically appropriate to talk about the changing third world composition and rather than stopping to use the term altogether.
It is however still correct to uphold some level of generalization considering that some of these nations have rejected populism. Today, it is the countries that considered rich that are running vast budgets deficits. According to the IMF, industrial policy and capital controls might after all work (Migdal, 2015, 102). It further notes that the economic mainstream has shifted and thus distinguishing between first and third world worlds based on economic policy is no longer possible (Khokhar, 2015, 7). Further, emerging markets are also not dependent on aid from the west as it has always been in the past. For instance, China has in the recent past signed an agreement to finance Nigeria oil refineries at the cost of $23 billion which represent almost double the total increase in aid to Africa over the last five years in a single deal (Taylor, 2014, 399). The current trends are complicated, and it is no longer clear who is dependent on who. Even though many low and middle-income nations still depend on markets in the West, their recovery indicates that they are considerably more resilient compared to before. This is partly as a result of more trading with each other and protecting each other from the worst of rich-nation recession and partly because of their better economic policies.
Trade between developing nations as well as between them and the BRICs is on the rise at a rate that is twice that of the global trade. Even perhaps more notable is that while growth has to a large extent headed south, debt has instead headed north this being the opposite of what took place in the 1980s and 1970s when low-income economies ran up vast debts. Today, the gross public debt in the developed nations is on the rise from close to 70% of GDP in 2007 at the beginning of the crisis to a high of over 100% in 2015 according to the IMF. Public debt within the emerging markets, on the other hand, is below 50% of GDP and flat (Migdal, 2015, 102). The third world prudent members are as a result increasingly becoming safer places of investing compared to the profligate ones of the first. A good example of this is South Africa, a country which would be referred to as a third world economy but has a higher credit rating than Greece.
The global economic crisis was a good indicator of the significance associated with multilateralism. The third world did not contribute towards this crisis, but the countries can be considered as significant when it comes to developing a solution. Over the next decade, the world is likely to look considerably different with demand coming from around the globe and not just the U.S. Already the shift is evident with the steady rise in Asia’s economies (Packenham, 2015, 254). Today, Asia’s stock market account for over 40% of global capitalization ahead of those of Europe and the U.S. China is also the world largest exporter as well as the largest market for cars in the world ahead of world giants such as the US and Germany. This growth is evident in the import numbers with low and middle-income countries becoming the main drivers of the world economy. The larger portion of the world trade recovery can be attributed to the solid demands for importations amongst the emerging nations. The imports to these countries are today 5% higher compared to the pre-crisis peak. Even though Africa to a large extent did not benefit from the revolution in manufacturing which help lift the East and South Asia economies, tectonic plates might shift further (Migdal, 2015, 99). Today in the majority of African countries many items regardless of the size are imported. If the countries could eliminate barriers to producing such goods domestically and focus on attracting investors to move production to the continent, then African development may start to look very different. As opposed to the past efforts which largely favored importations, such a method could help the continent benefit from international markets.
The increased growth and income within the third world countries means increased power. The previous fireside chats, old world amongst the G-7 leaders are no longer significant. The discussion today requires a considerable wider reach to house the core contributors and all nations whether developed or developing must be considered. It has become more difficult to solve big international issues without the contribution of transition and developing countries. Further, presuming that their biggest members: Brazil, Russia, India, and China or the so-called BRICs will represent all, is no longer possible. However, modernizing multilateralism is not only about industrialized nations learning ways of adapting to the wants of these growing powerhouses. With increasing powers comes increasing accountability (Packenham, 2015, 254). The developing economies must understand that they make up the world architecture. As such, they now should recognize that they have an interest in various global matters such as, movement of people and ideas, trade, flexible international systems for finance, strong multilateral institutions, and the environment.
Despite the huge development and growth experienced in East and South Asia, there are still compelling arguments for the retention of the Third Word notion in the geopolitical analysis. The actual term used is of no significance considering that other terms such as emerging areas or developing world would be better compared to “third world.” The third world boundaries can also be re-defined to exclude certain old members and include others that were not there before. This term is still necessary when it comes to denoting the continuing political and economic power imbalance between the world’s nations. However, Third World-type generalizations are of no significance in the field of comparative politics. The globe is still a world of nation-state but with more countries welding power on its mutual purpose. There are both developing and developed economies straddling every region of the world. Modern multilateralism should thus be practical and understand that most government authority remains in the hands of the nation-state. However, sources of influence and many decision flows around, beyond, and through governments regardless. Contemporary multilateralism should harness regional and global institutions, build collaboration among players new and old, as well as bring new players to help in addressing threat as well as in seizing opportunities which exceed the capabilities of single states. As such, it is time for the world to dismiss the old supplicant and donor, led and leader, and First and Third Worlds concepts. The world should support the increase of many growth poles which stands to benefit all.
Reference List
Berger, M.T., 1994. The end of the Third World'?. Third World Quarterly, 15(2), pp.257-275.
Kalter, C., 2017. From global to local and back: the ‘Third World’concept and the new radical left in France. Journal of Global History, 12(1), pp.115-136.
Khokhar, T. (2015). Should we continue to use the term “developing world”?. [online] The Data Blog. Available at: https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/should-we-continue-use-term-developing-world [Accessed 31 Dec. 2018], pp. 4-9.
Migdal, J.S., 2015. Peasants, politics, and revolution: Pressures toward political and social change in the Third World. Princeton University Press, pp. 98-109.
Packenham, R.A., 2015. Liberal America and the Third World: Political development ideas in foreign aid and social science. Princeton University Press, pp. 243-265.
Randall, V., 2004. Using and abusing the concept of the Third World: Geopolitics and the comparative political study of development and underdevelopment. Third World Quarterly, 25(1), pp.41-53.
Smit, N., 2010. The Continued Relevance of the ‘Third World’Concept. Thiven Ready. 1-21.
Taylor, I., 2014. Chinese interest in Nigeria's oil and the American context. Canadian Journal of African Studies/La Revue canadienne des études africaines, 48(3), pp.391-404.
Zoellick, R., 2010. Modernizing multilateralism for a multipolar world. Making It, 3, pp.32-33.
