The term ‘Third World’ is often applied to countries which have "colonial histories, and which are in the process of developing economically and socially from a status characterized by low incomes, dependence on agriculture, weakness in trading relations, social deprivation for large segments of society, and restricted political and civil liberties."
The term and its frequently used counterparts – ‘developing countries’, ‘south’, ‘poor countries’ and so on – are often seen as the terminology of comparative politics – expressive not of a concept or definition, but an attitude towards that concept. This can be problematic with regards to an objective analysis of development issues, as, to many, the term ‘Third World’ holds various normative implications. As it carries these assumptions, it is necessary to consider how useful the term ‘Third World’ is, as a definition in itself and with regards to development.
The idea of a ‘Third World’ originated during the Cold War atmosphere of the 1950s. Outside of the great American and Soviet power blocs, there developed a ‘non-aligned’ movement of countries who wished to remain politically and economically sovereign. The ‘First World’ was the capitalist United States and her satellites, the ‘Second World’ the USSR and the Eastern Bloc, so became the non-aligned states the ‘Third World’. As most industrialized states were part of the First World, and the Second World was determinedly industrializing, the majority of Third World countries were agrarian primary producers. From this emerged a kind of solidarity movement, ‘Third Worldism’, to protect from being enveloped by either Western free markets or the Soviet planned economy. It is clear that by this definition that the end of the Cold War leaves the term ‘Third World’ irrelevant, as it required “the existence of a bipolar global system, shaped by antagonism between the ‘First World’ of developed capitalist states, and the ‘Second World’ of developing socialist states.”
However, with the post-1945 emergence of development as a distinct field of study, coupled with many newly independent or created nations, the grouping and the term ‘Third World’ remained, reclassified less by political allegiance , and more by the characteristics shared by Third World countries as percieved by First Worlders: compared to the First World, the Third World is ‘underdeveloped’.
My original definition contains a range of characteristics of Third World countries – social, political and economic. It is clear that not all countries that are regarded as third world countries demonstrate all these traits, for example the Middle East oil states’ economies are not overwhelmingly agrarian and, as demonstrated with the 1973 oil price hikes, have considerable power in trading relations. This could imply that in fact the Middle East oil states are in fact not third world countries – in which case, very few countries actually do belong to the third world, as few demonstrate those characteristics. However, it can be said that whichever data are used… (GNP, literacy rate, life expectancy etc.)… a similar pattern emerges and the startling imbalance in the world’s wealth is revealed. This emphasizes the trend that exists among perceived third world countries, that they all retain at least some of the characteristics of other Third World societies.
This explanation of what constitutes third world in itself acknowledges the diversity and varying characteristics of countries that comprise the ‘Third World’ – illustrating the problem with the term: it “has become a convenient omnibus term for the world’s underdeveloped countries” , portraying them as a homogenous bulk. In this way, the term is then “insulting to the diverse range of polities, cultures, histories and ideologies found within it” , and as Bauer argues, condescending to present the Third World as a “uniform stagnant mass devoid of character” . In short, the term collates a range of countries under the sole inner principle of underdevelopment .
The extent to which these countries are homogenized can be problematic with regards to development issues: Stiglitz in his celebrated "Globalization and its discontents" emphasizes the inefficiency of the outcomes of the International Monetary Fund issuing ‘standard’ packages to third world countries, without differentiating between and tailoring to their individual circumstances: “When crises hit, the IMF prescribed outmoded, inappropriate, if “standard” solutions, without considering the effects they would have on the people in the countries told to follow these policies.”
However, although the term ‘Third World’ homogenizes a diverse group of countries, there can be a danger in the over emphasis of each case as unique. The latter attitude can lead to a situation in which common causes of economic problems and so on that are not confined within state boundaries are missed in development analysis: if there is a danger in excessive generalization and the imposition of a false uniformity across space and time, there is an equal and opposite danger in the insistence that everything is utterly unique… While the claim that many of the constituent features of politics and the driving forces around the world are unique and specific to each region is not to be dismissed out of hand, it should still be tested against the available evidence. Clearly the term can be useful for development analysis.
With regards to the term’s use in international discourse, presenting a commonality between the perceived ‘Third World’ states can be beneficial as united they may possess more political and economic strength than they would as individual actors. Finer even argues that whether or not they present themselves as such, the Third World states are a significant grouping of countries, “not a rag-bag, a miscellany, a mere residual category… It is significant that it lies outside Europe, that most of it lies south of the Fortieth Parallel; that nearly all its component states are agrarian, possibly with some extractive industry, but with little heavy industry, that most of them are much poorer, per capita, than their neighbours to the north; that all were either dependencies or subjected to deep diplomatic and economic penetration by Western powers.” In this way, it could be argued that the term is useful as a label for a particular group of countries with similar experiences, both in the international arena and development. However, the extent to which ‘Third World’ generalizes can conceal what are individual circumstances and identities of grossly diverse countries, falsely grouping them. For this reason, the term is unhelpful.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to consider whether the term was useful in its previous form to denote the countries as a solidarity movement separate from the superpowers. Although the end of the Cold War left the idea of a non-aligned ‘Third World’ redundant, it is important to consider whether it was functional at the time, or to use nowadays in a historical sense considering a specific past entity. The existence of such a significant grouping in this sense would be useful as it would enable the reflection on a history as a ‘Third World’ country, in the same manner in which a history as a colonized country is taken into consideration. Orthodox Cold War historians tend to see the Third World as something that never really existed, as they saw non-alignment as a clandestine movement of countries towards the Soviet bloc: "in the strict sense they are not a homogenous bloc separate from the two advanced power groups, for in their poverty they seek patronage and help, and lean to one group or another". Whether or not this was actually the case, it is clear that the perceived third world countries were not a united bloc internally, as “the deep internal divisions within the Third World significantly reduce the credibility of the solidarity.” There were definite and deliberate groupings of countries outside the superpower blocs, such as the pan-Arabist movement which lead to the Arab League, various pan-African movements, and of course the non-aligned movement; however, barring the definition of ‘Third World’ as the actual non-aligned states, there was no pan-Third World movement.
In fact, it appears that much of the so-called solidarity of the Third World was imposed from the outside – by the First and Second worlds – and they themselves didn’t view the ‘Third World’ as a united front . For many Third World countries the idea of a bipolar world was always a distortion, as particularly in South East Asia, China had a huge influence, and what appeared to the West as a united communist front of China and the USSR was in fact clearly a rift-ridden turbulent relationship. The singular influence of the Soviet Union was not vast for the South East Asian countries, who perceived China as a separate superpower on its own, therefore to have a united front against the pressures of the USA and USSR was not a particularly conceivable idea. Furthermore, Mao Tse-Tung himself did not see the First-Second-Third world idea in the same terms as originally defined: he saw the First World as the USSR and USA, the Second World as their satellite states, and their former colonies as the Third World . This demonstrates how First World-centric the boundaries between the ‘worlds’ are: in this way it makes it difficult for the terms – particularly ‘Third World’ – to be credible, due to the degree of variation in the ways in which they are understood. ‘Third World’ therefore is useful only to understand a Western perception of a group of countries, which were not a particularly significant grouping in any case!
The term ‘Third World’ is clearly unsatisfactory as it carries an implicit generalization that does not distinguish or allow for variety among the huge range of countries it encompasses. However, it is a clear improvement for political correctness over terms such as ‘primitive’ and ‘backward’ . It is also preferable to many Modernization Theorists' terms such as 'underdeveloped', which imply backwardness in other societies than Western ones: the very terminology which designates ‘developing’, ‘underdeveloping’ or ‘emerging’ societies is impregnated with teleology which identifies part of Europe and the USA as ‘developed’. In this way, ‘Third World’ could be the most appropriate term to use as it holds least implication of inferiority of those countries to which it refers. Still, a single term that has two definitions which refer to the same group of countries cannot be productive in analysis, as each time the term is used it must be further defined.
Whether these countries should be grouped at all is highly questionable, given the inadequacy of the ‘Cold War’ definition, that the countries did not see themselves as any kind of significant grouping, likewise nor do those who value the individuality and diversity of countries regardless of their economic and political status.
Sources:
Allen, C and Willims, G (ed). Sociology of Developing Societies: Sub-saharan Africa
(London: Macmillan, 1982)
Cammack, P; Pool, D and Tordoff, W. Third World Politics (London: Macmillan, 1988, 1993)
Debray, R. A Critique of Arms, vol 1 (London: Penguin, 1974)
Finer, S. Comparative Government (London: Penguin, 1970)
Hilhorst, J. and Klatter, M (ed). Social Development in the Third World (Kent: Croom Helm, 1985)
Leftwich, A (ed). Democracy and Development (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996)
Leftwich, A Redefining Politics (London: Methuen, 1983)
Mountjoy, A (ed). The Third World: Problems and Perspectives (London: Macmillan, 1978)
Smith, B. Understanding Third World Politics (London: Palgrave/Macmillan, 1996, 2003)
Worsley, P The Three Worlds (London: George Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1984, 1988)
United Nations Website: http://www.un.org
International Monetary Fund Website: http://www.imf.org
World Bank Website: http://www.worldbank.org