The terminology of "Third World" versus "First World" has been largely discarded by development and aid workers and researchers. These terms were originated in a post-colonial world, where the First World consisted of the West (and later Japan) and the Third World was the remainder, the former colonies in Asia, Africa, and South America. Now, however, with an increasingly globalized economy, the face of development is rapidly changing face. This article addresses the question, "Where are and what then remains of the geography of the development of the Third World?"
With the retirement of the "Third World", new terminology has been proposed by various fields. In some recent geography papers there has been talk of the "two-thirds world" or the "majority world". In anthropology and other social sciences, there has been a focus on the "global South".
In development circles, the "BRICs" (Brazil, Russia, India, China) have been emphasized for their place in the category of rapidly developing countries and for marking them as the possible economic super-powers in the future. They are also called "emerging markets" (EMs). China and India have already been making significant impacts on the global market for their production of finished goods (think textiles and electronics) where Brazil and Russia are expected to be global leaders in the exportation of raw goods (think timber and beef, and oil, respectively). Occasionally areas of the Middle East, such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, and Kuwait, are included into the BRIC categories as well for their massive place in the oil markets.
Lately, "Third World" has made a more recent arrival as an adjective, not of an area of the globe, but as a way to describe sections of the United States with low standards of living-- think post-Katrina New Orleans. This is merely one example of the importance of categories for the purpose of geopolitics, foreign aid, and development research. "Today, although profound geopolitical and geo-economic shifts are evident, arguably what particularly merits geographical scrutiny is the way that these are represented."
The discussion of the terminology used to describe areas of the globe is not active simply for the purpose of academic masturbation, but because "ideas such as BRICs are more than merely descriptive labels. They become means of making mental maps and claiming the future."
James D. Sidaway (2012): Geographies of Development: New Maps, New Visions?, The Professional Geographer, 64:1, 49-62
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00330124.2011.586878
Map projections that are "distorted" to show economic statistics such as these, in my opinion, are most helpful to the public. Since they are very stimulating and striking to the eye, companies that wish to get information out there would likely use this type of map. They are always very interesting and informative and often eye opening. I was surprised to see how big Japan is. These maps are quite helpful for the public to learn about almost anything going on in the world.
ReplyDeleteIt is likely very easy to lie with these types of maps. Many socioeconomic factors must be considered for an accurate forecast of the future to be made. While the gap between first and third world countries' standards of living is expected to decrease, this is not what is shown. It can also be argued that GDP is not necessarily a fair measure of well being for all countries represented.
ReplyDeleteWhile 'Third World' may leave the lexicon of aid workers and researchers, I think it will be a long time before it ever makes it out of popular vocabulary. Despite what maps and statistics show, a fair number of Americans will continue to think of these countries as based on subsistence agriculture.
ReplyDelete