User:Eldryn T

= Third World = From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

For other uses, see Third World (disambiguation).

The "three worlds" of the Cold War era, between April — August 1975.

1st World: Western Bloc led by the USA and its allies.

2nd World: Eastern Bloc led by the USSR, China, and their allies.

3rd World: Non-Aligned and neutral countries.

During the Cold War, the term Third World referred to the developing countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, the nations not aligned with either the First World or the Second World. This usage has become relatively rare due to the ending of the Cold War.

In the decade following the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in 1991, the term Third World was used interchangeably with developing countries, but the concept has become outdated as it no longer represents the current political or economic state of the world. The three-world model arose during the Cold War to define countries aligned with NATO (the First World), the Communist Bloc (the Second World, although this term was less used), or neither (the Third World). Strictly speaking, "Third World" was a political, rather than an economic, grouping.

Since about the 2000s the term Third World has been used less and less. It is being replaced with terms such as developing countries, least developed countries or the Global South.

Contents

 * 1.Etymology
 * 2 Origin and History
 * 2.1 Shifting in definitions
 * 2.2 Other indicators
 * 3 Third World vs. Three Worlds
 * 4 Third Worldism
 * 5 History
 * 6 Development aid and Foreign aid
 * 7 Great Divergence and Great Convergence
 * 8 See also
 * 9 References
 * 10 Further reading

Etymology
French demographer, economic historian, and anthropologist , Alfred Sauvy in an article published in the French magazine L'Observateur, August 14, 1952, coined the term Third World (French: Tiers Monde), ) to distinguish the developing countries from the capitalist and Communist blocs . referring to countries that were unaligned with either the Communist Soviet bloc or the Capitalist NATO bloc during the Cold War. His usage was a reference to the Third Estate, the commoners of France who, before and during the French Revolution, opposed the clergy and nobles, who composed the First Estate and Second Estate, respectively . Sauvy wrote, "This third world ignored, exploited, despised like the third estate also wants to be something." He conveyed the concept of political non-alignment with either the capitalist or communist bloc.

Origin and History
The term "Third World" arose during the Cold War to define countries that remained non-aligned with either NATO or the Communist Bloc. The United States, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Western European nations and their allies represented the First World, while the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and their allies represented the Second World. This terminology provided a way of broadly categorizing the nations of the Earth into three groups based on political and economic divisions. Since the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the term Third World has been used less and less. It is being replaced with terms such as developing countries, least developed countries or the Global South. The concept itself has become outdated as it no longer represents the current political or economic state of the world.

The Third World was normally seen to include many countries with colonial pasts in Africa, Latin America, Oceania and Asia. It was also sometimes taken as synonymous with countries in the Non-Aligned Movement. In the dependency theory of thinkers like Raúl Prebisch, Walter Rodney, Theotonio dos Santos, and Andre Gunder Frank, the Third World has also been connected to the world-systemic economic division as "periphery" countries dominated by the countries comprising the economic "core".

Due to the complex history of evolving meanings and contexts, there is no clear or agreed-upon definition of the Third World. Some countries in the Communist Bloc, such as Cuba, were often regarded as "third world". Because many Third World countries were economically poor and non-industrialized, it became a stereotype to refer to poor countries as "third world countries", yet the "Third World" term is also often taken to include newly industrialized countries like Brazil, India, and China; they are now more commonly referred to as part of BRIC. Historically, some European countries were non-aligned and a few of these were and are very prosperous, including Ireland, Austria, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland and Yugoslavia.

Most Third World countries are former colonies. Having gained independence, many of these countries, especially smaller ones, were faced with the challenges of nation-and institution-building on their own for the first time. Due to this common background, many of these nations were "developing" in economic terms for most of the 20th century, and many still are. This term, used today, generally denotes countries that have not developed to the same levels as OECD countries, and are thus in the process of developing.

In the 1980s, economist Peter Bauer offered a competing definition for the term "Third World". He claimed that the attachment of Third World status to a particular country was not based on any stable economic or political criteria, and was a mostly arbitrary process. The large diversity of countries considered part of the Third World — from Indonesia to Afghanistan — ranged widely from economically primitive to economically advanced and from politically non-aligned to Soviet- or Western-leaning. An argument could also be made for how parts of the U.S. are more like the Third World.

The only characteristic that Bauer found common in all Third World countries was that their governments "demand and receive Western aid," the giving of which he strongly opposed. Thus, the aggregate term "Third World" was challenged as misleading even during the Cold War period, because it had no consistent or collective identity among the countries it supposedly encompassed.

 Shifting in definitions 

The term "Third World" was used frequently in histories of the societies, economies and cultures of many parts of the world in the second half of the twentieth century. But, although the phrase was widely used , it was never clear whether it was a clear category of analysis , or simply a convenient and rather vague label for an imprecise collection of states in the second half of the twentieth century and some of the problems they faced. Not even enthusiasts for the term provided any precision. As Peter Worsley one of those who self-consciously began the process of passing it into academic currency, later confessed ," the nature of the Third World seemed so self-evident in the 1960s that in a book on The Third World I published in 1964 , I saw no need to define it any more precisely than that it was the world made up of the ex-colonial , newly-independent , non-aligned countries "

 Other indicators 

Like other collective descriptions of Africa, the Middle East, the Pacific islands and Latin America -such as the "South" , the "Developing world "or the "less-developed world" -The designation Third World was more about such places were not than they were. That the term was often used normatively rather than analytically, complicates matters further. As Christopher Clapham has pointed out, "There is no gap so wide as that between those who seek to change the Third World and those who seek to merely understand it ".

Those who developed a concept of the Third World around a set of measurable criteria usually relied on identifying material circumstances. As John Goldthorpe put in his influential The Sociology Of The Third World : Disparity and Involvement in 1975, "If the affluent industrial countries of the modern world are grouped into those of the "West" and those of the "East",... then the poor countries constitute a "Third World" whose small command over resources distinguish them from both . However , all such attempts to establish a standard measurement of relative poverty that can distinguish.

Third World vs. Three Worlds
See also: Three World Model and Three Worlds Theory

The "Three Worlds Theory" developed by Mao Zedong is different from the Western theory of the Three Worlds or Third World. For example, in the Western theory, China and India belong respectively to the Second and Third Worlds, but in Mao's theory both China and India are part of the Third World which he defined as consisting of exploited nations. For a long time, considerable attention in the international communist movement had been devoted to debating the Chinese international line. Since the counter-revolutionary coup in China shortly after Comrade Mao Zedong’s death, it had become clear that the “three worlds” strategy is part and parcel of the Chinese revisionists’ general line for the restoration of capitalism in China and capitulation to imperialism, particularly at this time U.S. imperialism, on a world scale. In 1966 Mao wrote to his wife and close comrade, Chiang Ching, that if, after he died the capitalist-roaders came to power, then “The right in power could utilize my words to become mighty for a while. But then the left will be able to utilize others of my words and organize itself to overthrow the right.” What stands out most sharply is that the “three worlds” theory is not a theory at all, but rather an empty and shallow justification for the Chinese revisionists to pursue a pragmatic policy in international affairs. A policy not based on advancing the interests of world revolution but on the contrary a policy of sacrificing support for revolutionary struggles and based on an overall line of gutting socialism in China itself for what the revisionist usurpers see to be their immediate and narrow interests. Due to the fact that the “three worlds” strategy is a recipe for capitulation, it has found supporters in many countries throughout the world among precisely those self-styled “Marxists” anxious to grab hold of any justification–especially one backed by a country as prestigious as the People’s Republic of China. In other countries such as Mozambique or Tanzania, political power does not rest with the out-front spokesmen for imperialism and instead the political task is one of arming the masses with the understanding that the national bourgeoisie is likely to capitulate to imperialism or, failing that, to be crushed by it. The communists must prepare the masses politically, organizationally and militarily to carry the revolution forward to socialism and must consistently build struggle toward that aim. And the “three worlds” theory would even place the “socialist countries” as part of this monolithic “third world.” As to why Mao referred to China as part of the “third world,” more later.The “three worlds” theory makes the assumption in analyzing the “second world” countries that a revolutionary situation does not exist nor can one conceivably arise. Therefore the working class in these countries can do no better than to compete with the bourgeoisie for the position of being the best fighters in preserving the imperialists’ interests. Despite the liberal use of quotations from Lenin, Stalin and Mao about this basic feature of the struggle against world imperialism by the Chinese revisionists, the “three worlds analysis” goes entirely against this Leninist principle. It exactly negates the national liberation struggles–essentially presenting them as a thing of the past. In place of the struggle for national liberation in the “third world,” which can only have at its heart the struggle for political (i.e., state) power, it substitutes the fight for “economic independence,” led by the reactionary ruling classes. The “three worlds” strategy postulated that the great majority of “third world” countries have achieved their independence but are still subjected to bullying and encroachments by the superpowers.

Third Worldism
Main article: Third-Worldism

Third Worldism is a political movement that argues for the unity of third-world nations against first-world and probably second-world influence and the principle of non-interference in other countries' domestic affairs. Groups most notable for expressing and exercising this idea are the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the Group of 77 which provide a base for relations and diplomacy between not just the third-world countries, but between the third-world and the first and second worlds. The notion has been criticized as providing a fig leaf for human-rights violations and political repression by dictatorships.

Development aid and Foreign aid
Main article: Development aid

Least Developed Countries in blue, as designated by the United Nations. Countries formerly considered Least Developed in green.

During the Cold War, unaligned countries of the Third World were seen as potential allies by both the First and Second World. Therefore, the United States and the Soviet Union went to great lengths to establish connections in these countries by offering economic and military support to gain strategically located alliances (e.g. the United States in Vietnam or the Soviet Union in Cuba). By the end of the Cold War, many Third World countries had adopted capitalist or communist economic models and continued to receive support from the side they had chosen. Throughout the Cold War and beyond, the countries of the Third World have been the priority recipients of Western foreign aid and the focus of economic development through mainstream theories such as modernization theory and dependency theory.

By the end of the 1960s, the idea of the Third World came to represent countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America that were considered underdeveloped by the West based on a variety of characteristics (low economic development, low life expectancy, high rates of poverty and disease, etc.). These countries became the targets for aid and support from governments, NGOs and individuals from wealthier nations. One popular model, known as Rostow's stages of growth, argued that development took place in 5 stages (Traditional Society; Pre-conditions for Take-off; Take-off; Drive to Maturity; Age of High Mass Consumption). W. W. Rostow argued that Take-off was the critical stage that the Third World was missing or struggling with. Thus, foreign aid was needed to help kick-start industrialization and economic growth in these countries.

Throughout its history, foreign aid has been meant to provide worldwide development assistance that is assumed to lie at the heart of moral imperatives - donors’ moral obligation to better the living condition of the poor in the developing world. Against this rule, however, the aid regime and its transformations cannot be seen in isolation of issues that fall under the headline of politics - power, security, ideology, foreign policy, national interest, and the like. Thus, “who uses aid, and for what?” is the crucial political question in foreign aid

Montgomery, On the other hand, shortly summarizes foreign aid as “a political force abroad and a political issue at home, irrespective of its successes and failures”. For this reason, “its purposes and its achievements, its origins and its operations, its giving and its receiving, all involve conflicts of ideology and power”. This is particularly important in the realist account, which states that sovereign states behave in a way pursuing their national interests in an international system, which is full of anarchy and danger. In fact, when official foreign aid came into being in the late 1940s, it was necessitated mainly by two political factors: “U.S. fear of communist expansionism and European imperial politics”. The proliferation of intractable challenges (notably terrorism) that have put the security and well-being of sovereign states (mainly of rich industrial nations) into a bigger question - especially following the end of Cold War - coupled with the 9/11 Pentagon attack, donors, particularly Western countries, find it necessary to ensure their security and well-being by diffusing democratization worldwide under the prescriptions of neo-liberalism. Thus, politics, which is a primarily domestic factor both in the donor and recipient states, influences the conditions through which foreign aid programs are administered.

Great Divergence and Great Convergence
The nineteenth century witnessed an explosive growth of a gap in per capita incomes (and the level of development in general) between the West and the rest of the world that has become recently known as “the Great Divergence”. In the twentieth century, the Great Divergence continued until the early 1970s; then, in the late 1980s, some convergence between the First and Third World started to be observed. Though this convergence has been noticed already by a number of researchers, many economists still doubt its presence or importance. After the 1980s we dealt with a global process of the same scale as the process of the Great Divergence and was designated as the “the Great Convergence”. Furthermore,Great Convergence is a logical continuation of the Great Divergence, and that certain components of the Great Divergence process were already preparing the onset of the Great Convergence in the period of the former’s peak. It has being suggested that the Great Divergence and Great Convergence constitute two phases of a single Global Modernization process being tightly intertwined with other dimensions of Global Modernization as well as with globalization in all its historical phases.

Density function of the world's income distribution in 1970 by continent, logarithmic scale: The division of the world into "rich" and "poor" is striking, and the world's poverty is concentrated in Asia.

Density function of the world's income distribution in 2015 by continent, logarithmic scale: The division of the world into "rich" and "poor" was vanished, and the world's poverty can be found mainly in Africa, Asia ,Oceania, America and Europe.

Many times there is a clear distinction between First and Third Worlds. When talking about the Global North and the Global South, the majority of the time the two go hand in hand. People refer to the two as "Third World/South" and "First World/North" because the Global North is more affluent and developed, whereas the Global South is less developed and often poorer.

To counter this mode of thought, some scholars began proposing the idea of a change in world dynamics that began in the late 1980s, and termed it the Great Convergence. As Jack A. Goldstone and his colleagues put it, "in the twentieth century, the Great Divergence peaked before the First World War and continued until the early 1970s, then, after two decades of indeterminate fluctuations, in the late 1980s it was replaced by the Great Convergence as the majority of Third World countries reached economic growth rates significantly higher than those in most First World countries".

Others have observed a return to Cold War-era alignments (MacKinnon, 2007; Lucas, 2008), this time with substantial changes between 1990–2015 in geography, the world economy and relationship dynamics between current and emerging world powers; not necessarily redefining the classic meaning of First, Second, and Third World terms, but rather which countries belong to them by way of association to which world power or coalition of countries — such as the G7, the European Union, OECD; G20, OPEC, BRICS, ASEAN, the African Union, and the Eurasian Union.