Quote:
Originally Posted by Ag77845
How do you define second world?
|
First World, Second World and Third World are anachronistic terms to be relegated to history books; they don't have any substantive meaning today outside of informal conversation between people who have no more than a basic understanding of development. These are Cold War concepts:
The 'First World' was the US and it's allies during the Cold War.
The 'Second World' was the USSR and it's allies.
The 'Third World' consisted of all other countries, those that did not openly pick sides.
Now, the fact that most third world countries happened to be poor, developing countries led to the term surviving (sadly) the demise of the Cold War and to its continued use as a shorthand way of referencing 'poor' and developing countries. However, that is not what 'third world' really means and the term has no place in modern academic, development discourse.
There are far more detailed, nuanced classifications of countries used now when talking about development. The World Bank and IMF's very similar classification schemes are the most widely used. The World Bank distinguishes between Low-Income Countries (analogous to 'Least Developed Countries' or LDCs), Lower-Middle Income Countries, Upper-Middle Income Countries, Non-OECD High-Income Countries and OECD High Income Countries. This is a rather useful classification scheme, but on its own it still lacks proper nuance. 'Developing Countries' vary tremendously and rarely should be thought of in homogenous terms.
It makes much sense to look at the trajectory countries are moving in - are they stagnating, declining, growing... if they are growing, how is that development playing out and how fast is it occurring? Is it sustainable?
The sustainability question is critical when talking about what constitutes a 'developed' country, as well. For example, Saudi Arabia would be considered developed using standard income/GDP/infrastructure metrics yet its wealth is predicated on non-renewable resources which will run out eventually. Thus, it would not traditionally be considered a truly developed country as a developed country must have a highly diversified economy to ensure long-term sustainability and flexibility. Indeed, the term 'Rentier State' is now used for countries like Saudi Arabia which derive most of their wealth from non-renewable natural resources without significant economic diversification.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
