Do you think the world can justifiably be divided into "developed countries" and "developing countries"?

Question

This seems to be the dominant terminology today.
It replaces the old "First world"/"Third World" terminology, which now seems to be polictically correct.

But I wonder if "developed" and "developing" are really the correct words. "Developed" implies that those countries have already developed and that they have no more developing to do, when in reality all societies and countries are constantly in flux and changing and developing in some way or another.

Developing can also be something of a misnomer, since many of the countries that fall in this category, may not actually be doing much "developing", at least in the Western sense of the word (i.e. "economic development")

And I honestly am not convinced that economic development is always the best course for a country. It is not sustainable. We can't keep increasing production and consumption with the limited resources on this earth.

So if developing/developed doesn't work, what do you think is a better way to describe the world?

Answer 1

I agree with you that these terms are incorrect. They would be slightly better if the word "economically" were used along with "develop."

What is really bothersome is the continual emphasis on economics and ranking countries based on economics. We come up with the yardstick which is economics and then we tell countries that they are lacking. All of the other criteria that contribute to a culture are not measured such as happiness, empathy, fulfillment, connection with friends and family, control over ones time and activities. America probably comes up a bit short on some of these criteria.

Answer 2

I agree that developed does not really work anymore. Take a country like India. It's metros have every modern convenience and you would be hard pressed to find anyone without a fanct cell phone but the majority of the country live simple lives in villages. I guess it depends what distinction you are trying to draw. First World/Third was not a pejorative term. The Third World was phrase was coined by ( I think ) de Gaul to draw attention to countries that were neither part of the Capitalist West or Communist East.

I think circumstances are so different now that a simple 2 or three way split is not possible

Answer 3

comparing it with the words developed and developing i think First world/third world are probably the best words. However, here in America when people are told about Third world countires, pictures of rail-like-people, dirt roads, political unrest, unstable economy and horrible conditions come to mind. India, for example is also known as a third world country. Being from India i can say India is not like that. Yes, there are some parts (mainly the outskirts of the major cities, and farm lands) that are third-world-like, but the majority of the cities are not. There are malls, banks, restaurants, clubs, you name it you got it.
so i guess first world/third world would be okay words to use, but the severity of the connotation of "third world" should be changed.

Answer 4

there have always been "haves" and "have not's"... the thing is that poeple need to get over the we are the riches most powerfull country in the world. This can change in the blink of an eye... look at china.. its posed to surpas the usa in as little as 25yrs... in both economic and military clout. What are we going to do then? there are at least five other so called developing countries that by the way are not very "american" friendly" that will catch up or surpas us.

Answer 5

The ultimate answer to this is population growth. A country can continue to grow, develop, consume and manufacture as the population continues to increase. Technology will alway continue to develop and improve. But what they mean by developed, is relative. Development is a result of the efficiency at which goods are provided to needs. If a country can efficiently provided the needs of their citizens with the production and importing of goods, then they are developed to the same standard we are. If not, they're considered developing to the level where minimal outside support is required to maintain its "welfare". I think it is justifiable, just not necessarily fair, since we only relate others to ourselves.

Answer 6

These terms are just another way to size people up. The most powerful countries are going to determine who gets to eat at the grown-ups table, and who has to go in the playroom and eat a hot dog. Is this better for the world as a whole? Depends on what our goals are as a world.

Answer 7

varying states of sophistication. social and economic.