Is Singapore A Third World Country

Geopolitical concept

The term “Third World” arose during the Cold War to define countries that remained non-aligned with either NATO or the Warsaw Pact. The United States, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Western European nations and their allies represented the “Start World”, while the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North korea, Vietnam and their allies represented the “2d Globe”. This terminology provided a way of broadly categorizing the nations of the Earth into three groups based on political divisions. Strictly speaking, “Third Earth” was a political, rather than an economical, grouping.^[ane]
Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the term
Third World
has decreased in use. It is existence replaced with terms such as developing countries, to the lowest degree adult countries or the Global South. The concept itself has get outdated as information technology no longer represents the electric current political or economical land of the globe and as historically poor countries have transited different income stages.

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, Theotônio dos Santos, and Andre Gunder Frank, the Third World has as well been connected to the globe-systemic economical partition as “periphery” countries dominated by the countries comprising the economic “cadre”.^[2]

Due to the complex history of evolving meanings and contexts, there is no clear or agreed-upon definition of the 3rd World.^[2]
Some countries in the Eastern Bloc, such as Cuba, were often regarded as “Tertiary Earth”. Because many 3rd World countries were economically poor and non-industrialized, information technology became a stereotype to refer to developing countries as “tertiary earth countries”, however the “Third Earth” term is also ofttimes taken to include newly industrialized countries similar Brazil, China and Bharat now more unremarkably referred to every bit office of BRIC. In the Cold War, some European democracies (Austria, Finland, Commonwealth of Republic of ireland, Sweden, and Switzerland) were neutral in the sense of not joining NATO, but were prosperous, never joined the Non-Aligned Motility, and seldom self-identified as part of the 3rd Earth.

Etymology

[edit]

French demographer, anthropologist, and historian Alfred Sauvy, in an article published in the French magazine


L’Observateur

, August 14, 1952, coined the term
tertiary world
(
tiers monde
), referring to countries that were playing little part on the international scene. His usage was a reference to the Third Estate (
tiers état
), the commoners of France who, before and during the French Revolution, opposed the clergy and nobles, who equanimous the First Estate and Second Estate, respectively (hence the utilise of the older form
tiers
rather than the modern

troisième

for “tertiary”). Sauvy wrote, “This third world ignored, exploited, despised like the tertiary estate also wants to be something.”^[3]
In the context of the Cold State of war, he conveyed the concept of political non-alignment with either the capitalist or communist bloc.^[4]
Simplistic interpretations chop-chop led to the term merely designating these unaligned countries.^[5]

[edit]

Tertiary World vs. Iii Worlds

[edit]

The “Three Worlds Theory” adult by Mao Zedong is different from the Western theory of the Iii Worlds or Tertiary Globe. For example, in the Western theory, China and Bharat vest respectively to the second and third worlds, but in Mao’due south theory both China and India are part of the Third World which he defined as consisting of exploited nations.

Third Worldism

[edit]

Third Worldism is a political movement that argues for the unity of third-world nations confronting first-world influence and the principle of non-interference in other countries’ domestic affairs. Groups nearly notable for expressing and exercising this idea are the Non-Aligned Motion (NAM) and the Group of 77 which provide a base for relations and diplomacy between non just the third-globe countries, but between the third-world and the first and 2nd worlds. The notion has been criticized as providing a fig leaf for human being rights violations and political repression by dictatorships.^[6]

Since 1990, this term has been redefined to make it more correct politically. Initially, the term “3rd world” meant that a nation is “under-developed”.^[7]
However, today information technology is replaced by the term “developing”.

Great Divergence and Great Convergence

[edit]

Many times there is a clear distinction between Starting time and Third Worlds. When talking near the Global Due north and the Global South, the bulk of the time the two become hand in mitt. People refer to the ii every bit “Tertiary World/South” and “First World/North” considering the Global North is more affluent and developed, whereas the Global Southward is less developed and frequently poorer.^[8]

To counter this fashion of thought, some scholars began proposing the idea of a alter in world dynamics that began in the late 1980s, and termed it the Great Convergence.^[9]
As Jack A. Goldstone and his colleagues put it, “in the twentieth century, the Great Divergence peaked before the Starting time World War and continued until the early 1970s, and then, after 2 decades of indeterminate fluctuations, in the tardily 1980s, it was replaced by the Bang-up Convergence as the majority of Third World countries reached economic growth rates significantly higher than those in most Start Globe countries”.^[x]

Others take observed a return to Common cold State of war-era alignments (MacKinnon, 2007; Lucas, 2008), this time with substantial changes betwixt 1990–2015 in geography, the globe economy and relationship dynamics between current and emerging globe powers; not necessarily redefining the classic meaning of
First,
Second, and
3rd Globe
terms, merely rather which countries vest to them by way of association to which world ability or coalition of countries — such as G7, the European Union, OECD; G20, OPEC, Northward-11, BRICS, Asean; the African Union, and the Eurasian Wedlock.

History

[edit]

Nigh Third Earth countries are former colonies. Having gained independence, many of these countries, especially smaller ones, were faced with the challenges of
nation-
and establishment-building on their own for the get-go time. Due to this common background, many of these nations were “developing” in economical terms for most of the 20th century, and many still are. This term, used today, generally denotes countries that have not developed to the aforementioned levels equally OECD countries, and are thus in the process of
developing.

In the 1980s, economist Peter Bauer offered a competing definition for the term “Third Earth”. He claimed that the attachment of Third World status to a particular country was non based on whatsoever stable economical or political criteria, and was a by and large capricious process. The large variety of countries considered part of the 3rd Earth — from Republic of indonesia to Transitional islamic state of 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.South. are more similar the Third World.^[11]

The only characteristic that Bauer found common in all Tertiary World countries was that their governments “need and receive Western help,” the giving of which he strongly opposed. Thus, the aggregate term “Third World” was challenged as misleading even during the Common cold State of war period, because it had no consequent or collective identity among the countries it supposedly encompassed.

Development help

[edit]

During the Common cold War, unaligned countries of the Third Earth^[2]
were seen as potential allies by both the Get-go and Second Globe. Therefore, the U.s. and the Soviet Marriage went to bang-up lengths to establish connections in these countries by offering economic and military back up to proceeds strategically located alliances (e.k., the United States in Vietnam or the Soviet Spousal relationship in Cuba).^[2]
By the end of the Cold State of war, many Third World countries had adopted backer 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 take been the priority recipients of Western foreign assistance and the focus of economic evolution through mainstream theories such as modernization theory and dependency theory.^[ii]

Past the end of the 1960s, the idea of the Tertiary Earth 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, depression life expectancy, loftier rates of poverty and disease, etc.).^[5]
These countries became the targets for assistance and support from governments, NGOs and individuals from wealthier nations. One popular model, known equally Rostow’s stages of growth, argued that development took identify in v stages (Traditional Gild; Pre-weather for Take-off; Have-off; Bulldoze to Maturity; Historic period of High Mass Consumption).^[12]
W. Westward. Rostow argued that
Take-off
was the critical phase that the Third World was missing or struggling with. Thus, strange aid was needed to help kick-outset industrialization and economical growth in these countries.^[12]

Perceived “Cease of the Third Globe”

[edit]

Since 1990 the term “Third World” has been redefined in many evolving dictionaries in several languages to refer to countries considered to exist underdeveloped economically and/or socially. From a “political correctness” standpoint the term “Third World” may be considered outdated, which its concept is mostly a historical term and cannot fully address what means by developing and less-developed countries today. Effectually the early 1960s, the term “underdeveloped countries” occurred and the Third World serves to be its synonym, but after it has been officially used by politicians, ‘underdeveloped countries’ is shortly been replaced by ‘developing’ and ‘less-developed countries,’ because the prior one shows hostility and disrespect, in which the Third World is frequently characterized with stereotypes.^[thirteen]
The whole ‘Four Worlds’ system of classification has also been described every bit derogatory because the standard mainly focused on each nations’ Gross National Production.^[14]

The general definition of the Third Globe can be traced dorsum to the history that nations positioned equally neutral and independent during the Cold War were considered as Third Earth Countries, and normally these countries are defined by high poverty rates, lack of resources, and unstable financial standing.^[15]
Even so, based on the rapid development of modernization and globalization, countries that were used to be considered every bit Third Earth countries achieve big economic growth, such as Brazil, Bharat, and Republic of indonesia, which can no longer be defined past poor economical status or depression GNP today. The differences among nations of the Third World are continually growing throughout time, and it will be hard to use the Third Earth to define and organize groups of nations based on their common political arrangements since well-nigh countries live under diverse creeds in this era, such as Mexico, Republic of el salvador, and Singapore, which they all have their own political organisation.^[16]
The Tertiary World categorization becomes anachronistic since its political classification and economy are distinct to be applied in today’south society. Based on the Tertiary World standards, any region of the world tin be categorized into whatever of the four types of relationships amongst state and society, and volition eventually terminate in iv outcomes: praetorianism, multi-dominance, quasi-democratic and viable democracy.^[17]
However, political culture is never going to be limited by the rule and the concept of the Third World tin can be circumscribed.

See also

[edit]

• Quaternary World

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]

• Aijaz, Ahmad (1992).
  In theory: Classes, nations, literatures. London: Verso Books.
  
• Bauer, Peter T. (1981).
  
  Equality, the Third World, and economical delusion
  . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN9780674259850.
  
• Buchanan, Pat J. (2006).
  
  Land of emergency: The Third World invasion and conquest of America
  . New York: Thomas Dunne Books/St. Martin’s Press. ISBN9780312360030.
  
• Escobar, Arturo (2011).
  Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the Third World
  (revised ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  
• Furtado, Celso (1964).
  
  Evolution and underdevelopment
  . Berkeley: University of California Press.
  
• Huffington, Arianna Due south. (2010).
  
  Third World America: How our politicians are abandoning the middle grade and betraying the American dream
  . New York: Crown Publishers. ISBN9780307719829.
  
• Melkote, Srinivas R. & Steeves, H. Leslie. (1991). Advice for development in the 3rd Earth: Theory and exercise for Empowerment. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
• Sheppard, Eric & Porter, Wayland P. (1998). A world of difference: Society, nature, development. New York: Guilford Press.
• Rangel, Carlos (1986).
  
  3rd Globe Credo and Western Reality
  . New Brunswick: Transaction Books.
  
• Smith, Brian C. (2013).
  Understanding Third World Politics: Theories of Political Change and Development
  (fourth ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  
• Aijaz, Charles K. (1973).
  The political economy of development and underdevelopment. New York: Random Business firm.