Gratitude #63: The terms “Developed” and “Developing” Countries

I was at a lecture on Ethical Cities* the other day, which discussed increasing global urbanisation and how we plan to handle the 3 billion more people who will relocate to cities by 2050. I felt like I was in Monocle Magazine for 2 hours and that was worth the price of admission alone.

Anyway, the terms Global North and Global South were bandied about sans explanatión throughout the lecture and what was worse is that everyone seemed to know what it meant. Suddenly I went from being featured in Monocle Magazine to reading a bus station copy with a porno mag stuck inside. You can kinda guess what the terms mean:

The North mostly covers the West and the First World, along with much of the Second World, while the South largely corresponds with the Third World. While the North may be defined as the richer, more developed region and the South as the poorer, less developed region, many more factors differentiate between the two global areas. 95% of the North has enough food and shelter. The Global South “lacks appropriate technology, it has no political stability, the economies are disarticulated, and their foreign exchange earnings depend on primary product exports.”

Or, in map form:

here’s a fun rhyme to help you remember: “the global north is blue, their economies true. you can find them at the top of the globe, except for Australia, New Zealand, New Caledonia, Taiwan, French Guiana and Singapore”

Once again, Australia fucks things up for everyone.

The Brandt Line: this goofy line was developed by ‘Sweet’ Willy Brandt in the 1980s and is the dumbest, most pointless thing I’ve ever seen.

Basically as a society we’ve referred to this divide as:

• First (originally the western and eastern parts of the Cold War) and Third World, then
• Developed and Developing Countries, then
• Global North and Global South

Can’t we figure out a way to explain the situation without sounding like fools?

What about White Countries and Non-White Countries™?

It’s sad and cringeworthy but it’s at least more accurate than Global North and South.

What exactly was wrong with Developed and Developing Countries anyway? I thought it explained things pretty delicately. Sure it didn’t provide us with positions on a mental globe but then again Global North with a little bit of south and a bit of Asia doesn’t exactly paint a vivid picture.

I will not rest until the authorities bring back Developed and Developing Countries, or bring in my suggestion — heretofore known as the Logan Line — of White and Non-White Countries.

*this post was just a way for me to shoehorn that I went to a smart-person lecture.