Is the “Third World” Concept Relevant?

By Philani H. Dhlamini

How to cite this article:

Dhlamini, P. H., (2013). Is the “Third World” Concept Relevant?, Politics in Developing Areas:
Makerere University.

The “Third World”, a term widely used in reference to developing countries, is a

conceptual framework whose relevance has been assessed by three differing
perspectives. The first of these perspectives argues that the concept has become
‘outdated’, ‘extinct’ or ‘irrelevant’. The second view contrasts with the first by
purporting that the concept continues to be relevant. Proponents of this view often
claim that the concept has evolved to accommodate the changes that have taken
place since the origination of the term “Third World”. The third perspective asserts
that the concept has declined in relevance, but does not accede to the argument that
the framework is ‘dead’.

The “Third World” concept originated as a mode of government classification

during the Cold War Era, in the “Three Worlds Typology” described by Andrew
Heywood (2007): “The three worlds classification had economic, ideological,
political and strategic dimensions. Industrialized western regimes were ‘first’ in
economic terms, in that their populations enjoyed the highest levels of mass
affluence…Communist regimes were ‘second’, insofar as they were largely
industrialized and capable of satisfying the population’s basic material
needs…The less developed countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America were
‘third’ in the sense that they were economically dependent and often suffered from
widespread poverty” (Heywood, 2007, p.29).

In the context of the “Three Worlds Typology” it can be asserted that the concept
of the Third World has become irrelevant. Andrew Heywood cites ‘economic
dependence’ and ‘widespread poverty’ as the defining criteria of states constituting
the Third World. When analyzing the contemporary era, it is acceptable to
conclude that the concept of the Third World is no longer applicable. The first
reason is that the end of the Cold War in 1989, which meant the collapse of
communism, ultimately dissolved the ‘second’ world and therefore implied that the
“Three Worlds Typology” had become extinct. With the typology now redundant,
the Third World concept was considered an expired framework. Secondly, there
are certain countries (like Brazil, China or South Africa) which have frustrated the
criteria established by Heywood. These so-called “Third World” countries had
significantly developed from instances of heavy economic dependence and reduced
levels of poverty. In this context, The Third World countries had begun to develop
out of the classification boundaries.

Furthermore, advocates of the perspective that the “Third World” is a dead

concept, include World Bank Group president – Robert B. Zoellick. Zoellick
(2010) insisted that the concept was ‘old’ and ‘outdated’: “If 1989 saw the end of
the “second world” with Communism’s demise, then 2009 saw the end of what was
known as the Third World. We are now in a new, fast evolving multipolar world
economy.” The concept has also been regarded negatively as demeaning
terminology and its usage has been perceived to be backward in the sense that it is
derogatory. Heywood (2007) confirms this by concurring that “indeed the phrase
‘third world’ is widely resented as being demeaning, because it implies entrenched
disadvantage. The term ‘developing world’ is usually seen as preferable”.

However, in contrast to the perspective that the Third World concept is dead, there
is the view that the conceptual framework continues to be relevant in modern-day
society. “The arguments that will be presented here in defense of the concept of the
Third World are grouped around three major themes: namely, geopolitics, the
Third World as a reference point for development in global politics, and what Arif
Dirlik refers to as “global modernity”” (Nico Smit, 2010). According to the first
theme of geopolitics, Nico Smit (2010) maintains that “it nevertheless remains
both illuminating and relevant when the emphasis is on geopolitical relationships
and process”. In essence this refers to the state of natural resources and how they
come to influence power relations in international relations. It is concluded that
because the Third World remained in a state of being underdeveloped, that the vast
amount of untapped natural resources remains the common factor amongst
countries in this category. Therefore the difference between the North and the
South continues to remain applicable because it also is a reflection of political
alignments (like the Non-aligned Movement).

The last two themes proposed by Nico Smit are more representative of the
Modernization Theory Discourse. In the Modernization Theory, it is proposed that
the Third World is a segment of the international community that was left behind
in the race towards development. Therefore, in embracing the second theme of “the
Third World as a reference point for development in global politics”, these
countries referred to are ‘third’ in the sense that they do remain far behind in terms
of economic, political and socio-cultural development. Hence, the concept
continues to be relevant because these countries have not completed the process of
development and exist in a ‘third-place’ category. The theme of “global
modernity” referred to by Smit is a primary concept in the Modernization Theory.
The Modernization discourse advocates that what groups the countries of the Third
World together is their lack of ‘modernity’. The discourse further suggests that
these societies should abandon ‘tradition’ in favour of ‘modernity’. Viewing
tradition as the antagonist of the Third World, it is assumed that it is only regarded
a ‘Third’ world because the countries that constitute this category have not
embraced ‘global modernity’.

Alternatively, is the view that the conceptual framework has some sort of staggered
relevance. Proponents of this view often accept that the concept has declined in
many aspects, but that it is the continued use of the term which still keeps it alive.
This perspective accepts that the concept has declined because of many changes
that make the “Three Worlds Typology” inapplicable as previously described.
Furthermore, is the reality that many of the countries considered part of the Third
World have evolved considerably in terms of economic development: Countries
such as China, which have an extremely impressive economic capacity that
competes with the developed world. However, proponents of this view also insist
that, whilst these countries have begun developing considerably, they are still
considered third when placed in comparison with other societies from a global
perspective. Therefore, the general consensus here is that these countries may have
achieved some significant changes and comprehensive steps towards greater
development, but due to comparison they still remain a “Third World”.
Additionally, the reason why the concept remains alive is because of the continued
use of the term. This usage is a reflection of the belief that the Third World has not
ceased to exist since many still refer to developing countries as the Third World.
The term has been used as a substitute or is popularly regarded as synonymous to
terms such as ‘Developing World’. Tomlinson (2003) indicates that “over the last
few decades, the term Third World has been used interchangeably with the ‘Global
South’ and ‘Developing Countries’ to describe poorer countries that have struggled
to attain steady economic development…this usage however, has become less
preferred in recent years”. From this perspective it can be assumed that the Third
World concept has declined in applicability to modern society, but has not yet been
fully eradicated because it still bears some meaning in certain contexts.

In conclusion, the debate about the survival of the Third World concept reflects
evidence that the framework is not dead. Although, it has been thought that this
concept is old and inapplicable to the contemporary era, it must be accepted that
the concept still remains very relevant with regards to development. However, it is
also not exceedingly relevant as proposed by Nico Smit, in an assertion that
evidently supports the Modernization discourse. As a term, the Third World is seen
to be derogatory of those societies referred to, but it is the usage of this term
interchangeably with the ‘Global South’ and ‘Developing Countries’ that gives rise
to the perspective that the Third World concept is not dead.

REFERENCE LIST

Heywood, A., (2007). Politics. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Smit, N. (2010). “The Continued Relevance of the ‘Third World’ Concept”, Thiven
Ready: University of Cape Town, South Africa.

Tomlinson, B. R. (2003). “What was the Third World”, Journal of Contemporary

History, 38(2), 307-321.