The term “third world” historically refers to countries that were aligned neither with the

communist Eastern bloc of countries, nor with the capitalist West, during the Cold War. This
includes countries as diverse as Botswana, India and Sweden. In current culture, however,
that term is normally used as a euphemism for “developing countries”.

The term “Global South”, however, whilst also being a euphemism for “developing
countries”, is generally used in the context of the economic and developmental disparity
between countries in the northern and southern hemispheres. The proportion of developed
countries is far higher in the northern hemisphere than in the South, hence the term.

Global South is an economic term denoting lower income countries. Third World historically denoted
countries not politically aligned with the former Eastern Bloc or the West. The terms are not
interchangeable.

Third World  was originally coined by a French demographer in the 1950s, and it was meant
to be political, not economic. The First World was the world aligned with the United States.
The Second World was the Warsaw Pact and Communist nations aligned with the USSR. The
Third World was everyone else who was not aligned.

Many of the southern countries in the world (even if they are north of the equator) are
underdeveloped. South Asia, Southeast Asia, South America, and Africa. Australia and New
Zealand are exceptions. This is the global (not literal) south. They have growing economies.
They represent trading opportunities as they develop.

Global south is a term that related to economical condition and direction/geography. This
term is normally referred to less developed nations as opposed to the global North which
comprises of developed and wealthier countries. Global south comprises of nations still
mostly in developing phase and are still coping to bring up the conditions to a feasible
standard. Global south consists of majority of Asia, all of South America, Africa, Mexico and
central America.
Globalization is the process of interconnection of the world. Latin America embraces cultures
and territories of different nations. Therefore, these countries are connected in multidimensional
way since the 1980s, which is the initiation time of globalization of Latin America. The
components of multidimensionality include language, religion, culture, eating habit, sports,
trade, etc. The positive effects of globalization include trade, production, labour market, and
demographic improvement, while the negative effects comprise of divergence of communities,
increased transitional, cross-border and rural–urban migration, and infrastructural deficit.
However, in recent times, Latin America has been facing the reduction of the benefit of
globalization for various reasons.
The globalization has expanded the trade and investment relationships of Latin America.
Non-manufacturing exports such as agriculture, mining, fishing, forestry, and ranching have
increased.
When Europe and the United States experienced an increase of industrialization, they realized
the value of the raw materials in Latin America, which caused Latin American countries to move
towards export economies. This economic growth also catalyzed social and political
developments that constituted a new order.

Throughout Latin America, globalization has emerged as the defining conceptual and
empirical phenomenon of the early 21" century. From an evolving trendy perspective on
socio-economic change two decades ago, globalization has become the dominant
contemporary political-economic framework for national development policy, as well as
the focus of vociferous and rigorous criticism by those sectors of society disadvantaged,
damaged, or bypassed by the forces of global change. Many Latin American
governments have adopted wholeheartedly globalization policies such as privatization,
deregulation, neoliberalism, and free trade in an attempt to reverse decades of
economic mismanagement and squandered development opportunities. The shift from
an ideology of dirigismo (state-directed development) to one of neoliberalismo (state
disengagement) has opened up the region to the global capitalist regime of finance,
production, marketing, and consumption, which has altered irrevocably the way in which
goods and services are

‘Global South’ is an economic term denoting lower income countries. The “Third
World” historically denoted countries not politically aligned with the former
Eastern Bloc or the West.
Global south is a term that related to economical condition rather than
direction/geography. This term is normally referred to less developed nations as opposed to
the global North which comprises of developed and wealthier countries. Global south
comprises of nations still mostly in developing phase and are still coping to bring up the
conditions to a feasible standard. Global south consists of majority of Asia, all of South
America, Africa, Mexico and central America.
regionalism in Latin America is quite complex in this video we will learn that in four different
ways of regionalization efforts Latin America regionalism has become multilayered multifaceted
and eclectic as a as a consequence if we look at the geopolitical map of Latin America today we
see that is characterized by a large set of different regional arrangements.
These arrangements are both formal and informal in nature and various regional organizations
and regional institutions currently coexist, this resulted in was scholars have labeled the
alphabet soup of Latin America regionalism. In this video we will first look at the different
interpretations of regionalism in Latin America. Then we will look at different phases or waves
of Latin America regional integration efforts at the end I will provide you with an overview of
today’s most well known regional organizations to show how multifaceted and multilayered the
Latin American regional architecture really is.
Before delving into the particular ways in which regionalism has advanced in Latin America let’s
start with the question.
What defines latin America as a region?
Characterization of Latin America as a region relies on the clear geographical basis namely the
Rio Grande as a demarcation line with the United states in the north and the South the most tip
of South America Canada fuego as the southernmost border. As such the region’s Latin America
is composed of 21 countries starting with Mexico in the north all the way down to Chile
Argentina in the South. However to others dislodge interpretation of Latin America region is
contested, as it is it argued that one should move beyond issues of geography. In fact according
to scholars such as Ben Cooley a region must be defined as a socially constructed and politically
contested space between the national and the global levels in which political unity and regional
cooperation is based on a shared set of political social preferences and homogeneities. In this
way Latin America consists of more regions Central America South America and Andaya region.
On the base of these two mainstream interpretations of what defines Latin America is a or one
region two competing visions or regionalism have been developed overtime. The First
interpretation of Latin America as one region led to the promotion of hemispheric wide
regionalism also including the United States and Canada. Exemplar for this viewpoint
originalism or the long series of Pan American conferences at the end of the 19 th century the
creation of the organization of American states right after World War Two and more recently
the creation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean (CELAC) states in 2010. In
contrast the interpretation that Latin America is composed of different sub regions can be
traced back to as early as the beginning of the 19th century at that time the South American
independence leader Simon Bolivar envisioned various geopolitical unions that would ensure
the independence of the newly created sovereign states feasibly the Spaniards and the
Americans.
globalization has political, economic and cultural impact on the nation-state. It
has undoubtedly brought many positive changes to nations and states, but it has
also- in some ways- harmed the balance of cultures and daily life for people,
businesses and nation and states interact. Specifically, it changes the nature of
economic activity among nations, expanding trade, opening global supply chains
and providing access to natural resources and labor markets. And sometimes
international intervention and industrial advancements can harm the biodiversity,
and put endemic species at risk as well.
Globalization is an evolutionary transformation that increases the profitability of
businesses in nations and states where the cost of doing business is competitive,
with the necessary changes. It’s a major economic transformation similar to the
economic transformation in the Fertile Crescent when settled agriculture and
animal husbandry replaced less reliable nomadic economies.
The ability of nations to choose their own course for economic development is
being undermined by globalization. Accepting globalization essentially signifies
that a nation is ready to permit international corporations to invest and divest at
will. Normal business operations take place in the same nation as the business,
giving it a "connection" to the local/domestic society. Globalization, however,
involves investment without any regard for local economies. For instance, it is
almost widely recognized in politics that elected officials must reside in the areas
they serve (or at the at least, be born there) because it is assumed that their place
of residence affects their decisions (or heritage). There is no such prerequisite for
globalization.

Now a days, almost every state and it's government impacted by globalization.
Globalization forced some government to took some major decisions for their
country and many more .The decisions made by numerous international
governmental entities nowadays are influenced by powerful states, business
actors (such MNCs), and non-governmental parties. This is known as global
governance or world politics. Talking about the creation of a "global state" could
come off as premature or idealistic. A number of things are impacted by
globalization. One of them is the place of the nation-state in the global order.
States today face the difficulty of losing both their monopoly on international
affairs and some of their sovereignty because they are the primary or, as some
would claim, the only international actors. Aside from that, states are affected by
globalization not only politically but also culturally and economically. Another
aspect of globalization is the interconnectedness of these states and their reliance
on one another for political stability, economic development, and cultural
adaptation or awareness.
There has been much debate about whether globalization is undermining states
sovereignty or not. There are two distinct arguments in this debate. Hyper
globalist like Ohmae and Scholte hold pessimistic view and argue that
globalization brings about the end of the sovereign nation state. Globalists argue
that globalization has undermined the sovereignty of nation-states due to the
growing number of powerful supranational/supra territorial forces as well as
global problems (like the climate change, MNCs, terrorism, international non-
governmental organizations, new communication technologies like Internet).
Global forces undermine the ability of governments to control their own
economies and societies. Rosenau also argue that the cumulative scale, scope,
velocity and depth of contemporary interconnectedness in dissolving the
significance of borders and boundaries that separate the world into many
constituent states or national economic and political spaces. In contrast, the
Skeptics reject the idea of globalization by emphasizing the continuing importance
of states in world politics. Skeptics would argue that nation-state is still important
and we still live in an international system rather than a truly global one where
nation-state is expected to be diminished. Krasner and Robert Gilpin argue that
the states and geopolitics remain the principle agents and forces shaping world
order today. Transformationalists hold a moderate position and while
acknowledging the challenges of global problems they do not see a decline in the
importance of nation-state. Instead, they believe nation- states are transforming
in response to the requirements of globalization and its complexities.
Globalization has brought a number of transformations in the organization and
meaning of political community. The most significant development which is
changing the face of the nation- state is the global economic process, especially
growth in trade, production and financial transactions organized by rapidly
expanding multinational companies and corporations. Trade has grown
substantially reaching unprecedented levels. More countries are involved in
global trading arrangements, and more people and nations are affected by such
arrangements. If there is further lowering of tariff barriers across the world, these
trends are likely to continue and to further the extension, intensity and impact of
trade relations on other domains of life. The global financial flow has been rapid
in the last 10-15 years. The flow of global financial flows across borders, linked to
liberalization of capital markets has created a more integrated financial system
than has ever been known. This has led to the growth of multinational
corporations both productive and financial. Now, about 20000 multinational
corporations account for a quarter to a third of world output, 70 percent of world
trade and 80 percent of foreign direct investment. These multinational
corporations can have profound effect on the macroeconomic policy.
globalization is not mere illusion, or an ideological veil that allows participants
simply to disguise the causes of poor performance and policy failure. It has
significant and discernible characteristics which can alter the balance of resources
both economic and political, within and across borders.
I feel like the overall concept of globalization is good. Everyone should be working
together to build a more positive society. However, the groups that have the most
power such as the governments and large corporations are so money oriented
and solely focused on economic growth that they forget about sustainability. Even
when they brought out electric cars, they made them so expensive that hardly
anyone can afford them.