From Third World to Developing Nations
The world loves talking about developing countries. We sit, discuss and argue about why they are not growing, why they are, why they are corrupt and how we can do business in them.
Developing countries are in. They are the new ‘sexy’ thing.
We have international conferences, institutions, books, articles, journals and university courses centred why developing nations are still developing and how these nations can leap out of the poverty that plague their societies. Billions have been spent and millions have marched for the cause, yet very few have questioned the utility, the significance or the validity of the term developing country and the distinction between a developing world and a developed one.
Looking at the Google definition for ‘developing’, it is hard to conjure up any negative sentiments about a country being described as maturing and advancing. The issue at hand is not the definition of the word but instead its use and meaning in the context of International Relations and our geopolitical pasts.
The UNdefines the geographical regions for developing countries as follows: Africa, East Asia, South Asia, Western Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean. On the surface these classifications seem accurate and unproblematic but as with all things in life, the reality is more complex and nuanced. Until recently, I had no issue with the term because, like most people, I saw that there was an urgent need for better schools, healthcare, leadership and governance in many parts of the globe. Governments needed to be better and do better for their citizens.
My argument can be summarised by the following three points:
1. Blurred Lines
The hierarchy implied by the old 1st, 2ndand 3rdworld classification has not been erased by the shift to the developed and developing nation classification. This bipartite classification implies a level of inferiority and assumes a cleardistinction between the ‘developing’ and the esteemed league of the ‘developed’.
As we have come to realise things are not so rosy in the ‘developed’ world. The same socio-economic issues, that keep developing countries developing, are rampant in the countries that are often glorified as being the ‘poster boy’ for development and modernity. It is easy to argue that these developed countries experience these issues on a smaller scale but if we look carefully, we will find that they are better at hiding it. Behind their unpotholed roads, public transport systems, minimum wage and free healthcare (not in all), hides fragmented societies crumbling in the face of racism cloaked under the guise of nationalism. Behind the façade lies sweatshops in Leicester, where workers earn£3 per hour wagesand Flint, a city in Michigan, that has not had access to clean water in over five years. According to a Harvard Business Reviewthe U.S. maternal mortality rate has more than doubled from 10.3 per 100,000 live births in 1991 to 23.8 in 2014and black mothers in the U.S. die at the same rate as pregnant women in Mexico or Uzbekistan. To those that would like to state that these are isolated issues, take notice of the fact that the wealthiest 10% of households in OECD 52% of total net wealth.
Yes, no country is perfect but when a large chunk of a population lives in relative discomfort, this should not be applauded and glorified as what other countries should aspire to be.
2. The Narrative That Keeps Us Under
The developed-developing relationship can be likened to coloniser-colonised relationship, especially in terms of extraction, which is unsurprising given that these classifications have been pushed by the West and Western-led institutions. Before anyone shouts conspiracy theory, let’s look at who benefits from the idea that the developing world is making little progress.
The idea that developed countries should give aid in order to help developing countries develop, is not as benevolent as it is made out to be. What most people aren’t aware of is that many development aid packages are still tied, meaning that grants and loans require recipient countries to procure goods and services from companies in the donor countries. In a brief, the European Network on Debt and Development, acknowledged that even if aid is reported as untied, it may still be tied in practice. Additionally, many countries are left crippled by debt as a result of aid in the form of loans. Interestingly, there are instances where donors make more than they loaned from interest rate repayments.
Aguest lecturer, for my Development and Technology elective, stated that for every $1 coming from the west to Africa $4 leaves the African continent. I was shocked but not surprised and in true Tobi style I decided to fact check myself and found that the reality was actually grimmer. An article in The Guardianposited that although sub-Saharan Africa receives $134bn each year in loans, foreign investment and development aid $192bn leaves the region (leaving a $58bn shortfall) mainly to the same countries providing aid.
More can be said about how the development aid system continues to impoverish the recipients, but the bottom line is aid is used as a tool to further geopolitical aims and boost trade. As the Congressional Research Service(US Congress’ think tank) nicely stated in their footnote (page 1 if you’re interested):
“Foreign aid is a particularly flexible tool — it can act as both carrot and stick, and is a means of influencing events, solving specific problems, and projecting U.S. values”
3. Development Turned on Its Head
Lastly, the ‘developing’ and ‘developed’ binary assumes that countries ought to develop along the traditional Western model for economic development. I find this highly problematic because it limits the visions and aspirations of what a better country could look like and how we can get there. The existing categorisation leaves room for the belief that we can copy and paste policies to replicate other nations paths.
‘Developed’ states are not an ideal for us to aspire to. They are built on exploitation of peoples, the destruction of our planet and exclusive growth.
In the book, ‘Africa’s Business Revolution’ (coming soon to TAF Bookshelf), the authors discuss how the West (‘developed’ countries) and developing countries do not have the same growth trajectory. They state that in EU and North America average per capita income barely increased for almost 200 years then soared during the Industrial Revolution (increasing 20-fold between 1820 and 2015. In contrast, Asia’s boom came later but faster increasing 10-fold between 1960 and 2016. Essentially, we are doing development faster and under vastly different conditions, which make the ‘developed’ country benchmark redundant.
As the 4th Industrial Revolution amps up and technology advances and becomes more cheaply available, we will see many nations leapfrog their way to prosperity. I am a firm believer that a new type of ‘development’ is emerging. We live in a time where Nigeria was the first country in the world to issue e-walletsto revolutionize the agricultural sector by providing a system to purchase and distribute agricultural inputs, where over half of all mobile money services in the world are in Sub-Saharan Africa, which remains the fastest-growing mobile market in the world and where a hospital in Joburg started using a robotic pharmacy system, which reduced prescription errors and cut patients’ wait times from over 4 hours to under 20 minutes.
It is, therefore, easy to see how evolving technologies can be utilised to secure a brighter and greener future. The African continent has the numbers on its side and innovations are endless.
On a Last Note
As much as I dislike the ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ country categorisation, I am not advocating for us to disregard the need for development. I strongly believe that we need to rethink what we mean by development. In my view it is not about aiming to look like countries in Europe and North America and it is more than alleviating poverty. It should be about aiming to create a community that promotes the inclusiveand sustainable advancement of peoples, ideas and innovations. Although many nations have stated this as an aim in the past, we have not yet seen it come to fruition. I am not claiming to have all the answers to all our problems, but I will say that it is time for us to start thinking outside the box, when it comes to solutions and our combined vision of the future.