m (Moving Wikipedia link from tag at top to interwiki link section)
(change image caption - "Minimum wages by country." rather than "attractiveness..." Low wages are one of many factors in attractiveness to investors. Even more complex in terms of best outcome for a nation and its workers. Rm shirt image: inaccurate)
(44 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
The '''majority world''' (sometimes capitalized as '''Majority World''') is a term used in preference to the largely inaccurate, out-of-date and/or non-descriptive terms [[developing countries]], [[third world]] and the "South". In the early nineties, Bangladeshi photographer Shahidul Alam [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahidul_Alam][http://shahidul.wordpress.com]began advocating for a new expression “majority world” to represent what has formerly been known as the “Third World.”  The term highlights the fact that these countries are indeed the majority of humankind. It also brings to sharp attention the anomaly that the Group of 8 countries—whose decisions affect majority of the world's peoples—represent a tiny fraction of humankind.  
{{Lang|[[Nchi zinazoendelea|Kiswahili]] - [[Developing countries|English]]}}
'''Developing countries''', or '''Majority World''', and/or the inaccurate, out-of-date terms the '''South'''<ref>Although a convenient shorthand, the "South" is a inaccurate term as it suggests that the developing nations are further South than the developed nations. Consider Australia and Mongolia as two obvious counter-examples. Further, consider Albania, Japan and Malaysia as counter-examples to the idea of countries in the same region belonging to the same economic class.</ref>
and '''Third world''' all refer to the countries that rank the lowest on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index Human Development Index].


Majority world defines the community in terms of what it is, rather than what it lacks.
==History==
{{Main|Colonization}}
Many developing countries have been colonised. While this a clearly exploitative arrangement to the benefit of the colonizing power, it has also had some positive economic influences, as foreign companies and together with it, foreign knowledge and crafsmanship have then started to enter the country, and some new forms of industry have emerged. However, it has also often left scars  when the colonial powers exited the country, and local knowledge/expertise needed for these industries has not been developed.  


The term LDCs (Least Developed Countries) is more accurate than most of the alternatives, but may be seen as having strong negative connotations that reinforce the stereotypes about poor communities and represent them as icons of poverty. There is also the question of summing up a nation which may have great cultural heritage as less developed, by considering only the economics development.
==Economic growth==
[[File:Gdp growth rate for 2013.PNG|thumb|right|200px|GDP growth for 2013]]
[[File:Attractiveness of countries based on wages.png|thumb|right|200px|Minimum wages by country.]]
Throughout history, economic development has varied depending on the developing country in question. For example, most African countries experienced little economic growth in the 20th century. Most Asian countries have seen comparatively much more development, with a strong reduction in poverty.


More strident critics of the Western role in these nations make more damning criticisms of the terms third world, developing country and LDCs: that they hide histories of oppression and continued exploitation. It is sometimes argued that economically poor countries of the world are invariably countries that have been [[colonization|colonized]], and continue to be colonized through [[globalization|globalized]] forms of control.
In recent decades though, poverty has decreased dramatically overall thanks to China's strong growth. See the [http://static.squarespace.com/static/5005cc26c4aa55eb76ab348d/5005d849e4b0ee36c462cb34/5005d849e4b0ee36c462cb56/1341964128707/1000w World Economic Outlook 2012 map]


The labels also hinder the appreciation of the cultural and social wealth of these communities. Though these terms are still used, there is an increasing feeling within the communities themselves that these terms are inappropriate. The term majority world may be seen as challenging the West’s rhetoric of democracy[http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/archives/ajv34n1.htm].  
==Population growth and effect on climate change==
As mentioned at [[Population growth]], it is the combination of both the population size, as the (degree of) [[Consumerism|participation of each member on the economy]], as the way in which each member chooses to use this wealth that determines our impact on the environment (in regards to climate change).


Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Developing country #Measure and concept of development|states]]:
As in developing countries there is little participation of each member on the economy, the impact of the people in developing countries (ie the "wealthy") have a far greater than the impact, although they are far small in number.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/sep/28/population-growth-super-rich Stop blaming the poor. It's the wally yachters who are burning the planet, George Monbiot, guardian.co.uk, 28 September 2009]</ref>.
:To moderate the euphemistic aspect of the word developing, international organizations have started to use the term Less economically developed country{{wp sup|Less economically developed country}} (LEDCs) for the poorest nations which can in no sense be regarded as developing. That is, LEDCs are the poorest subset of LDCs. This also moderates the wrong tendency to believe that the standard of living in the entire developing world is the same.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Developing_country&oldid=213761373]


Note this does not deal with all of the criticisms above. ''Developing'' may be somewhat more accurate once the most desperate, stagnant economies are removed, but it is not a feature that distinguishes them from the wealthy nations which are also growing. There is not even a certainty that the poorer countries are catching up to the richer ones. It would be more accurate if the term ''less economically developed country'' were used for all countries other than the wealthy, developed nations - however as it is already used with a narrower meaning, it is perhaps too late for such a usage to catch on.
Still, regardless of the facts, “developed” countries often occuse “developing” countries of emitting too much {{CO2}}. This leads activists to ask questions such as: Is this what development really is? Is this the benchmark that our countries aim to achieve? If the rampant rise of consumerism is the real cause of global warming, then shouldn’t that be targeted? Are it not mostly<ref>China, India, Brazil are developing countries yet are responsible to huge amounts of GHG emissions</ref> the developed countries (in relation to their population/country's size<ref>[http://www.greenprophet.com/2012/05/qatar-largest-carbon-footprint/ Countries as the USA are quickly blamed for having the greatest carbon footprint, but are not the greatest emitters in regards to their population/country size, certain Middle Eastern countries are]</ref><ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions General list of emitters, not taking into account the size of the country/population]</ref> that should be held responsible?


== The "South" or "Global South" ==
A study by Dr David Satterthwaite<ref>[http://www.iied.org/human-settlements/media/study-shatters-myth-population-growth-major-driver-climate-change Study shatters myth that population growth is a major driver of climate change], September, 2009, summary on the website of the International Institute for Environment and Development, and download link for report.</ref> of the International Institute for Environment and Development analyzed changes in population and in greenhouse gas emissions for the entire world. His research, which assessed data between 1980 and 2005 reveals that population growth’s contribution to the rise in greenhouse gases are almost negligible.


The Global South carries strong connotations of division, emphasizing the geographic division that correlates to some extent with the distribution of poverty. It has the advantage of offering a convenient shorthand (such as South-South or [[South to North knowledge transfer|South to North]] [[knowledge transfer]]).
Sub-Saharan Africa, which had 18.5% of the world’s population growth had only 2.4% of the total carbon dioxide emissions, whilst the United States, with 3.4% population growth had 12.6% growth in carbon dioxide emissions.<ref>Compared to their previous emissions or the increase in global global emissions ?</ref>


However it is inaccurate and perhaps unhelpful in suggesting a simple division into two regions, and in suggesting that the nations in question are further South than the most developed nations. Consider Australia and Mongolia as two obvious counter-examples. Further, consider Albania, Japan and Malaysia as counter-examples to the idea of countries in the same region belonging to the same economic class.
The study illustrates that low-income countries have a higher rate of population growth, as opposed to higher income countries who maintained a low population rate, but also that they contribute less to global warming than all of us would believe. The study further asserts that the real problem is the growth in consumers and consumerism– not just “people.


== See also ==
“A child borne into a very poor African household who during their life never escapes from poverty contributes very little to climate change, especially if they die young, as many do,” says Satterthwaite. “A child born into a wealthy household in North America or Europe and enjoys a full life and a high-consumption lifestyle contributes far more – thousands or even tens of thousands of times more.”
The concept of Fair Trade Photography [http://williamaveryhudson.blogsome.com/2007/08/]evolved from the idea that photographers of the majority world were excluded from their self representation. An Internet portal www.majorityworld.com[http://www.majorityworld.com link title] has been set up to promote the work of majority world photographers.
 
Consider China, a country that has strict limits on the growth of their population. In fact, their rates of population growth have decreased enormously. Yet, the rate of their greenhouse gas emissions have increased.
 
==Environmental efforts==
{{Main|Climate change}}
{{Main|Flexible mechanisms}}
Many developing countries have already much to suffer from climate change. For some<ref>Ie low-lying islands as Mauritius, Fiji,, Kiribati, Tuvalu, Micronesia, ... and even some low-lying countries as Bangladesh</ref> things will become even far worse and will see their entire country vanish due to climate change. This as well as other environmental problems such as deforestation raises great concern on the population -especially as due to being more directly dependant on the environment (ie many people still need to manually collect potable water, firewood, ... directly from the environment) they can easily see the devastating impact this will have on their lives/[[livelihood]]-.
 
However, despite the huge threat that climate change faces, many developing countries lack funding and so are less able than developed countries to find appropriate solutions to counter this. In treaties such as the Kyoto protocol, it has been arranged that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_on_the_Kyoto_Protocol developing countries hence do not need to reduce their emissions as much as developed countries]. Although this indeed makes sense, it should be noted that the Kyoto protocol was only but a stepping stone to reduce emissions and not a final solution. The emission reductions noted herein are nowhere near what is needed to aduquatly reduce emissions. With a more aduquate protocol, emission reductions of even developing countries would be on par to the emission reductions asked from developed countries today, and developed countries would need to attain far higher emission reductions. In practice, this could be easily done and the impression that developing countries could not achieve this is incorrect. This as reducing emissions can be done at various ways, using both high-tech solutions (ie reducing emissions from industry/transport) as low-tech solutions (ie population management, [[Small scale agriculture|energy-efficient food production]], ...) .<ref>http://jnmocc.blogspot.com</ref> In addition, with more efficient use of energy, even high-tech solutions (reducing emissions from industry/transport) can be handled by developing countries. [[Tokelau]]{{W|Tokelau}} for example has switched to using only solar energy and renewable energy (coconut) oil.  


* [[Colonization]]
In addition, tackling climate change may even prove economically beneficial to (certain) developing countries. For example REDD allows countries to attain revenue simply by leaving their forests standing. Also, the [[flexible mechanisms]] (JI, CDM) allow to attract foreign investment/development.


== Interwiki links ==
Besides tackling climate change, other environmental projects may also be beneficial to the economy. Especially projects that [[recycle]]s [[waste]]/litter from abroad (ie from developed countries), allows the injecting of capital to the country. An example is the Flip Flop Recycling Project.


* [[Wikipedia:Third World]]
==Notes and references==
*[[Wikipedia: Third World #Criticism of the term]]
{{reflist}}


== See also ==
* [[Poverty]]
* [[Kerala]]


== External links ==
*[[Wikipedia: Third World #Criticism of the term]]


[[Category:Principles of development]]
[[Category:Principles of development]]
[[Category:Locations]]
[[Category:Locations]]
[[Category:Photography]]
[[Category:Bangladesh]]
[[Category:Photo Agency]]

Revision as of 11:28, 24 July 2013

Template:Lang Developing countries, or Majority World, and/or the inaccurate, out-of-date terms the South[1] and Third world all refer to the countries that rank the lowest on the Human Development Index.

History

Many developing countries have been colonised. While this a clearly exploitative arrangement to the benefit of the colonizing power, it has also had some positive economic influences, as foreign companies and together with it, foreign knowledge and crafsmanship have then started to enter the country, and some new forms of industry have emerged. However, it has also often left scars when the colonial powers exited the country, and local knowledge/expertise needed for these industries has not been developed.

Economic growth

GDP growth for 2013
Minimum wages by country.

Throughout history, economic development has varied depending on the developing country in question. For example, most African countries experienced little economic growth in the 20th century. Most Asian countries have seen comparatively much more development, with a strong reduction in poverty.

In recent decades though, poverty has decreased dramatically overall thanks to China's strong growth. See the World Economic Outlook 2012 map

Population growth and effect on climate change

As mentioned at Population growth, it is the combination of both the population size, as the (degree of) participation of each member on the economy, as the way in which each member chooses to use this wealth that determines our impact on the environment (in regards to climate change).

As in developing countries there is little participation of each member on the economy, the impact of the people in developing countries (ie the "wealthy") have a far greater than the impact, although they are far small in number.[2].

Still, regardless of the facts, “developed” countries often occuse “developing” countries of emitting too much Template:CO2. This leads activists to ask questions such as: Is this what development really is? Is this the benchmark that our countries aim to achieve? If the rampant rise of consumerism is the real cause of global warming, then shouldn’t that be targeted? Are it not mostly[3] the developed countries (in relation to their population/country's size[4][5] that should be held responsible?

A study by Dr David Satterthwaite[6] of the International Institute for Environment and Development analyzed changes in population and in greenhouse gas emissions for the entire world. His research, which assessed data between 1980 and 2005 reveals that population growth’s contribution to the rise in greenhouse gases are almost negligible.

Sub-Saharan Africa, which had 18.5% of the world’s population growth had only 2.4% of the total carbon dioxide emissions, whilst the United States, with 3.4% population growth had 12.6% growth in carbon dioxide emissions.[7]

The study illustrates that low-income countries have a higher rate of population growth, as opposed to higher income countries who maintained a low population rate, but also that they contribute less to global warming than all of us would believe. The study further asserts that the real problem is the growth in consumers and consumerism– not just “people.”

“A child borne into a very poor African household who during their life never escapes from poverty contributes very little to climate change, especially if they die young, as many do,” says Satterthwaite. “A child born into a wealthy household in North America or Europe and enjoys a full life and a high-consumption lifestyle contributes far more – thousands or even tens of thousands of times more.”

Consider China, a country that has strict limits on the growth of their population. In fact, their rates of population growth have decreased enormously. Yet, the rate of their greenhouse gas emissions have increased.

Environmental efforts

Many developing countries have already much to suffer from climate change. For some[8] things will become even far worse and will see their entire country vanish due to climate change. This as well as other environmental problems such as deforestation raises great concern on the population -especially as due to being more directly dependant on the environment (ie many people still need to manually collect potable water, firewood, ... directly from the environment) they can easily see the devastating impact this will have on their lives/livelihood-.

However, despite the huge threat that climate change faces, many developing countries lack funding and so are less able than developed countries to find appropriate solutions to counter this. In treaties such as the Kyoto protocol, it has been arranged that developing countries hence do not need to reduce their emissions as much as developed countries. Although this indeed makes sense, it should be noted that the Kyoto protocol was only but a stepping stone to reduce emissions and not a final solution. The emission reductions noted herein are nowhere near what is needed to aduquatly reduce emissions. With a more aduquate protocol, emission reductions of even developing countries would be on par to the emission reductions asked from developed countries today, and developed countries would need to attain far higher emission reductions. In practice, this could be easily done and the impression that developing countries could not achieve this is incorrect. This as reducing emissions can be done at various ways, using both high-tech solutions (ie reducing emissions from industry/transport) as low-tech solutions (ie population management, energy-efficient food production, ...) .[9] In addition, with more efficient use of energy, even high-tech solutions (reducing emissions from industry/transport) can be handled by developing countries. TokelauW for example has switched to using only solar energy and renewable energy (coconut) oil.

In addition, tackling climate change may even prove economically beneficial to (certain) developing countries. For example REDD allows countries to attain revenue simply by leaving their forests standing. Also, the flexible mechanisms (JI, CDM) allow to attract foreign investment/development.

Besides tackling climate change, other environmental projects may also be beneficial to the economy. Especially projects that recycles waste/litter from abroad (ie from developed countries), allows the injecting of capital to the country. An example is the Flip Flop Recycling Project.

Notes and references

Template:Reflist

See also

External links

  1. Although a convenient shorthand, the "South" is a inaccurate term as it suggests that the developing nations are further South than the developed nations. Consider Australia and Mongolia as two obvious counter-examples. Further, consider Albania, Japan and Malaysia as counter-examples to the idea of countries in the same region belonging to the same economic class.
  2. Stop blaming the poor. It's the wally yachters who are burning the planet, George Monbiot, guardian.co.uk, 28 September 2009
  3. China, India, Brazil are developing countries yet are responsible to huge amounts of GHG emissions
  4. Countries as the USA are quickly blamed for having the greatest carbon footprint, but are not the greatest emitters in regards to their population/country size, certain Middle Eastern countries are
  5. General list of emitters, not taking into account the size of the country/population
  6. Study shatters myth that population growth is a major driver of climate change, September, 2009, summary on the website of the International Institute for Environment and Development, and download link for report.
  7. Compared to their previous emissions or the increase in global global emissions ?
  8. Ie low-lying islands as Mauritius, Fiji,, Kiribati, Tuvalu, Micronesia, ... and even some low-lying countries as Bangladesh
  9. http://jnmocc.blogspot.com
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.