In 2015, the World Bank said it would phase out the use of the term "developing countries"announcementThe first time, the company was in a position to do so.Major international NGOThe use of the term has also been criticized by researchers and journalists in many countries. Thus, in recent years, the pros and cons of the use of this expression have been increasingly questioned, and for a wide variety of reasons.

Yet the expression "developing countries" continues to persist in the mainstream scene as a term used to describe low-income, under-industrialized nations. Many media outlets, governments, international organizations, and even some academic literature still apply this label to the majority of the world's countries.

GNV has a policy of not using the term "developing countries. Instead, we often use the term "low-income countries. The reasons for this editorial policy have been explained in pastarticleand ... andpodcastWe have touched on this briefly in the following section, but we need to go deeper.

This article explores the multiple problems with the term "developing countries." In addition to the fact that the term does not accurately describe the economic situation in many countries, we will focus on the historical issues behind the term, the structural disparities that persist today, and the worldview that masks a different way of development.

Disparities seen in Belarus (Photo: KPad / Shutterstock.com)

The way up?

The term "developing countries" first came into use after World War II and began to spread in various contexts during the 1950s and 1960s. This was a time of the end of colonial rule and the establishment of new international organizations. "developmental theoryThe academic discipline known as "economic development" emerged, and studies of economic development and political institutions were conducted primarily in the U.S. and other Western European countries. The prevailing view in these studies was that low-income countries were in a temporary transition phase and would eventually move toward the economically richer states known as "developed countries. The term "developing countries" was modeled on the progress of Western industrial nations, with the optimistic assumption that countries would move in a straight line from poverty to prosperity.

The term "developing countries" originated in English (developing countries *1), but it is also worth noting as a Japanese expression. The word literally means "in the process of development," and it contains a strong nuance of positive progress or advancement. The dictionary says, "developmentmeans "to grow and spread and flourish, such as momentum," and "on the roadis described as "on the way to the destination" or "on the way to progress according to the objective". In addition, "on the way todeveloping (e.g. industry, town, economy)When I looked up the word "kyoto", I found that it means "a state that is about to flourish or is currently gaining momentum".

In other words, the label "developing country" somehow represents an assumption about the direction in which the country is headed, rather than what state it is currently in. This assumption itself would need to be questioned first. Do such expressions really adequately capture the direction of each country's economic situation?

A wad of $5 billion bills. Zimbabwe in the midst of hyperinflation, 2008 (Photo:Mark Auer / Flickr [CC BY-NC 2.0])

In reality, there are numerous examples of countries that are considered "developing" that have not followed a stable upward process. Rather, many countries have experienced major economic and political setbacks. For example, from the mid-1970s to the 1990s, Sub-Saharan Africa as a region as a whole experienced an economic growth rate ofminusThis was the case. On a country-by-country basis, some countries have also experienced prolonged and severe recessions due to political repression, economic mismanagement, and social unrest. Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and Haiti are examples. In other cases, economic growth has been hampered by armed conflict or military regimes. Countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Syria, Yemen, Palestine, and Myanmar, which have experienced major armed conflicts, are emblematic examples of situations where instability and violence have halted or reversed economic growth. This reality directly contradicts the assumption that all "developing" countries are moving in the same direction of "development.

In addition, the term "developing countries" also implies that there is a certain goal to be reached and that these countries are only "lagging" behind in reaching that goal. In other words, it is assumed that these countries will eventually reach a state similar to that of "developed countries. However, the evidence that low-income countries are moving toward such a goal is weak. Economic disparities between high-income and low-income countries still persist in many cases,way of understandingIn some cases, it is even expanding. For example, a comparison of long-term growth rates of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita shows that although low-income countries are also growing their economies, the rate of growth is rather faster in high-income countriestrendin the United States. In other words, taken as a whole, it is difficult to say that low-income countries are catching up with high-income countries.

Ultimately, the expression "developing countries" not only misrepresents economic reality, but also contains an emotional narrative of "hope" for "progress." This narrative assumes a single path to "development" and gives the impression that low-income countries are simply lagging behind and will eventually reach the same goal. However, this is more of a wish than an objective analysis of the current situation. In reality, there are realities of stagnant or regressed development, persistent inequalities, and structural factors that impede sustained economic growth and industrialization. In other words, "developing countries" is not a neutral term, but rather serves as a kind of consolation.

Structural Background

As we have seen, the term "developing countries" is far removed from the real world situation. Why, nevertheless, does it continue to be used so often? One reason is that the term is convenient for those who benefit most from the status quo. The term "developing countries" portrays global inequalities as if they were temporary and would naturally dissipate if the status quo remained the same. As such, the term provides a reassuring narrative that the current global system is functioning normally and that the poor countries' economic growth is simply lagging behind and will catch up in time. Such an optimistic narrative is convenient for those who benefit from the status quo and avoids the need to focus on the underlying causes of inequality.

Whether intentionally or unintentionally, the continued use of the term has the effect of diverting attention away from the structural mechanisms that contribute to global inequality. The phrase "developing countries" suggests that low-income countries need internal reforms and better governance, but it does not recall the more fundamental problems that impede their development: international institutions and power relations among nations.

In reality, however, much of the world's inequality is rooted in structural problems embedded in the global economy. Inequitable trade relations (unfair trade) is at the center of it, and low-income countries with natural resources and cheap labor are locked into an export-oriented economic structure that benefits high-income countries. The imbalance of power between buyers and sellers also means that the prices of agricultural products and raw materials are determined by the buyers rather than by the sellers, the low-income countriesnumerous. As a result, the global value chain benefits those at the topstructureThe profit is greater for those who trade and sell the goods than for those who actually provide the labor to produce them.

In addition, the massive tax avoidance andtax evasionalso cause significant damage to the national finances of low-income countries. These actions are a result of the fact that much world trade passes throughtax haven(tax havens), which are supported by the

Luxury yachts in Malta, which serves as a tax haven (Photo: Maltese Robinson Robinson / Shutterstock.com)

Many low-income countries try to hold on economically, and in the process of trying to reduce poverty, they end up with large amounts of debt. However,liabilitiesThe impact of having a Institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are heavily influenced by high-income countries and condition their loans onbudgetary austerities(spending cuts) are often required. As a result, public investment in critical areas such as health and education is restricted.

These structures are by no means new. They have roots in a long history of exploitation dating back to the slave trade and colonial rule. During the colonial period, enormous wealth was systematically siphoned off from the colonies and transferred to the suzerain state. Even after the end of formal colonial rule, the exploitative relationship did not end. For example, in many countries in West and Central Africa, financial policies remained under French influence even after independenceeconomic structureremain, preventing many countries from achieving monetary sovereignty and economic independence.

Thus, the disparity that exists between economically powerful and marginalized countries is not a spontaneous "stage difference in development," nor is it solely due to internal governance and policy failures. It is shaped and sustained by external economic, political, and historical forces. These countries are not simply "lagging behind" or "underdeveloped. Rather, we refer to these countries as "countries that have been deliberately prevented from developing" (underdeveloped) and "over-exploited countries" (overexploitedSome researchers have described it as a "developing country" (i.e., a "developing country"). Such a perspective fundamentally calls into question the core assumption embedded in the term "developing countries" (i.e., the optimistic narrative that inequality is temporary and contingent and will eventually dissipate).

Further reinforcing this distorted reality is the excessive reliance on Official Development Assistance (ODA) as a means of solving poverty.focal pointis that it is applied. While aid can certainly play a role in addressing specific challenges, it is only a small part of the total flow of funds moving between countries. In fact, far greater amounts of wealth are transferred from low-income countries to high-income countries in the form of debt repayment, profit transfers by multinational corporations, tax avoidance, and illicit financial outflows.movementThe "development" narrative still focuses exclusively on aid. Still, the "development" narrative focuses exclusively on aid and not on the power structures and institutional disparities that create poverty and inequality.take no notice ofThis one-sided view positions the donor countries as "benevolent supporters. This one-sided view positions the countries providing aid as "benevolent supporters," while obscuring the possibility that they themselves are causing the problems or benefiting from the status quo.

Coconut plantation, Thailand (Photo:Chris Bird / Flickr [CC BY-NC-SA 2.0])

A set path to "development"?

Another problem with the terms "developing" and "developed" countries is that they equate economic growth with development. They try to measure development only by economic indicators such as GDP per capita and gross national income (GNI).approachfails to capture the multifaceted aspects of human welfare and well-being. In this narrow view, "progress" is simply a rise in monetary figures, neglecting the political, social, environmental, and cultural factors that affect people's lives. Development is reduced to economic data such as income levels, integration into markets, and output, overlooking important factors such as health, education, political participation, and environmental sustainability.

In response to this view, the United Nations Development Programme's (UNDP) Human Development Index (HDI) Alternative frameworks such as the "HDI" provide a more comprehensive understanding; the HDI uses indicators such as life expectancy, educational attainment, and quality of life to show that "development" cannot be measured by economic growth alone.

The term "developing countries" also carries with it the idea that all countries should follow the same path as Western industrialized nations. In reality, however, a look at the path taken by each country and the policies adopted by its government at any given time shows that they are all seeking diverse paths of development, each with different priorities, values, and constraints. For example.Cubahas been severely economically limited by U.S. economic sanctions and domestic political and economic policies, but still maintains a level of life expectancy and medical outcomes similar to many high-income countries. During the pandemic of the new coronavirus, Cuba continued to strengthen its public health system, and it has several homegrownvaccineThe success of the development of the The Cuban case shows that alternative development models that prioritize social services over market growth can be effective for human welfare.

Bhutan also provides a control example. Although its economy is smaller, Bhutan does not use GDP, but rather "Gross National Happiness (GNH) has adopted a model of development based on the "well-being" framework. This framework emphasizes psychological well-being, environmental sustainability, and cultural preservation. Bhutan's policies reflect a clear choice to prioritize the health of people and nature over rapid industrialization and integration into international markets. What these examples show is that development is not a single path that follows one common route, but rather varies widely depending on the historical, political, and cultural background of each country.

A hospital in Cuba (Photo:IAEA Imagebank / Wikimedia Commons[.CC BY 2.0])

Furthermore, the very idea that all countries should aspire to a "high-income, mass-consumption society" is unrealistic and environmentally unsustainable. If every country in the world were to aspire to living standards and consumption patterns similar to those of today's wealthiest nations, the environmental impact would be catastrophic. The earth's ecosystems cannot withstand the global reproduction of consumption like that of the already high-income countries.Global Footprint Networkdata show that humanity is already consuming more resources each year than the earth can regenerate, and this "overshoot" is accelerating each year. This "Earth Overshoot DayThe day called "the day" is a visual indicator of overuse of resources. The main responsibility for such overconsumption lies with high-income countries that use more energy and resources than necessary.

If we continue to define "development" as tracing the path of the most industrialized and resource-consuming countries, the world will push the limits of sustainability even further than it is today.

Alternatives to "developing countries"

As we have seen, there are many problems with the terms "developing" and "developed" countries. However, as long as great disparities exist in the world, words that express the reality of these disparities are still necessary.

GNV uses phrases such as "low-income countries" instead of "developing countries" and "high-income countries" instead of "developed countries. These terms are intended to describe the current economic status quo, and are not expressions of hope based on the assumption of a one-way path of "development.

Nevertheless, the terminology has its limitations. The choice between "low-income" and "high-income" countries, while more realistic than the "developing" and "developed" categories, still simplifies the complex and diverse situations of the world. The terms "developing" and "developed" are often directed atcriticismis that the world is not neatly divided into two in the first place. Even among the "low-income" countries, there are wide differences in per capita NGI, infrastructure, political systems, levels of public health, and levels of inequality. On the other hand, even among "high-income" countries, there are many countries with domestic poverty and inequality. That is why we need to be careful about lumping countries together in different contexts.

A tea leaf harvester, Sri Lanka (Photo:Knut-Erik Helle / Flickr [CC BY-NC 2.0])

To address this issue, some attempts have been made to introduce more detailed classifications. For example, the World Bank, based on Gross National Income (GNI), has developed four categories: "low-income countries," "lower-middle-income countries," "upper-middle-income countries," and "high-income countries.levelThe classification is divided into the following two categories. In theory, such a tiered classification should more accurately reflect economic diversity. In practice, however, there are problems with this classification. The standard values for classification are set low, making it difficult to see actual deprivation and hardship.criticismThere are In fact, many countries that are considered "middle-income" countries still have large numbers of poor people and people without access to basic services.

It is also possible that the intention behind setting these standards excessively low is to obscure the reality that the majority of the world's wealth is concentrated in high-income countries.pointing outThere are also In other words, although some countries have achieved rapid economic growth, as seen in recent years in countries such as China, there still exists a huge gap between high-income countries and low-income countries, and in fact, countries that are positioned in the middle of the two groups are not sonot manyIn fact, almost half of the world's population is "ethical. In fact, almost half of the world's population is "ethical.poverty lineIt is also said that they live below the standard of what is called a "good life" (*2).

The other two are Global North and Global South.representationalso exist. These terms are not necessarily based solely on economic indicators, but more broadly represent geopolitical and historical divisions rooted in colonialism, power structures, and international economic arrangements. The "Global North" includes Europe, North America, and parts of East Asia, among others, while the "Global South" includes Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and much of Asia. Of course, these expressions are also simplifications, and not all countries fit neatly into their definitions. But these terms are useful in highlighting historical context and structural power relations, and may be a way to capture issues that cannot be captured by economic measures such as "development" and "growth" alone.

summary

In today's world, the majority of wealth is concentrated in the hands of a very few. Poverty, on the other hand, affects the majority of the world's population. This composition is also true at the national level. It is indeed difficult to find words that accurately describe this reality. However, it is necessary to properly challenge any language that gets in the way of understanding the world and how it works. It is time to put aside the term "developing countries" and seek a term that more accurately captures the reality.

1 Since this term originated in English, not all of the issues raised there apply to the Japanese language as well. The English word "developing" sometimes includes the meaning of "human development" or "maturity" as well as mere economic growth, and the term is sometimes associated with the relationship between children and adults. In other words, "developing countries" carries a nuance of "immature countries," which can make people feel they are being treated from a superior perspective.

On the other hand, the Japanese language has different words such as "developing" and "underdeveloped," each with distinct meanings, so these nuances are not necessarily retained. However, the expression "developing countries" still has in common that it can give the impression of being somewhat superior and superior.

Similarly, high-income countries are often described as "developed countries" ("countries that have finished developing") in the English-speaking world. There is some criticism of this terminology. The term "developed" gives the impression that these countries have already completed and reached the final stage of their development. In reality, however, these countries also have serious inequalities, poverty, and various other social problems. The use of language that ignores such realities is problematic.

2 The maximum limit set by the World Bankpoverty lineis a state in which people live on US$2.15 per day. However, this poverty line is set excessively low, and an alternative measure of the relationship between poverty and life expectancy, based on US$7.4 per day, isbasisThe ethical poverty line is the one that is the most important.

Writer: Virgil Hawkins

Graphics by Yow Shuning

Follow @GNV_tweets