Max Tallberg
The term “Global South” has also been referred to as the third world and developing countries. Developing countries were those that had not yet fully industrialized. The third world was a term used during the Cold War: the first world referred to developed capitalist countries, the second world referred to communist countries, and the third world referred to developing countries that were often still under the influence of colonialism.
Today, instead of the third world, we refer to developing countries, or if that is considered too negative, we use the term “South.” Nowadays, the term Global South has become the more accepted and correct term. These countries are difficult to define because they differ from each other in many ways, and the name is not directly connected to geography. One way is to let them define their position in relation to the North themselves. Another is to look for various general or statistical characteristics by which countries can be classified into either the Global South or the North, or into smaller, more limited groups. GDP measurement is often not considered an exhaustive criterion because it only measures officially recorded activities and is susceptible to exchange rate fluctuations. One alternative definition, known as developmentalism, is that a developing country is one that receives development aid.
Traditionally, developing countries—now called the Global South—are defined as those that have not yet achieved certain benchmarks, such as an independent, strong judiciary that can protect people and guarantee them freedom. In the Global South, people often rely too much on small-scale agriculture, or these countries lack proper industrial production, have low economic growth whose benefits are not widely enjoyed, or do not adequately provide education, healthcare, and other services. It has been suggested that there are about 60 countries in the world, home to a billion people, caught in a cycle of poor governance and economic struggle. External aid, for example in terms of institutional changes, should always be adapted to local conditions. I believe it is clear that sustainable results cannot be achieved without considering the views and preferences of the people in the Global South. Development should always be a cooperative effort where all parties are heard, which would certainly lead to the best, most diverse, and realistic solutions.
When we consider how to best help the Global South in today’s world, we should first look at the theories that try to explain the current situation. Various theories have been proposed. The underdevelopment view suggests that the current standard of living in the West and the underdevelopment of developing countries stem from the unjust structures of the global economy, developed during the slave trade and colonial era.
Post-colonial theorists argue that the legacy of colonialism continues to shape the economic and political structures of the Global South, perpetuating inequality and underdevelopment. According to scholars like Arturo Escobar (2011), development policies often reflect the interests and perspectives of the Global North, marginalizing local knowledge and priorities. This dynamic can lead to development initiatives that do not align with the needs or contexts of the communities they aim to serve, thereby reinforcing dependency and systemic inequities.
Both these theories seem credible to me, and I will delve deeper into them in my upcoming texts. It is also worth reiterating that the Global South can indeed be helped, but this likely requires a range of strategies, a broad understanding of the current situation, and stronger involvement of the people in the Global South in this development. It is also clear that the Global South, including its past, must be examined as comprehensively as possible, from as many viewpoints as possible. In the end any lasting solutions should be initiated and implemented by the people in the Global South themselves. They know their own circumstances best, and so naturally also have the best solutions. The role of the Global North is to listen to these people and give them the tools to make changes themselves. This applies once again to myself, a privileged white man living in a Nordic welfare country. I do not have the answers, but I can give the people of the Global South the space to discuss their ideas and support them as best I can.
In any case, the legacy of European colonialism should be more strongly recognized in the West today. Even though individual people may not need to feel guilty about past actions they did not personally commit, history should influence the present in such a way that everyone feels it is fair for us all to take collective responsibility for ensuring that genuine justice and equality prevail throughout the world. This obviously means that the historical impact of colonialism on the modern world must cease and be rectified.
*
Failures in governance, including incentives, structures, and associated actions, are seen by many as the ultimate underlying cause of chronic underdevelopment in certain areas, and aid providers should address this. Without even minimally effective governance, aid does not work. Dysfunctional institutions are seen as the biggest problem in developing countries, not a lack of resources. In many developing countries, it is hard to find any sector that is politically relevant and unaffected by external aid in some way. For those of us living in the Global North, we should ask how we can help in supporting citizens of these countries in their efforts to hold governments accountable and build more transparency.
Democracy, good governance, state reform, institution-building, the rule of law, accountability, anti-corruption measures, transparency, inclusivity, and human rights have been highlighted as important factors when trying to help the Global South. These factors are broadly divided into democracy, governance, and human rights. These are also issues our organization will address in the future, as they are important themes globally. This again shows that helping developing countries should be approached comprehensively, through many different factors. Conditions and reforms related to governance have also been required by some aid organizations in their operations. They have also worked together with key societal institutions, thereby achieving more.
The biggest problem today is not that poorly governed countries receive too much support, but that well-governed ones receive too little. I believe it is essential not to waste any opportunity to achieve genuine progress in the countries of the Global South, and aid should always reach its destination when it is known that it will help.
Governance and political actions can also be improved and developed without changing the existing social and political structures. This applies to both functional and dysfunctional environments. However, this requires carefully considered and planned action. Inclusivity and accountability are also important in this context, for example, at the village community level but also in terms of monitoring politicians. It is also crucial to recognize that success in a particular area requires comprehensive investments. I believe that addressing only one issue is probably not enough, because if society does not function in other respects, addressing a specific, isolated problem cannot ultimately transform society as a whole. A key observation is that ultimately, people are the ones who bring about positive change. We should enable every individual to have genuine opportunities to positively influence the course of their lives. This would certainly have a significant impact on societal structures as well. In several blog posts, we have highlighted basic income as a catalyst for such change.
Today, the goal of support for the Global South is to alleviate poverty in these countries with the aim of creating better living conditions in the South, but not the same as in the developed world. This view, however, lacks a visionary perspective and disrespects the potential of the Global South to develop in the future. It also maintains a structure of inequality between the North and South. If we adopted solutions proposed by activists and experts in the South such as addressing the debt crisis and for example, canceling the debt, there would be real potential for these economies to succeed. This would also be a form of reparations for the effects of climate change that developing countries will feel first, although it is the Global North who are responsible for climate change.
An interesting observation is also that in most of the Global South, economic growth has not succeeded in improving the living standards of the majority. However, this does not exclude the possibility that sustainable growth and the fair and equitable distribution of its benefits could help all people in the Global South achieve a better life. Today, it is crucial to recognize that development is sustainable only when the current generations do not consume the natural resources needed by future generations. This applies again, of course, to the developed world as well. When talking about sustainability in development cooperation, it does not, however, primarily refer to environmental friendliness, but to the permanence of aid impacts after external assistance stops. This is also an idea that is easy to support. Other forms of aid would not be sustainable for either party.
It is also important to note that the reason why countries are at different levels of development is not due to the people themselves or their characteristics, but to their environment. A key research finding is that poverty is fundamentally a structural problem, where the rich get extremely much, and the poor get almost nothing. It is clear that historical reasons are primarily those that explain the great injustice in today’s world. In my following texts, I will examine what this environment and its structures were like in the past.
Sources:
- Andersson, K. et al. (2005) The Samaritan’s Dilemma: The Political Economy of Development Aid. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Banerjee, A. Vinayak, & Duflo, Esther (2011) Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty. New York: Public Affairs.
- Collier, Paul. (2008) The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can Be Done About It. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Desai, V., & Potter, R. B. (2014) The Companion to Development Studies. Third Edition. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
- Escobar, Arturo (2011) Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Kervinen, Anna. et al. (2007) Kehitysmaatutkimus: Johdatus Perusteisiin. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.
- Kothari, U. (2019) A Radical History of Development Studies: Individuals, Institutions and Ideologies. Second Edition. London: Zed Books.
- Moloney, K. (2014) Development Aid Confronts Politics: The Almost Revolution by Thomas Carothers and Diane de Gramont. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
- Nygren, A. (2013) Eco-imperialism and Environmental Justice in S. Lockie, D. A. Sonnenfeld & D. R. Fischer (eds) Routledge International Handbook of Social and Environmental Change. Routledge International Handbooks, Routledge, London.
- Sachs, J. (2005) The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. New York: Penguin Press.
- Yanguas, Pablo (2018) Why We Lie About Aid: Development and the Messy Politics of Change. London: Zed Books.
- Veltmeyer, H., & Delgado Wise, R. (2018) Critical Development Studies: An Introduction. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing.
- Wickstead, M. A. (2015) Aid and Development: A Brief Introduction. 1st Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Koponen, J. (2020) Development: History and Power of the Concept. Forum for Development Studies.
- World Bank
- The Conversation