An Inter Press Service Feature

LONDON, Dec 29 1993 (IPS) - Use of the term 'Third World' to describe nations in receipt of Western development assistance is misleading and is resulting in scarce aid resources being diverted from more needy countries, according to development experts in London.

Paul Harrison, editor of 'Inside the Third World', the terminology not only oversimplifies but ''serves as a device to conceal how much aid is going to those who don't need it''.

He, and other experts, argue that the world is no longer polarised into have-alls and have-nothings but also now incorporates a middle class of nations where incomes and living standards have dramatically increased.

Included in this group are oil-producing nations such as Iran and Kuwait and the newly industralising countries, such as Thailand, Malaysia, South Korea -- and other countries in the Far East with what are now referred to as 'tiger' economies.

Nevertheless, these countries are still listed as Third World countries and often compete with the world's poorest and most needy nations for development assistance.

''Lumping all these countries together and calling them the Third World, clouds issues. The term is increasingly becoming meaningless as it does not accurately reflect reality,'' argues OXFAM development adviser, John Magrath.

This categorisation of countries at disparate levels of development -- under one Third World grouping -- leads to the current situation where middle-income countries receive more aid per capita than the poorest nations.

For instance, in 1990-1991, Israel receive 10 times more aid than a country like Madagascar. Analysts have estimated that Malaysia gets 50 percent more aid per capita than Bangladesh -- even though per capita income in Malaysia is 10 times higher.

Development experts charge that aid currently bears little or no relation to need and that an accurate index that exposes where poverty and suffering are harshest must be found -- preferably soon.

To substitute 'developing world' for 'Third World' does not solve the problem, says Harrison: ''It is long, boring and value-laden.

''Developed countries are developing too -- towards God knows what future, but at all events, different from now,'' he says.

Coote, who says that the term ''is a misnomer because much of the so-called developing world hasn't done any developing lately''.

Another favourite term, which many analysts say will soon take over from the other two, is 'South'. But this, too, is considered an inaccurate term to describe poor countries. There are many poor nations in the northern hemisphere, just as there are rich nations in the south, they say.

As James Winpenny of the Overseas Development Institute said: ''Chile, Argentina, Australia and New Zealand are all in the southern hemisphere but they are not exactly poor countries''.

He believes that more precision in terminology is needed if aid and other development assistance is to be targeted at the poorest and the most needy countries that are more deserving.

One very pertinent fact which the generic Third World glosses over, experts argue, is that the various groups of countries -- loosely referred to as the Third World -- require different kinds of assistance.

The middle-income and industrialised economies will benefit most, they say, from trade concessions, loans and technological cooperation.

On the other hand, those countries in the most needy group -- where poverty and population explosion have wreaked havoc on the environment -- should get all the available aid resources to assist in human resource development and environmental conservation.

The rising popularity -- outside of IMF/World Bank circles --of the U.N. Development Programme's Human Development Index (HDI) reflects the fact that, even though it has its own drawbacks, it is presently the most accurate measure of levels of human needs and development in different countries.

Comparing degrees of development in more than mere money terms, the HDI takes into account three indices -- levels of health, education and purchasing power. For example, according to the UNDP's HDI 'league table' for 1993, Japan is ranked first, while Guinea, at the very bottom of the table, is 173.

As a measure of the relative accuracy of the HDI, Sri Lanka and Costa Rica are ranked higher than they are in the World Bank's GDP per capita league table -- levels of education and health in these countries are higher than their GDPs suggest.

Although the HDI has been criticised as being too crude and simplistic, many experts, such as the ODI's James Winpenny, believe that it is the best index of development available. They say it should replace its predecessors to help focus provision of aid and assistance to the most-needy. (END/IPS/IE/JS/AF/93)

Origin: Amsterdam/DEVELOPMENT/

Back...