economic affluence or diplomatic orientation. What distinguishes member-
ship of the Third World is the lack of consensus over the rules of the ‘game’
of politics (Kamrava, 1993). Consequently, a label that conveys a message of
homogeneity of socio-economic conditions and political purpose is increas-
ingly unacceptable by commentators from both North and South (Leftwich,
1983, pp. 163–4; Hulme and Turner, 1990, pp. 7–8).
The first form of heterogeneity that needs to be recognized is cultural.
The term ‘Third World’ has been considered by some as insulting to the
diverse range of polities, cultures, histories and ideologies found within it
(Rothstein, 1977, p. 48; Naipal, 1985). The conservative economist Peter
Bauer adopts a similar view, though for different reasons. His purpose has
been to contradict the view that responsibility for Third World poverty lies
with the developed world, a view that Bauer finds patronizing and conde-
scending. Part of this condescension is to present the Third World as a ‘uni-
form stagnant mass devoid of distinctive character’. The individuals and
societies of the Third World are in this way denied identity, character,
personality and responsibility (Bauer, 1981, pp. 83–4).
A growing heterogeneity is in economic strength. There are great dispar-
ities of wealth within the Third World. Wide disparities are developing in
per capita GNP, levels of food production, annual growth rates, and rates of
industrialization. For example, per capita income quadrupled in East Asia
between 1975 and 1999, growing by 6 per cent a year. In South Asia, growth
averaged over 2 per cent. Slower growth still was recorded in the Arab states
and Latin America, while Sub-Saharan Africa recorded negative growth.
In 18 Sub-Saharan countries per capita incomes were lower in 1999 than
1975 (UNDP, 2001, pp. 12–13).
Expert observers and international organizations such as the World Bank
now distinguish between the rich poor countries, the middle poor and the
poorest countries, even to the extent of referring to the last group as the Fourth
World – the poorest of the poor or the least developed of the developing coun-
tries (Rothstein, 1977, pp. 53–4). World Bank statistics are presented in such
divisions and other organizations such as the UN also differentiate in their
policy-making (Hoogvelt, 1982, pp. 22–3). Some of the cut-off points
between these categories are pretty arbitrary (Worsley, 1984, pp. 321–2) but
nevertheless there are real differences when one compares Bangladesh with,
say, Malaysia. Some aid donors, such as the British Government, distinguish
between the poor and the poorest with the aim of directing their development
assistance at the poorest countries, many of which are among the countries of
the British Commonwealth, which fits nicely with its policy of directing its
aid towards its ex-colonies.
16 Understanding Third World Politics