What makes a 'First World Country'?

[Exarch]

besides a high standard of living, advanced tech, infrastructure and economic might?

personally, i doubt human rights or democracy are necessary requirements to achieve first world status-think of the Alliance in 'firefly' or even the Roman Empire in its part of the world (i'm aware this is an unpopular point, but it had to be made)

Discuss

[Lord Consul]

I do find the term "First world" to be extremely vague, ethnocentric (anglosphere +friends) and unevenly applied.

For example: Uruguay is rich, has an extremely efficient welfare state, high HDI and a stable democracy. Yet it is not considered developed just because it's a Latin-American country.

The CIA, for example, considers South Africa a developed country, which is a joke, considering that it has an abysmal HDI rating (0,684, lower than Venezuela), the highest rape per capita rate on Earth and a rampant crime problem.

[Joker85]

I do find the term "First world" to be extremely vague, ethnocentric (anglosphere +friends) and unevenly applied.

For example: Uruguay is rich, has an extremely efficient welfare state, high HDI and a stable democracy. Yet it is not considered developed just because it's a Latin-American country.

The CIA, for example, considers South Africa a developed country, which is a joke, considering that it has an abysmal HDI rating (0,684, lower than Venezuela), the highest rape per capita rate on Earth and a rampant crime problem.

Uruguay is still far behind western Europe, the US and Canada, Australia/NZ, Israel, and Japan which are generally considered first world nations. It has nothing to do with ethnocentrism, as Japan shows. If you want to get technical then it simply refers to countries that aligned themselves with the United States during the cold war. But it has evolved to signify the top tier of nations in the world in terms of economy, standard of living, and more importantly political/governmental freedom and stability.

[the_mango55]

A first world country is one supported America during the Cold War.

[Burnum]

I'm skeptical of HDI because in Australia even though it's 3rd, has some of the most Atrocious living standards in 'first world.'

[Shaun]

Elaborate, Burnum. I always thought Australia had some of the best living conditions in the world...

[Exarch]

Elaborate, Burnum. I always thought Australia had some of the best living conditions in the world...

yes, msot parts of oz are pristine and beautiful
burnam is referring to aboriginal settlements in the northern territory i believe; living conditions there rival haiti so i hear.

[Kaiserjagen]

yes, msot parts of oz are pristine and beautiful
burnam is referring to aboriginal settlements in the northern territory i believe; living conditions there rival haiti so i hear.

Similar situation in Canada. Canadian aboriginals live in near third-world conditions meanwhile our cities are among the richest in the world and the vast majority of Canadians live in luxury. Has nothing to do with funding (aboriginals get more funding and special treatment than anyone), but rather to do with the corrupt system our reservations are set up.


Needless to say the whole first, second and third world generalizations just don't cut it, and a better way of judging a countries political/economic development should be used. Third-world is really just used synonymously with 'poor' where I live anyway.

[Richard]

Elaborate, Burnum. I always thought Australia had some of the best living conditions in the world...

It does, as long as you're not a rural (and or urban too in a lot of cases) aboriginal, many of whom live in third world conditions. It's just that they make up such a small proportion of the population. This is a country that was one of the most white-supremecist in the world until recently, remember.

[Shaun]

I'm pretty sure the Australian government does more than enough to make sure all its citizens live in a reasonably high standard; if the poor living conditions of the Aboriginals is true then in a nation such as Australia it is within their own means to fix it.

[Exarch]

I'm pretty sure the Australian government does more than enough to make sure all its citizens live in a reasonably high standard; if the poor living conditions of the Aboriginals is true then in a nation such as Australia it is within their own means to fix it.

u'll have to ask burnam about it; i think he's part aboriginal
as far as i know, whereas mostof australia is 'first world', the native aboriginals are the same as the native americans in the states-except without the casinos
plus our broadband is -many asian 'second world nations' are ahead of oz in terms of infrastructure ie rail-sydney rail is crap, same as the rail in LA

[Burnum]

I'm pretty sure the Australian government does more than enough to make sure all its citizens live in a reasonably high standard; if the poor living conditions of the Aboriginals is true then in a nation such as Australia it is within their own means to fix it.

Not really. Most of the really poor Aboriginals live in Isolated Villages, don't speak English, have little Education and Substance Abuse is Extremely High.

Most, if not all of these Villages would starve if they didn't have Welfare.

[Ruin]

Isn't First world Europe and Second America? Third world being less developed countries and Asia something different...

[Big War Bird]

Worlds within the World?

The First, the Second, and the Third World.
When people talk about the poorest countries of the world, they often refer to them with the general term Third World, and they think everybody knows what they are talking about. But when you ask them if there is a Third World, what about a Second or a First World, you almost always get an evasive answer. Other people even try to use the terms as a ranking scheme for the state of development of countries, with the First world on top, followed by the Second world and so on, that's perfect - nonsense.

To close the gap of information you will find here explanations of the terms.

The use of the terms First, the Second, and the Third World is a rough, and it's safe to say, outdated model of the geopolitical world from the time of the cold war.
There is no official definition of the first, second, and the third world. Below OWNO's explanation of the terms.

Four Worlds
After World War II the world split into two large geopolitical blocs and spheres of influence with contrary views on government and the politically correct society:
1 - The bloc of democratic-industrial countries within the American influence sphere, the "First World".
2 - The Eastern bloc of the communist-socialist states, the "Second World".
3 - The remaining three-quarters of the world's population, states not aligned with either bloc were regarded as the "Third World."
4 - The term "Fourth World", coined in the early 1970s by Shuswap Chief George Manuel, refers to widely unknown nations (cultural entities) of indigenous peoples, "First Nations" living within or across national state boundaries.

First there was the three worlds model
The origin of the terminology is unclear. In 1952 Alfred Sauvy, a French demographer, wrote an article in the French magazine L'Observateur which ended by comparing the Third World with the Third Estate: "ce Tiers Monde ignoré, exploité, méprisé comme le Tiers État" (this ignored Third World, exploited, scorned like the Third Estate). Other sources claim that Charles de Gaulle coined the term Third World, maybe de Gaulle only has quoted Sauvy. However...

__Definitions

The term "First World" refers to so called developed, capitalist, industrial countries, roughly, a bloc of countries aligned with the United States after word war II, with more or less common political and economic interests: North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia.





"Second World" refers to the former communist-socialist, industrial states, (formerly the Eastern bloc, the territory and sphere of influence of the Union of Soviet Socialists Republic) today: Russia, Eastern Europe (e.g., Poland) and some of the Turk States (e.g., Kazakhstan) as well as China.





"Third World" are all the other countries, today often used to roughly describe the developing countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America.
The term Third World includes as well capitalist (e.g., Venezuela) and communist (e.g., North Korea) countries, as very rich (e.g., Saudi Arabia) and very poor (e.g., Mali) countries.





The term "Fourth World" first came into use in 1974 with the publication of Shuswap Chief George Manuel's: The fourth world : an Indian reality (amazon link to the book), the term refers to nations (cultural entities, ethnic groups) of indigenous peoples living within or across state boundaries (nation states).

http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworl..._countries.htm

[LoZz]

that maps a little out of date, but close.

greenland is part of denmark, doesnt that make it 1st world?

[sirfiggin]

A First world Country is one who would be supremely pissed off if it was considered Second or Third, many geologists now use the terms MEDCs and LEDCs to describe most of the world

[Shaun]

Agreed with LoZz. Also, isn't South Africa also first world?

[LoZz]

Agreed with LoZz. Also, isn't South Africa also first world?

i would say 2nd world. while some parts are as rich as the uk/usa. you will be hard pressed to find poverty on that scale in the uk and usa.

[Big War Bird]

i would say 2nd world. while some parts are as rich as the uk/usa. you will be hard pressed to find poverty on that scale in the uk and usa.

There really isn't much of a second world anymore.

[Lord Consul]

Agreed with LoZz. Also, isn't South Africa also first world?

I commented about South Africa's case earlier on this topic:

The CIA, for example, considers South Africa a developed country, which is a joke, considering that it has an abysmal HDI rating (0,684, lower than Venezuela), the highest rape per capita rate on Earth and a rampant crime problem.

--

Uruguay is still far behind western Europe, the US and Canada, Australia/NZ, Israel, and Japan which are generally considered first world nations. It has nothing to do with ethnocentrism, as Japan shows. If you want to get technical then it simply refers to countries that aligned themselves with the United States during the cold war. But it has evolved to signify the top tier of nations in the world in terms of economy, standard of living, and more importantly political/governmental freedom and stability.

It is an ethnocentric label, that's simply undeniable. The very fact that the CIA and the OECD consider nation-states such as South Africa, Mexico (!!!) and Turkey to be developed shows that the whole thing is botched. It's nothing more than a "Anglosphere + Friends + Lapdogs" group.

I also find the division of the planet in three different "worlds" to be rather insulting, for a myriad of reasons. To put regions as diverse as Latin America, South-east Asia and Sub-Saharian Africa under the same label (or "world") can only be a sign of intellectual laziness and contempt.