Third World

[Naam]

i haven't seen anybody insisting that Thailand is on the same level of some african countries. besides, to the best of my knowledge, there is no clear definition of "third world country" no matter what Wikipedia or other websites claim.

[Richard4849]

i haven't seen anybody insisting that Thailand is on the same level of some african countries.

If Thailand is "third world" and the Congo is "third world", then they are being put on the same level -- no?

That's why (to me), there either has to be a 2nd world to put Thailand (leaving Congo in the 3rd world) or a 4th world (if you're going to leave Thailand as 3rd world).

Any classification that puts Thailand in the same category as the Congo is essentially meaningless, in my opinion.

Edited June 7, 2011 by Richard4849

[ExpatJ]

i haven't seen anybody insisting that Thailand is on the same level of some african countries.

If Thailand is "third world" and the Congo is "third world", then they are being put on the same level -- no?

That's why (to me), there either has to be a 2nd world to put Thailand (leaving Congo in the 3rd world) or a 4th world (if you're going to leave Thailand as 3rd world).

Any classification that puts Thailand in the same category as the Congo is essentially meaningless, in my opinion.

Exactly right

[Naam]

If Thailand is "third world" and the Congo is "third world", then they are being put on the same level -- no?

my answer is no for the simple reason that (as i mentioned before) clear definitions do not exist.

[Awohalitsiktoli]

Basically- if you have never traveled in a real third world country (e.g. African countries) and seen what a real third world country looks like, then yes i could see why you would think Thailand is third world. Those of us who have traveled to Africa its quite amusing that there are those who insist that Thailand is 'third world' and at the same level as those third world countries in Africa.

This is very true.

There are ares of the north east that are 3rd world, but, i wonder what a native of the Congo would make of the sky train or the state of the art underground system in Bangkok that makes the northern line in London look 3rd world in comparison.

This is getting funny! Some posters will do almost anything to deny that Thailand is a Third World (less developed) country. Others seem to want to focus on African countries only as examples of Third World countries (never mind South Africa). If you ever bother to leave your comfort chairs in the Westernized expat zones in Thailand, you will most definitely find the Third World you ask us to deny even exists in Thailand. Most of the people here live in Third World conditions. Give us a break! Thailand is not Japan or the USA. It is also not Singapore. It is also not the worst Third World country by a long shot. It is "in transition."

[Awohalitsiktoli]

Basically- if you have never traveled in a real third world country (e.g. African countries) and seen what a real third world country looks like, then yes i could see why you would think Thailand is third world. Those of us who have traveled to Africa its quite amusing that there are those who insist that Thailand is 'third world' and at the same level as those third world countries in Africa.

This is very true.

There are ares of the north east that are 3rd world, but, i wonder what a native of the Congo would make of the sky train or the state of the art underground system in Bangkok that makes the northern line in London look 3rd world in comparison.

This is getting funny! Some posters will do almost anything to deny that Thailand is a Third World (less developed) country. Others seem to want to focus on African countries only as examples of Third World countries (never mind South Africa). If you ever bother to leave your comfort chairs in the Westernized expat zones in Thailand, you will most definitely find the Third World you ask us to deny even exists in Thailand. Most of the people here live in Third World conditions. Give us a break! Thailand is not Japan or the USA. It is also not Singapore. It is also not the worst Third World country by a long shot. It is "in transition."

[Naam]

Any classification that puts Thailand in the same category as the Congo is essentially meaningless, in my opinion.

i consider the classification of any country an arrogant and subjective claim.

[Richard4849]

If Thailand is "third world" and the Congo is "third world", then they are being put on the same level -- no?

my answer is no for the simple reason that (as i mentioned before) clear definitions do not exist.

Granted. But if one person's personal definition classifies both Thailand and the Congo as "third world" (like some seem do here) then they are being put on the same level by that person.

That's why my personal definition puts either countries like Thailand in the second world, or countries like the Congo in the fourth world.

For my stalkers, I have italicized the words "my personal definition" to underscore the fact that I am expressing a personal opinion. They are a sensitive bunch.

Edited June 7, 2011 by Richard4849

[ExpatJ]

Basically- if you have never traveled in a real third world country (e.g. African countries) and seen what a real third world country looks like, then yes i could see why you would think Thailand is third world. Those of us who have traveled to Africa its quite amusing that there are those who insist that Thailand is 'third world' and at the same level as those third world countries in Africa.

This is very true.

There are ares of the north east that are 3rd world, but, i wonder what a native of the Congo would make of the sky train or the state of the art underground system in Bangkok that makes the northern line in London look 3rd world in comparison.

This is getting funny! Some posters will do almost anything to deny that Thailand is a Third World (less developed) country. Others seem to want to focus on African countries only as examples of Third World countries (never mind South Africa). If you ever bother to leave your comfort chairs in the Westernized expat zones in Thailand, you will most definitely find the Third World you ask us to deny even exists in Thailand. Most of the people here live in Third World conditions. Give us a break! Thailand is not Japan or the USA. It is also not Singapore. It is also not the worst Third World country by a long shot. It is "in transition."

"Thailand is not Japan or the USA. It is also not Singapore. It is also not the worst Third World country by a long shot. It is "in transition."

Agreed!!! Thats what we are saying- Thailand is in a transition (strictly speaking its classed as a middle income country)- obviously not equivalent to either first world countries like USA/Japan or third world countries such as Congo etc.

[Richard4849]

Basically- if you have never traveled in a real third world country (e.g. African countries) and seen what a real third world country looks like, then yes i could see why you would think Thailand is third world. Those of us who have traveled to Africa its quite amusing that there are those who insist that Thailand is 'third world' and at the same level as those third world countries in Africa.

This is very true.

There are ares of the north east that are 3rd world, but, i wonder what a native of the Congo would make of the sky train or the state of the art underground system in Bangkok that makes the northern line in London look 3rd world in comparison.

This is getting funny! Some posters will do almost anything to deny that Thailand is a Third World (less developed) country. Others seem to want to focus on African countries only as examples of Third World countries (never mind South Africa). If you ever bother to leave your comfort chairs in the Westernized expat zones in Thailand, you will most definitely find the Third World you ask us to deny even exists in Thailand. Most of the people here live in Third World conditions. Give us a break! Thailand is not Japan or the USA. It is also not Singapore. It is also not the worst Third World country by a long shot. It is "in transition."

"In transition" is what people usually call the "second world"... Countries like Argentina, Turkey, South Africa, Thailand, Mexico, etc. (yes, I would classify countries like this together, separately from the likes of Angola, Congo, Papua New Guinea, Burma, etc.).

NOT SAYING YOUR PERSONAL VIEW IS WRONG. So please don't jump down my throat.

[Naam]

Basically- if you have never traveled in a real third world country (e.g. African countries) and seen what a real third world country looks like, then yes i could see why you would think Thailand is third world. Those of us who have traveled to Africa its quite amusing that there are those who insist that Thailand is 'third world' and at the same level as those third world countries in Africa.

This is very true.

There are ares of the north east that are 3rd world, but, i wonder what a native of the Congo would make of the sky train or the state of the art underground system in Bangkok that makes the northern line in London look 3rd world in comparison.

don't forget to compare airconditioned gogo-bars in BKK, Phuket or Pattaya with bush brothels in the Central African Republic.

[kdc1899]

it sounds like a country's status as 1st, 2nd or 3rd world depends on the condition of the sub-saharan african residents in that country as compared with those sub-saharan residents kin in their sub-saharan homeland countries.

[folium]

i haven't seen anybody insisting that Thailand is on the same level of some african countries.

If Thailand is "third world" and the Congo is "third world", then they are being put on the same level -- no?

That's why (to me), there either has to be a 2nd world to put Thailand (leaving Congo in the 3rd world) or a 4th world (if you're going to leave Thailand as 3rd world).

Any classification that puts Thailand in the same category as the Congo is essentially meaningless, in my opinion.

Folks

You are all getting your knickers in a twist for no good reason.

The term "Third World" is a very outdated political description and was coined to describe all countries that were not in either the capitalist or communist alliances. It has nothing to do with the level of development in those countries and its use today is a result of sloppy journalists misusing the phrase to such a degree that people think Third World= poor countries.

The superficial nature of these designations is well shown up by Thailand itself. While classified as Third World, as it was not a direct ally of the US, the fact that it hosted 50,000 US personnel during the Vietnam War and sent 11,000 troops to fight in Vietnam (thus displaying the characteristics of a full-blown ally), should therefore nudge Thailand into the First World camp.

Levels of development are much more difficult to pin down. Even within countries there is huge variance. Pine Ridge Reservation, SD, is probably one of the most deprived areas in the US with a life expectancy only marginally better than Haiti's, and an average income of $5000/family. A little different to Loudoun County, VA with an average income per family of $111,000.

[Naam]

If Thailand is "third world" and the Congo is "third world", then they are being put on the same level -- no?

my answer is no for the simple reason that (as i mentioned before) clear definitions do not exist.

Granted. But if one person's personal definition classifies both Thailand and the Congo as "third world" (like some seem do here) then they are being put on the same level by that person.

That's why my personal definition puts either countries like Thailand in the second world, or countries like the Congo in the fourth world.

For my stalkers, I have italicized the words "my personal definition" to underscore the fact that I am expressing a personal opinion. They are a sensitive bunch.

Richard,

based on your personal definition i have lived and worked (quite some rainy seasons ago) in "fifth and sixth world countries". important and worthwhile to mention is the fact that we (the Mrs included) have lived there a happier and more carefree life than in our "first world" home country. perhaps that experience is the reason why we like to live in Thailand and tolerate the country's shortcomings (not without sometimes bitching about them).

[Naam]

The term "Third World" is a very outdated political description and was coined to describe all countries that were not in either the capitalist or communist alliances. It has nothing to do with the level of development in those countries and its use today is a result of sloppy journalists misusing the phrase to such a degree that people think Third World= poor countries.

:clap2:

[BRichards]

Well if it wasnt it would be flooded with retired people. BR

[jayjayjayjay]

http://en.wikipedia...._worlds_map.svg

Per this map Thailand is 3rd world....

Or if you wish to define it along ecomomic terms..then developing country...

Up to you...

Isn't Wiki wonderful. As long as it stays this way, we will be left alone. I don't think the author has left his Canadian armchair. He might have, only to go as far as primary school. Vietnam and China second world, Thailand third..... scoff

[StreetCowboy]

http://en.wikipedia...._worlds_map.svg

Per this map Thailand is 3rd world....

Or if you wish to define it along ecomomic terms..then developing country...

Up to you...

Isn't Wiki wonderful. As long as it stays this way, we will be left alone. I don't think the author has left his Canadian armchair. He might have, only to go as far as primary school. Vietnam and China second world, Thailand third..... scoff

I didn't really understand your point. According to the definition used by many of the posters, splitting the world into the free market democracies (1st world), communist bloc (2nd world) and balance (3rd world) that seems fair enough. By the way, nothing wrong with sitting in an armchair, nor being Canadian.

Personally, I prefer to use my own personal definitions, by which Thailand would fall at the overlap of the saffron world and the red-white-and-blue world. Some people might find it confusing to work with such personal and arcane, but I think its better that we each use our own meanings with which we are comfortable, rather than being railroaded into unnecessary consistency and conformance.

SC

[canuckamuck]

Perhaps we need new designations.

How about calling it a developed banana republic with first world lifestyles available to few citizens, delusions of grandeur, self destructive tendencies, great highways, cash based rule of law, simultaneously xenophobic and slutty, and a high percentage of the female population is not fat (yet).

[StreetCowboy]

Perhaps we need new designations.

How about calling it a developed banana republic with first world lifestyles available to few citizens, delusions of grandeur, self destructive tendencies, great highways, cash based rule of law, simultaneously xenophobic and slutty, and a high percentage of the female population is not fat (yet).

You use your definition, I'll use mine, and we can bicker till the cows come home.

I think the OP was counting out concentrically from the sun.

SC

[transam]

Perhaps we need new designations.

How about calling it a developed banana republic with first world lifestyles available to few citizens, delusions of grandeur, self destructive tendencies, great highways, cash based rule of law, simultaneously xenophobic and slutty, and a high percentage of the female population is not fat (yet).

You use your definition, I'll use mine, and we can bicker till the cows come home.

I think the OP was counting out concentrically from the sun.

SC

Wow, had to look up ' concentrically '

[craigt3365]

A few off topic posts deleted. Please stay on topic and be civil. :jap:

[EirikJohannesen]

Thailand developing countries, NOT.

Developing countries, is a term for countries that have not yet received an industrialization

All have electricity and clean water, all have access to schools, hospitals and food. Thailand has infrastructure that works to a certain extent. They have very good standard compared to what we call the Third World.

Some typical developing country is in Europe, Moldova, Ethiopia in Africa, Bolivia, South America, Honduras in Central America, Vanuatu in Oceania and Afghanistan in Asia.

[aneliane]

The UN outdated the term "third world" back in the 80's. I remember our teacher correcting us, saying that there is no such world as "third world country " any more and they should be called (at that time) "Fourth World".

The last that I heard is that "Fourth World" is also outdated and only "Developing country" should be used to avoid categorizing countries in some kind of order, so I believe your question is also outdated

[manarak]

The UN outdated the term "third world" back in the 80's. I remember our teacher correcting us, saying that there is no such world as "third world country " any more and they should be called (at that time) "Fourth World".

The last that I heard is that "Fourth World" is also outdated and only "Developing country" should be used to avoid categorizing countries in some kind of order, so I believe your question is also outdated

So what is the correct appellation for the countries that are seen far inferior mostly by people who never set a foot there?

Not that I expect anyone to care about this politically correct speak - everyone knows what is meant.

Edited June 8, 2011 by manarak

[Awohalitsiktoli]

I don't suppose it was going backwards 30 years ago.

It takes a long time to undo 20 years of progress

SC

Thirty years ago it was going forward. It started going backward (important segments of the country but not all) about 10-15 years ago (in relative terms). If that had not happened, Thailand would be much closer to developed world status. There is too much income inequality for it to be placed in the developed world category--and too much corruption, oo much undisclosed poverty, not enough infrastructure development, terrible education system, terrible banks, and the legal system is....well, what legal system?). The OP used "Third World." Fine, we all know what the OP is talking about: developing world or LDC or MIC in transition.

[chops]

Nope. I'd classify Cambodia or Laos as still 3rd world though. If you've traveled there, you know what I mean.

3rd world, developing countries, are becoming a thing of the past. Even India is moving out of the 3rd world. Not many classic 3rd world countries remaining except in Africa.

[simon43]

IMHO, Thailand is a third world country that has a thinly painted, second world gloss paint (in some places).

When I travel upcountry, I see many places which are comparable to places I have visited in Laos/Cambodia/Myanmar.

I live in Phuket, within a few hundred metres of an international airport. But the second world, glossy paint hasn't yet reached my location. There is no mains water and no piped sewage service. The electricity supply had to be especially installed for me (at high cost). There was no telephone cable and no cable TV service.

Thailand looks second-world to the casual visitor. But scrape away at the glossy paint and the real Thailand is soon revealed, especially since someone forgot to prepare the under surface with decent primer.

Simon

[Awohalitsiktoli]

IMHO, Thailand is a third world country that has a thinly painted, second world gloss paint (in some places).

When I travel upcountry, I see many places which are comparable to places I have visited in Laos/Cambodia/Myanmar.

I live in Phuket, within a few hundred metres of an international airport. But the second world, glossy paint hasn't yet reached my location. There is no mains water and no piped sewage service. The electricity supply had to be especially installed for me (at high cost). There was no telephone cable and no cable TV service.

Thailand looks second-world to the casual visitor. But scrape away at the glossy paint and the real Thailand is soon revealed, especially since someone forgot to prepare the under surface with decent primer.

Simon

That is one of the best posts I have seen because it honestly describes reality. You cannot reach developed world status when 80% or more of the country is living beneath the "glossy paint." The mistake most posters are making is that they are living in a spot where it "looks developed world." So they assume the rest does too. It is also important to remember that within each category (whatever you want to call it) there is a wide range of differences. Thailand is not at the bottom. Thailand is not at the top. It is a developing MIC that is in transition to developed world status. Unfortunately, it could have attained that status 20 years ago with different leadership. Monies that target "development" in Thailand usually end up in the pockets of a few rich families (who own or control virtually everything in the country) or an NGO administrator or a corrupt politician/military general. That is my opinion. And it comes from a lot of experience here.