Donz Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Just want to know, not that it matters, just got asked by my mate and i dont know if it is or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdnvic Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Yes cv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazza Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Third World? I don't even know where the other two are. So no good asking me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meadish_sweetball Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Thailand places itself somewhere in between a third-world country and a NIC (Newly Industrialized Country). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plus Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 It aspires to be a post-western country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin1011 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Economically I would say Thailand is no longer a third world country. Politically, it probably belongs to the 4th world if there is such a thing. Ethically it sits right alongside the US, right down somewhere in the lower regions of Dante's hel_l. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryHacker Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 When asked, say developing country, which it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzap Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Meadish got it right. I believe the term is "Emerging Nation", i.e. on the brink of industrialisation, it almost made it to NIC status before the '97 crash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuestHouse Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 The term 'Third World' relates to historical and geographical issues. Old world - Europe and Near Asia New World - The 'Discsovered' Continents Thid World - All the Rest (including Thailand) It has nothing to do with being 'Third' and everything to do with early history and trading contacts. Thailand is rightly a developing nation - how muchc more development is required is anyone's guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoT Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 From Wikipedia - The UN Human Development Index is one measure of a "Third World" country Third World was a term first coined by Jawaharlal Nehru (First Prime Minister of India), originally to distinguish nations that aligned with neither the West or with the East during the Cold War, including many members of the Non-Aligned Movement. Today, however, the term is frequently used to denote nations with a low UN Human Development Index (HDI),independent of their political status. However, there is no objective definition of Third World or Third World country and the use of the term remains controversial. In geographical and political academia, it is almost never used, as it is seen as being out of date, colonialist, othering and inaccurate. Most of Latin America, for instance, is usually considered Third World although Southern Cone countries (Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay) are emerging markets having a human development index above some central European countries which are not considered Third World. In general, Third World countries are not as industrialized or technologically advanced as OECD countries. So the original use of third world did not have to due with economics and development, the generally accepted meaning has changed. IMHO - Thialand is still third world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylar Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 "Australia's development cooperation with Thailand has been reduced significantly in 2004-05 as Thailand graduates from being an ODA recipient. Australia's current assistance is primarily focused on building Thailand's capacity to address economic and public sector governance issues." and "In November 2003 the Royal Thai Government publicly expressed its desire to move away from being an aid recipient." - according to the AusAid website. If a country no longer accepts aid, does that take it off the third/second world list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeaceBlondie Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 (edited) This may not be what Nehru meant when he coined the phrase, but I thought that for decades after world war two, it meant: First World: the capitalist, industrialized countries aligned with the USA or NATO Second World: the Communist countries aligned with the USSR Third World: the remaining countries not aligned. Since the fall of the Soviet Empire, various failed attempts have been made to recharacterize any well-developed, well-industrialized country as "First World" and the underdeveloped countries to be "Third World," with the second group kind of disappearing. This is bad labelling, as well. The so-called developed or industrialized nations might be labelled "Over-Developed." Thailand is fairly well industrialized, while lacking various components such as a viable rail transport system and modern ports with full containerization. But the human status isn't too bad; even the income disparity index may not fall well below some countries considered as fully developed. Where does the political structure fit into the picture? Thailand has had a constitution since the 1930's, but a number of bloody military coups. Most freedoms are protected, but the corruption index is much too high. It is a democracy or a constitutional monarchy, but its political framework is frail and prone to manipulation by the few who are really in power. Complex considerations. Probably impossible to fit one label onto an entire country. Surely the progress of Thailand during the last several decades has seen it emerge from mere Third world status to an industrialized status far above the desperate countries in Africa and Latin America. Edited February 8, 2006 by PeaceBlondie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BAF Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 (edited) Just want to know, not that it matters, just got asked by my mate and i dont know if it is or not. Yes, Thailand is and will remain for the foreseeable future a 3rd world country. The category "3rd world" is part of a complex and blurred socio-economical-political definition. Those who try to give Thailand any other but 3rd world status (because, they say, "Thailand isn't one of those starving poor countries") simply ignore that those countries whose development is practically still or proceeding at a much slower pace than countries like Thailand, China, India and the like are nowadays defined and called "4th world countries" (for the exact reason of distinguishing the countries that have, so far, much bettered their original "3rd world" situation from the countries that have not). For the PC types, 3rd world countries like Thailand are also called "developing countries" (or "less developed countries", whichever you like better). The 1st world is made up of all of the Western countries plus Japan and the 2nd world was made up of the communist countries and is today made up of those same countries but with some of the now ex-communist countries sliding outside the "2nd world" category towards the 3rd world and some towards the 1st (the latter mostly impeded by socio-political considerations rather than by economical ones). History teaches us that what prevents 3rd world countries to become 1st world is, most and foremost, their 3rd world cultures. Japan, China and India are perfect examples of the fact that values and principles aren't changed by economic development, it's quite the opposite. It's the change in the culture, in the values and principles on which a society and its approach to others is based that makes possible a drastic economic development (which then, of course, also has a part in the further development of those values and principles). The less willing to change the societies and the cultures are, the slower the pace of their development is. Japan has made it to 1st world status and look at how socio-economical-politically different it is from all the rest of the Asian societies. Japan is also the sole non-Western 1st world country and look at the inner tensions and contrasts that adopting many Western values and principles (which are the only ones leading to development) has created when mixed in such a short time with their local flavour of typical Asian values and principles... Do you see Thailand adopting the Western ways (particularly in the business and economic environment) in the same way and at the same pace than Japan has done (and is still doing) and China and India are doing now? Edited February 8, 2006 by BAF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainman Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 The term 'Third World' relates to historical and geographical issues.Old world - Europe and Near Asia New World - The 'Discsovered' Continents Thid World - All the Rest (including Thailand) It has nothing to do with being 'Third' and everything to do with early history and trading contacts. Thailand is rightly a developing nation - how muchc more development is required is anyone's guess. are you sure? The economically underdeveloped countries of Asia, Africa, Oceania, and Latin America, considered as an entity with common characteristics, such as poverty, high birthrates, and economic dependence on the advanced countries. The French demographer Alfred Sauvy coined the expression ("tiers monde" in French) in 1952 by analogy with the "third estate," the commoners of France before and during the French Revolution-as opposed to priests and nobles, comprising the first and second estates respectively. Like the third estate, wrote Sauvy, the third world is nothing, and it "wants to be something." The term therefore implies that the third world is exploited, much as the third estate was exploited, and that, like the third estate its destiny is a revolutionary one. It conveys as well a second idea, also discussed by Sauvy, that of non-alignment, for the third world belongs neither to the industrialized capitalist world nor to the industrialized Communist bloc. The expression third world was used at the 1955 conference of Afro-Asian countries held in Bandung, Indonesia. In 1956 a group of social scientists associated with Sauvy's National Institute of Demographic Studies, in Paris, published a book called Le Tiers-Monde. Three years later, the French economist Francois Perroux launched a new journal, on problems of underdevelopment, with the same title. By the end of the 1950's the term was frequently employed in the French media to refer to the underdeveloped countries of Asia, Africa, Oceania, and Latin America. Source: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/General/...dWorld_def.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricardo Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Good question ! I discussed this some time back, with one of my brothers-in-law, who felt that Thailand was still 3rd-World, but developing fast. My view was that it did not resemble those parts of Africa which I'd seen a few years earlier, and that any country with 15+ domestic-airports, paved-roads & colour-TV, simply couldn't be classed 3rd-World anymore. Nor do I see many people starving to death here, hungry sometimes - yes, but not dying like flies. Thank God ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belfastboy Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 def is a developing country....the third world term isn't accepted globally...but it is in that group of third world defined countries.....in bangkok it would be hard to believe, but u just have to visit the slums and into the rural countryside and it will reassure u it def is a 3rd world country..so to speak... Afghanistan Albania Algeria Angola Argentina Armenia Azerbaijan Bangladesh Belarus Belize Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia-Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Central African Republic Chad Chile Colombia Comoros Islands Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Czech Rep Democratic Republic of Congo Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji Islands Gabon Gambia Ghana Grenada Guatemala Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Honduras Hungary India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ivory Coast Jamaica Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Lithuania Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Moldova Mongolia Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nepal Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North Korea Oman Pakistan Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay People's Republic of Benin People's Republic of China People's Republic of Congo Peru Philippines Poland Republic of Cape Verde Republic of Georgia Republic of Macedonia Republic of Yemen Romania Russia Rwanda Saint Kitts Saint Vincent Saint Lucia Sao Tome & Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles Sierra Leone Slovak Rep South Africa Solomon Islands Somalia Sri-Lanka Sudan Surinam Swaziland Syria Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Togo Tonga Trinidad & Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Uganda Ukraine Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam West Samoa Zambia Zimbabwe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeaceBlondie Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 That long list seems to contain too wide a range of countries for them to all be in one category. I've lived in Nicaragua, visited Guat, Hond, etc. - they are not developing, they are not industrialized, and they are imploding into the toilet. I'm sure that many countries in sub-Saharan Africa fall into the same sub-category. Thailand, Costa Rica, countries in South America such as Venezuela, and Mexico are well industrialized. Not same-same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kat Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 That's because there are different ranges of development. According to every multilateral organazation, whose job it is to categorize countries based on a range of criteria for both political institutions as well as financial, such as the World Bank, IMF, the United Nations, and an international risk assessment org whose name escapes me right now, Thailand is a middle-income, developing country. There are also LCDs, or least developed countries, such as Nepal and Cambodia. Yes, for the one millionith time, Thailand is officially and technically classified as a developing country, whether you wax poetic about it or not. If this was not the international understanding (i.e. - beyond your or my opinion), PM Thaksin would not have been making claims that he is going to beat Malaysia to developed status before the year 2014. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
englishoak Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Interesting topic Officially Thailand is classed as a 3rd world country. But unofficially it's very much a developing country. As is vietnam, malaysia,china,Indonesia. I doubt that anyone will dispute there is a massive gap here when compared to myanmar, laos and cambodia. I only cover the region and it's clear that most of Africa is way down the scale, thats real 3rd world. There are too many comforts available to a large % of the Thai population.Tv's transport and entertainment are a part of nearly everyones life here. There seems to be no starvation or climate problems to hamper progress. Nearly everyone eats out regularly and takes a break once or twice a year somewhere. All evidence of disposable income. And before anyone launches into the poor and village life, they mostly manage a few home comforts and if anything go broke after spending too much and having a good time, drinking is rife as is the girl scene amongst thais,again all disposable income. Not planning for retirement just puts pressure on the young to support. Not that I think it's a bad thing but mabe more of a balance of saving some for old age would be prudent. On the political front it seems that albeit there is a question of fair play it does have a structure thats relatively stable. It has a health service, education stystem, good transport networks, varied exports and imports. pretty much anything you want you can get here. how can it be considered third world ( forget about official terms and look at the obvious)? If Thailand were realy third world I doubt that so many expats and falang would be here. In real terms it's way past third world and into the 2nd world. I've been asked the same question by friends and I always reply it's more like 2nd world. As is most of south Americas and half of Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BAF Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 (edited) Yes, Thailand is and will remain for the foreseeable future a 3rd world country.The category "3rd world" is part of a complex and blurred socio-economical-political definition. Those who try to give Thailand any other but 3rd world status (because, they say, "Thailand isn't one of those starving poor countries") simply ignore that those countries whose development is practically still or proceeding at a much slower pace than countries like Thailand, China, India and the like are nowadays defined and called "4th world countries" (for the exact reason of distinguishing the countries that have, so far, much bettered their original "3rd world" situation from the countries that have not). For the PC types, 3rd world countries like Thailand are also called "developing countries" (or "less developed countries", whichever you like better). The 1st world is made up of all of the Western countries plus Japan and the 2nd world was made up of the communist countries and is today made up of those same countries but with some of the now ex-communist countries sliding outside the "2nd world" category towards the 3rd world and some towards the 1st (the latter mostly impeded by socio-political considerations rather than by economical ones). History teaches us that what prevents 3rd world countries to become 1st world is, most and foremost, their 3rd world cultures. Japan, China and India are perfect examples of the fact that values and principles aren't changed by economic development, it's quite the opposite. It's the change in the culture, in the values and principles on which a society and its approach to others is based that makes possible a drastic economic development (which then, of course, also has a part in the further development of those values and principles). The less willing to change the societies and the cultures are, the slower the pace of their development is. Japan has made it to 1st world status and look at how socio-economical-politically different it is from all the rest of the Asian societies. Japan is also the sole non-Western 1st world country and look at the inner tensions and contrasts that adopting many Western values and principles (which are the only ones leading to development) has created when mixed in such a short time with their local flavour of typical Asian values and principles... Do you see Thailand adopting the Western ways (particularly in the business and economic environment) in the same way and at the same pace than Japan has done (and is still doing) and China and India are doing now? This is crazy People continue to post this nonsense about Thailand not being a 3rd world country because much more developed than parts of Africa and Cambodia and ... and ... and ... Some people even say that they are now 2nd world (I must have missed their Red October) Tried to read the post which I am quoting above? Those dirt poor countries you are comparing Thailand with are 4th world countries. The definition of "4th world" has been introduced because ex 3rd world countries have been developing at many much different paces and so some of those 3rd world countries have left far behind some other ones which have been developing at a much slower pace. So countries like Thailand are today still 3rd world countries (or "developing countries" or "less developed countries") while some other countries like the ones compared here to Thailand are today 4th world countries (or "least developed countries"). End of story and if for some reason you can't accept that you should raise some valid arguments (I'm sure the socio-economical-political analists' community is waiting for your input) before keeping on saying things like Thailand can't really be 3rd world because they have TVs and they are not starving in mass... Thailand was yesterday, is today and is set to remain for the foreseeable future a full fledged 3rd world country. Sorry. Edited February 9, 2006 by BAF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylar Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 (edited) A lot of Eastern European countries aren't first world... unless you conveniently forget about them to support your argument. Edited February 10, 2006 by skylar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzap Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Also, there is nothing "PC" about the term "Developing Country", it is simply more accurate and less confusing, just note that nobody argues what a Developing Country is, but some, like yourself, BAF, have made lengthy, yet still unsatisfying attempts to give the term "3rd World" a definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plus Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Nobody wants to be "3rd world", that's the problem, so we have developing, less developing and so on. Feels better that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeaceBlondie Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 (edited) Can we agree that the "First, Second, Third World" framework was primarily related to alignment on the Cold War scheme, and the Cold War is over? Can we agree that such numbered framework wasn't intended to be cardinal in the first place, where first was better than third? Can we agree that such a framework wasn't about the level of development? Can we agree that for all their faults, terms like "developing" and "less developed" are far superior to an obsolete political term? Due to its support of American military during the Vietnam war, Thailand could have ranked as a First World country. See how silly that sounds now? It's silly for half the people to be using a term to describe economic development, and the other half to be usuing the same term to describe 1960's political alinements. Edited February 10, 2006 by PeaceBlondie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solo siam Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Can we agree that the "First, Second, Third World" framework was primarily related to alignment on the Cold War scheme, and the Cold War is over? Can we agree that such numbered framework wasn't intended to be cardinal in the first place, where first was better than third? Can we agree that such a framework wasn't about the level of development?Can we agree that for all their faults, terms like "developing" and "less developed" are far superior to an obsolete political term? Due to its support of American military during the Vietnam war, Thailand could have ranked as a First World country. See how silly that sounds now? It's silly for half the people to be using a term to describe economic development, and the other half to be usuing the same term to describe 1960's political alinements. I disagree, whilst at school we used those terms "First World" etc... in our Economics, Geography and History classes. Regardless of how those terms first came about, they went on to mean something different. As would I guess just about most words and terms have, You cannot argue that the phrase was coined because of X to mean Y and therefore it can NOT ever mean something else. "Developing" and "Less Developed" are just Politically Correct terms, Less developed as an economic term does just not do justice to economies where hundreds of thousands are starving and bash out a living on 2p a day, its a wishy washy word that doesnt really have any impact. I mean Developed, Developing and Less Developed, its like small childs way of classifying things, Small Bear, Smaller Bear, Smallest Bear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzap Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 So "3rd world" is a term which does "justice to economies where hundreds of thousands are starving", as well as to countries like Thailand??? I still haven't seen any useful up-to-date definition of "3rd world" being offered. There are a number of more accurate terms, most have been used already in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kat Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Can we agree that the "First, Second, Third World" framework was primarily related to alignment on the Cold War scheme, and the Cold War is over? Can we agree that such numbered framework wasn't intended to be cardinal in the first place, where first was better than third? Can we agree that such a framework wasn't about the level of development?Can we agree that for all their faults, terms like "developing" and "less developed" are far superior to an obsolete political term? Due to its support of American military during the Vietnam war, Thailand could have ranked as a First World country. See how silly that sounds now? It's silly for half the people to be using a term to describe economic development, and the other half to be usuing the same term to describe 1960's political alinements. No, we cannot, because first of all, you are not entirely accurate. If the phrase was only about Cold War alignment, Russia would not have been classified as a second world country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveromagnino Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Since there are now definitions of 1st, 2nd 3rd and now 4th world, can we get a clear definition of each in non political terms, so then we can debate where Thailand fits; preferably using UN, IMF, World Bank or CIA references if they use this definitation system (which I understand they do not). BAF Regarding Japan, you comment that 'History teaches us that what prevents 3rd world countries to become 1st world is, most and foremost, their 3rd world cultures.' and you go on to say 'Japan has made it to 1st world status and look at how socio-economical-politically different it is from all the rest of the Asian societies.' Obviously, it was very different socially to other Asian countries anyway, since each country in this part of the world at least tends to be somewhat varied. You get that with cultures that have been around for hundreds or thousands of years sometimes rather than colonies. However, I am very curious to understand what cultural elements Japan gave up in order for them to become 1st world? It surely cannot be business practices, since the quality and innovation aspects of most of the way they do things is emulated in the west rather than a copy of the west (e.g. Toyota manufacturing is the benchmark for Boeing, they've left most of the American car manufacturers behind); I could give numerous examples within the dual economy of Japan. Of course, we both know that Deming is not the sole reason for this, as he was invited to present ideas by the leading Japanese of that time themselves, and many of the points he presented were in fact japanese ideas already discussed and presented by the Japanese themselves. It cannot be the culture of the people, since so much of Japan is still very different, at least from what I can see, to this more developed west you speak of. I can think of several reasons for Japan's emergence, and there are other parts of Asia that are emulating that success in certain industries; would you also propose that each of these areas is also in some way giving up their '3rd world culture' and if so, which parts? I am most curious as to what these 'Western culture and principles' that 'form the only way to development' are. I am further curious as to what you define as 'western' because there are a lot of countries in the world. Some are made up of immigrants, and many of these countries owe much of their success to the rape and pillage of other countries. I was not aware that this was exclusive to the 'west' but is this one of the only ways to development of which you speak? China is doing a fine job in Tibet, ah, perhaps this is indeed why their economy is going to overtake the west within my lifetime most likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maestro Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Officially Thailand is classed as a 3rd world country.Source, please.--------------- Maestro it def is a 3rd world country..so to speak...Afghanistan Albani ... Belfastboy, where did you get that list?--------------- Maestro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
britainmal Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 The answer is no. It is no longer a third World country(meaning poor). It was 20 years ago. Thailand is now in the 2nd world, but if you want to see the 3rd world go to Burma, Laos, and Cambodia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.png.76be522b3b43e7458166b9dac9e422ed.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now