CHAPTER 6: GLOBAL DIVIDES: THE NORTH AND SOUTH

“We WERE ALL HUMANS until race disconnects us, religion separated
us, politics divided us, and wealth classified us”.
– Anonymous

Intended Learning Outcomes

At the end of this chapter, learners must be able to have a fuller understanding of the concept of the
North-South Global Divide and are expected to:
1. Articulate the definitions as well as differences of the Global North and Global South;
2. Undermine the rationale behind such division/classification;
3. Understand the current configurations and manifestations of the Divide;
4. Recognize how this division affects the path of Globalization and the current world in general; and
5. Equip students with 21st century learning and develop higher order thinking skills that will lead
towards a deeper understanding of Global economic structures as well as articulate a stance on the Global
North-South Divide and how it impacts the Philippines, the Filipino society and the individual self.

While the world is broadly demarcated geographically and demarcated through continental divisions, it
is imperative to note that there exist other delineations that harbor on other factors. These factors, or
parameters, so to speak, are anchored on developmental patterns, wealth distribution, and emerging
economic situations. This is the primordial consideration when one seeks to better understand the concepts
cultural are underlying the Global North and South divide. But as we shall see later, even and historical
dimensions actually contributed to the existence of the concept. At this point, however, it is important to
highlight some definitions of the term in order to gain a better understanding of the term.
The North-South divide can be related to an economic division between richer and poorer countries.
This explains the reason why it is considered to be more of a socio political and economic classification. The
Global North is generally viewed to be the more affluent and economically stable countries and generally
includes the United States of America, Canada, the member nations of the G8 (Group of 8 ), the four
permanent members of the UN Security Council. This also includes countries that lie below the equator
namely Australia and New Zealand. The Global South, on the other hand includes most nations located in
Africa, Latin America, and the developing parts of Asia with the exception of Japan. It can be argued that the
division goes beyond merely geographical since not all states found north of the equator belong to the Global
North and in the same manner, not all states that lie south of the equator form part of the Global South. One
attempt to produce an objective classification uses the UNDP's Human Development Index to differentiate. In
brief, the Global North consists of those 64 countries which have a high HDI (most of which are located north
of the 30th northern parallel), while the remaining 133 countries belong to the Global South.
 File Photo: G8 member states (https://www.123rf.com)
In effect, Rigg (2007) makes it clear that this is not a strict geographical categorization of the world but
one based on economic inequalities which happen to have some cartographic coherence. It also emphasizes
that both North and South are together, drawn into global processes rather than existing as separate slices of
the world. However, for purposes of identifying which countries are included in the list, the Global North
includes Australia, Canada, Israel, Hong Kong, Macau, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore, South Korea,
Taiwan, the United States and all of Europe (including Russia). The Global South includes Asia (with the
exception of Japan, Hong Kong, Macau, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan), Central America, South
America, Mexico, Africa, and the Middle East (with the exception of Israel).
The Global North/South Divide

The Global North

We could find in the North the More Economically Developed Countries (MEDCs) in the world. Some
countries which lay in the North part of the divide are Canada, United States, Greenland, and Russia. They
are considered the "richer" and more stable countries.
Why the countries in the North are considered MEDC?
The countries are considered MEDC because of the stability that their economy has and the change that is
happening within it. Countries that are considered MEDC generally have a better standard of living and quality
of life. Aspects which may show this is how long the country's life expectancy is, education levels, if there are
doctors available (medicine) and how developed their technology is. For instance, the United States, an
MEDC, has a life expectancy of 79 years for women and 77 years for men. However, in Somalia a LEDC the
life expectancy is 51 years for women and 48 years for men. The distribution of education and health care is
also a factor. For example, Canada has free universal healthcare and free secondary education, which leads
to a better quality of life for Canadians. Whereas in many parts of Africa--a continent filled with LEDC-has little
education and hardly no health care. These are just some of the many factors which separate the MEDC from
the LEDC (Guttal, 2016).
The Global South
The area below the North-South Divide is what is known as the South /developing, or "Poor side".
These countries are known as developing countries, meaning the GDP, HDI and general standard of living
within these countries are considered inferior to that of countries in the "North". Some examples of these
countries include Somalia, Vietnam, Haiti and India.
Why countries in the South are considered LEDCs?
The countries in the south may be considered LEDCs due to a number of reasons, among them
including an unstable government and a poor economy. In addition, countries that are considered to be an
LEDC contain citizens who have a poor standard of living and quality of life. Some characteristics of countries
in this region may include low Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and low Human Development Index (HDI).
Some LEDCs have skewed HDIs due to a relatively high GDP and an exceptionally low standard of living. An
example of these types of countries is Indonesia.
Why is the South at such a disadvantage?
Of the many possible reasons for the South’s woes, the one factor that stands out is colonization.
When the countries that are considered MEDCs are listed down it becomes apparent that most of these
countries were, at some point in history, imperialists. From the 13th century on, most countries that were
powerful have stayed powerful, such as France and the United Kingdom. And therefore, most countries that
were inferior have stayed inferior. However, like any aspect in history, there is always an exception, as the
United States, a former British colony, has developed into the most powerful country in the world (Guttal,
2016).
First, Second and Third Worlds
The term Global North- Global South first emerged in 1996. However, since the end of the Cold War,
many commentators have employed the North-South label to draw a dichotomy between wealthy, developed
countries primarily located in the northern hemisphere (the North) and poorer, developing countries located
mainly in the southern hemisphere (the South). In UN circles and elsewhere, one frequently hears
policymakers and practitioners use phrases like "the North-South divide" or "the gap between North and
South" to summarize complex political and economic tensions on a range of issues.
The term was also fashioned out of the categorization which included mainly the First Second and
Third World distinctions. This was by and large, influenced by the Cold War era between the USA and USSR.
This was conveniently drawn upon political ideologies and alliances with the US and much of the Western
world who preached for Democracy and Capitalism tagged as the First World. The Communist bloc led by
USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republic) / Russia, China and other states who employed Marxist principles
are deemed to be part of the Second World. While the Third World corresponds to the non-aligned states, the
underdeveloped nations and states that have unstable political and economic conditions. The "Third World", a
term that had been coined by the French scholar Alfred Sauvy in 1952 to distinguish the formerly colonized
and presently neo-colonized societies of Asia, Africa and Latin America from the modernized "first" world of
capitalism and the modernizing "second" world of socialism. By the 1960s, "Third World" would become a
central political slogan for the radical left. The term in its origins had suggested that societies of the Third
World, embarking on the long path to modernity, had one of two paths to follow, the capitalist or the socialist.
(Dirlick, 2007).

File Photo: 1, 2 and 3 Worlds (Source: https://people.uwec.edu/ivogeler/w111/3world.htm)

In effect, the term "Third World" was coined by states hoping to navigate between the two poles of the
Cold War, and ultimately gave birth to the Non-Aligned Movement. These countries were generally less
economically developed than their First and Second-World counterparts. Thus, as Riggs (2007) pointed out
some interchangeable terms that characterize the Third World - The Less-developed World, the Majority
World, the Non-Western World, the Poor World and the Undeveloped World, all beaming with hues of
economic dilemma and lack of development.
This underdevelopment at times, is being traced back to the historical events that led to the Colonial
patterns of exploitation of the Developed World in the 15 -18th centuries as well as the modern clouts of Neo
Capitalism in which much of the Third World serves as "ready and willing markets" to the delight of the First
World producer states. The next term used was Developing world to refer to states that are previously
categorized as part of the Third World who found themselves the necessity and the means to grapple with the
economic realities at the demise of the Cold war era. The challenge for many Third world states this time
came in the form of ensuring that national development spurred by Globalization and higher economic
integration can be attained. Thus, the term developing states came to be associated with industrialization
attempts by many Asian economies once dubbed as "Asian Tigers" or the NIC's (Newly Industrialized
Countries) like Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea. The term "Developing world" has been widely used in
the 80's.

File Photo: Asian Tigers (courtesy of marketbusinessnews)

Source: https://marketbusinessnews.com/financial-glossary/economic-tigers/
 In 1983, the Brandt report was published by a commission chaired by the former German Chancellor
Willy Brandt. This report identified a North/South line (or Brandt line), and thus popularized another term,
namely "The South". The South is a geographical convenience based on the fact that most of the Poor World
lies south of latitude 30° North. There were exceptions, most notably Australia and New Zealand, but
nonetheless it worked for many people: scholars, politicians and the media. Critics, however, objected to the
fact that once again it hid from view the political and economic processes and historical inheritances that
rendered these southern countries poor in the first place.

File Photo shows the Brant Line introduced in 1983 and serve as a tool for effective demarcating the Global
North and Global South (courtesy of Ace Geography).
Source: http://blog.gdi.manchester.ac.uk/gradually-unpacking-global-development/

Flashpoints and Perspectives of the Divide

As underdeveloped countries become more visible, they are frequently referred to under the collective
label the "Global South". Despite the advantages this designation offers as a synthesizing term, many
scholars and writers of Globalization consider it ambiguous because it uses a simple geographical criteria to
describe a complex social situation which distinguishes poor countries from the wealthiest It should be clear
here that the implied North-South dichotomy has never been as geographically fixed as the labels imply. For
example, Australia and New Zealand have always been regarded as southern outliers of the North. Some of
the richest countries in the world (with a high GDP per capita) are classified as part of the Global South. Yet
the model still rests exclusively on a "latidunal" division.
The world has changed considerably since the time when the North-South relationship was articulated,
although the terms continue to be used today as they were then. A few decades ago, the South was
associated with starvation, malnutrition, poverty, epidemics, low educational levels, political authoritarianism
and dictatorships. Today, although hunger and poverty continue to exist in many South countries, the
numbers of wealthy and extremely wealthy people are rising rapidly. Many South countries-especially in Latin
America and Asia-contribute large numbers of well educated, competent professionals to the global
workforce.
However, the fact remains that inequality and inequity remain inherent and almost foundational
characteristics of the North South divide. Inequality is not a surface phenomenon that can be rectified by
diverting cash here and there, but a deep structural defect that diminishes individual and collective potential
for many, and shapes power relations within and among societies. It exists as a differentiating set of factors
both, across and within the countries of the North and South, prompting many to refer to conditions of wealth,
power, poverty and inequality as a South in the North and a North in the South. While such theorizing may
seek to challenge the traditional global North-South divide, it still uses the labels of North and South to denote
more or less the same conditions as in the original conceptualization. (Guttal, 2016).
Despite improvements in social-economic indicators, and increases in wealth accumulation and capital
and investment flows among many countries of the South, there continue to be significant differences
between North and South countries in living conditions, consumption levels and patterns, social and economic
structures, access to services and resources, and political power in supranational global governance.
Systems and institutions of global economic and financial governance continue to be dominated by the North
despite attempts by developing countries to secure greater power. (Guttal, 2016).
In addition, Magallanes (2012) also mentioned that the term Global South is a historic and de
contextualized. It omits a critical core of dynamic variables that characterize different kinds of countries,
especially historical, economic, social, cultural, and political variables, among others. It is these factors that
might explain the reality of these countries as a product of a societal process, and the type and origin of the
differences among them.
The term Global South, as pointed out, is normally used to mean countries that are faced with social,
political and economic challenges - for instance poverty, environmental degradation, human and civil rights
abuses, ethnic and regional conflicts, mass displacements of refugees, hunger, and disease. But it is
important to look at the historical, political and even cultural contexts of these countries why they are
considered poor. For instance, the strict Hindu tradition of many people in the Indian subcontinent and their
veneration of the cow as sacred prevent them from having a supposed successful livestock industry which
could in turn be very vital in improving their economic lot.
It should be added also that the term Global south rids itself of the negative political and economic
labeling that Third World had before as it is generally to be more apolitical. Thus, it is considered to be more
neutral and sits well within the platform that Globalization seeks to induce. Furthermore, it can also be
surmised that with the rapidly changing patterns of development coupled with massive technological
revolution, ease of travel and migration and interconnectedness of commerce and trade brought forth by trade
liberalization, the terms may also change swiftly especially with respect to the states or countries categorized
under it. The uneven development of the Global South since the term was coined has rendered the
geography of the term even more complicated to the point where it may have become an obstacle to
understanding the contemporary global situation. Some of the societies covered by the term such as the
People's Republic of China, India, Brazil, Turkey - have benefited from globalization to become more
assertive in global relations with the PRC aspiring to world leadership and hegemony (Dirlick, 2007).
It can be seen also that the Global South has embarked on an unprecedented upward trajectory.
Already, the output of the developing world's three leading economies (Brazil, China and India) close to
equals the combined output of the longstanding industrial powers of the North - Canada, France, Germany,
Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States. Even smaller countries like Bangladesh, Chile, Ghana,
Mauritius, Rwanda and Tunisia are experiencing rapid economic development. According to the 2013 UNDP
Human Development Report, it is estimated that 80% of the world's middle-class population will be living in
developing countries by 2030 (Mendez, 2015).
As opined by Mendez (2015), there is this ongoing global transformation is a phenomenon known as
"South-South cooperation". Once consigned to the margins, South-South cooperation is coming to occupy an
important place in the changing theory and discourse of development. Originally bound up in the response of
the developing countries to the destabilizing politics of the Cold War, South-South cooperation gave voice to
aspirations for a development path untainted by ideological conflict, and to an acknowledgement that relations
between developing countries should be a crucial means of achieving these aspirations. This forges a clearer
path towards integration within states that are deemed to occupy the same position to emerge out of the label
"South" and aspire to become a part of the "North". This is very feasible considering the assertion that the
Global North and Global South divide is not entirely confined to strict geographical constructs. Thus, in effect,
even states that are once labeled as part of the Global South may after some time become included as a
state in the Global North depending on their future socio economic status.
In fact, Jean Grugel (1990) enumerated the three factors that direct the economic development of
states within the Global South. These are "élite behavior within and between nation states, integration and
cooperation within 'geographic areas, and the resulting position of states and regions within the global world
market and related political economic hierarchy. These essential aspects of developmental tendencies in the
Global south are indeed essential if there are expected changes in the categorization of nation states in the
future. The important thing that one has to consider is that the divide, as with any Global phenomenon is
never static especially when the factors of technology, migration, increasing levels of literacy, employment,
GDP increase and currency valuation increase come into play. In fact, it is increasingly hard to make an
outright categorization that may be truly acceptable especially with the onslaught of global economic
integration. The BRICS is a good example of this assertion. BRICS is the acronym for an association of five
major emerging national economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Originally the first four
were grouped as "BRIC" (or "the BRICS"), before the induction of South Africa in 2010. The BRICS members
are known for their significant influence on regional affairs and all are members of G20. The Global South and
the Global North represent an updated perspective on the post 1991 world, which distinguishes not between
political systems or degrees of poverty, but between the victims and the benefactors of global capitalism.

File Photo: BRICS Member states

Source: http://www.simplynotes.in/e-notes/mbabba/international-business-management/rise-of-new-
economics-like-brazil-russia-india-and-china-bric-and-asian-countries/

In effect, a contraction in the Global North-South divide is actually seen by many economists as a
result of international free trade and unhindered capital flows across countries which could definitely catapult
development further in the South After all, it has been made clear in the previous chapter that Globalization is
not simply a process that can be narrated within a single construct. As Robertson (1993) defined it as a
"compression of the world", the improvement in economic interdependence will contribute to the further
"shrinking of the world and is expected to shake up even more the volatile Global North-South divide. Closing
or mitigating the divide has been a goal for many developmental initiatives. The United Nations has developed
a program dedicated to narrowing the divide through its Millennium Development Goals aimed at Sustainable
development. This includes improving education and health care, promoting gender equality, and ensuring
environmental sustainability. In addition, the IMF, World Bank and other progressive Northern countries have
embarked on developmental initiatives such as providing loans and grants to the Global south countries in
order that these nation states may also attain development in the long run.

Reference Book:
Coronacion, D. & Clilung, F. (2018). Convergence: A College Textbook in Contemporary World. Books Atbp.
Publishing Corp.