Is 3rd World an appropriate category?

One thing that I have noticed recently was the usage of the word "3rd world" by none other than myself!

I never used this word, but with the constant usage of this word by DR1ers, it has caught on with me.

I have never felt at ease with this word, especially when its applied to the DR. This word always made me feel as if the DR is second best, not good enough, etc. Also, given the fact that this country is a middle income country, makes the country, officially at least, not poor. The fact that we are middle income nation explains why just about everywhere there are contrasts between modernity and antiquity, wealth and poverty, etc.

These contrasts have become more prevailant as times have moved forward, but its important to note that before 1970s all the way back to the colonial time period, this nation was simply poor. People were either rich or poor, most often poor and the rich were not that rich at all.

From the 1970s onward, the middle class and upper class segment of society has grown and the number of poor people (in absolute number and percentage wise) have decreased as well since the 1970s.

All of these middle class developments, shopping malls, and general affluence visible not just in Santo Domingo and Santiago (traditionally the only two places where such affluence existed), but in other cities nationwide, such as San Francisco, La Vega, Moca, Puerto Plata, La Romana, Higuey, among others.

This increase of wealth and contrasts is a testament to the increasing middle class tilt the country has been turning for the past 40 odd years since Trujillo died.

Thus, comes the question of whether the word "3rd world" is appropriate for a country that at the end of every decaded since the 1970s, has ended up wealthier than it was at the beginning of the same decade!

Never in the history of this country has there been so many middle class and upper class Dominicans alive at once. Never has there been so much economic mobility, opportunity, and economic growth. Never has the DR has got it as good as it has right now, despite the crisis that we recently went through.

Is the term "3rd world" appropriate for a middle income country?

If so, why? If not, why not?

In a world where most countries are not growing economically by any substancial amount, in a world where middle class is simply a dream to be had, can we categorize the Dominican Republic, with its average growth of spectacular 7% in 1990s and now returning to high growth once again, in a country where the middle class is not just a dream, but a reality that keeps growing?

I invite every DR1er to give their personal opinion of this, it should be an interesting thread.

These are good responses.

Let me make it clear that I can see what this country is and is not. However, it does not changes the fact that the country is middle income and given that classification middle income is different from lower income or upper income any way anyone wants to cut it.

The following is all based on what has been posted here and my response to them collectively:

1. It appears that people here are making the assumption that the population is evenly distributed nationwide. This becomes much more clear when Mirador posted:

While in my apartment in Santo Domingo, I live in a '1st World' environment. Now, when I'm in my hut north of Azua, it's definitely '3rd World'. But I've travelled to places in San Juan de la Maguana province and toward the border with Haiti that make some African Third World countries look like First World...

Click to expand...

The Cibao Valley and the Santo Domingo metro area have a combined population that makes up 90% of all the peoples living in this country. It's also true, that those two areas have the most accessible infrastructure available in this country, the highest investment from the government and private enterprise, the bigger chunck of the economy (SDQ and Cibao each make up 40% of Dominican economy or 80% of the total economy of the country), and in those two regions middle class lifestyle is the most pronounce than anywhere else in the country.

Can we make a judgement on this country based on certain conditions in the San Juan Valley, when the population of the entire South and East is barely 10% of the total?

Are those areas representative of the country when only 20% of the economic productivity of the country is conducted in those areas compared to Santo Domingo and the Cibao combined producing 80%?

The answer is NO.

The Cibao valley and Santo Domingo combined make up a much bigger peace of the pie in population and economic activity, that what we know as the Dominican Republic is virtually maintained by those two regions, and certainly, Santo Domingo and the Cibao is overall wealthier than either the East or the South.

2. When Leslie posted:

* a structured and effective public education system
* luz
* agua
* an efficient health care system
* paved roads throughout the country
* a much less fraudulent government (very minimal corruption). The people must see the benefits of the taxes they pay.

Click to expand...

as signs of the DR being "more developed", it was obviously highly subjective to her interpretation of development.

For example, one of her points in order to consider the DR to be more "middle income" would be paved roads throughout the country. If that was the case, then the United States would be third world, since 35% of the total kilometers of roads in the United States are unpaved! Compare that to the DR, where 50% of all road kilometers are paved!

Why does the roads appear more paved in the US than in the DR? That is answered by inequality of the development of the road networks. Areas of both countries that are much more urbanized, wealthier, and have greater economic activity are the areas where the higher propensity of paved roads exist. Look at a map of the United States and the DR and you will notice that in the US roads are heavily concentrated in the Northeast, Midwest, and Southern California more so than in any other places and look at the DR and you will see that Santo Domingo and the Cibao has quite a road network compared to the rest of the country. This is representative of population density, economic importance of those areas, and the level of unequal distribution of population in a given country.

Thus, the roads deal is not a good indication.

When it comes to the education deal, sure we can all agree that more is better. However, look how many of the well educated got a good job. Oh no, can it be that they are underemployed? That guy who put your groceries in your bag at Carrefour has a degree in IT technology? Hmm....

The health care system is adequate, the problem are those people who are taking the benefits of the system when the system was not meant for them.

And with the government, we can all agree with peace.

3. Chirimoya's post was more at par with what I was looking for in reality. Very clear cut and she even gave her opinion of a better terminology to define countries.

Developed, developing, and underdeveloped is what I would agree to use, it's more accurate than any other form of description for a multitude of countries that have absolutely nothing in common with each other, for the most part.

However, those countries are more the norm, since "developed" countries are nothing more than a outlyers. If you would do a bell curve graph on the economies of all countries, it clearly becomes clear that the "developed" countries are outliers, tiny minority of the world. Perhaps, this is why people from those countries come to where most people of the world lives with an array of shocks.

You can see them even as tourist. Oh my God, they are so poor! is a common remark. Were people actually expecting that their outlying countries were representatives of the world's current development?

Average income worldwide is (in US Dollars) around $6,000. Average income wihtin OECD nations (Developed) is around $27,000. The outliers are clear to see.

4. Fireguy and qgrande gave a good explanation that merits attention from everyone.

5. Asopao, good beginning in your post, but the notion of "5th world" is incorrect.

Keep the posts coming, it would be nice to see how the overall ideas evolution pertaining to this subject.

Sources:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2085.html

http://www.worldbank.org/data/countryclass/classgroups.htm

Chirimoya said:

Nals, population wise, the stark fact remains that a large proportion of Dominicans live in poverty.

Inequality rates - the gap between rich and poor - is an important indicator, and the DR does not score high on this count.

Click to expand...

Of course, income distribution is the reason why the DR appears worst than it actually is, but appearances are deceptive and that is what is occuring here.

However, lets make a comparison with the global benchmark used in anything economics, the USA.

In the US, the top quintile (upper class) of the population earned 50% of all aggregate household incomes, whereas the bottome quintile of the population earned around 5% of all aggregate household incomes.

In the DR, the Gini Index (measures income inequality) in 1998 was 47.4, putting us in 28th place worldwide, just 3 places higher than the United States, which rated 45 in 2004 and is the 31st most unequal country in the world out of 113 countries.

If you click on the second link below, you will see the income distribution, scroll to the bottom and see what countries are the most equal in the world. Hint: Belaurus, Hungary, Denmark, Japan, etc. ranking from 113th to 110th place respectably.

What is this saying?

Well, in the context of US vs. DR, the US is not much better than the DR when it comes to income distribution. Rich Dominicans earn about as much as rich Americans from total income of their resepective countries and the poor of each country are some of the lowest receivers of income of a share of national income in the world.

Why does the US appears to the naked eye more equal than the DR?

It has something to do with US government artificially increasing the standards of living of its poor by giving them grants, whereas in the DR people live according to what they can afford. That is the difference between shacks on the outskirts of Santo Domingo and public housing complexes within American cities.

If the US would have been more dependent on the market, American cities would have developed slums similars to the one's we see here.

This, of course, is not the case with much of Europe.

How important is income distribution? Very important.

Can we use the US as benchmark to contrasts against other countries in with this issue? Only if we use the data available, but if we make judgements based on what we see in each countries, its highly unfair since poor Americans are actually much poorer than they appear, perhaps as worst off as Dominican poors once you take away their housing grants, food stamps, and cost of living.

Sources:
http://www.uwec.edu/geography/Ivogeler/w111/greedy.htm

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_dis_of_fam_inc_gin_ind

since when do you spell my name incorrectly? Please it's Lesley

Click to expand...

Oops! Sorry for that. :nervous:

I read your response and the only aspect I would like to point out or clarify is that paved roads are an important reflection of 'how' the government spends taxpayers money. My point being if the government were less corrupt and used taxpayers money for public services etc. it would have the $ to pave the roads and repair crumbling bridges etc. Therefore, I disagree with you. All my points are linked or intertwined. Well maintained schools, roads, health care facilities etc. are a reflection how the government spends tax payers money etc.

Click to expand...

I see what you are saying and it has merit. However, don't forget, over half of all the money collected in taxes goes to pay the national debt.

Much of the corruption accusations are over blown by media sources and competiting political parties.

Corruption exist, there is no denying, but often we forget that half of the money that is taxed goes to pay the debt.

Now, if the debt was to be forgiven (as will be the case for a few African and Latin countries) and things continue as they are in terms of government spending, then we can be for certain how much of an effect corruption is having.

But for now, we can all agree that although corruption is having a negative effect, its effect is not worst than the repaying of the debt.