When we talk about developing countries, we rarely stop to ask what the phrase actually means. It slips off the tongue so easily, a piece of polite shorthand meant to distinguish between rich and poor, industrial and agrarian, modern and traditional. But behind that convenience hides a great deal of inherited hierarchy. Calling one part of the planet “developing” assumes there is a finish line defined elsewhere; that a good society looks like a Western one, with high GDP, gleaming infrastructure, and endless economic growth.
In recent years, many writers and thinkers have begun to push back on that language, arguing that it keeps us trapped in a colonial frame of mind. Arturo Escobar, in his landmark Encountering Development, described “development” as one of the most powerful cultural projects of the twentieth century, a system of ideas that reshaped the world to fit Western priorities. The word itself became a quiet command: grow like us, consume like us, measure like us.
Where the Language Came From
The phrase Third World first appeared during the Cold War, used to describe nations that aligned with neither the capitalist West nor the communist East. Soon it came to mean “poor countries”; those still struggling with the legacies of colonialism, low industrial output, or weak infrastructure. By the 1980s, the term had begun to sound uncomfortable, and developing world emerged as its polite successor. Yet the underlying assumptions didn’t change. To be “developing” was to be “not yet there.”
The problem isn’t just historical accuracy; it’s the moral geometry of the words. They draw the map as a staircase, with the G7 at the top and everyone else climbing, slowly or not at all. They suggest that the proper destiny of the planet is to become more like the already-industrialised nations, despite the ecological and social costs that model now reveals.
Why Words Matter
Language shapes policy, and policy shapes lives. When international agencies use developing, they often frame assistance, trade, and climate policy around the assumption that economic growth is the central measure of progress; but GDP tells us nothing about clean water, community cohesion, or cultural vitality. It counts bombs and hospital beds the same way, as “economic activity.”
When we say “developing,” we subtly affirm that Western modernity is the gold standard. That is not only inaccurate but increasingly unwise in an age of ecological constraint and social fragmentation. There are other ways to live well on this planet, and many of them are already being practiced by the people our old vocabulary patronizes.
The Rise of the Majority World
One alternative that resonates deeply is Majority World. The term flips the script: most of humanity lives outside the wealthy industrialized nations. To call those countries “developing” is not only condescending, it’s mathematically absurd. As development writer Sadaf Shallwani notes, “The terms ‘developing world’ and ‘Third World’ imply that development is a linear process, and that certain ‘developed’ countries have finished developing and are the norm towards which all countries should strive.”
The phrase Majority World reframes the global conversation. Instead of a minority of wealthy states defining progress, it recognizes that the majority of the planet’s population, and its cultural, ecological, and creative wealth, resides elsewhere. It’s not a euphemism; it’s a shift in perspective.
Calling Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Pacific the Majority World centres humanity, not hierarchy. It invites curiosity instead of comparison. It allows us to speak about global issues: climate, migration, food security, health, as shared human challenges rather than one-way rescue missions.
Beyond Renaming: Rethinking Progress
Of course, simply changing labels isn’t enough. The deeper challenge is to redefine what progress itself means. For decades, “development” has equated to industrialization, export-driven growth, and consumer expansion. But that model has left deep scars on both people and planet.
Around the world, alternative visions of well-being are emerging. Bhutan measures Gross National Happiness. New Zealand’s Wellbeing Budgetprioritizes mental health, environment, and equity alongside economic performance. In Latin America, the Andean philosophy of Buen Vivir, “good living”, emphasizes balance with nature and community rather than domination or accumulation.
Each of these ideas challenges the unspoken assumption that there is a single road to modernity. They remind us that prosperity can mean dignity, education, safety, and belonging, not necessarily industrial sprawl and high consumption.
The term Majority World aligns beautifully with this plural understanding. It carries a quiet humility, an admission that the Western model is not universal, and that many societies are rich in social capital, resilience, and wisdom even without high per-capita income.
A Linguistic Act of Respect
For writers, journalists, and policymakers, choosing our words carefully is a small but vital act of respect. Before typing “developing country,” we might pause to ask: developing by whose standards? Toward what end? Whose story does this phrase tell, and whose does it erase?
When we speak instead of the Majority World, we acknowledge shared humanity and diversity of experience. It invites us to listen rather than prescribe, to recognize that there are as many definitions of progress as there are landscapes and languages.
This linguistic shift is also emotionally honest. It reminds those of us in the so-called “developed” world that we are the minority, not the model, and that our own path is far from sustainable. The future will depend not on teaching others to emulate us, but on learning together how to live well within planetary boundaries.
A More Honest Vocabulary
The phrase Majority World is not perfect, but it moves us closer to linguistic integrity. It removes the hierarchy, restores proportion, and invites humility. It replaces the idea of a “developing world” that needs guidance with a mosaic of societies co-creating their futures on equal moral footing.
Language is never neutral. The words we choose reveal the maps in our minds, who we see at the center, who we see at the margins. Changing those words changes the map.
Perhaps, in time, “development” itself will fade as a global organizing idea, replaced by something more ecological, more plural, and more just. Until then, we can begin with something simple and powerful: calling the world as it is, in its vastness and complexity, a Majority World that has always been, in truth, the heart of humanity.
References:
• Escobar, Arturo. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton University Press, 1995.
• Ziai, Aram. “The Discourse of ‘Development’ and Why the Concept Still Matters.” Third World Quarterly, 2013.
• Trainer, Ted. “Third World Development: The Simpler Way Critique of Conventional Theory and Practice.” Real-World Economics Review 95 (2021).
• Shallwani, Sadaf. “Why I Use the Term ‘Majority World’ Instead of ‘Developing Countries’ or ‘Third World.’” sadafshallwani.net, 2015.
• Wellbeing Economy Alliance. “What Is a Wellbeing Economy?” 2023.
The Rowanwood Chronicles 