Editing International development (section)

==Concerns==
{{Main|Development criticism}}
<!-- This needs a lot more work -->

The terms "developed" and "developing" (or "underdeveloped") have proven problematic in forming policy as they ignore issues of [[distribution of wealth|wealth distribution]] and the lingering effects of [[colonialism]]. Some theorists see development efforts as fundamentally [[neocolonialism|neo-colonial]], in which a wealthier nation forces its industrial and economic structure on a poorer nation, which will then become a [[consumer]] of the developed nation's goods and services.{{Citation needed|date=January 2008}} Post-developmentalists, for example, see development as a form of Western [[cultural imperialism]] that hurts the people of poor countries and endangers the environment to such an extent that they suggest rejection of development altogether.<ref>{{Cite web|last1=Kothari|first1=Ashish| last2= Salleh|first2=Ariel|last3= Escobar|first3=Arturo|last4= Demaria|first4=Federico|last5=Acosta |first5= Alberto | title=Pluriverse: A Post-Development Dictionary, 2018|date=14 April 2018 | url=https://degrowth.org/2018/04/14/new-book-pluriverse-a-post-development-dictionary/|access-date=2022-04-16}}</ref>

Other scholars have sought to widen the notion of "developing" to encompass all countries,<ref>{{Cite web|last=Ro|first=Christine|title=Every Country Is Developing, According To The New Sustainable Development Index|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinero/2019/12/01/every-country-is-developing-according-to-the-new-sustainable-development-index/|access-date=2021-04-16|website=Forbes|language=en}}</ref> as even the wealthiest and most industrialised of countries face problems of social exclusion and inequality. This points to the widespread critiques of the language of development practice, from the Cold War-era terminology of "Third World" to the subsequent bifurcation of "developed" and "developing" countries. The phrases "Global North" and "Global South"<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Bhan|first=Gautam|date=2019-10-01|title=Notes on a Southern urban practice|url=https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247818815792|journal=Environment and Urbanization|language=en|volume=31|issue=2|pages=639–654|doi=10.1177/0956247818815792|bibcode=2019EnUrb..31..639B |s2cid=159384567|issn=0956-2478|url-access=subscription}}</ref> are similarly imprecise (particularly from a geographical standpoint, as Australia, for instance, is considered part of the Global North). Other terms currently in use as synonyms for "Global South" include "majority world"<ref>{{Cite web|title=Discussing views of Majority and Minority world countries with Ethiopian students|url=http://toolkit.risc.org.uk/casestudy/majority-world-or-minority-world-further-education-case-study/|access-date=2021-04-16|website=toolkit.risc.org.uk|language=en-GB}}</ref> and "low- and middle-income countries". The latter term allows for greater specificity, for instance in differentiating between lower-middle and upper-middle-income countries, but it has the downside of overemphasising the economic aspects of development at the expense of social, political and cultural rights and freedoms. These linguistic issues reflect conceptual tensions related to the framing of development.