Editing Developing country (section)

== Criticisms of the term ==
{{Further|Development aid}}
There is criticism for using the term "developing country". The term could imply inferiority of this kind of country compared with a [[developed country]].<ref name=":7">{{cite web|url=https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/01/04/372684438/if-you-shouldnt-call-it-the-third-world-what-should-you-call-it|title=If You Shouldn't Call It The Third World, What Should You Call It?|last=Silver|first=Marc|date=4 January 2015|website=NPR|access-date=5 March 2020|archive-date=1 April 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200401165708/https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/01/04/372684438/if-you-shouldnt-call-it-the-third-world-what-should-you-call-it|url-status=live}}</ref> It could assume a desire to develop along the traditional Western model of [[economic development]] which a few countries, such as [[Cuba]] and [[Bhutan]], choose not to follow.{{clarify|date=July 2023}}<ref name="Karma Ura">{{cite book|url=http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/savifadok/volltexte/2009/305/pdf/mono_1en_bt_dev_stry.pdf|title=The Bhutanese development story|last=Ura|first=Karma|year=2009|publisher=Heidelberg University Library|doi=10.11588/xarep.00000305|access-date=17 September 2012|name-list-style=vanc|archive-date=3 February 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130203013407/http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/savifadok/volltexte/2009/305/pdf/mono_1en_bt_dev_stry.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> Alternative measurements such as [[gross national happiness]] have been suggested as important indicators.

One of the early criticisms that questioned the use of the terms "developing" and "underdeveloped" countries was voiced in 1973 by prominent historian and academic [[Walter Rodney]] who compared the economic, social, and political parameters between the United States and countries in Africa and Asia.<ref>{{cite book|url=http://abahlali.org/files/3295358-walter-rodney.pdf|title=''How Europe Underdeveloped Africa''|last=Rodney|first=Walter|date=1973|publisher=Bogle-L'Ouverture Publications, London and Tanzanian Publishing House, Dar-Es-Salaam|language=en|page=25|access-date=12 May 2019|archive-date=3 May 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190503095007/http://abahlali.org/files/3295358-walter-rodney.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>{{clarify|reason=What was his criticism? Why did he not like those terms?|date=April 2020}}

There is "no established convention" for defining "developing country".<ref name="unstated.un.org">{{cite web |title=Millennium Development Indicators: World and regional groupings |url=https://unstats.un.org/unsd/mi/worldmillennium.htm |publisher=[[United Nations Statistics Division]] |date=2003 |at=Note b |access-date=13 May 2017 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050210031555/http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mi/worldmillennium.htm |archive-date=10 February 2005 }}</ref> According to [[economist]] [[Jeffrey Sachs]], the current divide between the [[developed country|developed]] and developing world is largely a phenomenon of the 20th century.<ref name="The End of Poverty">{{cite book | last = Sachs | first = Jeffrey | year = 2005 | title = The End of Poverty | publisher = The Penguin Press | location = New York, New York | isbn = 1-59420-045-9| title-link = The End of Poverty }}{{page needed|date=December 2019}}</ref> The late global health expert [[Hans Rosling]] has argued against the terms, calling the concept "outdated" since the terms are used under the prerequisite that the world is divided in rich and poor countries, while the fact is that the vast majority of countries are middle-income.<ref name="Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About The World - And Why Things Are Better Than You Think">{{cite book|last1=Rosling|first1=Hans|url=https://www.gapminder.org/factfulness-book/|title=Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About The World – And Why Things Are Better Than You Think|last2=Rosling|first2=Ola|last3=Rosling Rönnlund|first3=Anna|publisher=Sceptre|year=2018|isbn=978-1-250-10781-7|page=353|chapter=Chapter 1: The Gap Instinct|author-link=Hans Rosling|access-date=5 March 2020|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=N94sDwAAQBAJ&q=Factfulness+(the+book)|archive-date=10 April 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190410082631/https://www.gapminder.org/factfulness-book/|url-status=live}}</ref> Given the lack of a clear definition, sustainability expert [[Mathis Wackernagel]] and founder of [[Global Footprint Network]], emphasizes that the binary labeling of countries is "neither descriptive nor explanatory".<ref name="Ecological Footprint: Managing Our Biocapacity Budget">{{cite book|url=https://www.newsociety.com/Books/E/Ecological-Footprint|title=Ecological Footprint: Managing Our Biocapacity Budget|last1=Wackernagel|first1=Mathis|last2=Beyers|first2=Bert|publisher=New Society Publishers|year=2019|isbn=978-0865719118|location=Gabriola Island, BC, Canada|page=132|authorlink=Mathis Wackernagel|access-date=26 February 2021|archive-date=30 December 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191230123431/https://www.newsociety.com/Books/E/Ecological-Footprint|url-status=live}}</ref> Wackernagel identifies these binary terms of "developing" vs. "developed" countries, or "North" vs. "South", as "a thoughtless and destructive endorsement of GDP fetish."<ref name="Ecological Footprint: Managing Our Biocapacity Budget" /> Wackernagel and Rosling both argue that in reality, there are not two types of countries, but over 200 countries, all faced with the same laws of nature, yet each with unique features.<ref name="Ecological Footprint: Managing Our Biocapacity Budget" /><ref name="Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About The World - And Why Things Are Better Than You Think" />

The term "developing" refers to a current situation and not a changing dynamic or expected direction of development. Additionally, the term "developing world" is increasingly seen as outdated, suggesting a hierarchy and not accurately reflecting the diverse realities of the encompassed countries. This term includes 135 low- or middle-income countries, covering 84% of the global population, and is criticized for its imprecision. Historical and empirical evidence, like the varied infant mortality rates across these nations, underscores the flaws in a uniform classification. Alternatives such as regional or income-based categories (low-income to high-income) are advocated for, as they align better with the specific contexts of countries, supporting more effective policy formulation.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Time to stop referring to the "developing world" |url=https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/opendata/time-stop-referring-developing-world |access-date=14 April 2024 |website=World Bank Blogs |language=en}}</ref>

Since the late 1990s, countries identified by the UN as developing countries tended to demonstrate higher growth rates than those in the developed countries category.<ref>{{cite journal|vauthors=Korotayev A, Zinkina J|date=2014|title=On the structure of the present-day convergence|url=https://www.academia.edu/30720894|journal=Campus-Wide Information Systems|volume=31|issue=2/3|pages=139–152|doi=10.1108/CWIS-11-2013-0064|access-date=10 January 2020|archive-date=8 April 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220408054455/https://www.academia.edu/30720894|url-status=live}}</ref>

To moderate the [[euphemistic]] aspect of the word "developing", [[international organization]]s have started to use the term [[Least developed country|less economically developed country]] for the poorest nations – which can, in no sense, be regarded as developing. This highlights that the standard of living across the entire developing world varies greatly.

In 2015, the [[World Bank]] declared that the "developing / developed world categorization" had become less relevant, due to worldwide improvements in indices such as child mortality rates, fertility rates and extreme poverty rates.<ref name=":5">{{cite web|url=https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/should-we-continue-use-term-developing-world|title=Should we continue to use the term "developing world"?|date=16 November 2015|website=World Bank blogs|access-date=5 March 2020|archive-date=11 February 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230211131900/https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/should-we-continue-use-term-developing-world|url-status=live}}</ref> In the 2016 edition of its [[World Development Indicators]] (WDI), the World Bank made a decision to no longer distinguish between "developed" and "developing" countries in the presentation of its data, considering the two-category distinction outdated.<ref name=":6"/> Accordingly, World Bank is phasing out use of that descriptor. Instead, the reports by Worldbank (such as the WDI and the [[Global Monitoring Report (World Bank)|Global Monitoring Report]]) now include data aggregations for the whole world, for regions, and for income groups – but not for the "developing world".<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":6">{{cite web|url=https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/2016-edition-world-development-indicators-out-three-features-you-won-t-want-miss|title=The 2016 edition of World Development Indicators is out: three features you won't want to miss|publisher=World Bank Blogs |work=Data Blog |first1=Neil |last1=Fantom |first2=Tariq |last2=Khokhar |first3=Edie |last3=Purdie |date=15 April 2016 |language=en|access-date=5 March 2020|archive-date=6 March 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230306194624/https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/2016-edition-world-development-indicators-out-three-features-you-won-t-want-miss|url-status=live}}</ref>