Why do we keep calling them “developing countries”?

Lately, I have found myself biting my tongue before using the term “developing country”. Ten years into my career in the sector, perhaps it is about time now. Words are important, more so, names and categories define the subject being spoken about, whether deliberately or not. In this sector, I think much of the language we are using has been inherited. Terminology formed during periods of transition are still being used today.

For instance, the World Bank, IMF, and United Nations were all formed between 1944 – 1945, at the end of World War II. The focus was on rebuilding economies devastated by war and maintaining peace. Reconstruction was the aim, which branched into funding of projects around the world; followed by an ambition to accelerate economic growth and reduce poverty.

During this same period, there was a large wave of decolonisation which took place between 1945 and 1975. I am not an expert in political history, but this post-war period was one of global transition and development, which set the foundation for some of the terminology we still use in the sector today. It was, and still is used to categorise countries, however there is no common scale to rationalise this. Perhaps, in a post war era the common context was that the world at large was on a development journey, which made the categorisation loosely valid.

However, when I reflect on the way we use the terms “developing/developed” today to categorise countries, I struggle to see a common measurable scale. In fact, I would argue there is no scale that exists to justify this grouping, at least not one that is universally agreed on. Categorisation based on income, has its flaws, but at least there is a common indicator (i.e GNI per capita) and scale (high, upper-middle, lower-middle, low income), as per World Bank classifications.

When using the terms developing/developed, there is no common and measurable scale. The problem with categorising a country, with no common agreed scale of measurement, is it makes the decision subjective. And once it is subjective, if there are enough people with the same opinion, that forms an unjustified definition of the subject. For example, if everyone has been calling Sierra Leone, Ghana and Nigeria developing countries for the last 50 years with no common rational, there is a high risk that:

1. they will always be categorised as developing countries, as they have no way of proving they are not, if the definition of the category is subjective.
2. Other countries in proximity such as Liberia, Benin, and Senegal all fall into this same category based on geography or other discriminatory, non-justified indicators.

Sadly, I think we may be at this stage already. Each of these countries in the above example are so different, yet in this sector, it is easy to automatically categorise a country as a developing country, based on a few loose indicators and assumptions, such as geography, market sizes, etc. I know, there has been many arguments about how inaccurate GDP and GNI is as a basis for categorising, but at least those have an agreeable scale of measurement, which the classifications can be made from.

I sat as a interview panellist recently for a prestige scheme in the sector. I was especially impressed to see a wide array of candidates from what would typically be classed as “developing countries” as the leading talents entering the scheme, from which they were previously excluded form.

I found myself growing in sensitivity to the language I was using. I considered it disrespectful for me to refer to their country as a developing country without no rational. On what grounds could I call it a developing country? I could not find a valid reason; there is no justification to this category. If one country is a “developing country” without measurement, the relative “developed country” also has no standard measurement. So, it is condescending to say yours is developing and theirs is developed without the measurable scale. It gives a false sense of hierarchy and breeds a dangerous narrative, based on false definitions. Moreso, it is barely challenged as it is so integrated into the sector’s lingo.

In previous blog posts, I have argued against the basic economic problem – which illustrates scarce resources – how can a country be so focussed on scarcity, when endowed with such vast natural resources? The issue we are discussing now, has the same premise – a false narrative. ?A country that calls itself developing, simply because others have always called them developing, may be miss-defining their identity, which leads to clipped wings.

I would like to put forward a call to others in the sector to be more sensitive of the language we use. Many of the countries that are typically deemed as “developing countries”, are the fastest growing nations in terms of income and population, have the most abundant natural resources, and birthing some of the most innovative private sector solutions. Let’s respect their identities by using language that has a stronger basis of truth to it.

Joevas Asare