The framework of Global South and Global North became popular after criticism of systems that defined countries as “first world” or “third world,” or as “developed” or “developing.” Global South and Global North definitions are sometimes vague, but are often aligned with the United Nations’ model of more-developed and less-developed countries. That said, it is important to remember that scholars, activists, and leaders in many Global South countries reject the framing of development that prioritises economic growth over other markers. Some activists, such as the Indian ecofeminist Vandana Shiva, have reframed what many Global North audiences would consider “developed” countries as “maldeveloped,” focusing on growth of the wrong things while minimising the value of cultural practices and indigenous systems of knowledge. Further, economic categorisations of some countries as “wealthy” and others as “poor” disregard the ways in which resource-rich countries may struggle economically due to histories of (and ongoing) colonial extraction by Global North powers. For this reason, Global South framings are being replaced by some advocacy such as Bond (the UK network for organisations working in international development) with clearer language less rooted in colonial framings, such as “Lower Income Countries,” “Middle Income Countries,” “Fragile and Conflict-Affected States,” and “Majority World.”

Resources: Taking British politics and colonialism out of our language