I would add a category called “failed states” where the little development that these managed to have is going in reverse. Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Lebanon, Syria and the likes.
I get the impression that the countries who are keenest on the term “Global South”, or the rhetoric related to it, are middle-income regional hegemons. For countries like China, Turkey, and Brazil, the term itself and some other Global South-flavoured language (E.g. developing country, post-colonial) are handy to make them seem less threatening to their neighbours. Even Russia is keen on the notion that the “Global South” is on its side. Singapore is not a regional hegemon, but it uses the term to fit in more, as you pointed out.
India is interesting. The government seems to use the idea selectively when it benefits it, like in climate negotiations. But it is way less eager than some others to couch its entire geopolitical strategy in that terminology.
The colloquial term basically means “poor country where you probably shouldn’t drink the tap water”. Expecting these countries to be united on anything is as foolish as thinking there’s a “POC” coalition.
Oct 29, 2023·edited Oct 29, 2023Liked by Noah Smith
Nice charts.
My experience with the “Global South” term dates from university 40 years ago where it was bandied about by wealthy white professors and activists, anti-colonialists all. I didn’t think much of it then (or now).
Much easier to claim to speak for billions of poor brown people from your comfortable offices in former imperial HQs if you can lump all the billions into one big group.
Back then I always thought the old “non-aligned” grouping was more interesting because 1) it was created by the countries themselves rather than by rich, white American and British professors and 2) was an interesting way to maximize aid and attention from both sides of the Cold War.
Even now as people talk again about the global south (which, as Noah points out, don’t have a ton of overlapping interests) it is the “non-aligned” that really matter (with India still at the heart of them).
I remember being taught in 5th grade history class (this was a long long time ago) that countries that manufacture and export advanced goods are developed nations and those that mainly export raw materials are colonies / undeveloped nations. Still seems pretty accurate.
Quasi-related I recently wondered why the phrase "Anglophone countries" seems to mean "US, UK, Canada, Ireland, and Australia and New Zealand if I remember it exists" with South Africa in a quantum state of inclusion and conspicuously leave out Nigeria, Singapore, India, Jamaica, Botswana, the Philippines, etc.
Resource-based countries too easily fall into one-dimensional economies. They suffer through cyclical prices of commodities. Diversity is best for investing, as well as for stabilizing economies. If people have stability and plenty to lose, they’re generally less inclined to go to war. For example, if you brought back the military draft and raised the draft-eligibility age to 45, I think you’d see a significant shift in sentiment related to war. It’s easy to sit back and watch people who are in the age range 18-25 become cannon fodder. They likely have little material wealth to lose and likely to not have started families. Sadly, many young people join the military to escape abusive parents/households. A peace-time military is a good gig, until it isn’t. Diverse prosperity benefits the entire world.
The thesis seems to be that “the leftists that I love to bash are saying US is losing support in the Global South over Israel. Lets not focus on the unpopularity, and instead on the idea of the global south, an the idea of the Global South is a contested political term with tenuous economics behind it. Since it’s political, then it doesn’t matter, so lets stop using the term, discourse will be so much better for it! Also I totally owned them. Do not question US popularity either. ”
That logic is nonsense. The Global South is a loaded political term. So what? How does the terms origin have anything to do with the fact that the US support for Israel is unpopular globally? Support for the siege is not popular pretty much anywhere, the US can get 14 votes of support in the UN for its resolution, and even at home in many of the countries that support, support is at best contested.
Your argument is immaterial and betrays I suppose a new conceit of this column - US centrists really just don’t care about the opinions and motivations of most of the world. Couch your disregard in whatever circuitous jargon or great power politics you want, but people outside the club of people you think matter aren’t stupid.
The Muslim world in particular can obviously see that you don’t care about them or their interests. Its obvious for example the way that you cite India’s support (which surprise, surprise has its own domestic reasons for stanning Israel) and not Indonesia or Turkey’s vehement distaste for the conflict.
In any case draw whatever fancy lines you want on the map that helps you feel better broski, the unpopularity is getting to Biden. This column continues to give off post-9/11 centrist warmonger consensus vibes.
I don't share Noah's happy view that the world is growing wealthier by the day, and increased wealth/trade necessarily births greater world stability.
Broadening the lens, the diplacement of tens of millions due to climate change, the issue with aging populations, repression imposed by increasing numbers of dictatorial regimes, and wars over dwindling resources are increasing. Nomenclature doesn't do much to address these issues.
Finally, I'm confused as to "the political Left" who revere the post-war decades. I don't know who you speak with that enables you to confidently characterize a loose coalition with such glaring regularity in your recent columns. If anything, this view of the world is a Conservative one.
Re. Singapore, you want to adjust for for demographics. It’s got a abnormally low dependency ratio, i.e. working age population is abnormally high as a proportion of total population. Still rich after the adjustment, but not to the level of’ richer than Switzerland’.
It is human to categorize. Some categorization schemes are stickier (technical term for lasting longer) than others. Some are ephemeral - say TikTok memes, and some can be useful within a contemporary context for a while. Linneaus' binomial nomenclature is of the sticky ones. It is useful, descriptive, and evolves slowly. Without categorization and groupings we would be forced to deal with each object atomically, and describe all relationships between all possible objects idiosyncratically. That would blow our minds, to paraphrase "My Dinner with Andre' ." Noah is pointing out the shift of one of these contemporary categorization schemes from a set that was useful into a newer set. This is to be expected with groupings of human activities. NB: I enjoyed creating this triptych category of categories.
I wonder what trajectory South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa will take over the next few decades. There's been a lot of noise about India being the next big thing, but I feel like Africa will end up being the backdrop for the 21st century's biggest stories.
To what extent do you think sympathy for Russia within the global South is about OPEC-like solidarity between resource-exporting nations to get a higher price for their exports?
I would add a category called “failed states” where the little development that these managed to have is going in reverse. Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Lebanon, Syria and the likes.
I get the impression that the countries who are keenest on the term “Global South”, or the rhetoric related to it, are middle-income regional hegemons. For countries like China, Turkey, and Brazil, the term itself and some other Global South-flavoured language (E.g. developing country, post-colonial) are handy to make them seem less threatening to their neighbours. Even Russia is keen on the notion that the “Global South” is on its side. Singapore is not a regional hegemon, but it uses the term to fit in more, as you pointed out.
India is interesting. The government seems to use the idea selectively when it benefits it, like in climate negotiations. But it is way less eager than some others to couch its entire geopolitical strategy in that terminology.
The colloquial term basically means “poor country where you probably shouldn’t drink the tap water”. Expecting these countries to be united on anything is as foolish as thinking there’s a “POC” coalition.
Nice charts.
My experience with the “Global South” term dates from university 40 years ago where it was bandied about by wealthy white professors and activists, anti-colonialists all. I didn’t think much of it then (or now).
Much easier to claim to speak for billions of poor brown people from your comfortable offices in former imperial HQs if you can lump all the billions into one big group.
Back then I always thought the old “non-aligned” grouping was more interesting because 1) it was created by the countries themselves rather than by rich, white American and British professors and 2) was an interesting way to maximize aid and attention from both sides of the Cold War.
Even now as people talk again about the global south (which, as Noah points out, don’t have a ton of overlapping interests) it is the “non-aligned” that really matter (with India still at the heart of them).
I remember being taught in 5th grade history class (this was a long long time ago) that countries that manufacture and export advanced goods are developed nations and those that mainly export raw materials are colonies / undeveloped nations. Still seems pretty accurate.
Quasi-related I recently wondered why the phrase "Anglophone countries" seems to mean "US, UK, Canada, Ireland, and Australia and New Zealand if I remember it exists" with South Africa in a quantum state of inclusion and conspicuously leave out Nigeria, Singapore, India, Jamaica, Botswana, the Philippines, etc.
Global South: issues, including carrying capacity and geopolitics
Global North: issues, including declining birth rate and labor shortages
Partial solution: emigration, immigration, integration, adaptation, acculturation, acceleration of migration including China
Challenges: xenophobia; fear of unknown; barriers to migration, integration, adaptation, acculturation, diverse nations
Singapore: sui generis, not representative
Population: worse for planet than fossil fuels -- yesterday, today, tomorrow
Resource-based countries too easily fall into one-dimensional economies. They suffer through cyclical prices of commodities. Diversity is best for investing, as well as for stabilizing economies. If people have stability and plenty to lose, they’re generally less inclined to go to war. For example, if you brought back the military draft and raised the draft-eligibility age to 45, I think you’d see a significant shift in sentiment related to war. It’s easy to sit back and watch people who are in the age range 18-25 become cannon fodder. They likely have little material wealth to lose and likely to not have started families. Sadly, many young people join the military to escape abusive parents/households. A peace-time military is a good gig, until it isn’t. Diverse prosperity benefits the entire world.
The UN as an international organization doesn’t really have the power to tell its member governments “no.”
I wish people would remember this more often, especially when we’re confronted with spectacles like Saudi Arabia on the UN Human Rights Council.
Noah this article is incoherent.
The thesis seems to be that “the leftists that I love to bash are saying US is losing support in the Global South over Israel. Lets not focus on the unpopularity, and instead on the idea of the global south, an the idea of the Global South is a contested political term with tenuous economics behind it. Since it’s political, then it doesn’t matter, so lets stop using the term, discourse will be so much better for it! Also I totally owned them. Do not question US popularity either. ”
That logic is nonsense. The Global South is a loaded political term. So what? How does the terms origin have anything to do with the fact that the US support for Israel is unpopular globally? Support for the siege is not popular pretty much anywhere, the US can get 14 votes of support in the UN for its resolution, and even at home in many of the countries that support, support is at best contested.
Your argument is immaterial and betrays I suppose a new conceit of this column - US centrists really just don’t care about the opinions and motivations of most of the world. Couch your disregard in whatever circuitous jargon or great power politics you want, but people outside the club of people you think matter aren’t stupid.
The Muslim world in particular can obviously see that you don’t care about them or their interests. Its obvious for example the way that you cite India’s support (which surprise, surprise has its own domestic reasons for stanning Israel) and not Indonesia or Turkey’s vehement distaste for the conflict.
In any case draw whatever fancy lines you want on the map that helps you feel better broski, the unpopularity is getting to Biden. This column continues to give off post-9/11 centrist warmonger consensus vibes.
All the best.
I don't share Noah's happy view that the world is growing wealthier by the day, and increased wealth/trade necessarily births greater world stability.
Broadening the lens, the diplacement of tens of millions due to climate change, the issue with aging populations, repression imposed by increasing numbers of dictatorial regimes, and wars over dwindling resources are increasing. Nomenclature doesn't do much to address these issues.
Finally, I'm confused as to "the political Left" who revere the post-war decades. I don't know who you speak with that enables you to confidently characterize a loose coalition with such glaring regularity in your recent columns. If anything, this view of the world is a Conservative one.
I don't understand the point of this article.
Re. Singapore, you want to adjust for for demographics. It’s got a abnormally low dependency ratio, i.e. working age population is abnormally high as a proportion of total population. Still rich after the adjustment, but not to the level of’ richer than Switzerland’.
(Many saw this trap [depending on resource extraction] and tried to break out of it, but only a few like South Korea and Taiwan succeeded.)
I wasn't aware that South Korea or Taiwan had any resources to extract. Do they?
It is human to categorize. Some categorization schemes are stickier (technical term for lasting longer) than others. Some are ephemeral - say TikTok memes, and some can be useful within a contemporary context for a while. Linneaus' binomial nomenclature is of the sticky ones. It is useful, descriptive, and evolves slowly. Without categorization and groupings we would be forced to deal with each object atomically, and describe all relationships between all possible objects idiosyncratically. That would blow our minds, to paraphrase "My Dinner with Andre' ." Noah is pointing out the shift of one of these contemporary categorization schemes from a set that was useful into a newer set. This is to be expected with groupings of human activities. NB: I enjoyed creating this triptych category of categories.
I wonder what trajectory South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa will take over the next few decades. There's been a lot of noise about India being the next big thing, but I feel like Africa will end up being the backdrop for the 21st century's biggest stories.
To what extent do you think sympathy for Russia within the global South is about OPEC-like solidarity between resource-exporting nations to get a higher price for their exports?