Is there such a thing as a "second world" country?
I hear countries described as “third world”. I’m assuming it has something to do with industrialization, infant mortality rate, education, infrastructure etc. What constitutes a “second world country” or, for that matter, a “first world” country? Where did the term originate, and is it even polite to use the terms?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
7 Answers
Regarding the issue of politeness.. In my econ classes we were usually told to use the term “Less Developed Countries.”
@politeness, if you wish to be politically correct use Less Developed Countries. I’ve always had a problem with politically correctness though. It’s just a way for people to say things in this country without offending anyone. I say- if some people aren’t offended, nothing will get done.
I hadn’t heard “Less Developed Countries” but I hear a lot of people use “Developing Countries.” Those are pretty funny, they make it sound like the country is going through puberty or something.
I’m sure it’s only a matter of time until we’re not supposed to use “Developing/Less Developed” anymore and some new term is de rigueur.
as the website linked to says, i have always heard Second World refer to post-communist countries (actually, not just Eastern Europe and Asia but others as well)
Yeah, but I think the language is a bit older. I think second-world was communist bloc countries, and third-world originally referred to the various less-industrialized (not always the same as less-“developed”) countries that were Cold War battle fields for the so-called First and Second Worlds. It’s US-centric language for sure.
I think talking about industrialization, as opposed to development, is more appropriate. Developed, developing and less-developed all imply an ethnocentric and paternalistic judgement.
Response moderated
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
