Definitions
Can the way we in 'the West' describe poor countries have an effect on the way we treat the issue of poverty? Find out the real definitions and problems with naming poverty here:
Poverty
There are two forms of poverty: economic and social/spiritual. The poverty people usually talk about is economic but this overlooks that many economically rich countries can have a much higher percentage of social poverty than economically poor countries. Social poverty refers to people who are lonely, depressed, addicted, suicidal etc.
The Copenhagen Declaration describes absolute poverty as "a condition characterised by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information."
The World Bank identifies people who live on less than less than US$2 a day being in "poverty". Those who live on less than US$1 a day are defined as being in "extreme poverty". By this widely held interpretation, 21% of the world's population was in extreme poverty, and 32% were poor in 2005.
Third World
The Third World is an old Cold War term that describes whole countries suffering from poverty. It really alienates and distances this massive global problem that affects us all. We all live on the same planet Earth! There is no third world!
Check out the world’s countries listed in order of GDP per capita (wealth per person). These countries are also known as the ‘global south’, ‘the south’, ‘developing countries’, ‘least developed countries’ and the ‘majority or Two Thirds World’.
To avoid stigma they are usually called developing countries, but this too is considered derogatory by some. A lot of poor countries are not developing at all! And should their economic success be the only way we refer to these countries?
Besides money in your pocket - what other measures of success are there?
What do you think?
Stir your thoughts into The Blender
