The 3rd World

It's geopolitical and historic scope
The term Third World arose during the Cold War to define countries that remained non-aligned with either NATO, or the Communist Bloc. The United States, Western European nations and their allies represented the First World, while the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and their allies represented the Second World. This terminology provided a way of broadly categorizing the nations of the Earth into three groups based on social, political, cultural and economic divisions.

The Third World was normally seen to include many countries with colonial pasts in Africa, Latin America, Oceania and Asia. It was also sometimes taken as synonymous with countries in the Non-Aligned Movement. In the dependency theory of thinkers like Raúl Prebisch, Walter Rodney, Theotonio dos Santos, and Andre Gunder Frank, the Third World has also been connected to the world economic division as "periphery" countries in the world system that is dominated by the "core" countries.

Due to the complex history of evolving meanings and contexts, there is no clear or agreed-upon definition of the Third World. Some countries in the Communist Bloc, such as Cuba, were often regarded as "Third World". Because many Third World countries were extremely poor, and non-industrialized, it became a stereotype to refer to poor countries as "third world countries", yet the "Third World" term is also often taken to include newly industrialized countries like Brazil, India and China (see also: BRIC). Historically, some European countries were part of the non-aligned movement and a few were and are very prosperous, including Ireland, Austria, Sweden, Finland, and Switzerland.

Over the past few decades since the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the term Third World has been used interchangeably with the least developed countries, the Global South, and developing countries to describe poorer countries that have struggled to attain steady economic development, a term that often includes "Second World" countries like Laos. This usage, however, has become less preferred in recent years.

Etymology
French demographer, anthropologist and historian Alfred Sauvy, in an article published in the French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur, August 14, 1952, coined the term Third World, referring to countries that were unaligned with either the Communist Soviet bloc or the Capitalist NATO bloc during the Cold War. His usage was a reference to the Estates-General of 1789's Third Estate, the commoners of France who, before and during the French Revolution, opposed the clergy and nobles, who composed the First Estate and Second Estate, respectively. Sauvy wrote, "This third world ignored, exploited, despised like the third estate also wants to be something." (A Literal translation from French) He conveyed the concept of political Non-Aligned Movement with either the capitalist or communist bloc.

A "Great Divergence" and "Great Convergence" theory
Many times there is a clear distinction between First and Third Worlds. When talking about the Global North and the Global South, the majority of the time the two go hand in hand. People refer to the two as "Third World/South" and "First World/North" because the Global North is more affluent and developed, whereas the Global South is less developed and often poorer. To counter this mode of thought, some scholars began proposing the idea of a change in world dynamics that began in the late 1980s, and termed it the Great Convergence. As Jack A. Goldstone and his colleagues put it, "in the twentieth century, the Great Divergence peaked before the First World War and continued until the early 1970s, then, after two decades of indeterminate fluctuations, in the late 1980s it was replaced by the Great Convergence as the majority of Third World countries reached economic growth rates significantly higher than those in most First World countries".

Others have observed a return to Cold War-era alignments, this time with substantial changes between 1990–2015 in geography, the world economy and relationship dynamics between current and emerging world powers; not necessarily redefining the classic meaning of First, Second, and Third World terms, but rather which countries belong to them by way of association to which world power or coalition of countries — such as G7, the European Union, OECD; G20, OPEC, BRICS, ECOWAS, ASEAN; the African Union, and the Eurasian Union.

Western bloc
The USA, UK, France, W. Germany, Japan and their allies.

Eastern bloc
The USSR and it's allies.

Chinese\Sino-bloc
The PRC and it's allies.

Non-Aligned states
All nations in there own blocks like the Arab League or not aligned to any side like The Vatican.

Note that on occasion the Arab League and it's allies were listed as the "Arab Bloc" or "Middle Eastern Bloc" rather than as part of the non-aligned states.

The great 5 [Western] economy
They were marked by high standards of living, heavy material gain, high social fulfillment, high social mobility and a generous welfare system.

The nations were:
 * 1) Sweden
 * 2) Switzerland
 * 3) Japan
 * 4) Finland
 * 5) Singapore

Note that Hong Kong was some times added if colonies were included in the list and the UAE was also occasionally added to the list.

Least developed countries
These were agrarian rural nowheres like Tarawa Atoll and Bhutan, war-torn death-holes like Afghanistan and famine struct death-holes like Ethiopia (which also included Eritrea back then).

Failed states
A failed state is a political body that has disintegrated to a point where basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government no longer function properly. Likewise, when a nation weakens and its standard of living declines, it introduces the possibility of governmental collapse.

 The Fund for Peace characterizes a failed state as having the following characteristics: 
 * 1) Loss of control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein.
 * 2) Erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions.
 * 3) Inability to provide public services.
 * 4) Inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community.

Common characteristics of a failing state include a central government so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory and there is a non-provision of public services. When this happens widespread corruption and criminality, the intervention of non-state actors, the appearance of refugees and the involuntary movement of populations, and sharp economic decline can occur.

The level of government control required to avoid being considered a failed state varies considerably amongst authorities. Furthermore, the declaration that a state has "failed" is generally controversial and, when made authoritatively, may carry significant geopolitical consequences.

A relevant contribution to the field of failed states and its attributes was made by J. Goldstone in his paper "Pathways to State Failure". What differs him from other definitions is the fact that to him, a state is failed if it lost both its effectiveness and legitimacy. Effectiveness means the capability to carry out state functions such as providing security or levying taxes. Legitimacy means the support of important groups of the population, it is dissociated from democracy as a government/leader can be legitimate in the eyes of his people without being elected. Goldstone coupled pathways to state failure to his conception of a lack of both effectiveness and legitimacy. A state that retains one of the two aspects is not failed as such; however it is in great danger of failing soon if nothing is being done.

Five possible pathways to state failure are:
 * 1) Escalation of communal group (ethnic or religious) conflicts. Examples: Rwanda, Liberia, Yugoslavia, Lebanon.
 * 2) State predation (corrupt or crony corralling of resources at the expense of other groups). Examples: Nicaragua, Philippines, Iran.
 * 3) Regional or guerrilla rebellion. Examples: Colombia, Vietnam.
 * 4) Democratic collapse (leading to civil war or coup d’etat). Examples: Nigeria, Madagascar, Nepal.
 * 5) Succession or reform crisis in authoritarian states. Examples: Indonesia under Suharto, Iran under the Shah, the Soviet Union under Gorbachev.

Although Goldstone identifies pathways to state failure he is quick to warn about simplifying the issue. Often (re)-building either legitimacy or effectiveness implies a trade off with the other aspect of the state. Since these states are missing one of the two pillars to stability, it is dangerous to initiate such a trade off as it takes time to rebuild trust from the population. Although state failure has been studied for decades by numerous scholars, it remains a contested concept vulnerable to political, ideological and economical agendas.

The Fragile States Index published its eleventh annual report in 2015, prepared by the Fund for Peace and published by Foreign Policy Magazine. The Index categorizes states in four categories, with variations in each category. The Alert category is in dark red, Warning in orange, Stable in yellow and Sustainable in green.

The FSI total score is out of 120, and in 2015 there were 178 states making the ranking. Initially, the FSI only ranked 75 countries in 2005. The FSI uses two criteria by which a country qualifies to be included in the list: first of all, the country must be a United Nations member state, and secondly, there must be a significant sample size of content and data available for that country to allow for meaningful analysis. There are three groupings: social, economic and political with overall twelve indicators.

Social Indicators:
 * 1) Demographic Pressures
 * 2) Refugees or Internally Displaced Persons
 * 3) Group Grievance
 * 4) Human Flight and Brain Drain

Economic Indicators:
 * 1) Uneven Economic Development
 * 2) Poverty and Economic Decline

Political and Military Indicators:
 * 1) State Legitimacy
 * 2) Public Services.
 * 3) Human Rights and Rule of Law.
 * 4) Security Apparatus.
 * 5) Factionalized Elites.
 * 6) External Intervention.

The indicators each count for 10, adding up to a total of 120. However, in order to add up to 120, the indicator scores are rounded up-or-down to the nearest one decimal place. In the 2015 Index, South Sudan ranked number one, Somalia number two, and the Central African Republic number three. Finland is currently the most stable and sustainable country in the list.

Other factors in the mid to late 1980s
The foods supply, border integrity, currency integrity, urban phones, joblessness, civil war and loss of state power, plagues, and GWEN factors were raised at times as possible indicators to. These are also measly spotted by citizens of the world's nations despite of the governments' lyres and denials.

Foods supply
This is failed if there is a general lack of food other than UN aid, it is to expensive to by, horded on mass by suppliers and\or the nation is in mass starvation.


 * 1985= Ethiopia, Sudan, Bangladesh, Romania and India.
 * 2015= Somalia, Zimbabwe, S. Sudan, Greece and Yemen.

Border integrity
This is failed when hordes of refugees, smugglers, enemy agents and\or hostile troops pour in and\or out freely.


 * 1985= GDR, Vietnam, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Cuba.
 * 2015= Greece, Turkey, Lebanon, Eritrea and Syria.

Urban phones
This is failed by most city dwellers not having a house phone or a near by phone booth.


 * 1985= Bhutan, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, CAR and Chad.
 * 2015=  Bhutan, Zimbabwe, Somalia, CAR and Chad.

Joblessness
This is failed by an unemployment rate of over 25% (it includes illicit shadow economy, but excludes subsistence farming for self preservation).


 * 1985= N. Korea, Poland, India, Chad and Romania.
 * 2015= UK, USA, Greece, Syria and Zimbabwe.

Civil war and loss of state power
This is failed by a legitimate de-facto government fatally loosing power to organized crime, powerful business cabals, rival governments in exile and\or rebel held places, places declaring UDI from it and\or a civil war.


 * 1985= Afghanistan, USSR, Colombia, Ethiopia and El Slvador.
 * 2015= Afghanistan, Ethiopia, USA, S. Sudan and Mexico.

Plagues
This is failed by a massive and long term outbreak in a country like AIDS has done in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa.


 * 1985= Malaria hotspots.
 * 2015= Zika, AIDS and Malaria hotspots.

Currency integrity
This is failed by hyper inflation, mass forgery and\or an exchange rate of over 500 to 1 US $.


 * 1985= Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Italy and Venezuela.
 * 2015= UK, India, Venezuela, Sweden and USA.

GWEN (gas, water, electricity [is] nowhere)
This is failed by the inability of most citizens to gas, water and\or electricity supplies.


 * 1985= Bhutan, Zimbabwe, Ehiopia, CAR and Chad.
 * 2015= Bhutan, Zimbabwe, Somalia, CAR and Chad.

Also see

 * Help desk
 * OTL Decolonisation notes
 * Today's OTL types of economies, societies and regimes