"Developing", "underdeveloped" or "uneven development"?
The following was written in 1973, but I think it is still something that should make us think of its argument and how (ir)/relevant it is today.
"In some quarters, it has often been thought wise to substitute the term ‘developing’ for ‘underdeveloped’. One of the reasons for so doing is to avoid any unpleasantness which may be attached to the second term, which might be interpreted as meaning underdeveloped mentally, physically, morally or in any other respect. Actually, if ‘underdevelopment’ were related to anything other than comparing economies, then the most underdeveloped country in the world would be the U.S.A, which practices external oppression on a massive scale, while internally there is a blend of exploitation, brutality, and psychiatric disorder. However, on the economic level, it is best to remain with the word ‘underdeveloped’ rather than ‘developing’, because the latter creates the impression that all the countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America are escaping from a state of economic backwardness relative to the industrial nations of the world, and that they are emancipating themselves from the relationship of exploitation. That is certainly not true, and many underdeveloped countries in Africa and elsewhere are becoming more underdeveloped in comparison with the world’s great powers, because their exploitation by the metropoles is being intensified in new ways."
—Walter Rodney, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, 1973, p. 25 (quote from 1983 ed.)
If today poor countries are developing rich countries, as Jason Hickel's research findings suggest, how relevant is it then to talk about "developing" countries, and "developng" in relation or relative to what?
The following was written in 1973, but I think it is still something that should make us think of its argument and how (ir)/relevant it is today.
"In some quarters, it has often been thought wise to substitute the term ‘developing’ for ‘underdeveloped’. One of the reasons for so doing is to avoid any unpleasantness which may be attached to the second term, which might be interpreted as meaning underdeveloped mentally, physically, morally or in any other respect. Actually, if ‘underdevelopment’ were related to anything other than comparing economies, then the most underdeveloped country in the world would be the U.S.A, which practices external oppression on a massive scale, while internally there is a blend of exploitation, brutality, and psychiatric disorder. However, on the economic level, it is best to remain with the word ‘underdeveloped’ rather than ‘developing’, because the latter creates the impression that all the countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America are escaping from a state of economic backwardness relative to the industrial nations of the world, and that they are emancipating themselves from the relationship of exploitation. That is certainly not true, and many underdeveloped countries in Africa and elsewhere are becoming more underdeveloped in comparison with the world’s great powers, because their exploitation by the metropoles is being intensified in new ways."
—Walter Rodney, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, 1973, p. 25 (quote from 1983 ed.)
If today poor countries are developing rich countries, as Jason Hickel's research findings suggest, how relevant is it then to talk about "developing" countries, and "developng" in relation or relative to what?
Comments