If we have a concept of a Third World Country at all; what are First and Second
World Countries ?At the end of the Second World War; the definitions as such, although pretty
ambiguous as a whole, provided a reasonable framework within which to work ...
A First World Country was one that was industrialised and had generally accepted
the concept of capitalism and world trade, a Second World Country was one that
was equally industrialised but had rejected capitalism, notably in favour of
communism or marxism, and were more self focused while the Third World Countries
were simply those that didn't fit either of these two models.
The key feature of a Third World Country was, even then, its lack of
industrialisation, a very low GNP, a high population and a high level of
poverty within those countries.
As the world has moved on; these definitions have become somewhat meaningless
but the concept of a Third World, aligned with third rate status, has
remained.
The world now generally consists of Third World Countries, which
still, generally, fit the original criteria, and Non-Third World Countries which
do not suffer the problems, which those termed Third World have;
poor industrialisation, a lack of economic stability, a low GNP, over
population, high poverty and a lack of infrastructure; roads, healthcare and
education.
In most people's books countries such as Africa and Latin America are seen as
part of the Third World whilst, advanced, western states, such as America, the
UK, along with the rest of Europe, are seen as Non-Third World.
When looking at countries such as Africa and those within Latin America; it is
often quite easy to say that some are Third World Countries.
These countries rarely have a stabilised ( other than enforced ) government,
there are tremendous battles for power and land from various factions, these
countries, from a Western view, don't have a stable economy, with a comprehensive
import and export market, and the obvious things that Non-Third World Countries
take for granted, democracy and infrastructure, don't exist and the people live
in a hand-to-mouth existence with little hope of improving their lot.
Healthcare and education are not provided per se and only exist because of
outside intervention through charitable and other concerns.
A good measure that the man in the street would apply is; does the
country provide for its people ? If not; it's a Third World Country.
And that is the crux of the issue.
How to determine if a country provides for all, or at least the vast majority,
of its citizens is a difficult thing to measure; normally this is based upon
the proportions above and below the poverty line although the poverty line is
something else which is pretty difficult to set in stone as an absolute.
Obviously those who don't have enough money to buy the food that is needed to
sustain their families are below the poverty line but this will only identify
those who are really at the bottom level of society.
A better measure is the proportion of citizens who have those things that the
average person takes for granted which cannot be considered luxuries; although,
once again we hit an ambiguous definition.
Most western societies consider access to and use of water and electricity,
and gas perhaps, to be fundamental necessities for reasonable existence.
But there are many other things which the average westerner considers to be a
right rather than a privilege; a job, education, healthcare, beds, carpets,
television, telephones, cookers, refrigerators, washing machines, personal
transport and even, these days, a personal computer and internet access.
As to how many of these items are luxuries depends on your personal, and in
particular, political, viewpoint.
To objectively decide if they are or not, the best criteria are; would the
average person be able to survive without such an item ? And, even if
they could, are they suffering some loss from not having it which puts the
majority at an advantage over them ?
All the items I listed earlier I believe are essentials and not luxuries; the
lack of one or two items ( except the obvious essentials like food, a home,
education and healthcare ) doesn't necessarily put a person at a severe
disadvantage compared with the rest of society but it puts them further away
from those who have everything. The less a person has; the lower their
position in the society's hierarchy.
Somewhere in the gap between the have's and have not's is where
the poverty line should be drawn.
Some items I have listed are contentious but I believe that they can be
justified as essentials for the western societies we live in.
Personal transport ( usually a car ) may seem to be a luxury, especially as it
is so expensive to own and run, but with employment models changing, where it
is necessary to travel a reasonably long distance to perform work, an
expensive, or unreliable, public transport system makes car ownership the only
viable means to keep a job.
Even where a good public transport infrastructure exists, those who use it may
spend many hours of their lives travelling which is time they lose which others,
with cars, don't.
The same time can be lost by those who have to go to launderettes because they
don't own a washing machine.
If time is a valuable commodity, which those who have it and then lose it will
confirm it is; then those who have to waste time because something is
lacking are at a disadvantage.
Television has, over the years, become recognised as an essential. Despite those
who do manage to live without it claiming it to be an irrelevance, for the vast
majority it is the main source of entertainment, information and education in
the home.
Whether you love or loathe Soap Operas or Quiz Shows; there are an enormous
number of people who take great enjoyment from such entertainment and it makes
their lives better and more pleasurable.
Discussions on particular television programs bring people together much like
the theatre and cinema did in earlier times; those who don't have access to
the idiot box in the corner of the room are obviously disadvantaged, at
least to some degree.
Computers and internet access can be considered in much the same way as
television; the use of a computer is empowering and offers media access unlike
anything else.
The Internet has given me the power to write and produce what I want, and
perhaps change the world in a small way, and I have been able to discover a
lot about the world and other people's views which would be almost impossible
to have found in any other way.
Likewise, many have been able to read what I and others have written and,
through this communication, the world is slowly being changed.
Simple things are hard to define as essential or luxuries; no one perhaps needs
a telephone when there may be one on the street corner. But should an emergency
service need calling, because of a major illness or fire, the advantage of
having instant access is plain and obvious to see; not having a telephone may
appear to be non-disadvantageous, but if its lack means the loss of life, is
it really a luxury ?
So, accepting that the poverty line is something that is relative to the average
within a society, is the UK a Third World Country ?
If the majority of UK citizens are below this poverty line; then yes.
The most obvious indicator that the UK may have gained Third World status is
the continual discussion, within the UK, of the North-South divide.
As the UK has changed, politically and economically, traditional heavy
engineering industries have closed along with a reduction in mining and
manufacturing production.
Whilst the South East of England, where the service industries have
generally escaped the effects of recent recession, is relatively prosperous,
the rest of the UK is suffering high unemployment and the consequential
effects.
With a massive lack of cheap rented accommodation throughout the UK, many,
even in the South East, are having to use a large percentage of their income
to pay inflated rents or high mortgages on, a diminishing resource of,
owner occupied houses.
While many, having bought houses many years ago, have benefited from
years of inflation and are now living, effectively, rent-free or having sold
their houses are sitting on huge nest-eggs of cash, the majority are
struggling to pay their mortgages and enjoy some level of comfortable
existence.
Successive governments have reduced expenditure on healthcare, education and
income support ( for those unemployed or on low wages ) and at the same time
have increased taxation on luxury items, such as beer, cigarettes and
petrol.
Privatisation of the utility companies ( Gas, Electricity and Water ) along
with British Rail and other public transport bodies has meant an increase in
cost to most people.
The National Health Service is in crisis, hospitals and
wards have been closed due to pressures of cost whilst more pressure is being
put on doctors and nurses to work longer hours for little money.
The education system is in turmoil with schools crumbling and decaying and
education standards falling. The cost of sending a student through a Higher
Education course costs that student, or their family, a lot more than it did
two decades ago.
Even those in the police and fire brigade are complaining that funding
cut-backs, or perhaps more fairly, a failure to keep funding in pace with
costs, is affecting the service that they can deliver.
So, while those in the higher echelons of business are seeing high pay
rises, the average worker is finding it harder and harder to make ends meet
whilst the cost of living continues to rise and the level of services they pay
for keep on falling.
And as most people in the UK find it harder to make ends meet they are forgoing
those things which others would call essentials and the general state of poor
individual finance can be clearly seen on our streets today ...
Very few people can afford to run a new, or at least modern car, unless it is
provided by the company worked for, so the roads are populated with old,
worn-out, inefficient vehicles which are slowly destroying the environment.
Buses are becoming inefficient, unreliable, expensive and services less
frequent as the companies attempt to maximise their profits using vehicles
of which some are as dangerous and as polluting as the worse cars.
The rail services aren't much better.
Hospital emergency wards are filled to overflowing with a lack of intensive care
beds, a lack of staff and images of ill, old and frail people being left on
trolleys in corridors for hours at a time is becoming an all too familiar sight.
Nurses are being flown in from foreign lands to make up the shortfall and
refrigerated lorries are being used as mortuaries outside hospital gates.
The police are almost powerless to prevent or pursue crime as they are stretched
to their limits whilst the crime rate grows daily. In order to maximise their
resources; they concentrate on speeding offences and other revenue earning
schemes rather than on those the people would prefer.
And, as people keep hold of their money to spend on essentials, or to save to
protect their futures; less is being spent in The High Street forcing more
businesses to close down and further compound the problems that already exist.
Individuals and families are suffering as they try to balance their books. Very
few have any feelings of job security and the worry of facing a lifetime of
unemployment is causing illness and stress to those both in and out of work.
Most are too frightened about how they and their families will survive in
retirement to even contemplate the matter.
Major illnesses such as Tuberculosis are starting to become more commonly
reported. Fears of nvCJD from BSE infected meat is doing nothing to help
the nations perceived level of health and the country's health level, as a
whole, would appear to be in decline.
So in both individual terms and looking at the levels of services that are
provided for the citizens, with what one would expect within the UK, and in
relation to other comparable countries, and the UK's general state of
affairs, it is not hard to see that the expectations are being poorly met.
While some in the UK are relatively prosperous, many more are struggling to
make ends meet, or are borrowing heavily to do so, and the public services
around them are collapsing in on themselves.
Although there are precious few in the UK who don't have enough money to feed
themselves, the number is growing daily as rising costs fight against static
state payments.
The majority of the rest have no alternative but to struggle along the best
they can whilst unable to perceive that they could perhaps be living in a
Third World country.
The UK may not be in such a sorry state as those who have traditionally had
that appellation attached, but, in comparison with its potential, which it
has totally failed to achieve for most people; yes, the UK is a Third World
Country.
And it makes me both angry and saddened.
March, 1999
A Treasury report issued on behalf of the British Government made for
depressing reading.Using the Treasury's own measure of poverty, that being the number of families
who are living on less than half the average wage, some 12 million people, that
is 20% of the population, are considered to be living in poverty.
And don't forget, these are genuine government figures; I am quite sure that
they didn't go out of their way to make the figures look worse than they appear.
December, 1999
A report from the New Policy Institute, commissioned for the Joseph Roundtree
Foundation, indicates that poverty in Britain increased during the first
year in office of the New Labour government.
Using their measure of poverty, the number of people receiving less than 40%
of the average wage, the number of people living in poverty had increased by
one million in the year to April 1998.
