The term "Third World" is making headlines.
Last week, President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social that immigrants from poor nations are a burden on the United States.
"I will permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries to allow the U.S. system to fully recover," he stated.
"Third World" is often the first term that pops into Westerners' minds when they try to characterize less well-off, troubled countries. Everyone knows what they mean — countries that are low in resources, where many people live in poverty, where health care and education systems are weak, where democracy may not be exactly flourishing.
Where did this term come from? How is it regarded in the 21st century? And are there any better alternatives?
Birth of the Third World designation
The idea of a world divided into three domains dates back to the 1950s when the Cold War was just starting. It was Western capitalism versus Soviet socialism. But there was another group of countries. Many were former colonies. None of them were squarely in either the Western or the Soviet camp. Thinking of these three factions, French demographer Alfred Sauvy came up with the classification "Third World" in his article "Three Worlds, One Planet," published in the French newspaper L'Observateur in 1952.
The "First World" consisted of the U.S., Western Europe and their allies. The "Second World" was the so-called communist bloc: the Soviet Union, China, Cuba and friends. The remaining nations, which aligned with neither group, were assigned to the "Third World."
The "Third World" has always had blurred lines. "Although the phrase was widely used, it was never clear whether it was a clear category of analysis, or simply a convenient and rather vague label for an imprecise collection of states in the second half of the 20th century and some of the common problems that they faced," historian B.R. Tomlinson wrote in the essay "What Was the Third World," published in 2003 in the Journal of Contemporary History.
"Third World" soon became synonymous with "impoverished."
But in the 21st century, many scholars (and citizens from the so-called Third World) would like to see the term dumped in the dustbin of history. They believe that this 1-2-3 classification is out of date, insulting and confusing. Who is to say which part of the world is "first"? Plus, the Soviet Union doesn't even exist anymore.
"I feel like [Third World] connotes this superiority and inferiority," says Ngozi Erondu, senior scholar at the O'Neill Institute at Georgetown University. Erondu identifies as Nigerian American and says half her family lives in Nigeria. When she heard the label growing up, she says it struck her as making "this assumption about people outside of the 'First World' — that they lived really different lives, the assumption they were poor, they should be happy to eat every day. As if we don't have the same value as humans."
She concludes: "I think it's a very antiquated and offensive term."
In search of another label
So what alternatives are there?
"Developing countries" is one option – a common way of referring to countries that category need to develop better health care systems, better schools, better ways to bring water and electricity to people.
It's a convenient label to use. Everybody knows what you're talking about. It's what The Associated Press Stylebook suggests using: "Avoid use of [Third World]. Developing nations is more appropriate when referring to the economically developing nations of Africa, Asia and Latin America."
And some people in these so-called developing countries are fine with the term. "We're definitely not out of the developing category," says Dipa Sinha, an economist and researcher at the Centre for Equity Studies in New Delhi, which works on issues of social and economic inequalities in India.
So "developing world" would seem to be a good solution. But in fact lots of people are unhappy with the "developing" classification.
"I dislike the term 'developing world' because it assumes a hierarchy between countries" is what Shose Kessi, a South African social psychologist at the University of Cape Town, told me in an email exchange when I first looked into this issue a few years back. "It paints a picture of Western societies as ideal but there are many social problems in these societies as well. It also perpetuates stereotypes about people who come from the so-called 'developing world' as backward, lazy, ignorant, irresponsible."
And when you think about it, "developing countries" are quite developed in some respects. In countries where government safety nets are practically nonexistent, people step forward to help out, says Mead Over, a senior fellow emeritus at the Center for Global Development. "People donate money at a funeral to help the bereaved family, or people receive gifts from a neighbor to pay the doctor in a time of family emergency." We in the West, he says, often neglect social networks "and they wither away."
So if "developing" brings its own share of problems, perhaps geographic labeling is less fraught. The majority of poor countries are in the Southern Hemisphere, aka the "global south." Then again, impoverished Haiti is in the "global north." And many rich countries are in the south: Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Chile, to name a few.
Not to mention there can be pockets of deep poverty and inadequate health care in even the richest of nations. "That's the 'Fourth World,'" is how the late Dr. Paul Farmer put it when we spoke a few years ago. Farmer co-founded the nonprofit Partners in Health, which provides health services in a number of lower resource countries – Haiti, for example – and also works to strengthen health care in vulnerable communities in the United States and in its Navajo nation.
Maybe the solution is to come up with a classification based on data. That's how the World Health Organization categorizes countries. It uses the term "low- and lower-middle-income countries," or LMIC for short. This acronym is sometimes split in two: LICs and MICs, pronounced "licks and micks" and sounding like an old-fashioned kind of candy. The LMIC category is based on World Bank statistics that divide up countries by gross domestic product: There are low income, lower-middle income, middle income and high income.
At first glance, numbers seem to offer an objective way to divy up the world. But statistics don't tell a full story. There are extremely wealthy people in poor countries. Kenya has slums and neighborhoods where real estate prices rival any nation. It's an example of a growing trend of income inequality around the world, Over notes.
So income levels tell you something — but not everything.
Some people use the term "majority world" – a reminder to those of us in the West that we are but a very small minority on the globe. According to World Bank statistics, half of humanity lives on $2.50 or less a day. But it hasn't exactly caught on.
The truth is that sweeping labels will never be perfect.
"I believe the framing should focus more on being accurate about the situation, rather than trying to group people under a certain label," says Nabi. "For example, 'emerging economies' could be used for countries with growth potential but infrastructure gaps." Or focus on describing the conditions in the country and who or what is responsible: Like "countries facing historic underinvestment in primary health care."
Elsa D'Silva from Mumbai, India, also believes in specificity. She's founder and CEO of the Red Dot Foundation, which aims to stop sexual violence. If you're writing about a nation that doesn't have a robust health care system, she says, just say so.
I was curious how she would describe India (which is classified by the World Bank as "lower-middle income"). So I asked.
"It is a wonder that anything works (despite the politicians and our population) and yet it is ahead in so many ways," she observes. With perhaps a touch of irony, she proposes: "Incredible India."
Copyright 2025 NPR