Amazon.com Widgets

Is the rise of India's economy over the UK proof that India is no longer a "third world" nation?

  • India has always had potential

    Though India has been behind other countries in terms of technology and economy, they are by no means a stupid or unambitious culture. India's rise over the UK is no real surprise, especially given the UK's recent blunders in its own economy. It is possible that India will soon surpass other countries as well.

  • 'Third World' was originally an identifier for states that were neither aligned with or against the communist-socialist states of the Soviet Union.

    At that stage (up until the last decade of the 20th century), India was third-world by definition. The term is commonly used now to identify "...Countries that suffer from high infant mortality, low economic development, high levels of poverty, low utilization of natural resources, and heavy dependence on industrialized nations."

    The development of India's economy and heavy utilization of natural resources (possibly over-consumption) addresses the second and fourth points, but the first, third and arguably fifth remain to be overcome.

    No.

  • The economy is only a piece of the puzzle.

    While the rise of India's economy, and surpassing of the UK economy, is proof that India is growing as a nation, does not necessarily mean that India should no longer be considered a third world nation. Many other factors have to be taken into consideration when it comes to a nation being third world, and in India's case, there is still much to be done in terms of poverty and development before this label can be removed.

  • India is still a third world nation

    India has a large population of extremely impoverished people. Living conditions in the slums of India are horrendous. Until India can improve the way of life of the poorest of the poor it should retain its status as a third-world nation. Although India has made technological and economic advances it still has a long way to go.

  • No, because large portions of the Indian population still lives in "third-world" conditions.

    While India's economy is growing it also has a very large population with large portions of said population living in "third world" conditions. When so much of the population is still without toilets to use and are in need of access to clean drinking water and medical services their status of a "third world" nation is still valid.

  • Third world means it didnt participate in the cold war

    The argument is more about whether india is a developed country and I would still say no, the conditions in the cities are deplorable and the per capita income is $6000 per year. There is no way that India should be considered a developed country and the quality of living is horrendous.

  • India has more people

    The GDP or size of a nation's economy is not as important as the GDP per capita, which truly captures how prosperous its people are.

    India has the 2nd largest population in the world. If you look at GDP per capita it is still a very poor country. India could have a GDP the size of the United States even a little bigger and it still would be poor.

  • Ha - ever been to India?

    Most of the country has no running water and they are just behind China in terms of population. Yes, the Taj Mahal looks great, as do the other touristy areas, but the rise of their economy only looks good on paper. The reality is that not much has changed in terms of their quality of living.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Gareth_BM says2016-12-20T21:15:58.987
Firstly I would suggest that the current IMF classifications are more useful than the old 1st, 2nd and 3rd world system which was designed to reflect cold war issues and geo politics rather than an good way to judge development in the modern world
. As you information suggests I would not use GDP as my sole indication to judge development so no I would not consider India and AC (advanced country) which is a rough modern equivalent to a 1st world country. However neither is it a LIDC(low-income developing country) which is what people generally mean when they say 3rd world. It generally classified as an EDC (emerging and developing country). It is considered and EDC for a number of reasons. Firstly its GDP maybe high but its also the second most populous nation on earth so that's to be expected, that's why when talking about development you rarely hear someone talk about GDP rather GDP per capita which is far lower than the UK which only has a population of about 60 million compared to India's which is well over a billion. Other factors which show India is not an AC nor truly an LIDC is the fields people are employed in. The country has a high number of people in secondary and primary sectors with a high number in rural areas still living off barely more that subsistence farming, in an AC you'd expect most people to work in the Tertiary sector while almost everyone would be in the primary sector in an LIDC. There is also life expectancy, in India men are expected to live 67 years and women 70 years while in the UK men live 79 years and women 83. Other factors include infrastructure, India's transport system is fairly large but even so it is generally pushed far past capacity which is typical of an EDC while its water and sewage systems only effectively cover urban areas and even then there are some slum areas which remain only meagrely covered. Legally the India increasingly is showing aspects a less developed nation which strict religious laws and an inability to deal with crime in many urban areas.