A very poor nation with scarce resources, sometimes torn apart by war and constant coups, the government will be almost always very corrupt if not blatantly totalitarian, it is also possible that gangs and criminal groups rule the streets and access to quality medical care and commodities, as in the first world, is rare. It's almost certain that no one would speak English and those who do would do it with an accent. Probably the population will be brown-skinned (unless located in some Eastern European country), if located in Latin Land they’ll probably be living near a beach and among palm trees and coconuts with mariachi music and a fruit-based economy, or they can be from Europe, but somehow more similar to California’s friendly neighbors than other Europeans. If the country is located in Africa you can expect dangerous jungles and uncivilized tribes or at least tall thin shepherds and hungry children. But is it?
During the Cold War the world was split in three places; the first world was Eagle Land and its capitalist allies, especially (but not limited to) NATO members, the second world was the socialist one with USSR leading the way with both its "satellite states" and some more rebellious (but still commies) pairs like China and Yugoslavia, and then the third option, the neutrals, the ones that were neither comrades, nor business partners; the Third World, also known as the non-aligned countries.note
The term was ambiguous to begin with as it was more based on politics than in economy, but as most members of the Third World were poor and underdeveloped then it became synonymous of "poor country", even when places like Cuba, Laos or Vietnam were part of the second world and places like Austria, Ireland and Switzerland were (in theory) third world.
But the Cold War ended, the Iron Curtain fell and the second world disappears for all practical purposes. The usage of “third world” became obsolete in most academic circles and literature and nowadays is rarely used in official documents. Yet, in many media and in popular speech can still be used as a somewhat derogatory term for not the first world.
Of course, what constitutes a poor country may be subjective, as for example some people would refer to Latin America, North Africa and Eastern Europe as part of the third world, even when currently they are not considered as such by the international community or economic organizations.
This stereotype often leads people who have never been to these countries to believe that Developing Nations Lack Cities. As such, they are often depicted this way in fiction. This is actually incorrect, as even the poorest of nations have at least one major metropolis area, usually its capital.
The terminology that the International Monetary Fund uses is:
- Developed country, or high-income country: referring to post-industrial or highly industrialized countries where the service sector provides more wealth than the industrial sector. This includes the United States, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, etc.
- Developing country, or middle-income country: referring to countries that still have an industrial-oriented economy but aren't as wealthy as post-industrial or highly industrialized countries (essentially the “middle class” of countries). This includes much of Latin America, Eastern Europe, Northern Africa, South Africa, China, India, Russia, Iran, and several Arab and Asian countries. These countries are often called "emerging markets".
- Undeveloped country, or low-income country: referring to the least developed countries whose economies are still mostly agrarian economies. This includes most of sub-Saharan Africa, most of Indochina, Haiti, Yemen, etc., i.e. the countries that Westerners often refer to when saying "Third World".
Keep in mind that this classification was made by the IMF and is questioned by some people, so if you do not agree, talk to them.
Another classification is the Human Development Index from the United Nations that as of 2014 was:
- Very high development: United States, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, and Chile.
- High development: Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama, most of South America, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, Eastern Europe, Russia, China, and Iran.
- Medium development: India, Mongolia, Indonesia, most of the Indochina region, most of Central America (except the aforementioned Costa Rica and Panama), and most African countries.
- Low development: most of Subsaharian Africa, some parts of Asia and Haiti in the Americas.
A more politically correct terminology that's gained currency since the end of the Cold War is the Global South, a term coined by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) as a purely geographical distinction without the value judgment that comes with terms related to development or "Third" versus "First". The Global South refers to the countries south of the "Brandt Line", a boundary first described by former West German Chancellor Willy Brandt in The '80s that considered NATO, the Warsaw Pact, Europe's neutral states, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand to all be part of the developed, industrialized world, and while its boundaries have shifted over time (the UNCTAD refers to Israel and South Korea as part of the Global North alongside the aforementioned countries), the basic concept is still there.
Finally, it's worth mentioning that nations like China, India, Mexico, South Africa, and Brazil are officially considered “newly industrialized countries” by some scholars, yet it won’t be unusual for many people in the First World to call places like Mexico, Brazil or India “third world”, while on the other hand people in Latin America or China may refer to African countries as “the third world.”
At the end, as with people, the terminology you use to classify countries based in things like income and development is highly subjective, as for example living standards for people in Latin America or Mid East can be “poor” for someone from Scandinavia or the United States, but can be “rich” for people from Haiti and the Congo… or vice versa, after all, an African kid spending his time playing in open fields and prairies would probably be classified as “poor” while a kid spending most of his time inside an apartment building in a big city would be classified as “rich.”
