EXCERPTED FROM

Comparative Politics
of the Global South:
Linking Concepts and Cases
FOURTH EDITION

December Green
and Laura Luehrmann

Copyright © 2017
ISBN: 978-1-62637-650-2 pb

1800 30th Street, Suite 314

Boulder, CO 80301 USA
telephone 303.444.6684
fax 303.444.0824

This excerpt was downloaded from the

Lynne Rienner Publishers website
www.rienner.com
 Contents

List of Figures ix
Preface xi

1 Comparing and Defining a Complex World 1

Part 1 Historical Legacies 29

2 Precolonial History: What Once Was, and Why It Matters 31
3 How Colonialism Changed Everything 47
4 Independence: In Name Only? 59
5 Linking Concepts and Cases 73

Part 2 Economic Realities 107

6 Sustainable Human Development: A Progress Report 109
7 Adjustments, Conditions, and Alternatives 153
8 Linking Concepts and Cases 179

Part 3 Politics and Political Change 201

9 Civil Society Takes on the State 203

10 Linking Concepts and Cases 243
11 Militaries, Militias, Guerrillas, and Terrorists 265
12 Linking Concepts and Cases 305
13 Transitions: Democracy, Dictatorship, and the Messy Middle 327
14 Authoritarian Backlash: Freedom in Decline? 363
15 Linking Concepts and Cases 381

vii
viii • Contents

Part 4 The International System 401

16 Sovereignty and the Role of International Organizations 403
17 Confronting Global Challenges 431
18 Linking Concepts and Cases 453
19 Global South Perspectives on the United States 475
20 Linking Concepts and Cases 485

Part 5 Conclusion 505

21 Looking Forward: Contested Images of Power 507

List of Acronyms 511

Glossary 515
Selected Bibliography 537
Index 547
About the Book 563
 Chapter 1

Comparing and
Defining a Complex World

No human culture is inaccessible to someone who makes the effort to under-

stand, to learn, to inhabit another world. —Henry Louis Gates, historian1

In this book we take a comparative approach to the study of Africa,

Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. How should we refer to this immense col-
lection of countries, people, and cultures composing approximately 80 percent of the
world’s population? As you’ll see, we are not the first to struggle with what’s in a
name. In fact, in this fourth edition of the book, we have changed the title from Com-
parative Politics of the “Third World” to Comparative Politics of the Global South.
Some may argue this change was long overdue. This shift in terminology reflects not
only our ongoing discomfort with the “three worlds” terminology, but also a height-
ened recognition—by scholars, practitioners, citizens, and activists alike—that, de-
spite its drawbacks, the concept of the “global south” is the least offensive and most
value-neutral label (despite some obvious geographic inaccuracies).2 To understand
a bit of the controversy, let’s begin with a short review of some of the terminology and
disputes surrounding characterizations of the majority of the world’s population.
There are numerous labels we may employ. One of the most common (and in-
deed the most provocative) is “third world.” Why? The term “third world” (tiers
monde) was coined by French demographer Alfred Sauvy. In a 1952 article, Sauvy
borrowed from eighteenth-century writer Emmanuel Joseph Sieyes to compare rel-
atively poor countries of the world to the “third estate” (the people) at the time of the
French Revolution. Sieyes characterized the third estate as ignored, exploited, and
scorned. Sauvy characterized the third world similarly, but pointed out that it, like
the third estate, has the power to overcome its status.3
So what’s so off-putting, then, about the term “third world”? First and foremost,
it is objectionable for both logical and emotional reasons. WORLD BANK* director

*Terms appearing in small capital letters are defined in the Glossary, which begins on p. 515.

1
2 • Comparative Politics of the Global South

Robert Zoellick has declared that there is no longer a third world.4 Not only do crit-
ics of the term disdain the concept as unwieldy and obsolete, but they also fault it as
distorting reality in attempting to geopolitically and economically classify a diverse
group of countries.
And let’s face it, “third world” can be fighting words. The phrase carries a lot
of negative baggage. Many people cringe at hearing the term and avoid using it be-
cause, at the very least, it sounds condescending and quaintly racist. It is not unusual
for “third world” to be flung as an insult. For some, the term suggests backwardness.
Third world countries are often thought to play a peripheral role in the world, hav-
ing no voice and little weight or relevance. That is certainly not the case, as this book
will demonstrate.
The geopolitical use of the term “third world” dates back to the COLD WAR, the
period of US-Soviet rivalry from approximately 1947 to 1989, reflecting the ideo-
logical conflict that dominated international relations. For decades following World
War II, the rich, economically advanced, industrialized countries, also known as
the “first world,” were pitted against the Soviet-led, communist “second world.” In
this rivalry, each side described what it was doing as self-defense, and both the first
and second worlds claimed to be fighting to “save” the planet from the treachery of
the other. Much of this battle was over who would control the nonaligned “third
world,” which served as the theater for many Cold War conflicts and whose coun-
tries were treated as pawns in this chess game. Defined simply as the remainder of
the planet—being neither first nor second—the concept of the third world has al-
ways been unwieldy, often bringing to mind countries that are poor, agricultural, and
overpopulated.
Yet consider the stunning diversity that exists among the countries of every re-
gion of the world: surely they cannot all be lumped into a single category and charac-
terized as such today. For example, how do we categorize China? It is clearly led by a
communist regime (and therefore may be considered second world), but during the
Cold War it viewed itself as the leader of the third world. What about Israel or South
Africa? Because of the dramatic disparities within these countries, they can be cate-
gorized as third world or first, depending on where we look. The same can even be said
for the United States. Visit parts of its cities, the rural south, or Appalachia, and you
will find the so-called third world. And now, with the Cold War long over, why aren’t
the former republics of the Soviet Union included in most studies of the third world?
Certainly the poorest of them are more third world than first.
The fact is, many countries fall between the cracks when we use the three-worlds
typology. Some of the countries labeled third world are oil-rich, while others have
been industrializing for so long that even the term “NEWLY INDUSTRIALIZING COUN-
TRIES” (NICs) is dated (it is still used, but has largely been replaced by “emerging
economies”). Therefore, in appreciation of the diversity contained within the third
world, perhaps it is useful to subdivide it, to allow for specificity by adding more cat-
egories. Under this schema, the emerging countries and a few others that are most
appropriately termed “developing countries” are labeled “third world” (e.g., China,
India, South Korea, Brazil, Mexico). “Fourth world” countries become those that
are not industrializing, but have some resources to sell on the world market (e.g.,
Ghana, Bolivia, Egypt), or some strategic value that wins them a bit of foreign as-
sistance. The label “less developed country” (LDC) is the best fit in most of these
 Comparing and Defining a Complex World • 3

cases, since it simply describes their situation and implies little in terms of their
prospects for DEVELOPMENT. And finally, we have the “fifth world,” which Henry
Kissinger once callously characterized as “the basket cases of the world.” These are
the world’s poorest countries. Sometimes known as “least–less developed countries”
(LLDCs), they are very clearly under-developing. With little to sell on the world
market, they are eclipsed by it. The poorest in the world, with the worst ratings for
virtually every marker of human development, these countries are marginalized and
utterly dependent on what little foreign assistance they receive.
Today it is more common to hear the STATES of these regions variously referred
to as “developing countries,” “less developed countries,” or “under-developed coun-
tries.” Currently in vogue are also the stripped-down, minimalist terms “low-income
countries” (LICs), “high-income countries” (HICs), and even “low- and lower-middle-
income countries” (LMICs). These are just a few of the labels used to refer to a
huge expanse of territories and peoples, and none are entirely satisfactory. First,
our subject—comprising four major world regions—is so vast and so heterogeneous
that it is difficult to speak of it as a single entity. Second, each name has its own po-
litical implications and each insinuates a political message. For example, although
some countries contained within these regions are better off than others, only an op-
timist would label all of them as “developing countries.” Some of the countries we’ll
be looking at are simply not developing. They are under-developing—losing ground,
becoming worse off.5
Those who prefer the term “developing countries” tend to support the idea that
the capitalist path of free markets will eventually lead to peace and prosperity for
all. Capitalism is associated with rising prosperity in some countries such as South
Korea and Mexico, but even in these countries the majority of people have yet to
share in many of its benefits. However, the relative term “less developed countries”
prompts the question: Less developed than whom—or what? The answer, in-
evitably, is what we arbitrarily label “developed countries”: the rich, industrialized
states of Western Europe, Canada, and the United States, also known as “the West”
(a term that, interestingly enough, includes Japan but excludes most of the countries
of the Western Hemisphere).
Although the people who talk about such things often throw about the terms
“developed” or “less developed” as a shorthand measure of economic advance-
ment, often such names are resented because they imply that “less developed”
countries are somehow lacking in other, broader measures of political, social, or
cultural development. Use of the term “developing,” or any of these terms for that
matter, suggests that countries can be ranked along a continuum. Such terms can
be used to imply that the West is best, that the rest of the world is comparatively
“backward,” and that the most the citizens of the rest of the world can hope for is
to “develop” using the West as a model.
In the 2015 annual letter of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the famed
investors turned philanthropists contended that such terminology has outlived its
utility—why, for example, should Mozambique and Mexico be grouped together?6
Critics contend that the terminology is intellectually lazy, outdated, and judgmen-
tal. The World Bank got rid of the “developing countries” terminology in 2016, in
part to highlight measures of economic success, and in part to point out the impor-
tance of differences that exist within countries.7 Ranking countries more precisely
4 • Comparative Politics of the Global South

on income data and other measures, the World Bank grouped Mexico, China, and
Brazil each as “upper-middle-income countries,” placing India, Pakistan,
Bangladesh, and others in the category of “lower-middle-income,” while Malawi re-
mains “low-income” (prior to this change, all of these countries were framed as
“developing”).8 The World Bank, as it phases out use of “developing” or “devel-
oped” world from within its databases, focuses less on general characterization and
more on the priority of promoting sustainable development, our focus in Chapter 6.
Geography is the point of reference for some, including those who argue that the
West developed only at the expense of the rest of the world. For these analysts,
under-development is no natural event or coincidence. Rather, it is the outcome of
hundreds of years of active under-development by today’s developed countries.
Some have captured this dynamic as the all-inclusive “non-Western world.” As oth-
ers have demonstrated, it is probably more honest to speak of “the West and the rest”
if we are to use this kind of term, since there are many non-Wests rather than a sin-
gle non-Western world.9 At least “the West and the rest” is blatantly straightforward
in its Eurocentric center of reference, dismissing 80 percent of the world’s popula-
tion and treating “the rest” as “other.” In the same manner that the term “nonwhite”
is demeaning, “non-Western” implies that something is missing. Our subject be-
comes defined only through its relationship to a more central “West.”
Resistance to such treatment, and efforts to change situations, are sometimes re-
ferred to as the North-South conflict, or the war between the haves and the have-nots
of the world. The names “North” and “South” are useful because they are seemingly
stripped of the value judgments contained within most of the terms already described.
However, they are as imprecise as the term “West,” since “North” refers to developed
countries, which mostly fall north of the equator, and “South” is another name for
less developed countries, which mostly fall south of the equator. Similar to any di-
chotomy, this terminology invites illusions of superiority and “otherness,” homog-
enizing differences and elevating one’s own culture or lifestyle.
So, why has the phraseology of “global south” seemingly come into vogue? Some
argue that it has long been the preferred term for what used to be called the third
world, even if it must be “used elastically.”10 Used with increasing frequency within
the United Nations in the 1970s, “global south” has, in many circles, replaced a three-
worlds construct that became increasingly irrelevant after the collapse of the Soviet
Union.11 Even if today the metaphor is used to highlight both the empowerment and
shared circumstances of many around the world, its origins, traced to the Brandt Com-
mission reports of the early 1980s, are now viewed as patronizing in their call for the
financial support of the “North” for modernization efforts undertaken within the
“South.”12 Similar to each of the constructs just discussed, its lines are fuzzy, and we
must recognize it for the created construct that it is. To the extent that it helps us grasp
some of the common challenges and innovations of people and governments, and
how some of these issues are viewed differently than from the vantage point of the
developed north, the term “global south” may be useful, albeit imperfect.
Clearly none of the names we use to describe the countries of Africa, Asia, Latin
America, and the Middle East are satisfactory, and any generalization is going to be
limited. Even the terms “Latin America” and “Middle East” are problematic. Not
all of Latin America is “Latin” in the sense of being Spanish- or Portuguese-speak-
ing. Yet we will use this term as shorthand for the entire region south of the US bor-
 Comparing and Defining a Complex World • 5

der, including the Caribbean. And the idea of a region being “Middle East” only
makes sense if one’s perspective is distinctly European—otherwise, what is it “mid-
dle” to? The point is that most of our labels reflect some bias, and none of them are
fully satisfactory. These names are all ideologically loaded in one way or another. Be-
cause there is no simple, clearly most appropriate identifier available, we will use
each and all of them as markers of the varying worldviews presented in this text.
Ultimately, we leave it to the reader to sift through the material presented here, con-
sider the debates, and decide which arguments—and therefore which terminolo-
gies—are most representative of the world and therefore most useful.

What’s to Compare?
In this introduction to the COMPARATIVE STUDIES of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and
the Middle East, we take a different spin on the traditional approach in order to dis-
cuss much more than politics as it is often narrowly defined. As one of the social sci-
ences, political science has traditionally focused on the study of formal political
institutions and behavior. In this book, we choose not to put the spotlight on gov-
ernments and voting patterns, party politics, and so on. Rather, we turn our attention
to all manner of political behavior, which we consider to include just about any as-
pect of life. Of interest to us is not only how people are governed, but also how they
live, how they govern themselves, and what they see as their most urgent concerns.
We employ a political interaction approach. It is an eclectic method that pres-
ents ideas from a variety of contemporary thinkers and theories. Our approach is
multidisciplinary. We divide our attention among history, politics, society, and eco-
nomics in order to convey more fully the complexity of human experience.13 Instead
of artificially confining ourselves to one narrow discipline, we recognize that each
discipline offers another layer or dimension, which adds immeasurably to our un-
derstanding of the “essence” of politics.14
Comparative politics, then, is much more than simply a subject of study—it is
also a means of study. It employs what is known as the comparative method. Through
the use of the comparative method we seek to describe, identify, and explain trends—
in some cases, even predict human behavior. Those who adopt this approach, known
as comparativists, are interested in identifying relationships and patterns of behav-
ior and interactions between individuals and groups. Focusing on one or more coun-
tries, comparativists examine case studies alongside one another. They search for
similarities and differences between and among the elements selected for compari-
son. For example, one might compare patterns of female employment and fertility
rates in one country in relation to those patterns in other countries. Using the com-
parative method, analysts make explicit or implicit comparisons, searching for com-
mon and contrasting features. Some do a “most similar systems” analysis, looking
for differences between cases that appear to have a great deal in common (e.g.,
Canada and the United States). Others prefer a “most different” approach, looking
for commonalities between cases that appear diametrically opposed in experience
(e.g., Bolivia and India).15 What is particularly exciting about this type of analysis
is stumbling upon unexpected parallels between ostensibly different cases. Just as
satisfying is beginning to understand the significance and consequences of the dif-
ferences that exist between cases assumed to have much in common.
6 • Comparative Politics of the Global South

Most comparative studies textbooks take one of two roads. Either they offer
case studies, which provide loads of intricate detail on a handful of states (often the
classics: Mexico, Nigeria, China, and India; curiously, the Middle East is frequently
ignored), or they provide a CROSS-NATIONAL ANALYSIS that purports to generalize
about much larger expanses of territory. Those who take the cross-national approach
are interested in getting at the big picture. Texts that employ it focus on theory and
concepts to broaden our scope of understanding beyond a handful of cases. They
often end up making fairly sweeping generalizations. The authors of these books
may reference any number of countries as illustration, but at the loss of detail and
context that come only through the use of case studies.
We provide both cross-national analysis and case studies, because we don’t want
to lose the strengths of either approach. We present broad themes and concepts, while
including attention to the variations that exist in reality. In adopting this hybrid ap-
proach, we have set for ourselves a more ambitious task. However, as teachers, we
recognize the need for both approaches to be presented. We have worked hard to
show how cross-national analysis and case studies can work in tandem, how each
complements the other. By looking at similar phenomena in several contexts (i.e.,
histories, politics, societies, economics, and international relations of the third world,
more generally), we can apply our cases and compare them, illustrating the similar-
ities and differences experienced in different settings.
Therefore, in addition to the cross-national analysis that composes the bulk of
each chapter, we offer eight case studies, two from each of the major regions of the
third world. For each region we include the “classics” offered in virtually every text
that applies the case method to the non-Western experience: Mexico, Nigeria, China,
and Iran. We offer these cases for the same reasons that so many others see fit to in-
clude them. However, we go further. To temper the tendency to view these cases as
somehow representative of their regions, and to enhance the basis for comparison,
we submit alongside the classics other, less predictable case studies from each region.
These additional cases are equally interesting and important in their own regard;
they are countries that are rarely (if ever) included as case studies in introductory
textbooks: Peru, Zimbabwe, Egypt, and Indonesia. (See the maps and country pro-
files in Figures 1.2 to 1.9 at the end of this chapter.)
Through detailed case studies, we learn what is distinctive about the many peoples
of the world, and get a chance to begin to see the world from a perspective other than
our own. We can begin doing comparative analysis by thinking about what makes the
people of the world alike and what makes us different. We should ask ourselves how
and why such differences exist, and consider the various constraints under which we
all operate. We study comparative politics not only to understand the way other peo-
ple view the world, but also to make better sense of our own understanding of it. We
have much to learn from how similar problems are approached by different groups of
people. To do this we must consider the variety of factors that serve as context, to get
a better idea of why things happen and why events unfold as they do.16 The better we
get at this, the better idea we will have of what to expect in the future. And we will get
a better sense of what works and what doesn’t work so well—in the cases under ex-
amination, but also in other countries. You may be tempted to compare the cases under
review with the situation in your country. And that’s to be encouraged, since the study
of how others approach problems may offer us ideas on how to improve our own lives.
 Comparing and Defining a Complex World • 7

Comparativists argue that drawing from the experience of others is really the only way
to understand our own systems. Seeing beyond the experience of developed countries
and what is immediately familiar to us expands our minds, allows us to see the wider
range of alternatives, and offers new insights into the challenges we face at the local,
national, and international levels.
The greatest insight, however, comes with the inclusion of a larger circle of
voices—beyond those of the leaders and policymakers. Although you will certainly
hear the arguments of leaders in the chapters that follow, you will also hear the voices
of those who are not often represented in texts such as this. You will hear stories of
domination and the struggle against it. You will hear not only how people have been
oppressed, but also how they have liberated themselves.17 Throughout the following
chapters, we have worked to include the standpoints and perspectives of the osten-
sibly “powerless”: the poor, youth, and women. Although these people are often ig-
nored by their governments, including the US government, hearing their voices is a
necessity if we are to fully comprehend the complexity of the challenges all of us
face. Until these populations are included and encouraged to participate to their
fullest potential, development will be distorted and delayed. Throughout this book,
in a variety of ways, we will give attention to these groups and their interests within
our discussions of history, economics, society, politics, and international relations.

Cross-National Comparison: Recurrent Themes

As mentioned earlier, we believe that any introductory study of the global south should
include both the specificity of CASE STUDY as well as the breadth of the cross-national
approach. Throughout the chapters that follow, you will find several recurring themes
(GLOBALIZATION, human rights, the environment, and disease), which will be approached
from a number of angles and will serve as a basis for cross-national comparison. For ex-
ample, not only is it interesting and important to understand the difference in the expe-
rience of AIDS in Zimbabwe as opposed to Iran, it is just as important to understand how
religion, poverty, and war may contribute to the spread of the disease. In addition, in try-
ing to understand the challenges of disease in the global south, we should be aware of
its impact on development, how ordinary people are attempting to cope with it, and
what they (with or without world leaders) are prepared to do to fight it.
In a variety of ways and to varying degrees, globalization, human rights abuse,
environmental degradation, the emergence of new and deadly diseases, international
migration, and the drug trade are all indicative of a growing world INTERDEPEN-
DENCE. By interdependence we are referring to a relationship of mutual (although not
equal) vulnerability and sensitivity that exists between the world’s peoples. This
shared dependence has grown out of a rapidly expanding web of interactions that tie
us closer together. Most Americans understand that what we do as a nation often af-
fects others—for better or worse. On the other hand, it is more of a stretch to get the
average American to understand why we should care and why we need to under-
stand what is happening in the world around us—even in far-off “powerless” coun-
tries. However, whether we choose to recognize it or not, it is becoming more and
more difficult to escape the fact that our relationship with the world is a reciprocal
one. What happens on the other side of the planet, even in seemingly less powerful
countries, does affect us—whether we like it or not.
8

Figure 1.1 Global Village of 1,000 People

Imagine that the world is a village of 1,000 people. lage have access to and use modern contracep-
Who are its inhabitants? tives. This year 28 babies will be born; 10 people
will die, 3 of them from lack of food, 1 from can-
600 Asians cer, and 2 of the deaths are of babies born within
150 Africans the year. With the 28 births and 10 deaths, the pop-
110 Europeans ulation of the village next year will be 1,018.
90 Latin Americans and residents from across
the Caribbean In this 1,000-person community, 200 people re-
50 North Americans ceive 75 percent of the income; another 200 re-
ceive only 2 percent of the income. Only 70
Within this population, a total of 67 have earned people own an automobile (although some of the
a college degree. 70 own more than one automobile). Of these
1,000 people, 870 have access to safe drinking
The people of the village have considerable dif- water, 650 have access to improved sanitation
ficulty in communicating: (160 have no access to toilets), and 780 have ac-
cess to electricity.
120 speak Mandarin Chinese
50 speak Spanish The village has 6 acres of land per person:
50 speak English
30 speak Arabic 700 acres are cropland
30 speak Hindi 1,400 acres are pasture
30 speak Bengali 1,900 acres are woodland
30 speak Portuguese 2,000 acres are desert, tundra, pavement,
20 speak Russian and wasteland
20 speak Japanese
620 speak other languages Of this land, the woodland is declining rapidly;
the wasteland is increasing. The other land cat-
Within this village, 860 are able to read and write egories are roughly stable. The village allocates
(88 percent of males and 79 percent of females); 83 percent of its fertilizer to 40 percent of its
140 are considered illiterate; 220 own or share a cropland—which is owned by the richest and
computer; and 750 are cell phone users. best-fed 270 people. Excess fertilizer running
off this land causes pollution in lakes and wells.
In this village of 1,000 there are The remaining 60 percent of the land, with its
17 percent of the fertilizer, produces 28 percent
330 Christians of the food grains and feeds 73 percent of the
220 Muslims people. The average grain yield of that land is
140 Hindus one-third the harvest achieved by the richer
70 Buddhists villagers.
120 who do not believe in other religions
120 who are not religious or do not identify In this village of 1,000 people there are
themselves as being aligned with a particu-
lar faith. 5 soldiers
7 teachers
One-third of these 1,000 people in the world vil- 1 doctor
lage are children, and only 80 are over the age of 4 refugees driven from their homes by
sixty-five. Half of the children are undernourished. war or drought
Just under half of the married women in the vil-

Sources: Adapted from Donella H. Meadows, “If the World Were a Village of One Thousand People,”
https://populationpress.org, 2014; “100 People: A World Portrait,” http://100people.org; and North-South
Centre of the Council of Europe, “If the World Were a Village of One Thousand People,” http://nscentre.org.
 Comparing and Defining a Complex World • 9

Globalization
The end of the Cold War opened a window of opportunity that has resulted not only
in some dramatic political changes, but also in a closer INTEGRATION of the world’s
economies than ever before. As a result, the world is becoming increasingly inter-
connected by a single, global economy. This transformative process is commonly de-
scribed as globalization, and it is supported and driven by the full force of capitalism,
seemingly unimpeded until now because of the absence of virtually any competing
economic ideology. The world has experienced periods of corporate globalization be-
fore (the last was associated with European imperialism). What is unique about the
current cycle is the unprecedented speed with which globalization has torn down
barriers to trade. It has also increased mobility, or cross-border flows of not only
trade, but also capital, technology, information—and people. As it has before, tech-
nology has driven this wave. The Internet is as symbolic of this era as the Berlin
Wall was of the Cold War. Because of their mobility and global reach, MULTINA-
TIONAL CORPORATIONS (MNCs) have been key actors (but hardly the only actors) in
this globalization. This is a process that has rapidly unfolded and has been under no
one’s control. In fact, even some of its advocates have maintained that globalization
may be out of control.18
For those who embrace globalization, its dynamism and power are part of its ap-
peal. They consider globalization to be a largely benevolent process. They see it as the
surest route to development and prosperity—it is even credited with sowing the seeds
of DEMOCRACY worldwide. Because of globalization, no corner of the world remains
isolated; new values are being spread that challenge traditional belief systems such as
fatalism, elitism, and AUTHORITARIANISM. Poverty is alleviated as trade is increased
and jobs are created; as the lines of communication are opened, we learn from and
begin to accept one another. Ideally, globalization will help to make us more aware of
our common interests, our mutual dependence. Among other things, it has brought
people together to form the basis of the international environmental movement; it has
enhanced scientific cooperation and raised human rights as a universal concern (which
some refer to as “moral globalization” or the “globalization of dissent”).19
According to its admirers, globalization is spilling over into a variety of areas,
creating a “world village” based in cultural and political globalization. As it works
to overcome the barriers between us, globalization enhances interdependence. It
tightens the web of interrelationships that link the world’s peoples. Social media no
doubt facilitated the wave of protests, widely known as the Arab Spring, that swept
much of North Africa and the Middle East in 2011. Thanks to globalization, this
deepening interdependence is fostering a sense of community and sharing over the
IDENTITY politics that once divided us by religion, ethnicity, language, and so on.
(Although interestingly, some analysts who generally favor globalization argue that
being wired for a free flow of information can actually produce hostility and anger.
Much of this “shared” information promotes stereotyping and reinforces divisions.)20
Some analysts go even so far as to suggest that we are moving toward a “post-
cultural” world, increasingly blurring the boundaries marking where one culture ends
and another begins. They contend that globalization is not promoting homogenization
and that it is not the same thing as Westernization; rather, globalization is promoting
eclecticism and advancing our recognition of the world’s diversity. So-called tradi-
tional cultures aren’t so traditional. None of the world’s cultures have developed in a
10 • Comparative Politics of the Global South

vacuum, unaffected by outside forces. Even those concerned about globalization’s im-
pact acknowledge that cultures aren’t static. They are always changing—globalization
is just hurrying the process along.21
In this sense, perhaps it can be said that globalization is producing a more ho-
mogeneous world. Then again, antiglobalists maintain that a more homogeneous
world means cultural devastation for many. Globalization is a cultural bulldozer. Al-
ready the dollar has become the de facto global currency, and English has become
the de facto global language. One of the most visible signs of this is the spread of
Western consumer culture. While this is something proglobalists generally celebrate,
critics despise it as “coca-colonization.”22
Critics argue that globalization isn’t so much about interdependence as it is about
furthering dependence. Dependence is a form of international interdependence—
except that dependence is marked by an extreme power imbalance. On the left,
antiglobalists point out that economic globalization is capitalist globalization, which
means that corporations and the rich are being privileged over other social actors.
The result isn’t anything new. Poverty, the exploitation of the underdog, the erosion
of labor and environmental standards, and the abuse of human rights all predate
globalization. The difference is that globalization has accelerated and intensified
these trends. Antiglobalists on the right embrace capitalism but condemn global-
ization for the harms they attribute to free trade, multiculturalism, and the loss of
sovereignty. For them, globalization has contributed to bad trade deals that have
exported jobs to “other” countries. Protectionist measures, even if they devolve into
trade wars, are the solution.
Globalization’s critics on the right and left condemn it for contributing to in-
come inequality. And even the proponents of globalization acknowledge that it does
create winners and losers; globalization brings profits but also problems. They also
recognize that globalization is not a uniform process, and that its effects are more ev-
ident in some places than in others. Certainly, aspects of globalization such as dereg-
ulation or disappearing trade barriers are more obvious in some places than in others
(e.g., the creation of trading blocs within Europe and North America). Thus far, glob-
alization is uneven: it appears to have hardly touched the most economically under-
developed countries in the world, such as those in the Sahel.23 Yet this is increasingly
the exception, and the rapid economic, sociocultural, and political change associ-
ated with globalization is the rule worldwide.
Its boosters argue that for better or worse, globalization is inexorable and in-
evitable; the integration of the world’s peoples has gone so far that we can never go
back. However, history shows us that even this massive force could be reversed by
international events. NATIONALISM and economic downturns have in the past con-
tributed to the end of previous cycles of globalization.24

Human Rights
The idea that humans share certain natural, universal, and inherent rights—simply
because they are human—dates at least as far back as John Locke’s Two Treatises of
Civil Government (1690). The view that abusers should be held accountable for their
wrongs, or that others should interfere with how a government treats its own citizens,
has more recent origins. It was not until the systematic murder of millions under
Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich that the world became willing to challenge two domi-
 Comparing and Defining a Complex World • 11

nant principles of international relations: NONINTERVENTION, or the legal obligation

to refrain from involvement in the internal affairs of other states, and sovereignty, the
widely shared belief that states are the principal actors in international relations and
as such are subject to no higher political authority.25
However, the Holocaust served as a catalyst to the development of what is now
recognized as an international human rights movement. The Holocaust ostensibly
taught us that in some cases the world must intervene against abusers and that state
sovereignty must not always be held as sacrosanct. How a government treats its own
people does affect the rest of us—and it is being increasingly recognized across the
POLITICAL SPECTRUM that the persistent denial of human rights around the world must
be reconceptualized as a security issue. If nothing else, respect for human rights is
widely recognized as essential to international peace and stability. At least in theory,
the international community accepts that it has a moral mandate to prevent the kinds
of abuses associated with the genocide in Europe.
Over the first five decades following the Holocaust, the world community set out
to develop a variety of international norms to promote human rights and to institu-
tionalize safeguards against the recurrence of atrocities. Prominent in this effort was
the creation of the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (UDHR) in 1948,
which is widely recognized as the most authoritative and comprehensive of all in-
ternational statements on human rights. Composed of thirty articles addressing a
broad range of issues, the UDHR is accepted as setting the standards to which all
states should aspire. The UDHR includes attention to what are sometimes known as
“first-generation” or “blue” rights: civil and political rights, such as freedom of
speech, freedom of religion, freedom from torture or cruel and unusual punishment,
the right to DUE PROCESS, the right to SELF-DETERMINATION, and so on. These rights
are based on the assumption that the individual should be protected against state ac-
tions that are unusual, arbitrary, or excessive. As long as the right to challenge the
government’s misuse of authority is permitted, other rights (such as freedom from
torture) will be safeguarded. First-generation rights are considered by many people
to be key to the enjoyment of all other rights. Yet the UDHR also recognizes the im-
portance of “second-generation” or “red” rights: economic, social, and cultural
rights, such as access to food, shelter, work, education, and healthcare. This con-
ception of human rights, sometimes known as the “human-needs” approach, con-
siders the aspects of existence necessary to secure the basic development of the
person as primary. Proponents of second-generation rights maintain that a govern-
ment’s denial of basic needs is as much a violation of human rights as torture of dis-
sidents.26
Although the governments of virtually every country in the world use the lan-
guage of human rights and claim to believe in the inherent dignity of human beings,
for many years the world has been divided over how most appropriately to define
human rights. The governments of most developed countries, especially the United
States, have traditionally argued that political and civil rights should be prioritized.
They contend that these rights, which place an emphasis on liberty, should come
first, because the enjoyment of such freedoms will enable the individual to ensure for
him- or herself the provision of subsistence or red rights. Yet who cares about free-
dom of expression and the other blue rights when one’s children are dying of hunger?
As the former president of Senegal, Leopold Senghor, put it, “Human rights begin
12 • Comparative Politics of the Global South

with breakfast.” He and others argue that those who seek to exclude red rights have
it all wrong, since until people’s basic rights, or certain minimal physical needs, are
met, there can be no development—let alone enjoyment—of more ambitious rights,
such as liberties. (Others point out that for low-income countries, government guar-
antees of food and housing are actually much more ambitious than the relatively
“cost-free” guarantees of freedoms, such as expression and assembly. Nobel laure-
ate Amartya Sen maintains that the right to freedom of speech is a precondition for
all other rights, since famine, torture, and other abuses rarely occur in countries with
democratic governments and a relatively free press.)27
The UDHR, whose drafters included Westerners and non-Westerners, attempts
to get around this debate by proclaiming that human rights are indivisible, interde-
pendent, and interrelated, and that all are necessary for the full realization of human
potential. Not everyone agrees. According to the proponents of CULTURAL RELA-
TIVISM, including those who support the “Asian values” argument, human rights (or
moral claims) should be defined as the product of a particular society’s cultural and
historical experience. Therefore, according to the cultural relativists, the proponents
of UNIVERSALISM are imposing their conception of human rights on others. For cultural
relativists, political and civil rights are based in Western Enlightenment values, which
have little appeal or relevance in Confucian cultures, wherein higher value is placed
on order and discipline. Blue rights also uphold the rights of the individual over those
of the community. This idea is unacceptable in many non-Western cultures, which
often hold that the rights of the individual should be subordinated to those of the
group, since the individual has no meaning apart from the community to which he or
she belongs.28
Critics of the “Asian values” argument point to the complexity not only of Con-
fucianism, which is not as conservative as many think, but also of Asian cultures
themselves, of which there are a great variety and diversity. Asian cultures draw
from many different influences, including Buddhism, which emphasizes individual
freedoms and tolerance. Millions of non-Westerners, led by people such as Aung
San Suu Kyi and Shirin Ebadi, reject arguments that political and civil rights or free-
doms (such as freedom from torture) are uniquely Western. Many non-Western tra-
ditions view the individual and community as inseparable, and the relationship
between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community as one of mu-
tual obligation. While group rights can be used to restrict individuals, they can also
exist to protect individual rights.29
As you might imagine, this and other debates over how best to define human
rights have hamstrung international efforts to promote such rights. However, there
is new momentum behind the human rights movement. Just as the Holocaust once
spurred a concern with human rights, perhaps it was the specter of ethnic cleansing,
its mass killing and systematic rapes, and the “too little, too late” responses in Bosnia
and Rwanda, that have propelled this renewed interest. Once again, the human rights
movement is developing—and not only toward finding other ways of holding ac-
countable those responsible for such atrocities. The challenges associated with glob-
alization have led to calls for expanding and refining the scope of human rights and
including a third generation of “new” human rights. Debate has begun over whether
other important values, such as rights to peace, development, and a safe and healthy
environment (or “green” rights), qualify as human rights. Are rights to clean drink-
 Comparing and Defining a Complex World • 13

ing water and to live in safety legally enforceable claims, or merely “wishes”? The
third generation of rights remains the subject of heated debate. Yet even for the older
generations of rights, there remain enormous differences among the governments of
the world over how to define human rights, how and when human rights law should
apply, and what priority should be given to different categories of rights. While this
highly politicized debate continues, it is increasingly common for analysts to return
to the argument that is at the core of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: that
the distinction between human rights and human needs is an artificial one. Rather,
civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights are best understood as part of a
“seamless web”—indivisible and interdependent.30 In other words, all the rights dis-
cussed here are important because it is difficult to fully enjoy one category of rights
without the security offered by the others.

The Environment
Along with globalization and human rights, the health of the planet is another issue
of interdependence (and also one that is arguably everyone’s business). Environ-
mental issues will turn up in nearly all of the following chapters because the grow-
ing body of scientific evidence is becoming more difficult to refute. Development as
it is currently being pursued, in both developed and less developed countries, is con-
tributing to a morass of environmental problems that transcend national borders and
whose management will require global cooperation. Climate change, rising sea lev-
els, deforestation, desertification, loss of biodiversity, depletion of fisheries and de-
struction of coral reefs, toxic dumping, water shortages—these are just a few of the
problems that will require international solutions.
Take, for example, the issue of deforestation. Even though the rate of global de-
forestation has slowed since the 1990s, it remains high, with a net loss of approxi-
mately 13 million hectares (an area about the size of Costa Rica) lost each year.31 Put
another way, the world has lost the equivalent of 1,000 football fields of forest per
hour for the past twenty-five years.32 However, thanks to local and international ef-
forts, the rate of deforestation has actually decreased (from 16 million hectares de-
stroyed annually in the 1990s). Indonesia and Brazil (which had the highest rates of
loss a few years ago) have made particularly impressive efforts to slow the destruc-
tion of their forests. But deforestation is still a problem and it is most extensive in
South America and Africa, where forests are hot spots for biodiversity (they contain
hundreds of species within a single hectare, whereas the average hectare of forest
typically contains a handful of species). With a loss of 70 percent of the natural cover
protecting them in the past several decades, many of these species have become en-
dangered or extinct. According to the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP), species are becoming extinct at the fastest rate known in geological history,
and this is directly tied to human activities.33
Related to deforestation and of similar cataclysmic impact is the threat posed by
climate change. According to former UN SECRETARY-GENERAL Ban Ki-moon, it is the
major, overriding environmental issue of our time, a growing crisis that will have eco-
nomic repercussions but also consequences for human health, safety, food production,
and security.34 Others, such as Bill and Melinda Gates, question whether the relative
progress we’ve achieved in recent decades could all be stifled by climate change.35 Of
central concern is the GREENHOUSE EFFECT, which is produced by the emission of what
14 • Comparative Politics of the Global South

have come to be known as greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide released by the burning
of fossil fuels, as well as naturally occurring methane and nitrogen. Industrialization
and economic GROWTH fueled by hydrocarbon-based energy systems (coal, oil, and
natural gas) have contributed to the release of these gases, which have reached record
highs. These greenhouse gases collect in the upper atmosphere, covering the planet in
a blanket of sorts. Incoming heat from the sun penetrates this blanket but is then trapped
by it. The effect is likened to a greenhouse, which traps heat indoors. In this sense, the
growth of economies based on the consumption of fossil fuels has contributed sub-
stantially to global warming over the past fifty years.
While some scientists and politicians argue that global warming is not a human-
made event, but naturally occurring and inevitable—part of a long cycle of alter-
nating ice ages and periods of extreme heat—this is the minority view. The majority
of the world’s scientists agree that we are experiencing a global warming; the main
issue under debate is how severe it will be—and how soon it will come. The Inter-
governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Nobel Peace Prize–winning
group of more than 2,000 scientists from a hundred countries, claims to have
amassed convincing evidence that climate change is already happening. The first
years of the twenty-first century have been the hottest since records have been kept,
and concentrations of greenhouse gases have reached unprecedented levels. The
planet has warmed by 1.7 degrees Celsius between 1880 (when records were first
kept) and 2015, and the heat is accumulating.36 According to these scientists, there
is overwhelming evidence that Earth’s climate is undergoing dramatic transforma-
tion because of human activities. They call this “anthropogenic warming” and warn
that it may continue for decades even if human-made emissions can be curbed.37 If
fossil fuel combustion continues even at twentieth-century levels, virtually every
natural system and human economy will be at risk. Higher temperatures will mean
rising seas from melting glaciers and ice sheets, more frequent and severe storms, and
more intense droughts. These changes will alter every ecosystem on the planet, as
pests and diseases will spread to areas where they were previously unknown. There
is alarming evidence that we may have reached or surpassed tipping points that could
lead to irreversible changes in major ecosystems. Nowhere have scientists observed
greater immediate impacts of global warming than the Arctic Ocean, where tem-
peratures have risen as high as 20 degrees Celsius above average, and sea ice has de-
clined 28.5 percent below average—the lowest levels since records were first kept
in 1979. No one knows the impact these changes may bring—due to the heat, dra-
matically higher levels of algae are being produced, impacting the food chain of the
region (and beyond).38 Climate change is exacerbating the misery of already poor
areas, creating a vicious cycle in which poverty and environmental degradation co-
exist and accelerate through globalization.39
In a variety of ways, the globalization of the past few decades is just hastening
processes that were already well under way. However, because of its speed, global-
ization is putting unprecedented pressure on the planet’s capacities. Displaced rural
populations are migrating into cities in search of livelihood, or into forests in search
of new resources. This only contributes to the greenhouse effect, not just because the
burning of forests releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, but also be-
cause the loss of these forests means the loss of “pollution sponges,” since forests
absorb carbon dioxide and slow global warming. As low-income countries embrace
 Comparing and Defining a Complex World • 15

the developed-country model, pursuing growth at any cost, they will add to these
problems. However, as it currently stands, the 20 percent of the world’s population
living in developed countries consumes 80 percent of the world’s resources. In 2006
China surpassed the United States as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases (pro-
ducing 22 percent of the world’s total), but the United States is close behind, pro-
ducing just under 20 percent of the emissions associated with global warming (India
and Russia each contribute about 5 percent).40 It is less developed countries (those
who contribute the lowest levels of carbon dioxide and other gases) that are likely
to feel the most severe impact of environmental devastation. Not only are they more
vulnerable to many of its effects, but these low- and middle-income countries also
are likely to lack access to the technologies that might ameliorate its impact. Over
the past few years, a number of creative solutions based on cooperative efforts have
been proposed for dealing with the environmental problems that we share. Unfor-
tunately, finger-pointing and recriminations between advanced and emerging
economies, and efforts by each to shift the burden of responsibility to the other,
suggest that the international leadership (and funding) so desperately needed to ad-
dress these problems will remain sorely lacking. Even progress achieved with the
Paris agreement of 2015, as we discuss in Chapter 17, seems as though it may now
be in peril, although the world community is likely closer to a consensus and shared
responsibility than perhaps ever before.

Disease and Public Health

Just as environmental degradation is taking an increasing toll on all of us, so is dis-
ease. Yet again, it will be the poorest who are hit hardest and have the least capac-
ity to cope with the challenge. Not only is there an income gap between developed
and less developed countries, but there is also a health gap. A variety of threats come
together to explain why mortality rates remain higher in low-income countries and
why life expectancy is still relatively short in so many of them, even if we can note
some progress in recent years: undernutrition, infectious diseases, and chronic de-
bilitating diseases—are all associated with poverty. For example, the global mortal-
ity rate plummeted by 28 percent between 1990 and 2015, in large part because of
efforts to increase maternal and newborn health, as well as to prevent and treat in-
fectious diseases. Between 2005 and 2015, deaths attributed to malaria declined by
40 percent, and maternal mortality declined globally by 30 percent.41 The challenge,
though, is in maintaining these hard-won advances, especially in areas of deep in-
security. Observers note that public health is impacted by factors far beyond the
purview of healthcare systems: war, natural disasters, economic downturns, influx
of migrants—each can have a dramatic impact on the quality of life and the ability
to manage disease in a given environment.42
It is well known that cardiovascular diseases are the biggest killers of adults
worldwide, yet infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/AIDS,
kill millions every year. HIV is a leading cause of death for women of reproductive
age in low- and middle-income countries. The good news is that after four decades
of fighting HIV/AIDS, it appears that the epidemic peaked in 1999 and the world has
since begun to halt and reverse its spread. Between 2000 and 2015, new HIV infec-
tions fell by 35 percent; it is estimated that nearly 8 million lives were saved by
awareness campaigns and international efforts to mitigate the impact of the disease.43
16 • Comparative Politics of the Global South

Of those needing treatment, more people than ever, 18 million, are receiving the
medicines that can dramatically prolong and improve quality of life. And it is now
possible to virtually eliminate mother-to-child transmission of HIV/AIDS. In many
ways, our global investment in prevention and treatment is working. However, ap-
proximately 37 million people worldwide are living with HIV/AIDS, and a signifi-
cant portion of them, 19 million, or close to 40 percent, don’t know their status or
are denied access to these medicines because of their cost. In 2009, for the first time,
global funding for programs to treat and prevent HIV/AIDS flattened. It continued
to decline, by 13 percent, between 2014 and 2015. If this trend continues and money
dries up, clinics will close, people who need testing and treatment will be turned
away, and the fragile progress that the world has made in dealing with this disease
will be undermined.44
HIV/AIDS is by no means a problem unique to the global south, and the chal-
lenges associated with it vary by region. However, most people living with HIV/AIDS
reside in lower-income countries (sub-Saharan Africa accounts for most of the global
total of new HIV infections, though it is important to note that some regions of Africa,
such as western Africa in general, are not as seriously affected as others, such as
southern and eastern Africa).45 Each country and region has its own particular mix of
circumstances reflected by patterns of transmission. As we will see in Chapter 6,
poverty is a major factor contributing to the spread of the disease.
The global health community faces increasingly complex tasks, as health chal-
lenges are compounded by environmental, political, and other weaknesses within the
system. For example, the World Health Organization (WHO) reports that nearly one
in four global deaths today is attributed to air, water, and soil pollution, or to effects
from climate change.46 As you might expect, environmental risks take an especially
harsh toll on young children and older people. Additionally, low- and middle-income
countries in Southeast Asia and the Western Pacific face an increased rate of deaths at-
tributable to indoor and outdoor air pollution.47 WHO data indicate that 92 percent of
the world’s population lives in places where air pollution exceeds recommended lim-
its; the regions with the highest air pollution are Southeast Asia, the Eastern Mediter-
ranean, and the Western Pacific.48 Concern is so great that the UN has declared air
pollution a public health emergency with “untold effects on future generations.” The
UN estimates that 3.3 million people around the world die prematurely due to the ef-
fects of air pollution every year—mostly in China, India, and Pakistan.49
Much of the challenge before us is in preparing to deal with the unknown: when
Ebola burst onto the scene in 2014, there were very few scientists who were actively
conducting research on responses to the hemorrhagic fever (even though the first case
had been diagnosed in 1976). The WHO was slow in its response (waiting nearly
eight months after it was clear the disease was resurfacing in large numbers before de-
claring a public health emergency).50 The spread of this and other communicable dis-
eases stresses already strained local (and international) systems. This stress extends
to the medicines with which we treat such diseases: antibiotic resistance, which ac-
cording to the UN is responsible for 700,000 deaths each year, is making some dis-
eases untreatable. If this trend continues, such resistance will challenge human health,
development, and even security, demanding a coordinated response across the med-
ical, pharmaceutical, manufacturing, and even agricultural communities—especially
in densely populated areas where livestock and humans have very close interaction.
 Comparing and Defining a Complex World • 17

The risk is that diseases with known remedies, such as the sexually transmitted dis-
ease gonorrhea, are increasingly unresponsive to traditional treatments.51 As we sit on
the cusp of the possible formal eradication of polio (as this book goes to press, Pak-
istan and Afghanistan are the only two countries reporting naturally occurring polio),52
such a slide is indeed a haunting possibility.

Conclusion: It Depends on Whom You Ask

Let’s put it flatly: there will be no simple answers to many of the questions we have
raised here or will raise throughout the chapters that follow. The best we can do is
to present you with a wide range of thinking and alternative perspectives on many
of the challenges faced to some degree by all of us—but most directly by people liv-
ing in low- and low-middle-income countries. In this book we will be looking at a
series of issues of interdependence, such as the drug trade, migration, and arms trans-
fers, from a number of angles. Before you make up your mind about any of the con-
tending theories we present here, we ask that you judge each on its merits. We firmly
believe that reflecting on another’s point of view and considering more than one side
of any story is the only way to begin to understand the complex social phenomena
we now set out to discuss.

Linking Concepts and Cases

The information in this section is provided as a primer for the case studies we will
be discussing throughout the rest of the book. Figures 1.2 through 1.9 should serve
as a point of reference as you read about the histories, economies, and politics of
the eight case studies introduced here. Throughout the book, we will return to the
same countries, applying the ideas introduced in the conceptual chapters to the re-
ality of their experiences.

Now It’s Your Turn

From a simple examination of the statistical information that follows, what would
you expect to be the key issue, or the most pressing problem, each country faces?
What can a sketch such as this tell you about life in each of these eight countries?
Which ones appear most similar, and in what ways? What are some of the most strik-
ing differences between these countries? What other information not included here
do you consider deserving of attention? Why?

Notes
1. Henry Louis Gates, “‘Authenticity’ or the Lesson of Little Tree,” New York Times
Review of Books, November 24, 1991, p. 30.
2. For some examples of the lively terminological debate, see the special 25th anniver-
sary issue of the Third World Quarterly 25, no. 1 (2004); the special issue of The Global
South 5, no. 1 (Spring 2011); Marc Silver, “If You Shouldn’t Call It the Third World, What
Should You Call It?,” National Public Radio, Goats and Soda, January 14, 2015, www.npr.org;
Dayo Olopade, “The End of the ‘Developing World,’” New York Times, February 28, 2014.
3. Alfred Sauvy, “Three Worlds, One Planet,” L’Observateur, August 14, 1952.
Figure 1.2 Mexico: Profile and Map

UNITED STATES

MEXICO

Mexico City
•

BELIZE

GUATEMALA H

EL SALVADOR

Formal name: United Mexican States

Area, km2: 1.97 million
Comparative area: Slightly less than three times the size of Texas
Capital: Mexico City
Establishment of present state: September 18, 1810
Population: 123 million (2016)
Age under 15 years: 27%
Population growth rate: 1.2%
Fertility rate
(children per woman): 2.3
Infant mortality
(per 1,000 births): 12
Life expectancy: 76
HIV prevalence (adult): 0.2%
Ethnic groups: Mestizo 62%, predominantly Amerindian 21%,
Amerindian 7%, other 10%
Literacy rate: 95%
Religions: Roman Catholic 83%, Protestant 8%, other 9%
GDP per capita (PPP): $17,500
GDP growth rate: 2.5%
Labor, major sectors: Services 62%, industrial 23%, agriculture 13%
Population in poverty: 52%
Unemployment rate: 4.4% (with extensive underemployment)
Export commodities: Manufactured goods, oil and oil products, silver,
fruits, vegetables, coffee, cotton
External debt: $441.6 billion

Source: Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), World Factbook 2016.

18
Figure 1.3 Peru: Profile and Map

C O L O M B I A

ECUADOR

B R A Z I L

PERU

•Lima

B O L I V I A

Formal name: Republic of Peru

Area, km2: 1.28 million
Comparative area: Almost twice the size of Texas; slightly smaller than Alaska
Capital: Lima
Establishment of present state: July 28, 1821
Population: 31 million (2016)
Age under 15 years: 27%
Population growth rate: 1%
Fertility rate
(children per woman): 2.2
Infant mortality
(per 1,000 births): 19
Life expectancy: 74
HIV prevalence (adult): 0.3%
Ethnic groups: Amerindian 45%, mestizo 37%, white 15%, other 3%
Literacy rate: 95%
Religions: Roman Catholic 81%, Evangelical 12.5%, other 3.3%,
none 2.9% (2007)
GDP per capita (PPP): $12,200
GDP growth rate: 3.3%
Labor, major sectors: Services 57%, agricultural 26%, industrial 17% (2011)
Population in poverty: 26%
Unemployment rate: 5.2% (data for metropolitan Lima; with extensive
underemployment)
Export commodities: Copper, zinc, gold, crude petroleum, petroleum products
External debt: $68 billion

Source: CIA, World Factbook 2016.

19
 Figure 1.4 Nigeria: Profile and Map

N I G E R

BENIN NIGERIA
Abuja

CAMEROON

Formal name: Federal Republic of Nigeria

Area, km2: 923,768
Comparative area: About six times the size of Georgia; slightly more
than twice the size of California
Capital: Abuja
Establishment of present state: October 1, 1960
Population: 186 million
Age under 15 years: 43%
Population growth rate: 2.4%
Fertility rate
(children per woman): 5.1
Infant mortality
(per 1,000 births): 71
Life expectancy: 53
HIV prevalence (adult): 3.2% (2014)
Ethnic groups: (More than 250 groups) Hausa and Fulani 29%,
Yoruba 21%, Ibo 18%, Ijaw 10%, Kanuri 4%,
Ibibio 3.5%, Tiv 2.5%
Literacy rate: 60%
Religions: Muslim 50%, Christian 40%, indigenous beliefs 10%
GDP per capita (PPP): $6,100
GDP growth rate: 2.7%
Labor, major sectors: Agriculture 70%, services 20%, industrial 10% (1999)
Population in poverty: 70%
Unemployment rate: 24% (2011)
Export commodities: Petroleum and petroleum products, cocoa, rubber
External debt: $32 billion

Source: CIA, World Factbook 2016.

20
Figure 1.5 Zimbabwe: Profile and Map

MALAWI

ZAMBIA

Harare MOZAMBIQUE

ZIMBABWE

BOTSWANA

SOUTH
AFRICA

SWAZILAND

Formal name: Republic of Zimbabwe

Area, km2: 390,757
Comparative area: Slightly larger than Montana
Capital: Harare
Establishment of present state: April 18, 1980
Population: 15 million
Age under 15 years: 38%
Population growth rate: 2.2%
Fertility rate
(children per woman): 4
Infant mortality
(per 1,000 births): 26
Life expectancy: 58
HIV prevalence (adult): 15%
Ethnic groups: African 99.4% (Shona and Ndebele),
other 0.4%, unspecified 0.2%
Literacy rate: 87%
Religions: Protestant 76%, Roman Catholic 8%,
other Christian 8%, other 7%
GDP per capita (PPP): $2,100
GDP growth rate: 1.5%
Labor, major sectors: Agriculture 66%, services 24%, industrial 10% (1996)
Population in poverty: 72% (2012)
Unemployment rate: 95% (2009)
Export commodities: Platinum, cotton, tobacco, gold, ferroalloys,
textiles/clothing
External debt: $11 billion

Source: CIA, World Factbook 2016.

21
Figure 1.6 Egypt: Profile and Map

ISRAEL

JORDAN
Cairo

S A U D
A R A B
EGYPT

S U D A N

Formal name: Arab Republic of Egypt

Area, km2: 1 million
Comparative area: More than eight times the size of Ohio; slightly more than
three times the size of New Mexico
Capital: Cairo
Establishment of present state: July 23, 1952
Population: 95 million
Age under 15 years: 33%
Population growth rate: 2.5%
Fertility rate
(children per woman): 3.5
Infant mortality
(per 1,000 births): 20
Life expectancy: 73
HIV prevalence (adult): 0.02%
Ethnic groups: Egyptian 99.6%, other 0.4% (2006)
Literacy rate: 74%
Religions: Muslim 90%, Christian 10%
GDP per capita (PPP): $11,800
GDP growth rate: 4.2%
Labor, major sectors: Services 47%, agriculture 29%, industrial 24%
Population in poverty: 25%
Unemployment rate: 12.8%
Export commodities: Crude oil and petroleum products, fruits and vegetables,
cotton, textiles, metal products, chemicals, processed food
External debt: $45 billion

Source: CIA, World Factbook 2016.

22
 Figure 1.7 Iran: Profile and Map

UZBEKISTAN
MENIA
AZERBAIJAN

TURKMENISTAN

Tehran

RAQ

IR A N AFGHANISTAN

KUWAIT

SAUDI ARABIA BAHRAIN

QATAR

U. A. E.

Formal name: Islamic Republic of Iran

Area, km2: 1.65 million
Comparative area: Almost 2.5 times the size of Texas;
slightly smaller than Alaska
Capital: Tehran
Establishment of present state: April 1, 1979
Population: 83 million
Age under 15 years: 24%
Population growth rate: 1.2%
Fertility rate
(children per woman): 1.8
Infant mortality
(per 1,000 births): 37
Life expectancy: 71
HIV prevalence (adult): 0.1%
Ethnic groups: Persian, Azeri, Kurd, Lur, Baloch, Arab,
Turkmen and Turkic tribes
Literacy rate: 87%
Religions: Shia Muslim 90–95%, Sunni Muslim 5–10%, other 0.3%,
unspecified 0.4%
GDP per capita (PPP): $17,300
GDP growth rate: 0%
Labor, major sectors: Services 49%, industrial 35%, agriculture 16% (2013)
Population in poverty: 19% (2007)
Unemployment rate: 10.5%
Export commodities: Petroleum, chemical and petrochemical products,
fruits and nuts, carpets, cement, ore
External debt: $5 billion

Source: CIA, World Factbook 2016.

23
 Figure 1.8 China: Profile and Map

RUSSIA

KAZAKHSTAN

MONGOLIA

YRGYSTAN
Beijing N.KOREA
•
CHINA
S.KOREA
AKISTAN

INDIA
NEPAL
BHUTAN

BURMA
VIETNAM
LAOS

Formal name: People’s Republic of China

Area, km2: 9.60 million
Comparative area: Slightly smaller than the United States
Capital: Beijing
Establishment of present state: October 1, 1949
Population: 1.37 billion
Age under 15 years: 17%
Population growth rate: 0.43%
Fertility rate
(children per woman): 1.6
Infant mortality
(per 1,000 births): 12.2
Life expectancy: 76
HIV prevalence (adult): 0.1% (2012)
Ethnic groups: Han 92%, Zhuang 1%, other (including Hui,
Manchu, Uighur, Miao, Yi, Tibetan, Mongol, Dong,
Buyei, Yao, Bai) 7%
Literacy rate: 96%
Religions: (Officially atheist), Buddhist 18%, Christian 5%, Muslim
2%, folk religion 22%, other 1%, unaffiliated 52%
GDP per capita (PPP): $14,100
GDP growth rate: 6.9%
Labor, major sectors: Services 36%, agriculture 34%, industrial 30% (2012)
Population in poverty: 6.1% (2013)
Unemployment rate: 4% (urban; substantial in rural areas)
Export commodities: Electrical and other machinery, including data processing
equipment, apparel, furniture, textiles, integrated circuits
External debt: $958 billion

Source: CIA, World Factbook 2016.

24
 S

iJ
la
w
e

hs n
tz

e
ng

e
Ya

.R a
.R

.R
a
h
eM

s
n
iJ
gnok
tra
apu
hm
Bra

Figure 1.9 Indonesia: Profile and Map

.R
ne
ew
la
S

LAOS
THAILAND

KAMPUCHEA
VIETNAM PHILIPPINES

BRUNEI
MALAYSIA

MALAYSIA
SINGAPORE

INDONESIA
Jakarta

AUSTRALIA

Formal name: Republic of Indonesia

Area, km2: 1.9 million
Comparative area: Slightly less than three times the size of Texas
Capital: Jakarta
Establishment of present state: August 17, 1945
Population: 258 million
Age under 15 years: 25%
Population growth rate: 0.9%
Fertility rate
(children per woman): 2.1
Infant mortality
(per 1,000 births): 24
Life expectancy: 73
HIV prevalence (adult): 0.5%
Ethnic groups: Javanese 40%, Sundanese 16%, Malay 4%, Batak 4%,
Madurese 3%, Betawi 3%, Minangkabau 3%,
Buginese 3%, Bantenese 2%, Banjarese 2%, Balinese 2%,
Acehnese 1%, Dayak 1%, Sasak 1%, Chinese 1%,
other 15% (2010)
Literacy rate: 94%
Religions: Muslim 87%, Christian 7%, Roman Catholic 3%,
Hindu 2%, other 1%
GDP per capita (PPP): $11,100
GDP growth rate: 4.8%
Labor, major sectors: Services 48%, agriculture 39%, industrial 13% (2012)
Population in poverty: 11% (2014)
Unemployment rate: 6%
Export commodities: Mineral fuels, boilers, machinery and mechanical parts,
electric machinery, iron and steel, foodstuffs
External debt: $316 billion

Source: CIA, World Factbook 2016.

25
26 • Comparative Politics of the Global South

4. Lesley Wroughton, “‘Third World’ Concepts No Longer Relevant,” Reuters, April 14,
2010.
5. Andre Gunder Frank, Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America (New York:
Monthly Review, 1967); United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD),
“The Least Developed Countries Report 2015,” http://unctad.org.
6. Bill Gates and Melinda Gates, Our Big Bet for the Future: 2015 Gates Annual Letter,
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2015, www.gatesnotes.com.
7. Matthew Lynn, “Why the Title of ‘Developing Country’ No Longer Exists,” The Tele-
graph (London), May 23, 2016, telegraph.co.uk.
8. International Monetary Fund (IMF), “Proposed New Grouping in WEO Country Clas-
sifications: Low-Income Developing Countries,” Policy Paper, June 3, 2014, www.imf.org;
Kiran Kabtta Somvanshi, “World Bank to Change Classification of Countries; India Will
Now Be Called Lower-Middle Income,” Economic Times (India), May 31, 2016, http
://economictimes.indiatimes.com.
9. Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
(New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996).
10. Jacqueline Anne Braveboy-Wagner, Institutions of the Global South (New York: Rout-
ledge, 2009), p. 1.
11. Caroline Levander and Walter Mignolo, “Introduction: The Global South and World
Dis/Order,” Global South 5, no. 1 (Spring 2011), p. 3.
12. Arif Dirlik, “Global South: Predicament and Promise,” Global South 5, no. 1 (Spring
2011), pp. 13–14.
13. Naomi Chazan, Peter Lewis, and Robert Mortimer, Politics and Society in Contem-
porary Africa (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1999).
14. Frank L. Wilson, Concepts and Issues in Comparative Politics: An Introduction to
Comparative Analysis (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996).
15. David J. Elkins and Richard E. B. Simeon, “A Cause in Search of Its Effect, or What
Does Political Culture Explain?,” Comparative Politics 11, no. 2 (January 1979).
16. Monte Palmer, Comparative Politics: Political Economy, Political Culture, and Po-
litical Interdependence (Itasca, IL: Peacock, 1997).
17. Colin Leys, Underdevelopment in Kenya: The Political Economy of Neo-Colonialism,
1964–1971 (London: Heinemann, 1975).
18. Thomas Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree (New York: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux, 1999).
19. Howard J. Wiarda and Harvey F. Kline, An Introduction to Latin American Politics
and Development (Boulder: Westview, 2001); Austin Sarat and Thomas R. Kearns, “The
Unsettled Status of Human Rights: An Introduction,” in Human Rights: Concepts, Contests,
Contingencies, ed. Austin Sarat and Thomas R. Kearns (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press, 2001); Edward W. Said, Reflections on Exile (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
2001).
20. Thomas L. Friedman, “Global Village Idiocy,” New York Times, May 12, 2002.
21. Joshua S. Goldstein, International Relations, 4th ed. (New York: Longman, 2001).
22. Ibid.; Michael E. Porter, “Attitudes, Values, Beliefs, and the Microeconomics of Pros-
perity,” in Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress, ed. Lawrence E. Harrison
and Samuel P. Huntington (New York: Basic, 2000).
23. Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree.
24. Ibid.
25. Jack Donnelly, International Human Rights (Boulder: Westview, 1998).
26. Richard H. Ullman, “Human Rights: Toward International Action,” in Enhancing
Global Human Rights, ed. Jorge I. Domínguez, Nigel S. Rodley, Bryce Wood, and Richard
Falk (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979).
27. Quoted in Michael Ignatieff, Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry (Princeton: Prince-
ton University Press, 2001).
28. The UDHR gives equal time to both individual and group rights; it recognizes that pro-
tections, privileges, and opportunities not only are for individuals, but also should extend to
the family, community, nation, and other groups.
 Comparing and Defining a Complex World • 27

29. Amartya Sen, “Democracy as a Universal Value,” Journal of Democracy 10, no. 3
(July 1999); Ignatieff, Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry.
30. Vojin Dimitrijevic, “Human Rights and Peace,” in Human Rights: New Dimensions
and Challenges, ed. Janusz Symonides (Brookfield, VT: Ashgate, 1998); Ullman, “Human
Rights.”
31. World Bank, “Forests: Overview,” September 26, 2016, www.worldbank.org.
32. Ashley Kirk, “Deforestation: Where Is the World Losing the Most Trees?,” The Tele-
graph (London), March 23, 2016, www.telegraph.co.uk.
33. “Deforestation in Decline but Rate Remains Alarming, UN Agency Says,” UN News
Centre, March 25, 2010, www.un.org; Elizabeth Mygatt, “World’s Forests Continue to
Shrink,” Earth Policy Institute, April 4, 2006, www.earth-policy.org; United Nations Envi-
ronment Programme (UNEP), “About International Year of Biodiversity,” www.unep.org.
34. UNEP, “Climate Change: Introduction,” www.unep.org.
35. Gates and Gates, Our Big Bet for the Future.
36. Justin Gillis, “Short Answers to Hard Questions About Climate Change,” New York
Times, November 28, 2015.
37. Steve Connor, “Global Warming Fastest for 20,000 Years—and It Is Mankind’s Fault?,”
The Independent (London), May 4, 2006; “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” New
York Times, February 9, 2010; Al Gore, “We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change,” New York
Times, February 27, 2010, www.nytimes.com.
38. Carl Zimmer, “Global Warming Alters Arctic Food Chain, Scientists Say, with Un-
foreseen Results,” New York Times, November 22, 2016.
39. Lester R. Brown, foreword to State of the World 2001, ed. Lester R. Brown and Linda
Starke (New York: Norton, 2001); Christopher Flavin, “Rich Planet, Poor Planet,” in Brown
and Starke, State of the World 2001; UNEP, “Climate Change: Introduction.”
40. Darren Samuelson, “China: We’re No. 1 in Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” Politico,
November 24, 2010, www.politico.com.
41. “The Global Burden of Disease,” The Economist, October 13, 2016, www
.economist.com.
42. Susan Brink, “Global Health Forecast for 2016: Which Diseases Will Rise . . . or
Fall?,” National Public Radio, Goats and Soda, January 4, 2016, www.npr.org.
43. “Funding for HIV and AIDS,” Avert, November 2, 2016, www.avert.org; World Health
Organization (WHO), “HIV/AIDS Fact Sheet,” July 2016, www.who.int.
44. Global Fund, “HIV and AIDS,” 2016, www.globalfund.org; “Funding for HIV and
AIDS,” Avert.
45. “Global HIV and AIDS Statistics,” Avert, November 2, 2016, www.avert.org.
46. WHO, “An Estimated 12.6 Million Deaths Each Year Are Attributable to Unhealthy
Environments,” March 15, 2016, www.who.int.
47. Ibid.
48. WHO, “WHO Releases Country Estimates on Air Pollution Exposure and Health
Impact,” September 27, 2016, www.who.int.
49. Doug Bolton, “Air Pollution Is Now a Global ‘Public Health Emergency,’” The In-
dependent (London), January 19, 2016, www.independent.co.uk.
50. Brink, “Global Health Forecast.”
51. Maryn McKenna, “How We’ll Tackle Diseases That Are Becoming Untreatable,”
National Geographic, September 22, 2016, www.nationalgeographic.com.
52. Brink, “Global Health Forecast.”