Global North and Global South

The Contemporary World and Ongoing Challenges HIST 1301 | History Global North and Global South Many people in Africa, Asia, and Latin America face realities that serve as a sharp reminder of the disparity between the Global North and the Global South. These labels provide an overview of the general geographic pattern that may be seen in the global distribution of the richest and poorest nations on Earth. Poorer nations are primarily found in the south, whereas the majority of the wealthy nations, including the EU, the US, and Canada, are located in the north. Nonetheless, the southern hemisphere is home to affluent nations like Singapore, New Zealand, and Australia, thus the phrases truly represent economic reality rather than geographic location. In addition, while not everyone residing in a Global South country is impoverished, those who are often make far less than the average citizen of a Global North nation. Because of its complexity, the world is difficult to put into neat categories. It is possible to link imperial exploitation—which sometimes dates back centuries— to a large number of the economic issues facing the Global South. The nations in the Global North, particularly those in Europe, have a tendency to profit from this exploitation. SubSaharan Africa, Latin America, and southern Asia are still impacted by the legacy of colonialism and imperialism, which includes high rates of public corruption, underdeveloped economies, and borders that were established for the advantage of imperialist powers rather than the local populations. In Africa, boundaries drawn by imperialist powers to their advantage frequently forced antagonistic ethnic groupings into one nation while dividing members of the same ethnic group into distinct ones. The outcome has frequently been violent ethnic strife. Over the past few decades, even resource-rich Global South nations have found it difficult to grow their economies. In fact, they frequently struggle more than nations with relatively limited resources to meet their own requirements. Resource-rich nations are more likely to experience authoritarianism, high rates of violence, and slow rates of economic progress due to this issue, which has been termed the "resource curse" since its discovery in 1993 by British economist Richard Auty. The majority of government funding in resource-poor nations usually comes from taxes paid by the populace, which leads to increased public scrutiny of how that money is used and more responsive administrations. On the other hand, governments in nations with abundant natural resources may finance public spending by leveraging lucrative extractive sectors such as oil extraction. There are many potential for government corruption because that profit is frequently rather big. In an attempt to increase profits, governments often use money to reward followers and finance security forces that put down opposition and put an end to protests. This leads to conflict and occasionally dictatorial regimes. Potential corruption is also usually not as closely scrutinised by the public. Rich in oil and diamonds, Angola is an African nation that has suffered from the resource curse. Over 92% of its exports in 2018 consisted of oil, and the sector contributed roughly 3% of the country's GDP. After winning its independence from Portugal in 1975, the nation has gone through atrocities and internal conflicts. José Eduardo dos Santos, who was frequently chastised publicly for election fraud, corruption, and dictatorship, governed Angola for a large portion of this time until 2017. He received a large portion of his authority from the oil rents that Angolan oil firms paid him. He utilised these funds and favours to suppress his opponents, hang onto power, and lavish his family and close associates with wealth. Although the oil rents were high, the majority of the country's population lived in poverty for the most part of the time. Angola's ability to feed itself was severely damaged by the conflict. The 1980s and 1990s saw widespread famine, and many highly educated and talented professionals emigrated in search of better chances outside. In 2019, 41% of the population lived below the federal poverty level, 30% of adults had not finished their elementary education, and 53% of the nation lacked access to electricity. including though Angola is an extreme example, the issues it faces are often shared by many other Global South nations as well, including those that are not impacted by the resource curse. About 85% of the world's extreme poor—those who make less than $1.90 per day— lived in south Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa as of 2015, with half of them concentrated in just five nations: Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Nigeria, India, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Many people lack access to communication networks, infrastructure, high-quality medical treatment, and educational opportunities. They experience high rates of sickness, starvation, and political unrest-related deaths. They also encounter irregular eating. The United Nations estimates that 800 million people—many of them in the Global South—faced starvation in 2020. In addition, they are more susceptible to heat waves, earthquakes, tsunamis, and storms. These nations are more likely to face issues with industrial and environmental pollution, as well as the myriad consequences of climate change. The work of international institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has helped to mitigate these challenges, at least in part. Through its endorsement of government planning and investments that give priority to a bottom-up approach, the World Bank has fostered community-driven development. It has aided nations in managing the issue of recurring natural catastrophes, financing, for example, early warning systems for Southeast Asian tsunamis. Additionally, it has supplied money for infrastructure that provides clean water, for meeting educational needs, and for increasing agricultural productivity in order to fight famine. In a similar vein, the IMF has established a financial resource pool that nations may draw upon in times of need. Although both organisations are proud of their great accomplishments, on occasion they have exacerbated issues. Opponents, such as economist Joseph Stiglitz, draw attention to the numerous requirements the IMF places on nations seeking assistance. These include higher interest rates, more privatisation, the abolition of protectionist laws, and austerity measures that cut back on government expenditure. Stiglitz and others have pointed out that these kinds of conditions typically affect low-wage people in the nations the IMF claims to be rescuing while benefiting foreign creditors from the Global North. The World Bank has been subject to similar criticism. Poor nations have very limited influence inside the organisation and on its policies and activities, according to a popular argument that the organisation lacks representation from the Global South.