• Meartz, Paul D. 1991. Is North Dakota a Part of the Third World. Dakota Alliance May 1991; November-December 1999: 5-6.

Paul D. Meartz [Mayville State University]

"Third World" is one of those terms that many use, but few truly understand. A dispute a while back, between former State Higher Education Commissioner John Richardson and State Senate Majority Leader William Heigard, brought this sometimes confusing term into public discussion in North Dakota. Also, with the upturn in interest in global education, teachers have been running into this term in the classroom. It is agreed that Third World implies something poor and undesirable, but what exactly is meant can be puzzling to many. Part of the problem is that the term has two meanings, one based upon its original development and one based upon popular American usage.

North Dakota as a "Third World" Place in Liebenstein's Scheme
#	Leibenstein Listed Characteristic**	Existence in North Dakota
1	Low educational achievement	no
2	Far too many persons in agriculture	no
3	Underemployment	limited
4	Very little capital per person	no
5	Low income per person	no
6	Most persons have no savings	no
7	Savings restricted to landowners	no
8	Unbalanced food output (cereals vs. meat)	no
9	High percentage of income spent on food	no
10	Export of foodstuffs and raw materials	yes
11	Low levels of trade per person	no
12	Poor credit and marketing operations	no
13	Poor quality housing	no
14	Uneconomic use of capital	no
15	Low level of technology in agriculture	no
16	Transport problems limiting agriculture	no
17	Most unable to withstand short crises	no
18	Debt/assets ratio very high for most	no
19	Land hunger	no
20	High birth and death rates	no
21	Poor diets in terms of basic caloric needs	no
22	Rural overcrowding	no
23	Child labor common	very limited
24	Status of women low	no
25	Most persons unable to accept change	no
26	Poor communication systems	no
27	Brain drain*	yes
28	Current/ former colonial status*	debatable
* denotes item not attributable to Leibenstein ** This list of characteristics is taken from H. Leibenstein as cited in Anthony de Souza and Philip Porter, The Underdevelopment and Modernization of the Third World. Commission on College Geography Resource Paper, no. 25 (Washington, D.C.: Association of American Geographers, 1974), pp. 15-16. This text is an excellent guide to the questions raised here. xxx Some problems exist in the state along these lines.

In the United States, the term "Third World" is generally used as a substitute for "underdeveloped" or "poor" This reflects unwillingness to appreciate the concept behind the Third World term, as well as world's inability to agree upon a single descriptive term for the poor countries.

The first question to be asked should about the "third" designation. Since the world is divided into rich and poor, why the need for three groups? To answer this, it must be noted that Third World began as a political term to describe those countries unwilling cooperate in the division of the world into American and Soviet dominated blocs. The world system of the 1950's and 1960's demanded that the non-superpower countries align with one of the superpowers. This pressure was seen as unacceptable to many countries as it failed to recognize their individual strengths and natures. India, for example, with its large population and budding economy, did not want its international and domestic images to be based upon its association with either of the superpowers. It wanted to stand on its own. The same was true of other potential members of the Third World. Hence. we see that the "third" portion of the title stems from a political desire, felt by a number of nations, to support their own national identities and not those of the United States or Soviet Union. The countries that felt this way were part of a third group of international players, hence, the Third World. In simple terms appropriate for bringing this point home in the classroom, each one of us wants to be known by our name and for our accomplishments. How would we like to go through life being predominantly known as a friend of someone else?

However, for Americans, such a stand was not in our best interests. Our world was divided into two, not three. So in America we have chosen to ignore the political message inherent in the Third World term. The Third World term has come to be associated with "poor" or "underdeveloped", rather than with the politically unacceptable usage. The Third World countries are poorer and underdeveloped compared to us; the use of the term for these purposes is not wrong, just inaccurate and arrogant.

The extension of the term to North Dakota is then wrong on the basis of the initial definition, the political one. The only possibility for its use in this manner, would be to see North Dakota as dominated by the imperialists of the larger United States. We have those who see North Dakota as a colony, but this is stretching the point. The effects of colonial domination in North Dakota cannot be compared to the great damage done in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

Comparison on the basis of the Americanized sense of the Third World term is more possible. The Third World consists of nations with significant economic problems. We can draw attention to our problems by making the comparison to the Third World, and I have done this in class, but such use relies upon picking select characteristic out of a larger list. Select items make for good comparisons, the whole does not.

To show this, the accompanying chart compares select group of the characteristic of underdeveloped countries with those of North Dakota. The list is based upon the work of H. Leibenstein, except for the last two. The judgment on whether these characteristics exist in North Dakota is based upon the author's knowledge of what is meant by Leibenstein's characteristics as they apply to the underdeveloped countries and a "common sense" assessment as to whether these characteristics exist in North Dakota.

Out of twenty-eight characteristics, North Dakota shares only two with the underdeveloped countries. On three other items there is a limited or debatable sharing. North Dakota does depend upon the export of foodstuffs and raw materials and there also has been a brain drain of young people given the limited non-farm opportunities within the state. North Dakota does share these characteristics with the "Third World" or underdeveloped countries. Also, North Dakota does have limited child labor usage, though not similar at all to that found in underdeveloped countries, and some underemployment, here taken to mean people with jobs which do not adequately use their talents or provide a living. Current or former colonial status is debatable.

The point of this is that the use of the Third World term in drawing attention to North Dakota's problems is possible in a limited sense At all times, however, there are a large number of characteristics which the two do not share.