Time to stop cramming countries into the same box

Quiz question: what does China have in common with Madagascar? 

If you’re struggling, here is a clue. It’s the same thing that Fiji has in common with Nigeria. And which Sudan has in common with Singapore. And which all those countries have in common with Mali, the Maldives, Mongolia and Mexico. 

By now, you are protesting that other than being located on Planet Earth, such a diverse group of nations has no unifying characteristic. There are wealthy and poor here. Giant and tiny. Democrats and autocrats. Climate change contributors, and climate change sufferers.  

You are right to protest. Which is why I pledge that henceforth, I will stop lumping such disparate nations together under the term ‘Global South’. 

In my defence, I have not been alone. It has become a convenient way to describe the ‘non-Western’ world, a similarly clunky expression. Joe Biden spoke of the Global South during a recent visit to Vietnam, while at the 2023 UN General Assembly, China declared itself ”a natural member of the ‘Global South”, breathing the same breath with other developing countries and sharing the same future.  

For many commentators, the ‘Global South’ has seemed a better alternative to ‘developing nations’ (after all, who isn’t a developing nation?) or that early 21st-century favorite, ‘emerging markets’. It responds to the fact that old dichotomies such as Rich/Poor, East/West, just don’t apply anymore. 

Unfortunately, however, the staggering geographic, economic, political, and climate diversity of the ‘Global South’ nations compromises any attempt to group them en masse.  

Ignoring the factual inaccuracy (how can Astana, which sits further north than Luxembourg, be part of the ‘South’?), the term is also dangerously polarizing. Separating the world into ‘Global South’ and ‘non-Global South’ undermines international cooperation, particularly in a time of geopolitical conflict. The term is not just unhelpful. It adds fuel to the fire. 

To state the obvious, countries come in all shapes and sizes. All are at different points on the development continuum. Each nation’s context is the complex result of social, cultural, economic and political factors which have evolved over centuries and which shift constantly.  

I see this diversity every day. The organization I lead, the Alliance for Financial inclusion, comprises 89 central banks and financial regulators from 84 countries in six continents (among them Fiji, Nigeria, the Maldives, Mongolia and Mexico). Their diversity is incredible. It is the source of our strength.  

And while reflecting on the fact that each is unique, I realized what it is that our 84 member countries have in common.  

The commonality they share is not economic, or geographic, or political. It is rather a view of the world, a Weltanschauung, founded on two principles: that policies and regulations should be closely tailored to the country context, and that inclusivity should be at the center of the design of policy solutions.   

Our members (and I) believe that policies, regulations and development strategies must reflect a country’s context. One size definitely doesn’t fit all. 

Equally, our members are committed to inclusivity. As they progress along the development continuum, it is with a determination that no one should be left behind. 

This philosophy is not unique to our 84 member countries, but is shared by like-minded nations in all regions, some European countries being just one example.  

And I realize now that this world view is what I had in mind whenever, in speeches or articles, I referred to the ‘Global South’. I meant those countries that don’t want or need to be told what to do, and who wish to take their development and destiny into their own hands, for the benefit of all. 

In retiring the term from my vocabulary, I am conscious that I have nothing to replace it with. Our diverse alliance of nations refuses to fit into one descriptive category. Rather than bemoan this, it is something to celebrate.