What Is the “First World”? A practical guide to meaning, metrics, controversy, and next steps
Key takeaways
– “First world” originally described Cold War allies of the United States; today the phrase is largely synonymous in popular use with “developed” or “advanced” economies, but it is considered outdated and imprecise. (See historical context: U.S. Dept. of State Office of the Historian.)
– Common indicators used to identify developed countries include high GDP/GNI per capita, high Human Development Index (HDI), low mortality, high literacy, advanced infrastructure, stable currencies and financial markets, and democratic institutions.
– The term is controversial because it is hierarchical, Cold War–rooted, and masks within-country inequality and other shortcomings (poverty pockets, environmental stresses, governance gaps).
– Practical steps are different depending on who you are: a policymaker seeking development, an analyst evaluating countries, or a communicator choosing terminology.
What “first world” meant — and why that matters
– Historical origin: During the Cold War, geopolitically motivated groupings labeled countries as “first world” (U.S. and Western allies), “second world” (Soviet bloc), and “third world” (nonaligned and many newly independent states). After the Soviet collapse the geopolitical basis for those labels largely disappeared (U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian).
– Contemporary usage: Today people often use “first world” informally to mean highly industrialized, high-income, democratic countries with advanced infrastructure and social services. More precise modern alternatives are “developed,” “high-income,” “advanced economy,” or “high human-development” country.
Core traits commonly associated with developed (“first world”) countries
– Economic indicators: high GDP or GNI per capita (often measured in PPP or current USD), diversified industrial and service sectors, deep financial markets, and consistent foreign direct investment inflows (World Bank).
– Human development: high HDI scores, high life expectancy, low infant/child mortality, high literacy and school attainment.
– Governance and institutions: stable democratic processes or rule-of-law institutions, transparent public administration, relatively low corruption.
– Infrastructure and technology: reliable transport and energy systems, widespread internet access, advanced healthcare and education systems.
– Social safety nets: unemployment insurance, pensions, public healthcare, progressive taxation or redistributive policies that cushion economic shocks.
Representative examples
– Frequently-cited examples of countries that meet many “first world” criteria include the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and much of Western and Northern Europe (e.g., France, Germany, the Nordic countries). Classification often relies on combinations of income-level and development indicators (Investopedia; World Bank).
Why the phrase “first world” is contentious
– Hierarchical and dated: It implies a ranked world order left over from Cold War politics and can carry a value judgment.
– Measurement blind spots: GDP per capita can mask inequality; a high national average does not eliminate pockets of extreme poverty (examples: Appalachia or several deprived urban neighborhoods in affluent countries).
– Political/cultural insensitivity: Using Cold War categories to describe countries with very different histories and trajectories can be misleading and offensive in international contexts.
– Ambiguity: Different actors use different criteria (income-focused vs. human-development vs. institutional quality), producing inconsistent lists of “first world” countries.
Evolving global dynamics since the Cold War
– Rise of middle- and upper-middle-income economies: Countries such as Brazil, India, China, and others have strong sectors and global influence but defy Cold War categories; many are now characterized as “emerging” or “developing” in different gradations.
– New power centers and blocs: Economic influence increasingly depends on trade, technology, and diplomatic networks (e.g., BRICS), not simple Cold War alignments.
– Complexity of development: Environmental sustainability, human rights, digital infrastructure, and inequality are now central pieces of the development puzzle—some “developed” countries score well in some areas and poorly in others.
How to assess whether a country is “developed” — practical steps for analysts and researchers
1. Choose complementary metrics, not just GDP:
– Use GDP per capita (PPP and current USD) and GNI per capita for income measures (World Bank).
– Use Human Development Index (HDI) for a combined measure of health, education, and standard of living.
– Add measures of inequality: Gini coefficient, poverty headcount ratio.
2. Check governance and political indicators:
– Freedom House or Economist Intelligence Unit democracy indices for political rights and civil liberties.
– World Bank governance indicators (rule of law, control of corruption).
3. Add sectoral and infrastructure data:
– Internet penetration, electricity access, transport logistics indexes, hospital beds per capita.
4. Consider sustainability and resilience:
– Environmental Performance Index, carbon intensity per capita, disaster preparedness.
5. Compare subnational data:
– Look for within-country variation: urban vs. rural, regional disparities (examples: U.S. Appalachia; Milwaukee 53206 study shows concentrated disadvantage).
6. Combine into a composite judgment:
– Weight indicators to reflect the purpose of classification (investment decisions vs. policy targeting vs. academic classification).
Practical steps for policymakers aiming to move toward “developed” status
(Policy priorities in approximate sequencing)
1. Strengthen institutions and governance
– Improve transparency, court efficiency, anti-corruption enforcement, and regulatory quality.
– Rationale: Stable governance attracts investment and supports long-term growth.
2. Invest in human capital
– Expand access to quality primary and secondary education, vocational training, and universal basic healthcare.
– Rationale: Higher literacy and healthier populations increase productivity and innovation.
3. Diversify the economy
– Reduce dependence on single commodities by supporting manufacturing, services, and tech sectors.
– Rationale: Diversification reduces vulnerability to commodity shocks (e.g., oil-dependent economies).
4. Build and maintain core infrastructure
– Prioritize energy reliability, transportation, digital connectivity, water and sanitation.
– Rationale: Infrastructure underpins trade, access to markets, and quality of life.
5. Establish social safety nets and inclusive policies
– Target poverty reduction, conditional cash transfers, unemployment supports, and progressive taxation.
– Rationale: Reduce inequality, support consumption, and stabilize society.
6. Create an investment-friendly, yet fair, business environment
– Simplify business registration, protect property rights, and balance incentives with labor and environmental standards.
7. Promote macroeconomic stability
– Maintain sound fiscal policy, stable monetary policy, and manage debt prudently to create a predictable environment for investors.
8. Emphasize sustainability and climate resilience
– Integrate low-carbon growth strategies and disaster risk reduction into development planning.
Practical steps for communicators, funders, and negotiators
– Use precise, contemporary language: prefer “developed,” “high-income,” or “high human-development” rather than “first world.”
– Be explicit about metrics: say “high HDI” or “upper-middle income (GNI per capita $X)” when discussing status.
– Acknowledge nuance: cite internal disparities and trade-offs (growth vs. inequality, prosperity vs. environmental impacts).
– When negotiating, avoid Cold War framing that can offend or obscure shared interests.
Limitations of common measures — what to watch out for
– GDP: good for scale but poor at capturing well-being, distribution, and environmental costs.
– HDI: broader but still misses political freedom, inequality, and environmental sustainability.
– Income thresholds: World Bank categories (low, lower-middle, upper-middle, high income) are useful but change over time and don’t capture capacity or governance.
Final thoughts — moving beyond the label
– The “first world” label is a useful historical shorthand but is imprecise and politically loaded. Modern analysis should rely on explicit, multi-dimensional indicators and recognize that development is complex: countries can be advanced in some dimensions (wealth, technology) and lag in others (inequality, health outcomes, governance).
– For practical work—policy design, investment decisions, diplomatic engagement—use clearly defined metrics, account for within-country variation, and prioritize inclusive, sustainable growth strategies.
Sources and suggested further reading
– Investopedia, “First World” by Laura Porter: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/first-world.asp
– U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian — The Collapse of the Soviet Union: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1989-1992/collapse-soviet
– The World Bank, World Bank Open Data (GDP per capita, GNI per capita, income group classifications): https://data.worldbank.org
– University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, Center for Economic Development, “Milwaukee 53206: The Anatomy of Concentrated Disadvantage” (example of within-country concentrated poverty): https://www4.uwm.edu/ced/publications/53206.pdf
If you’d like, I can:
– Produce a country-by-country checklist (data fields and thresholds) you can use to classify countries for a report or investment screen.
– Create a short briefing for policymakers with prioritized actions and sample budget allocations for each policy area. Which would you prefer?