In the early 20th century the most common world paradigm was based on location. Countries in the northern hemisphere were rich, and those in the southern hemisphere were poor. The anomaly here was Australia, a rich country in the poor hemisphere.
This map of the world shows countries of the southern hemisphere in grey. Rich countries of the northern hemisphere are shown in green; they include Canada, the United States and Europe.
As the north-south paradigm was challenged, one that focused on socialist leaning governments appeared. This new paradigm separated the world into countries allied to one or other of the superpowers: USSR and China versus the USA. Later a third category, the non- aligned countries emerged as well. With the fall of communism after the Cold War, this paradigm began to have less value.
This map of the world shows countries of the east (the USSR and China) in red and the rest of the world in grey.
Post WWII the world was seen divided into levels of development. First World countries were capitalist and wealthy. Under this category we find the countries of Japan, Australia, Canada, the USA and European nations. Second World countries were classified based on a communist/socialist leadership and an economy that was industrializing. The remainder of the world (predominantly in the southern hemisphere) were considered to be Third World countries. Again anomalies began to challenge this paradigm. Why, for example would Saudi Arabia be considered a third world country?
This map of the world shows First World countries in blue, Second World countries in red and Third World countries in green.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is used to measure the health of a country's economy. It measures the total dollar value of all goods and services produced over a specific time period by the people in that country. A benefit of using GDP is that all countries are able to measure their economy. The challenge to the GDP is that is doesn’t include informal, grey or black market sectors of the economy. Also since it measures goods and services sold, what happens if goods are not sold? Do they still contribute to the GDP? The most problematic flaw with using GDP to make generalizations about the world is that it only measure the economy. It does not take into account any social indicators like health or levels of education.
This map of the world shows the distribution of countries according to their level of economic development as measured by GDP. The pattern that is evident is that North America, Europe and Australia and Japan have a high GDP while African nations have a low or very low GPD.
This paradigm moves away from the traditional view that what matters the most is economic strength and considers the happiness of the people in the country. For the first time North America and Europe are not together in the higher levels of the indicator, and Venezuela, for the first time is in the higher level. Additionally many European nations are no longer in the “top” ranking. While we would all likely agree that happiness is important, this paradigm may be more challenging to use for economists and national governments. While this is controversial (can happiness be effectively measured?) it seems to show the same patterns of indicators of wellbeing such as health, wealth and access to education. This map of the world uses red to indicate low levels of happiness and blue to indicate high levels of happiness.
The GINI Index measures the extent to which the distribution, or in some cases, consumption among individuals or households within an economy deviates from a perfectly equal distribution. It is a measure of income inequality. Most simply put, the GINI score measures how large the gap is between the rich and the poor of a country. Canada and many other African nations have low GINI scores while Namibia, South Africa, Haiti and Colombia have very high GINI scores.
This map of the world shows income inequality. A higher score is indicated in shades of red and a low score is in shades of green.
Gender inequality means that girls and women of the population are not experiencing the same levels of development as boys and men. What this indicator looks like in any given country is the different levels of access people have to health care and education. Yemen is identified as having the least gender equality and Iceland the most. Many countries in Africa, identify as having no data.
This map of the world uses shades of green to show lower levels of gender inequality and shades of red to show higher levels.
The Human Development Index (HDI) measures an average achievement of human development rather than economic development: life expectancy, health, education and standard of living. It is not surprising that this collection of data produces a map that shares a previously seen pattern where North America, Scandinavia and Australia experience the highest HDI while African nations experience the lowest ratings.
This map of the world shows the distribution of countries based on the Human Development Index.
This collection of eight maps shows the evolution of our thinking about measuring development. Is development just about the economy or is it about the people who are in the economy? As our thinking changes so does our paradigm about the idea of development.
Jot down in your notebook your answers to these questions. These notes will be useful in a discussion you will participate in later in this activity:
Why is it no longer appropriate to describe the world primarily on the basis of economic indicators?
Why do you think the Human Development Index is one of the most frequently cited methods for grouping countries?
Do you think it is the most accurate?
What problems might be associated with the use of this index?
Read this Core-Periphery world map and the text associated with it. Consider how this measurement of development compares to the HDI approach. Which would you recommend be used when learning about world issues? Explain your thinking.
More than just the data on the map has changed. Imagine you are trying to peel an orange that has the continents drawn on it. Your goal is to have the peel perfectly flat and the continents still in tact. This is a more difficult task than you might think. Taking a three dimensional earth and converting it into a two dimensional map cannot be done without distorting the map somehow.
Traditionally Ontario schools use the Mercator projection (first created around 1569). This projection distorts landmasses as the latitude increases from the Equator to the poles. Greenland and Canada’s Arctic archipelago are shown to be multiple times larger than they actually are. Africa and South America are shown to be considerably smaller on this projection than they really are. It over emphasizes the northern countries and under represents those south of the equator.
The Peter’s projection, (first seen in 1974), shows the earth's geographic relationships, in true proportion.
Please place these maps side by side for easier comparison.
This thematic (vegetation) world map (Mercator projection) is a computer generated composite of satellite images. This thematic (vegetation) world map (Peters projection) is a computer generated composite of satellite images .
This isn’t usually what we think of when we think of the world but it is as valid as any other map of the world. After all, where is “up” in the universe? Please make this map the full width of the page.
This thematic (vegetation) world map (Peters projection) is a computer generated composite of satellite images. It is oriented with north at the bottom creating an upside down map .
Ask yourself again: Why does the upside down map appear to be so wrong? Why do we classify countries the way we do? What are some of the consequences of placing a country into a particular category? How might this type of categorization help to maintain stereotypes rather than promote understanding?