There is not as it does not refer to a geographical designation. I wouldn't say it is a euphemism, but closer to what people actually refer to when they misuse the term "third-world".
The closest geographical designation was the Brandt line drawn in the 80s showing a north and south divide in terms of global wealth distribution [0].
Like I mentioned in my top-most comment, "developing nation" is what people typically refer to. As to your comment, I was pointing out that "global south" is not a euphemism for "developing nation". I'd say it is the other way around and in a misguided way. This is because the global south/north designation intentionally distances itself from terminology such as "developing nation".
I understand if this comes across as pedantry but the global north and south terminology does a better job at leveling the playing field when talking about wealth and progress disparities.
As per your other question, Australia is part of the global north, China is part of the global south in the global north and south groupings.
>I understand if this comes across as pedantry but the global north and south terminology does a better job at leveling the playing field when talking about wealth and progress disparities.
I mean... but how? It's just the exact same concepts with less intuitively obvious words. Arguably it frames the disparity as a more immutable part of a nation; it doesn't fit normal language patterns to talk about a country moving north/south.
> I understand if this comes across as pedantry but the global north and south terminology does a better job at leveling the playing field when talking about wealth and progress disparities.
How? South Korea, Japan, and Singapore are richer than France or Spain now. As nations develop the geographic terminology makes less and less sense. Developing nation is much more accurate.
> In other words, effectively developed = what we are, developing = trying to be what we are.
That’s the plan, yes.
> Ultimately it is forcing a finite game onto the world.
Global south sounds like a better term.
Except that it’s geographically inaccurate as well as kind of racist. Japan, Singapore, and Korea can get richer than France or Spain, but they still get lumped in with the other non-white people in “the global south.”
> Japan, Singapore, and Korea can get richer than France or Spain, but they still get lumped in with the other non-white people in “the global south.”
Global south/north divide lumps SK, SG and JP into the north. I have a bigger problem with it putting Russia there, but not e.g. Argentina.
Besides, note how the term "developed" sounds like it has an objective, final and fixed definition, but always invites moving goalposts. Now you use some financial metric. Tomorrow someone uses education levels or democracy.
**
The truth is that everybody should keep developing, and development can entail different things to different people. If you say "I'm developed, and that other person is developing", "we are good, but they are not good yet", all you get is resentment when in fact you want global cooperation.
"Developedness" is a vague, subjective measure that indicates duck all except hubris on the part of whoever coined the term (not coincidentally, that was developed countries).
A vague measure warrants a vague term. "Global South" is far from perfect, but it is less bad. It is obviously geographically inaccurate, which on a meta level is quite fitting.
I don't think I could ever use either term without air quotes, but at least with global south they are more or less implied.
> Global south/north divide lumps SK, SG and JP into the north.
Only if you arbitrarily make exceptions for what’s “south”—ignoring the fact that Singapore and Taiwan and Korea are south of China. The phrase itself implies a permanent association between “south” (I.e. non-white, since skin color is a function of latitude) and “under-undeveloped.”
That seems far worse to me than acknowledging that developing countries are indeed trying to become like developed countries.
Korea is hardly south of China. Regardless, the term is not supposed to be geographically correct, and to me it is a feature. It's a vague subjective term, as if it's been designed for people to think twice before using it and make their point using a more precise metric instead. That's why I think it's better than "developing nation", which is just as arbitrary but tries to hide that.
What is the measure of richer? By median income, Japan and South Korea are slightly richer than Spain but poorer than France. They are higher by GDP per Capita, but I don't think that is a very good measure as it completely ignores extreme income inequality and would list several oil rich nations very high even though only a few very wealthy at the top benefit.
The closest geographical designation was the Brandt line drawn in the 80s showing a north and south divide in terms of global wealth distribution [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_North_and_Global_South#...