Not so much an economic issue but...

Interesting article today in the paper noted that Hu Jintao the President of China, admitted that his country has a human rights problem and that it needs to work on it.

The article notes that human rights advocates have criticized this confession during the Chinese leader's trip to the White House as being merely words with no confession backing them.

While the criticism rings true inasmuch as China really hasn't done very well at all on this issue, the statement still says an incredible amount about the state of China's policy development.

1. It notes that Chinese leadership, on some level, acknowledges that human rights are a good thing. Regardless whether they have any actual intent to improve their track record, it means that as a public position, they are moving towards an ideal.

2. It also means, again on some level if not to a great extent, Chinese policy decisions are being influenced by international pressure. Be it pressure to maintain relations with the US (for economic reasons) or to develop a better image for more general trade and power purposes.

All this should be qualified by saying that, yes, words are cheap. But there is still some substance to be gleaned from this statement.

The "Third World"

A recent article from the Economist, "Rethinking the 'third world'", addressed some important backdrops for out understanding of global political economy with important implications for how we view aid, development, and the future.

The article starts with a reminder of World Bank President Bob Zoellick`s comment “2009 saw the end of what was known as the third world”. While the article provides a pretty even handed review of what this statement means and, ultimately, reasons why its probably not true, a couple of issues arose in my mind that weren`t explicitely addressed.

I remember the first time I was informed that the term ``third world`` was no longer p.c. I believe it was in my first or second year of university. The negative connotation and cold-war baggage made it an oppresive term, denoting condescencion towards less developed countries. And while the fall of the Berlin wall indicates that its original meaning is now lost, I don`t believe that its usefullness has gone out of style; many academics I still talk to use this term.

but the term has changed, third world still implies an ordering, the concept that the Asian Tigers were just a freak-show of growth is disappearing and a new level of global-political order is emerging. The BRICs (Brazil, India, Russia and China) represent a new `in-between` of the world`s super powers and suggest that positioning in them is no longer permanent. Some move up (China and India) and some are moving decisively down (Russia). This, of course, is primarily an economic analysis but in this environment, economics is important to note, if not the most defining feature in this new global political order.

Ultimately, the concept of "third world" is now addressing power structures of the have and the have nots. And its not all negative, the have-nots are showing force in numbers through international organizations, which are becoming increasingly important. The "third world" has effectively stalled out the Doha round, the "third world has the potential (sceptical as it may be) of creating regional pacts such as African Union, and the "third world" weather this recent economic crisis with much more finesse than the "first world".

While it may not be politically correct, I would argue that the term continues to be a useful descriptor of the reality of global political economy.