EXPLORING 3RD WORLD AND 1ST WORLD BEHAVIOUR

AN ASSIGNMENT ON PSYCHOLOGY(ADP MODULE 4)

BY

MICHAEL E. IMOMOH

ID 16543

LECTURER: Ms. SARAH-ELIZABETH

SCHOOL: PROJECT MANAGEMENT COLLEGE UK

COURSE: ADVANCED DIPLOMA IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT

DATE: JUNE 2009

INTRODUCTION

Differences within any given set of subjects always call for some form of classification – an exercise that eases comprehension by the human mind. Humans are classified as male or female, in terms of sex; black, white, and even yellow, in terms of skin colour. Whole societies are also arranged into classes using varied criteria depended on the context of discourse – politics, technology, colour, climate, and even prevailing world situations have been used to classify societies. Based on their levels of industrialisation, nations are termed developed or First World, developing (and even, underdeveloped) or Third World.The sociologically or anthropologically curious would dare a probe into the possibility of uniqueness in the nature – behaviour – of peoples in these communities. In other words, using industrialisation as classification, such questions might be asked: Is there such a thing as Third World and First World behaviour? If yes, what are the differences between the two? What can be done to improve matters? In answering these questions, it is important to first understand the terms First World, Third World and behaviour.

First World and Third World Countries – Origin and CharacteristicsA classification criterion resulted from the sides taken by nations of the world during the Cold War, which lasted for over forty years. This intense post-World War II rivalry between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), each with their allies, caused nations to be classified as:

- First World countries: The United States of America and its allies like Britain, Japan, France and Canada, who shared similar political ideologies of democracy and capitalism.

- Second World countries: The USSR, many Eastern Europe countries and later Cuba and China who supported the communist agenda.

- Third World countries: Those countries, many of them in Africa and South America, who had no formal commitment to either of the above blocs.

The eventual fall of USSR in the early 1990s, coupled with increasing clamour for democracy and capitalism around the world, modified this classification to two – First world and Third world – and as well redefined these terms in themselves. Today, the term ‘First World’ describes the main industrialized nations of the world, while less developed nations – many of those of Africa, Asia and Latin America that are generally less economically advanced than the First World – are referred to as Third World nations.

Of Third World countries, Professor of History and International Studies, Sergio Barzanti (2009), explains: “Political instability caused by precarious economic situations is widespread in the Third World. Democracy in the Western meaning of the term is almost completely absent. The Third World displays little homogeneity; it is divided by race, religion, culture, and geography, as well as frequently opposite interests. It generally sees world politics in terms of a global struggle between rich and poor countries—the industrialized North against the backward

South. Both the Western and the former Soviet blocs have tried to entice the Third World to follow their own examples, but the countries concerned generally prefer to create their own institutions based on indigenous traditions, needs, and aspirations; most choose pragmatism over ideology. Some are moving out of their previous situation and may soon join the ranks of industrialized countries. Others, with economies considered intrinsically incapable of development, are at times lumped together as forming a fourth world.”

It is near correct say that industrialised nations are characterised by principles and practices opposite to the above mentioned for developing countries.

Behaviour in Society

Generally, behaviour is defined as the way in which a person, organism, or group responds to a specific set of conditions. This manner of response can be conscious or unconscious, overt or covert, and voluntary or involuntary. Wikipedia (2009) defines human behaviour specifically as the collection of behaviours exhibited by human beings and influenced by culture, attitudes, emotions, values, ethics, authority, rapport, hypnosis, persuasion, coercion and/or genetics. It differentiates this behaviour from social behaviour, which is defined as behaviour specifically directed at other people; the acceptability of behaviour is evaluated relative to social norms and regulated by various means of social control.

Behaviour in the context of this write up is more about social behaviour: How do people of First World nations respond to issues? Is this different from how there counterparts in the Third World handle same or similar issues? Is this difference, by any means due, to their different levels of industrialisation? This paper is thus more of a sociological endeavour. So, is there such a thing as First World and Third World behaviour?

IS THERE SUCH A THING AS FIRST WORLD AND THIRD WORLD BEHAVIOUR?

In my opinion, yes, there is! There are inherently marked traits that are common among people living in industrialised nation, traits as natural among them – at least among a majority of them – as breathing air. Interestingly, such traits are learned social behaviour, accepted interaction with institutions, systems and principles within and guiding their society. These traits are seemingly absent in people of many Third World nations. The following are reasons that I aver that this behavioural difference exists:

- Respect for Ideology: The very systems that run the First World – democracy and capitalism – are intangible things, ideal, principles that have been sold to the citizenry as necessary for a holistically better life. The entire society, including leadership, is viewed and operated as one integrated system. Fortunately, these principles are repeatedly proven to be effective within these nations. The strong belief in such principles is usually adequate motivation for public and private institutions, as well as individuals, to work and change in a given direction, even where there are no short-term benefits. In short, people in industrialised nations put their trust in systems, which are taken for granted as effective. They fight for

these systems to work when problems arise. An example of such belief in principles is the confidence people have in ‘unseen’ money – credit and fiat money.

On the other hand, developing nations’ citizens are more prone to believe in what they see. Having been manipulated repeated by rulers who promise short-term, tangible, but shallow symptom-treating, benefits – in place of ideologically-sound and proven methods for achievement which focus on roles and responsibilities, and not necessary appealing personalities – many of such citizens tend to become exceptionally suspicious of change. In any case, very few developing nations run their economies as integrated systems, where the average citizen has a feel of his role and importance in relation to how the entire society works. So citizens of many developing countries fight that individual leadership, not systems, should work.

- A Sense of Order: Especially in Africa, leaders have been blamed endlessly for being witnesses to, but not initiators of, the relative law and order experienced in the United States of America and other developed nations, where these leaders spend their pastime. Ironically, the same Third World citizens, who blame their leaders for not creating and enforcing necessary laws, citizens who find it very easy to litter the streets of their own countries – citizens who are usually too impatient to wait on queues for service in their own countries – do not hesitate to follow the rules in First Third countries when they, like their leaders, travel abroad. It makes one think that such people lack the necessary drive to be naturally orderly. It also reflects their readiness to compromise quality, to set and follow double standards for living life.

- Sustainability – Letting go of Past Trouble and Looking beyond the Present: The term, sustainability, here refers to the ability to live both for today and tomorrow based on improvements made from the lessons of the past. Industrialised nations seem to have become very aware of this necessity, for example in the area of pollution control, so that effort is continuously being put into preventing ills of the past revisiting today. Also, there always seems to be a civilised way in which citizens in most developed countries replace aggressive sentiments among themselves with intelligent mutual benefits. If this were not the case, the world would have heard of endless ethnic clashes in many developed nations, as is present in many parts of Africa.Somehow, ethnic groups of Third World countries find it hard to rise above near-prehistoric grudges among themselves. Religious, ethnic, and other meaningless sentiments are ready reasons for ongoing wars and endless conflicts in parts of India, Eastern Europe and in many parts of Africa. Were these people able to manage their emotional thresholds all this while and also able to focus on mutually beneficial solutions that favour short-term, and especially long-term benefits, maybe some development would have spread in their countries.

- A Sense of Ownership and Connection to the Whole: This point is made based on my experience as a Nigerian and what I know obtains in other African countries. It is highly

likely that when the average American is asked where he hails from, he would proudly say “I’m American!” If pressed further, he might mention the locality where he was born before the one where his parents hail from. Ask the same of a Nigerian and a likely reply is: “I’m Wanno, from Agenebode in Etsako-East Local Government Area of Edo State, Nigeria”, same as this writer who has actually lived his 28-plus years in Ibadan and Lagos, Western Nigeria. So where exactly am I from? Why can’t a Rwandan just be a Rwandan? Why must he be either a Tutsi or Hutu? Why must an Indian be a Hindu or a Muslim? What, in the Third World citizen, makes it difficult for him to feel and to act like a shareholder in the whole body, in the country?

BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN FIRST AND THIRD WORLD BEHAVIOUR

The argument above infers that the difference in behaviour of peoples in developed and developing nations is as a result of the nations’ level of development. By extension, it means that bridging the developmental gap should bridge the behavioural gap. This is a possible solution if one agrees that the improving open-mindedness of the Chinese towards foreigners is as conscious an effort as their conscious drive towards industrialisation. So, what is responsible for the developmental gap?

In my opinion, lack of credible leadership and poor orientation of the masses in Third World countries are the aggravating factors. Of course lack of dependable leadership starts and promotes the downhill process of developing countries; it even affects the orientation of the masses. The communist agenda of defunct Soviet bloc, the deplorable state of the Zimbabwean economy, the conflict in the Koreas, all advanced by the leadership of these countries have shaped the orientation of their masses. So, if by some miracle credible leadership happens upon all developing countries, are the problems automatically solved? No!

Taking a cue from China, Brazil, and Japan, among many other nations, leadership of Third World countries can make their nations rise and continue to rise by looking outside their countries to examine how others achieve their performance levels, to understand the processes they use. They can do this by understanding and evaluating the current position of their countries in relation to "best practice" (in developed economies) and identifying areas and means of performance improvement – they can do this by dedicated Benchmarking.

It would be costly and absolutely illogical for any Third World nation to try reinventing the wheel of political and socio-economic advancement, especially when effective principles currently exist in developed countries. However, benchmarking does not mean for Third World countries to ‘copy and paste’ First World practices on their socio-economic ‘pages’. In any case, no two developed countries apply their shared ideals in the same manner. The very first step in

benchmarking would be for leaders of developing nations to understand existing political and socio-economic condition of their states. Then, they would need to analyse the strategic processes of other nations, compare their own nations’ performance with that of others analysed and implement the steps necessary to close the performance gap – the developmental gap, the behavioural gap. It is in defining fundamentally who they are, and in implementing ‘best practice’ within their unique socio-cultural frameworks, that I believe many developing countries have failed. And it is essentially in this regard that they can effectively bridge the gap between their nations and developed nations.

To effective and efficiently carryout benchmarking and implement lessons learnt, developing nations would need to add to political will, an approach or approaches that:

- Involve effective and efficient management of their resources, including and beyond financial and human resources;

- Ensure set target are met within specified time limits;

- Meet the quality expectations of their peoples and today’s world.

Inarguably, developing nations would need to adopt the Project Approach to succeed in their Benchmarking efforts, to succeed in bridging the developmental gap and thus the behavioural gap between their people and those of developed nations.

CONCLUSION

In my experience and analysis of life, environment and personal will of people affect their behaviour and results more than anything else. Their genetic makeup may or may not provide the platform on which these two influences act (and interact on each other) to mould behaviour. In human social behaviour, the environmental factor - societal laws, creeds, and other mores – is stronger in that it can be used to limit and/or modify the expression of both personally-willed and genetically-induced tendencies. A criminal, whether deliberately so or genetically-driven, can be withheld and his or her transformation attempted using society’s law creation and enforcement devices. The abject poverty, poor orientation and poor education, promoted by inadequate leadership in the Third World, explain much of the behaviour of its citizens. Flourish and relative comfort have a way of influencing people’s acts. Nigerian history tells of more decent behaviour among its citizens when the quality of life was much better. In contrast with other citizens within Nigeria today, Lagosians are gradually being geared effectively towards more decent behaviour. Undeniably, this is response to the improving quality of life and promise of much better quality by a state government that saw the need to benchmark its constituency against other reputable ‘best practice’ cities with similar physical and demographic characteristics as Lagos.

It is important to state here that one is not implying perfection on the part of First World countries. If anything, they are far from perfect! The obvious excessive preference of ideology over pragmatism – trust in faceless self-propelling systems and some neglect of the unpredictability of human choice

between decent and unethical practices (humans being the implementers of the system in the first place) – is part of the cause and extent of the recent global financial meltdown.I am not implying that First world countries have completely forgotten past rivalries or that their citizens are all decent, unconditionally-loving people. However, one can observe some degree of impressive maturity, and sometimes humour, in how some of them tackle their differences. Such humour is reflected even in language, where for example the English idiomatic expression to take a French leave translates as filer à l’anglaise – to take an English leave – in French.

For the just mentioned reasons, and many more that can be found, First World countries are not perfect by any means. However, their socio-economic and political ideals, which in one way or the other affect their people’s outlook on and response to life, remain the current ‘best practice’ upon which countries of the Third World can depend and improve.

References1. Barzanti, Sergio. "Third World." Microsoft® Encarta® 2009 [DVD]. Redmond, WA:

Microsoft Corporation, 2008.

2. Project Management College UK (2008): Business Strategy; Advanced Diploma in Project Management Module 3.

3. Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation.

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_behavior (Accessed on 23/06/09)