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 Characteristics

A 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.

References
1. 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)