The Third World, Developing Countries, the South...why so many names for the same part of the world? Is it merely the spectre of political correctness, or is it truly too simplistic to slap one label on so many distinct countries - and distinct histories and realities?

The various terms are meant to differentiate economically poorer countries from the smaller number of richer countries known collectively as the First World, Developed Countries, or the North. The 'Third World' tag originally signified a third way of doing things, an alternative to the Cold War division of Western capitalism (the First World) and East Bloc communism (the Second World). But in the New World order that emerged, the promise of another way grew distant, and the term took on a negative connotation, as in third class.

Hence, the oft-used term Developing World. But you could argue that some Third World nations are now worse off than before they began to 'develop.' And what does developing really mean anyway?

So the people who think about these things began bandying about the concept of a North and a South. Problem is, it's geographically inaccurate; for example, the relatively rich nations of Australia and New Zealand are considered part of the conceptual North, but are located, inconveniently, in the actual South.

The phrases "Two-Thirds World" and "Majority World" have also been coined, since the people of the Third World/ South/ Developing World/whatever represent two-thirds of the globe's population. Accurate, yes, but a mouthful that has not caught on.

Ultimately, all terms are misleading: they suggest everyone on their respective side of the economic equator is floating around in the same boat. In truth, there is usually an elite minority in most countries of the Third World that has more in common with the wealthy of the First World - in terms of standard of living, at least - than with the majority of people in their own countries. And vice-versa. There are those in the North who have been left out in the economic cold.