Global Development, Converging Divergence and Development Studies: A Rejoinder

What’s in a Term: Can Feminism Look beyond the Global North/Global South Geopolitical Paradigm?

Conducting Communication, Research, and Education from Climate Change Perspectives

The concept of Global North and Global South (or North–South divide in a global context) is used to describe a grouping of countries along the lines of socio-economic and political characteristics. The Global South is a term generally used to identify countries in the regions of Latin America, Africa, Asia and Oceania. Most, though not all of the countries in the Global South are characterized by low-income, dense population, poor infrastructure, often political or cultural marginalization,[1] and are on one side of the divide; while on the other side is the Global North (comprising the United States, Canada, all European countries, Russia, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and few others depending on context).[2][3][4] As such, the terms Global North and Global South do not refer to the directional North-south as many of the Global South countries are geographically located in the Northern Hemisphere. Countries that are developed are considered as Global North countries, while those developing are considered as Global South countries.[6][1] The term as used by governmental and developmental organizations was first introduced as a more open and value-free alternative to "Third World"[7] and similarly potentially "valuing" terms like developing countries. Countries of the Global South have been described as newly industrialized or are in the process of industrializing, and are frequently current or former subjects of colonialism.[8] The Global North generally correlates with the Western world—with the notable exceptions of Israel, Japan, and South Korea—while the South largely corresponds with the developing countries and the Eastern world. The two groups are often defined in terms of their differing levels of wealth, economic development, income inequality, democracy, and political and economic freedom, as defined by freedom indices. States that are generally seen as part of the Global North tend to be wealthier and less unequal; they are developed countries, which export technologically advanced manufactured products. Southern states are generally poorer developing countries with younger, more fragile democracies heavily dependent on primary sector exports, and they frequently share a history of past colonialism by Northern states.[8] Nevertheless, the divide between the North and the South is often challenged.[9] South-South cooperation has increased to "challenge the political and economic dominance of the North."[10][11][12] This cooperation has become a popular political and economic concept following geographical migrations of manufacturing and production activity from the North to the Global South[12] and the diplomatic action of several states, like China.[12] These contemporary economic trends have "enhanced the historical potential of economic growth and industrialization in the Global South," which has renewed targeted SSC efforts that "loosen the strictures imposed during the colonial era and transcend the boundaries of postwar political and economic geography."[13] Used in several books and American Literature special issue, the term Global South, recently became prominent for U.S. literature.[14]

A challenge noted by engineering education (EE) researchers in the Global South (GS) is that literature addressing their context specific needs is primarily produced in the Global North (GN). In seeking to gain a better understanding of the literature resources available to support EE in a GS context, this study aimed to: (a) provide a broad-based quantitative overview of differences in representation between the GN and GS in education literature, and (b) to investigate the thematic differences between GN and GS publications in EE literature. A scientometric analysis of education-themed publications was firstly conducted in terms of publication volume and citations with a focus on the GN/GS divide. Secondly, a body of EE literature (consisting of >500 studies selected over a 7-year period for their relevance to the EE context in South Africa) was analysed using the Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) dimension of Specialisation to interrogate the thematic differences between GN & GS. The GS was found to be underrepresented in terms of the volume of education research and research impact. A level of relative parity between GN and GS was revealed in terms of themes studied and a general orientation towards the elite code on the LCT specialization plane. Distinct thematic differences were also observed, such as the GS focussing more explicitly on understanding the challenges at statistical and curricular levels, in contrast to the well-developed GN showcasing innovative learning practices in better-resourced contexts. The thematic comparison may be useful to educators in both the GN and GS. Identifying ‘what matters to whom’ offers the opportunity for more efficient collaboration based on strengths, so that we as a global community of practice can tackle the challenges of our time.

This paper primarily aims to provide a citation-based method for exploring the scholarly network of artificial intelligence (AI)-related research in the information science (IS) domain, especially from Global North (GN) and Global South (GS) perspectives. Three research objectives were addressed, namely (1) the publication patterns in the field, (2) the most influential articles and researched keywords in the field, and (3) the visualization of the scholarly network between GN and GS researchers between the years 2010 and 2020. On the basis of the PRISMA statement, longitudinal research data were retrieved from the Web of Science and analyzed. Thirty-two AI-related keywords were used to retrieve relevant quality articles. Finally, 149 articles accompanying the follow-up 8838 citing articles were identified as eligible sources. A co-citation network analysis was adopted to scientifically visualize the intellectual structure of AI research in GN and GS networks. The results revealed that the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom are the most productive GN countries; by contrast, China and India are the most productive GS countries. Next, the 10 most frequently co-cited AI research articles in the IS domain were identified. Third, the scholarly networks of AI research in the GN and GS areas were visualized. Between 2010 and 2015, GN researchers in the IS domain focused on applied research involving intelligent systems (e.g., decision support systems); between 2016 and 2020, GS researchers focused on big data applications (e.g., geospatial big data research). Both GN and GS researchers focused on technology adoption research (e.g., AI-related products and services) throughout the investigated period. Overall, this paper reveals the intellectual structure of the scholarly network on AI research and several applications in the IS literature. The findings provide research-based evidence for expanding global AI research.

There is an extensive body of work on global work and cross-cultural collaboration. However, there is reason to believe that unique dynamics emerge when work occurs across and between the Global North and Global South, a phenomenon which has been understudied in management scholarship. The research in this symposium seeks to explore those dynamics. When considering dynamics between the Global South and Global North, management research has often focused on the mechanisms by which status hierarchies between the Global South and Global North are maintained. This symposium moves scholarship on collaboration between the Global South and Global North beyond the status hierarchies that have importantly been examined to consider a more scope of questions and uncover dynamic processes. For example: How do the Global North and South influence one another as individuals and organizations in each seek to build capacity? How do the Global South and Global North shape one another’s imaginations, work identities and sense of the meaning of their work? In what ways do work interactions and collaborations challenge and frustrate respective parties, and in what ways do these interactions empower and enrich participants?

The Global North and South discourse has become established to imply power inequalities between countries in the Global North and those in the South. As argued by Comaroff and Comaroff (2012), the South continues to be the suppressed underside of the North which always presents the South in the shadow of the North. Although this is conceived in terms of different regional countries, the Global North and South power dynamics are still present internally within the various Global South contexts themselves even without the Global North presence. Internally, within countries classified as the Global South, the Global North/South power dynamics may be seen between ethnic minority groups and the dominant ethnic groups who usually take the role of the Global North. The ethnic minority groups such as the San in Botswana are usually depicted from the Global South perspective whereby they are always presented as tracking behind in development and having to be playing catch up. Using the post-colonial theory, this chapter uses the Global South/North discourse to explore the tensions within development ontologies for the San in Botswana.

Global impacts of climate change have been investigated around the world; however, the discussion in academic literature has generally focused on the work of scientists in the Global North (Corbera et al. 2016). We suggest that this focus may be due in part to adversity faced by scientists in the Global South when attempting to publish in high-impact, Open Access (OA) journals. Language and financial barriers can limit the options of scientists in the Global South, resulting in them publishing in their native language journals, or in journals with lower publication costs. If these journals have a lower impact score, paywalls, or are published in a language other than English, the work of these researchers may not be thoroughly disseminated. This limited dissemination is a major concern when researching climate change, as this is a global issue. To better understand climate change, other global issues, and recognize the work of underrepresented scientists, we call on the whole aquatic science community to increase awareness and support of research conducted in the Global South. The phrase “publish or perish” is used to describe the pressure scientists face to publish their research—employment, promotion, tenure, grants or other funding opportunities can often be contingent on the number of articles published in high impact journals. However, trying to publish in high impact journals can be expensive due to article processing charges. The recent push for OA science, now a requirement for federally funded research in the United States, makes science more accessible to the public, but comes at expense to the researcher, with some journals charging fees over US$4000 (Audrey et al. 2022). Such publication costs may prove challenging to scientists in the Global South where research programs may not be as well funded. For perspective, US$69.6 billion was spent on basic research in the United States in 2017 (https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2019/nsf19321/overview.htm), compared to US$898 million in Brazil (Angelo 2017). A similar trend exists for many countries in the Global South where funds for research and development (as a function of percent gross domestic product; GDP) is much lower relative to countries in the Global North (Fig. 1). Beyond North America, there are some countries like the Republic of Korea and Israel with a research and development expenditure of 4.81% and 5.44% of GDP respectively, driving up the global average. In areas where science is often under-funded, it becomes difficult for research groups to afford publishing their results in high impact, OA journals. The exorbitant costs of publishing alone are likely part of the reason we do not have a fuller picture of climate change impacts around the globe. Scientists in the Global South may encounter another barrier: publishing in English. Most high impact journals are published in English, yet less than 17% of the world's population are native English speakers. English is often learned as a second language, a feat impressive in itself, but writing a manuscript that meets the standards of an English-based journal may prove challenging. Many research groups may find themselves needing to hire a translator, adding yet another major expense to publishing. Resources like AuthorAID (https://www.authoraid.info/) can provide free or affordable support for researchers in low- and middle-income countries to help with checking and improving the quality of their writing in English, but that will not always be enough to overcome such ingrained barriers. We can increase inclusivity in the scientific community by supporting, searching for, citing, and promoting science conducted by researchers from the Global South. Increasing awareness of these publications will have the dual benefits of providing a better understanding of the impacts of global issues like climate change and amplifying the work of underrepresented scientists from the Global South that may otherwise go unnoticed. With many scientists in the Global South working in regions with limited financial support for their research or being non-native English speakers, they face extraordinary challenges to publish their work in high impact, OA journals. In our push toward inclusivity and bettering our understanding of global issues, we must work to eliminate these financial and language barriers. Only with a united understanding between the Global North and South can we effectively understand the future of aquatic ecosystems under a changing climate.

Following drastic shifts in the spatial organization of goods production, increasingly fierce competition now forces firms also to look critically at how to organize the production of services. While digitization and advances in information and communication technologies have enabled firms to unbundle service production processes, the increased global availability of skilled labour allows for the relocation of ever more of these processes around the world. As a result, a new geography of services production takes shape: a geography that is defined by new interregional and international divisions of labour and held together by increasingly complex global services production networks. This book examines how the reorganisation of services production alters relations between and generates different sets of challenges and opportunities for economic development in the Global North and the Global South. Drawing from 11 case studies probing various aspects of services production in different parts of the world, the book brings out the remarkable heterogeneity and transformative capacities of services. It successively shows how global trade in services creates new interdependencies between services producing and services consuming regions; reveals how services help to mitigate the impact of and contribute to recovery from economic crises in the Global North; and demonstrates how services offshoring fosters economic development and service-sector driven modernisation processes in the Global South. The book’s openness to the heterogeneous and dynamic nature of services production enlarges our understanding of which particular services in which spatiotemporal context have the capacity to generate good jobs, contribute to productivity and drive economic growth. The book stands out from other books in the field in that it combines perspectives on services-driven transformations from both the Global North and the Global South and looks into the role of various services segments. Based on pioneering empirical research and original data it offers a timely contribution to this growing debate. The book provides valuable insights for students, scholars and professionals interested in services, services offshoring, services-driven growth, and socioeconomic transformations in the Global North and South.

Recent studies on the global value chain (GVC) have highlighted the need to better integrate the value chains of developing countries of the global South with that of the global North regions, which are more highly developed. This is aimed at enhancing the economic and social sustainable upgrading of the value chains of the global South regions. The paper thus seeks to answer a critical question as to whether the existing GVC set-up pertaining to global North and South countries is equitable and whether it would yield the needed socio-economic and wider sustainable benefits, particularly to global South countries. a conceptual Global Value Chain (GVC) model is developed based on the economy-wide and system-based Multi-Regional Input–Output methodology to achieve this goal. Subsequently, this was empirically tested to measure embodied flows in capital and labour for sustainable development between global North and South regions. These are achieved using the GVC networks of the UK (from the global North) and some countries in sub-Saharan Africa (from the global South) to exemplify these developments. With implications for equitable, sustainable development, our study shows significant imbalances exist in the flows of value added activities from the global South to the global North, particularly in the primary industries, which produce low-value products in their raw state. Subsequently, this creates a disproportionate economic disadvantage for South countries. As such, if global South countries are to fully benefit from GVC, the study shows that these imbalances must be addressed, such as through structural changes in the economies of global South countries from their dependencies on the primary industries.

This chapter highlights how gender perspectives on peace education are not monolithic and have evolved differently in the global north and south. They are marked by both dialogue and dissidence. While feminist peace education scholars, both in the global north and south, acknowledge the need to pay attention to banal, everyday violence, feminists in the global south do not necessarily use the language of peace education that is scripted in the global north, as they believe such language does not reflect their world/consciousness which is mediated by experiences of coloniality/postcoloniality and intersectionality. This chapter proceeds in two parts. The first part discusses the trajectory of the field of gender and peace education, and how it evolved differently in global north and south. The second part explains what is critical peace education, and how it converges with feminist thinking in the global south. It provides insights from the South Asian region to elucidate why the frames of postcoloniality, intersectionality, power, and agency are significant from a global south perspective on gender and peace education.

This paper examines the growth of global non-state and multilateral actors in the ‘global south’ and the creation of frontier markets in the higher education sector. These developments are part of market-making changes in higher education as the sector is opened to new actors, logics, and innovative services, aimed at ‘the global south’. Yet making a higher education market that brings in new investors, providers, and consumers from within and across the global north and south is a complex process that requires imagining and materialising through new social devices, norms, and institutions so that the higher education sector works like a capitalist market based on competition, credit, commodification, and creativity. The paper examines these processes through three entry points: recruiters of international students; for-profit providers of HE; and financial agents providing new forms of credit. We argue that these developments both play off, and reinforce, older and newer asymmetries of power between individuals, social groups, and nations, within and between the global north and south, creating an even greater learning divide.

This paper examines the growth of global non-state and multilateral actors in the ‘global south’ and the creation of frontier markets in the higher education sector. These developments are part of market-making changes in higher education as the sector is opened to new actors, logics, and innovative services, aimed at ‘the global south’. Yet making a higher education market that brings in new investors, providers, and consumers from within and across the global north and south is a complex process that requires imagining and materialising through new social devices, norms, and institutions so that the higher education sector works like a capitalist market based on competition, credit, commodification, and creativity. The paper examines these processes through three entry points: recruiters of international students; for-profit providers of HE; and financial agents providing new forms of credit. We argue that these developments both play off, and reinforce, older and newer asymmetries of power between individuals, social groups, and nations, within and between the global north and south, creating an even greater learning divide.

In an era of rapid technological advancement, decisions about the ownership and governance of emerging technologies like Artificial Intelligence will shape the future of both urban and rural environments in the Global North and South. This article explores how AI can move beyond the noise of algorithms by adopting a technological humanistic approach to enable Social Innovation, focusing on global inequalities and digital justice. Using a fieldwork Action Research methodology, based on the Smart Rural Communities project in Colombia and Mozambique, the study develops a framework for integrating AI with SI. Drawing on insights from the AI4SI International Summer School held in Donostia-San Sebastián in 2024, the article examines the role of decentralized Web3 technologies—such as Blockchain, Decentralized Autonomous Organizations, and Data Cooperatives—in enhancing data sovereignty and fostering inclusive and participatory governance. The results demonstrate how decentralization can empower marginalized communities in the Global South by promoting digital justice and addressing the imbalance of power in digital ecosystems. The conclusion emphasizes the potential for AI and decentralized technologies to bridge the digital divide, offering practical recommendations for scaling these innovations to support equitable, community-driven governance and address systemic inequalities across the Global North and South.

PurposeThis paper focuses on COVID-19 and human rights in the Global South. Controlling COVID-19 has become very challenging to the courtiers in the Global South and the Global North. Various restrictive measures, mainly lockdown, home quarantine, travel restrictions and social distancing have been taken in both Global North and South to control COVID-19. However, the lower-middle and poor class people of the Global South have suffered from these restrictive measures. Thus, this paper aims to explore the human rights issues of the Global South during COVID-19.Design/methodology/approachThis study is a qualitative research based on secondary materials. It includes relevant scholarly articles, news reports and various reports from different national and international organizations. It critically reviews the current literature related to the topic to develop a theoretical understanding of human rights and public health in general and human rights challenges in COVID-19 in the Global South in particular. Existing international human rights principles in the case of public health were reviewed and discussed to identify the links between human rights laws in public health perspectives. Contents analysis was carried out to identify the relevant themes on the issues of human rights in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.FindingsThis paper finds that universal guidelines to control COVID-19 challenged the human rights norms, which impacts the enjoyment of human rights in the Global South. The human rights of the people in the Global South were undermined in the response to the control of COVID-19.Originality/valueThis paper is a significant study on the issues of human rights in public health emergencies. It addresses how the human rights of the vulnerable people in the Global South are undermined in the global pandemic response, which can be useful for the countries in the Global South for ensuring better human rights-based responses in the future.