Voice without authority: The Global South after Aid | Dan Banik

But before discussing this distinction further, let me begin by complaining about my own vocabulary.

I realize that this may be a strange way to open a new season.

The phrase is the Global South, which I've been using rather constantly in recent years.

I use it in my lectures, in my published work, and on this podcast.

Indeed, it is certainly being used much more today than at any point since the historic Bandung Conference of 1955.

Many countries are comfortable using it, even though there are some, especially I would argue in the global north, who question whether the global south is any better than similar terms we've used in the past, such as low-income countries, developing countries, etc., But although I am increasingly using the phrase, I am doing so with a sense of unease, because I am, like perhaps many of you, well aware of the numerous contradictions the term entails.

Indeed, the Global South is sometimes used to signify a bloc in the sense of a group of countries that are acting together, often because they have a common set of grievances and claims against the Global North.

Sometimes it refers to a group of countries negotiating at a particular forum.

At other times, it symbolizes a moral claim, meaning that many of these countries were colonized and typically bear the least responsibility for the current global climate crisis.

And sometimes the global south is simply a huge market to tap into.

Then there's the issue of which countries can be categorized as being part of the Global South.

China is especially interesting here as it is projected to enter the high-income category either later this year in 2026 or sometime next year in 2027.

But while in the Global North there are voices claiming that this disqualifies China from claiming that they are part of this group, Beijing itself is steadfast in its belief that it is firmly anchored in the grouping.

I could go on and on about the agreements and the disagreements on matters of this kind.

But does that mean that we should abandon the term? I don't think we should abandon it.

For a start, there doesn't appear to be anything better at the moment.

The term is often criticized for being imprecise, but it is that imprecision that points to a gap between changing social or political realities.

And rather than dismissing the phrase as vague, I think it actually illustrates how and to what extent something powerful is perhaps emerging.

But it certainly does mean that we should be cautious about what we are claiming when we say that the global south is rising.

It may not be too controversial to claim that power has shifted and continues to shift.

The more important question to address, in my view, is whether rulemaking authority has shifted.