Solarz, M.W.: The Language of Global Development. A misleading geography 203 Solarz, M.W.: The Language of Global Development. A misleading geography. London–New York, Routledge, 2014. 181 p. In the last few decades an intensive scientifi c dis- course has emerged about the meaning, notion and measuring of the process of development. The term itself is rather problematic to defi ne, and there are many theoretical questions related to studying development that need deeper knowledge to be deconstructed. One of them focuses on the vari- ous spatial terms used by scientists and politicians to describe and divide the world according to the social, cultural and economic diff erences between countries. No doubt that these topics are considered very relevant nowadays. We are living in a world with huge and, in some sense, even growing inequalities, where powerful spatial metaphors like developing and developed countries, North and South, First, Second and Third World are used to describe these diff erences and the spatial patt ern of inequalities. As Alberto Vanolo mentioned in his analysis on geographical represen- tations of the world system (2010), these terms play a fundamental role in shaping our knowledge and building our personal imageries. Paraphrasing the language of J. Baudrillard (1983), these ‘hyper-re- alities’ (representations) are oft en more determining than ‘hard facts’ in infl uencing our actions. Some use these terms as synonyms, however, not bearing in mind that they comprise diff erent theories and have been embedded in the discourse on development due to various historical events and in diff erent politi- cal contexts. That is why the subtitle of the book is very suggestive and signs the existence of debates about world development and its interpretations. To go further, illustrating these issues on world maps with a mass of labels oft en results in diff erent expla- nations. As Solarz’s book clearly shows, the practice of how to classify and label the regions of the world is com- plex, diffi cult and challenging, and has been changing over time. The author who is associate professor at the Faculty of Geography and Regional Studies at the University of Warsaw, clearly, coherently and critically looks at the origins and meanings of the diff erent terms and notions that have surrounded the global development discourse over the past few decades. The book consists of fi ve main chap- ters, where the fi rst four are about the roots and explanations of the diff erent spatial terminologies discussed above. Chapter 1 reviews the main discourses about the origins of the main concepts on the global divi- sions of development. Furthermore, it follows a chronological line from the early historical periods to the latest century and its ‘Big Bang’ (the author’s words) in the terminology of spatial development. Yet, this chapter diff ers from the following ones, since it mainly focuses on diff erences of devel- opment in the world in an historical perspective rather than the genealogy of the terms used to la- bel various countries and country groups. Solarz traces back the history of world development to the Palaeolithic Age, where the control of fi re “was the fi rst real, substantive global divide in terms of diff erences in development levels” (p. 6.). In the author’s interpretation there were two universal warps that determined world history, thus, the global development of society. These were the Agricultural and the Industrial Revolutions. But he also emphasises that the early divisions of devel- opment resulted in atomised, local ‘nano-worlds’ and a fragmented world community, the exact loca- tions of which in the world map we have no precise knowledge about. Still in the fi rst chapter Solarz DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.65.2.12 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 2016 (2) 204 Book Review – Book Review – Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (2) 203–205.Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (2) 203–205. discusses the changing developmental divisions from the Industrial Revolution to nowadays. At fi rst he refers to the GDP estimates of Angus Maddison to demonstrate how the developed and underdevel- oped parts of the world have changed over the past centuries. Another important issue is to compare through maps how historically and recently used terms and concepts have divided the world, and to what extent they correspond to each other. While soon aft er the Industrial Revolution the dynamics of industrialisa- tion as process marked the centres of development, then divisions were not identical with contemporary ones. Despite the socio-economic diff erences in the nineteenth century, some scholars, mostly with a postcolonial viewpoint, link the process of under- development to the process of colonisation, arguing that colonial dependence has negatively infl uenced the development of these areas. These theories had much infl uence on the devel- opment discourse, which they dominated through the 1960s and 1970s. Still in the fi rst chapter Solarz discusses the main historical events of the twenti- eth century that have shaped the classifi cation and labelling of the countries of the world. The end of World War II, the rise and spread of communism, the rivalry between the USA and the Soviet Union, and the emergence of new independent countries led to new classifi cations of the world system. (Solarz calls this phenomenon ‘the terminological Big Bang’, p. 50.) However, it was never unambiguous how to att ribute the countries to various groups. The Second World, for example, which the author gives an exten- sive portrayal of, was rather a political than a socio- economic category from the very beginning. While it was a part of the tripartite division of the world system, it kept its political character. It was identi- fi ed with the countries of the Eastern bloc and was never referred to as a less developed category than the First World. (As Solarz puts it: “the communist world also wanted to be regarded as a highly devel- oped community […]” p. 37.) Later on, as the notion of development has become globally problematised, and the meaning of development has changed, many international organisations, such as the IMF, World Bank and UNDP, prepared their own divisions based on diff erent criteria. The longest part of Solarz’s book (Chapter 2 and 3) is about the origins and meanings of the ‘Third World’, and it presents a critical debate on the concept. Since its introduction by Alfred Sauvy in 1952, the explana- tion of the term has not been unproblematic. At the be- ginning it was considered a political label referring to the non-aligned countries during the Cold War rivalry between the USA and the Soviet Union. (‘Third World’ was, thus, a synonym for ‘third force’ or ‘third way’ based on the notion of the ‘third estate’ in the French Revolution). To demonstrate the complexity of vari- able meanings, Solarz argues in the second chapter that the term appeared in literature and journalism at the end of the nineteenth century with a completely diff erent meaning from those used aft er World War II. The underlying concept and the term itself, however, were centrepiece of keen scientifi c debates, especially in the 1960s and 1970s. For the category ‘Third World’ started to be used in another way associated with the ‘underdeveloped’ or ‘backward’ world. Solarz dis- cusses clearly and in great detail how the concept has changed over time, and what critiques it evoked almost immediately aft er its birth. Some critics argued for rejecting the concept itself, because in their view it suggested the existence of a single, unique and cohesive World, while ignoring its diverse character and content. Thus, the relevance of the ‘Third World’ as a large aggregate was put into question. Other scholars suggest, however, that if we wanted to reject the term because of its diversity, than, as the author mentions, we would also have to remove all other generalising concepts from the language of geography, saying that “terms such as ‘Third World’, as every general category, will always distort and simplify reality” (p. 91.). As mentioned before, some scholars connect the term to the process of decolonisation, putt ing equal sign between the former colonies and the colonial legacy on the one hand, and the Third World on the other hand. But this is misleading if we think on Thailand or Ethiopia, where colonisation was never complete, or on Canada and the United States, which were colonies at one stage or another in their history. As the author underscores in a separate subchapter (“Is the term still valid and useful?”), another im- portant and relevant problem with the concept is that according to many, the end of the Cold War has made the term irrelevant, since with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of socialism the former Second World does not exist anymore. While this kind of argument for the disappearance of the term could be valid, Solarz argues that the rumours about the end of the concept are exaggerated. In the titles of journals and books and the names of institutions one can still fi nd the expression ‘Third World’. But the fact is that nowadays the term is mainly analogous with the underdeveloped, backward, and least developed countries. Therefore, when we are talking about it, we usually join it to socio-economic characteristics. The last two chapters of the book contain an his- torical and critical overview of the ‘challengers’ (‘de- veloping countries’ and ‘North–South divide’) of the former, oft en-used categories. Solarz argues that ‘de- veloping countries’ seemed to be a positive category suggesting progress and improving situation, but in fact these countries showed the lowest level of devel- opment over time. Another explanation for the emer- gence of the term ‘developing’ was given by Gunnar Myrdal, the Swedish Nobel laureate economist and 205Book Review – Book Review – Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (2) 203–205.Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 65 (2016) (2) 203–205. sociologist, whose work was connected mainly to economic and social theory. According to him, the shift to ‘developing’ from ‘underdeveloped’ was an outcome of ‘diplomacy by language’. This means that ‘underdevelopment’ is not a fl att ering description of the situation of poor countries, while the term ‘de- veloping’ is much more positive and politically fea- sible. Besides, the concept of ‘developing countries’ was connected to certain trends in economic thought throughout the decades. In the lens of modernisation theory, which interpreted development as a linear, irreversible process universal for all countries of the world, developing countries must follow the path of developed countries. In other words, developed countries were claimed responsible for navigating and controlling developing ones. In this theory, developing countries were linked to the concept of ‘underdevelopment’, which neglected the optimism radiated by the term ‘developing’. Later on, in the early 1980s the concept of a North– South opposition has emerged due to the former German Chancellor Willy Brandt. Although this cat- egorisation had more controversies than others do, in the last 30 years “it has been reproduced in numerous publications … with only minor changes, if any”, as Solarz puts it while discussing the usefulness and popularity of the term. Although terminological in- novation has shown less dynamics since the 1980s than before, new categories and terms have still ap- peared to replace the already existing notion of the three ‘worlds’. Labels like ‘emerging markets’, ‘newly industrialised countries’, ‘Fourth’ or ‘Fift h World’ and ‘BRIC countries’ are still in use nowadays, and accord- ing to Solarz this present situation will continue in the foreseeable future. There will always be support- ers and opponents, terms will be used and criticised, and new categories will appear. As inequalities still exist between the countries of the globe, geography will always need generalised labels to describe them. But in my view, we need to use these terms carefully, we need to look behind them and explore their theo- retical and historical backgrounds, and see them in a global context. That is why Marcin W. Solarz’s treatise is very impressive and suggestive. It gives a comprehensive and all-embracing overview of the main questions concerning global disparities of development dur- ing the last centuries, while discussing in detail the historical and conceptual framework of much used terminologies. The book is illustrated with several maps, which help the reader localise the mentioned ‘worlds’ and follow the main concepts and how they again and again regionalised the world in new ways. In my opinion, this work is addressed to and defi - nitely required by those interested in the geographies and economies of global development. For those who are interested in the aforemen- tioned issues, Solarz’s book might seem diff erent to contemporary geographical works from Anglophone countries, since it tries to capture rather the practical than the theoretical questions and problems of glo- bal development. Furthermore, the volume examines these issues from an East Central European point of view, also referring to many authors from this region. Thus, it provides much space for relevant concepts and views barely present in international literature on the topic. It can serve as a useful tool in university teaching in all subjects related to these problems. It can help students understand how we regionalise the world, why we are doing it the way we are, why we use these labels, and how these concepts are related to development theories. With the multilingual and multidisciplinary bibliography one can fi nd the most important and relevant sources on global develop- ment and spatial terminology. Students and teachers in the fi elds of geography, development studies, poli- tics or history can be the main public of this book, but with its easily comprehensible content and readability it is off ered for everyone interested in these issues. Máté Farkas1 REFERENCES Baudrillard, J. 1983. Simulations. New York, Semiotexte. Vanolo, A. 2010. The border between core and periphery: Geographical representations of the world system. Tij dschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografi e 101. (1): 26–36. 1 Hungarian Central Statistical Office, Budapest. E-mail: mate.farkas@ksh.hu