Global North - Global South
October, 2025
By Amenra Blamo and Fabian Käser
Clustering and classification of countries or regions are often unavoidable to denote and communicate existing differences. Such clustering and classifications, focusing at specific aspects, are always rough and blurry generalizations. Often, they have historic and political connotations. In addition, for some classifications data might only be partially available. It is therefore crucial to be cautious when clustering and classifying countries and to consider historic and political dimensions.
The concept of the Global North and Global South is rooted in the Brandt Line, first popularized in the 1980 Brandt Report chaired by former German chancellor Willy Brandt. The report identified a rough division at around 30 degrees north of the Equator, separating countries based on GDP per capita. Later, during the post–Cold War and structural adjustment period, the Brandt Line was adapted as a relational and political construct. While geographically inaccurate, it became widely used to capture broad patterns of wealth and inequality.
The framework distinguishes historically wealthier from poorer countries, but its binary does not align with the literal hemispheric north-south divide. By some measures, countries in the so-called Global South may resemble those in the North, and vice versa. Critics argue that the model is vague, lumping together diverse societies with very different economies and political systems. Still, the Brandt Line is generally seen as an improvement over earlier classification schemes, even as it remains contested.
On the pro side, the use of the phrase Global South reflects a shift from developmental or cultural differences toward geopolitical power relations. The terminology highlights structural inequalities and references the shared legacies of colonialism, neo-imperialism, and uneven social and economic change. It underscores how inequalities in living standards, life expectancy, and access to resources are not simply regional, but deeply historical and political.
On the contra side, critics argue it oversimplifies. The diversity of development levels and political freedoms across the Global South is poorly captured by such a broad label. Nevertheless, the terminology of Global North and Global South continues to gain traction in both scholarly and political discourse.