![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
![Editing Services Awareness English-speaking]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110148/ED-Services-English.jpg"})
![SDG Online Goal 1: No poverty. Request a free trial today]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110697/JournalAd-Resources-SDGO-1-2021.png"})
Abstract
The increasing popularity of cursory references to the ‘Global South’ across disciplines and issue areas asks for an in-depth engagement with ‘South’-related terminology. I employ Edward Soja’s Thirdspace as a heuristic for investigating different meanings of the ‘Global South’ with reference to concrete empirical realities in international development. To examine and illustrate what Soja’s trialectics of material, imagined and lived spatialities has to offer, I focus on evidence from Mexico and Turkey. Located somewhere at the boundaries – or the conceptual margins – of the ‘Global South’, Mexico and Turkey sit right where an investigation promises to be particularly fruitful. With a Firstspace perspective, I focus on the mappings of development indices and the material boundaries of the ‘Global South’. With a Secondspace perspective, I analyse the imagined geographies of alliances in multilateral negotiations and the arena of South–South cooperation. With a Thirdspace perspective, I engage with the lifeworlds of public officials and unpack the ways in which the ‘Global South’ appears via individual strategies and practices. Insights from Mexico and Turkey provide evidence for the diversity of meanings attached to the ‘Global South’ and illustrate how Soja’s three-legged heuristic offers a framework for critical engagement with popular taken-for-granted categories.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Johanna Chovanec for conceptual inspiration as well as to Philip Stickler and James Daniell for map-related support. I would also like to thank Emma Mawdsley, Jacqueline Braveboy-Wagner, Mara Pillinger, the participants of the 2019 conference of the International Association for the Study of Environment, Space and Place (IASESP) and the 2019 Rising Powers Study Group of the Development Studies Association (DSA) as well as two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on earlier versions of this paper.
Correction Statement
This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
Notes
1 Fiddian-Qasmiyeh and Daley, “Introduction,” 11f; Levander and Mignolo, “Introduction: The Global South,” 1; UNDP, Rise of the South.
2 Taylor, “Global South,” 669.
3 See contributions in Fiddian-Qasmiyeh and Daley, Routledge Handbook of South–South Relations; Mawdsley, Fourie, and Nauta, Researching South–South Development Cooperation.
4 Soja, Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles.
5 Pagel et al., Use of the Concept “Global South”; Wagner, “Finding One’s Way”; UNDP, Rise of the South; Mawdsley, From Recipients to Donors; Gray and Gills, “South–South Cooperation”; Fiddian-Qasmiyeh and Daley, Routledge Handbook of South–South Relations; see Haug et al., this issue.
Connell, Southern Theory; Braveboy-Wagner, Institutions of the Global South; Comaroff and Comaroff, “Theory from the South”; Prashad, Poorer Nations; Santos, Epistemologies of the South; Mahler, “Global South.”
7 Dingwerth and Pattberg, “Global Governance as a Perspective,” 186.
8 Cambridge Dictionary, “Category.” ‘South’ and ‘Global South’ are used interchangeably here; see Taylor, “Global South,” 542; Wagner, “Finding One’s Way.”
9 For examples see note 14.
10 Wagner, “Finding One’s Way,” 6.
11 Levander and Mignolo, “Introduction: The Global South,” 10.
12 Wagner, “Finding One’s Way,” 1.
13 Kornprobst and Senn, “Introduction: Background Ideas in International Relations,” 275.
14 Woertz, Reconfiguration of the Global South; Singh and Ovadia, “Theory and Practice of Building Developmental States”; Nagelhus Schia, “Cyber Frontier and Digital Pitfalls”; Kshetri, “Will Blockchain Emerge as a Tool”; Donelli and Gonzalez Levaggi, “Becoming Global Actor.”
15 Gregory, “Geographical Imagination,” 282; Soja, “The Spatiality of Social Life.”
16 Soja, “Thirdspace, Postmetropolis and Social Theory,” 113.
17 Soja, Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles, 53.
18 Ibid.; Lefebvre, Production of Space.
19 Soja, Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles, 10.
20 Ibid., 10.
21 Ibid., 80.
22 Soja, “Thirdspace, Postmetropolis and Social Theory,” 113.
23 Soja, Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles, 11.
24 Ibid., 11.
25 Soja’s work on Thirdspace has only triggered a limited engagement with the trialectics of spatiality; for exceptions see Chovanec, “Marlen Haushofers ‘Die Wand’”; Murrani, “Baghdad’s Thirdspace.”
26 Soja, Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles, 74, also uses ‘perceived–conceived–lived’ terminology.
27 Esteves and Assunção, “South–South Cooperation”; Haug, “Thirding North/South.”
28 Mystri, “Conditions of Cultural Production,” 13.
29 See Haug, “Let’s Focus on Facilitators”; Haug, “Towards ‘Constructive Engagement’”; Haug, “Thirding North/South.”
30 Heidegger, Poetry, Language, Thought, 154.
31 Kalua, “Homi Bhabha’s Third Space,” 23.
32 Andrucki and Dickinson, “Rethinking Centers and Margins in Geography.” See Soja, Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles, 102; hooks, Yearning, 22.
33 Donnelly, “Beyond Hierarchy.”
34 Dainotto, “Does Europe Have a South?”
35 Haug, “Thirding North/South.”
36 Levander and Mignolo, “Introduction: The Global South,” 9.
37 See Pagel et al., Use of the Concept “Global South”; Rigg, Everyday Geography of the Global South.
38 ICIDI, North–South: A Programme for Survival, 31. See Wagner, “Finding One’s Way,” 4.
39 See Anderson, Imagined Communities, 163f.
40 Soja, Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles, 74.
41 Taylor, “Global South,” 661.
42 OECD, “DAC List of ODA Recipients.”
43 Andrucki and Dickinson, “Rethinking Centers and Margins in Geography,” 204.
44 For the data set see World Bank, “World by Income and Region.”
45 With the addition of three countries in South America and the Arab peninsula.
46 Soja, Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles, 75.
47 UNDP, “Human Development Index.”
48 UNDP, “Human Development Index Trends.”
49 Lessenich, Neben Uns Die Sintflut, 53.
50 Milanovic, Global Inequalities.
51 Soja, Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles, 76.
52 Milanovic, Global Inequalities.
53 UNDP, “Human Development Index.”
54 For data and a map see Global Data Lab, “Subnational Human Development Index”; Daniell, Kazai, and Kunz-Plapp, Comparing the Current Impact.
55 Global Data Lab, “Subnational Human Development Index.”
56 UNDP Mexico, Municipal Human Development Index in Mexico.
57 Camacho, “Consumption as a Theme”; Fiddian-Qasmiyeh and Daley, “Introduction,” 4; Levander and Mignolo, “Introduction: The Global South,” 3; see also Milanovic, Global Inequalities.
58 Sparke, “Everywhere But Always Somewhere,” 117.
59 Ibid.; Mahler, “Global South.”
60 Milanovic, Global Inequalities; Lessenich, Neben Uns die Sintflut. See also Permanyer and Smits, “Subnational Human Development Index.”
61 Soja, Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles, 79.
62 Mahler, “Global South.”
63 Alden, Morphet, and Viera, South in World Politics; Braveboy-Wagner, Institutions of the Global South; Braveboy-Wagner, Diplomatic Strategies of Nations; Prashad, Poorer Nations; Taylor, “Global South.”
64 Fiddian-Qasmiyeh and Daley, “Introduction,” 22.
65 See Braveboy-Wagner, Diplomatic Strategies of Nations; Rigg, Everyday Geography of the Global South, 187.
66 Anderson, Imagined Communities.
67 Taylor, “Global South,” 656.
68 Toye, “Assessing the G77.”
69 Taylor, “Global South,” 655.
70 Soja, Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles, 79.
71 UNBIS, “New International Economic Order.” Also see Taylor, “Global South,” 660.
72 Muchhala, “From New York to Addis Ababa.”
73 Taylor, “Global South.”
74 Ibid., 656 and 660.
75 Ibid., 668f.; Prashad, Poorer Nations.
76 Acharya, “Global International Relations.”
77 Glennie, ‘Middle Income’ Conundrum.
78 Prashad, Poorer Nations, 9.
79 Nayyar, “BRICS, Developing Countries and Global Governance,” 589; see Thakur, “How Representative Are BRICS?”
80 See Toye, “Assessing the G77.”
81 Weiss, “Moving beyond North-South Theatre,” 281.
82 Nesadurai, Bandung and the Political Economy.
83 See South Commission, Challenge to the South.
84 UNDP, Rise of the South; see also Mawdsley, From Recipients to Donors.
85 Mawdsley, Fourie, and Nauta, Researching South–South Development Cooperation; Fiddian-Qasmiyeh and Daley, “Introduction.”
86 UNOSSC, “About UNOSSC.”
87 Abdenur and Fonseca, “North’s Growing Role”; McEwan and Mawdsley, “Trilateral Development Cooperation.”
88 The OECD arguably pushed Mexico to leave the G77; see Covarrubias and Muñoz, Manuel Tello, 92f.
89 For an example see the International Trade and Development resolution.
90 Donelli and Gonzalez Levaggi, “Becoming Global Actor.”
91 MoFA, “Turkey’s Development Cooperation.”
92 UNOSSC, “South–South Cooperation in Practice,” n.p. See also UN News, “UN ‘Tech Bank’ Opens in Turkey.”
93 ECLAC, “Resolution 611(XXX)”; SEGIB, “Informe de la Cooperación en Iberoamérica.”
94 Bracho, Troubled Relationship of the Emerging Powers; Constantine and Shankland, “From Policy Transfer to Mutual Learning?”
95 G77, “Statement.”
96 Soja, Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles, 79.
97 Elden, “Production of Space,” 91.
98 Soja, “Thirdspace, Postmetropolis, and Social Theory,” 113; see also Bustin, “Living City.”
99 For exceptions see Mawdsley, Fourie, and Nauta, Researching South–South Development Cooperation.
100 Alden, Morphet, and Viera, South in World Politics, 5.
101 cf. Mohaiemen, Two Meetings and a Funeral.
102 Bleicher, “Leben,” 343.
103 Harrington, “Lifeworld,” 341.
104 Ibid.
105 Soja, Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles, 3, 16, 70 and 319, uses the concept of lifeworld only in passing.
106 Interviews and observations took place between 2016 and 2018.
107 Interview (1), Mexico City, February 2017; interview (2), Ankara, May 2017; see Haug, “Thirding North/South.”
108 Interview (3), New York City, November 2016.
109 Interview (4), Mexico City, March 2017.
110 See, for example, TIKA, Turkish Development Assistance Report.
111 Interview (5), Ankara, June 2017.
112 Interview (6), Ankara, October 2016.
113 Interview (7), Ankara, October 2016.
114 Interview (8), Mexico City, January 2017.
115 Interview (9), Mexico City, February 2017.
116 Interview (10), New York City, October 2016.
117 Interview (11), New York City, January 2017.
118 Interview (12), New York City, November 2016.
119 Interview (13), New York City, November 2016.
120 Interview (13), New York City, October 2016.
121 Wagner, “Finding One’s Way,” 3.
122 Interview (10).
123 Interview (8).
124 Soja, Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles, 11.
125 Observations in Ankara and Mexico City in 2017.
126 Interview (7).
127 Interview (6).
128 Interview (14), Mexico City, March 2017.
129 Interview (15), Ankara, October 2016.
130 Soja, Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles, 104.
131 Ibid., 68.
132 This is where a Thirdspace perspective points to the creation of what Bhabha, Location of Culture, calls Third Spaces.
133 Permanyer and Smits, “Subnational Human Development Index.”
134 See Kohlenberg and Godehardt, this issue.
135 Mawdsley, Fourie, and Nauta, Researching South–South Development Cooperation.
136 Kornprobst and Senn, “Introduction: Background Ideas in International Relations,” 273.
137 Based on ICIDI, North–South: A Programme for Survival, cover.
138 Based on World Bank, “World by Income and Region.” The positionalities of post-Soviet spaces warrant a separate in-depth engagement with the evolving dynamics of North–South divisions.
139 Based on Daniell, Kazai, and Kunz-Plapp, Comparing the Current Impact.
140 Based on UNDP Mexico, Municipal Human Development Index in Mexico, 17.