Now, in the year 2017, Exxonmobile has placed its CEO in the Secretary of State position to take advantage of second,third and fourth world countries.
There are many ways to classify countries in terms of their development. I prefer a system that speaks of "Core, semi-peripheral and peripheral countries." But, I did find this particular approach interesting. It must be confusing to refer to First World countries as Core countries and expect people to understand the same thing. So, for the most part, most Americans that care to talk about First World and Third World and this particular approach is reflected here.
Most Americans will be surprised to realize Russia is not a First World country. But, it isn't. Russia has some disabilities, including it's land mass and having an effective national defense for all it's borders. Russia's population and economics does not lend itself to an expansive military, however, no different than any other country feeling threatened, it has nukes. Russia will argue conventional warfare may very well leave it vulnerable when there are movements to end nuclear proliferation and use. I think with this current US administration and the George W. Bush administration it is implicitly clear there are strong reasons to insure national defense of all countries without nuclear capacity.
First, Second and Third World (click here)
Ans Kolk, University of Amsterdam and David Levy, University of Massachusetts. European Management Journal Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 501–509, 2001.
Behind pessimistic expectations (click here) regarding the
future of an international climate treaty, substantial
changes can be observed in company positions.
Multinationals in the oil and car industries are
increasingly moving toward support for the Kyoto
Protocol, and take measures to address climate
change. This article analyses developments in the
oil industry over the past few years, observing considerable
shifts in corporate climate strategies. It
compares British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell,
Texaco and ExxonMobil, of which currently only
the latter strongly opposes a climate treaty. BP and
Shell have moved decisively toward supporting
emission reductions and investing in renewable
energy, while Texaco has begun to move in a similar
direction. Divergent behaviour can be explained
in terms of company-specific factors, particularly
corporate histories of profitability and location,
market assessments, degrees of centralization and
the presence of climate scientists. Ongoing stakeholder
pressures, which focus on ‘first-mover’ BP,