It is a little late for the practical issue of the form, but I find this discussion interesting in a broad perspective, since we are continuously dealing with this issue.
I also have to think about a terminology/label to use sometimes, and I agree the best way is to be explicit to what you mean, but sometimes is not possible.
- “Majority world” is to vague. It would be necessary to qualify this majority.
- “Countries in development” is also problematic, since “development” is not good by itself, and would be important to define what “development” is desirable and pursued by those countries/groups/communities.
- “Global South” ends up being vague either, because even in the article referred by @jarancio its written that we have some rich countries in the southern hemisphere, like “Argentina, Chile”, and that would cause confusion.
This point raised another question for me, because if Argentina and Chile are in this list, Brasil is there either, and I always thought of Brasil being precisely in the Global South, because of the extension and deepness of the social problems over here, but that might not be the case. So what is the case?
My guess is that we are not sharing a common perspective when talking about this label. And that is one of the downside of the labels and why is good to be explicit. But should we pursue a minimally common perspective?
- Maybe yes, and in that case I would think about qualities/characteristics/values that are shared by those countries/groups/communities.
- Maybe no, so it is better to focus on the explicit approach.
And considering the explicit expression used by GOSH. It seems good, but that excludes Mexico, that I consider a country with much the same problems of Brasil, that is included in the list, so that raises the problem of the perspective again for me.
I don’t know how problematic it is in the matter of funding, but I would still use “Latin America and the Caribbean” instead of “South America and Central America”.