Talk:Developed country

The comparitive table may be updated because the IMF got its World Economic Outlook done on Monday, Bulgaria adopted the Euro on January the 1st and it's in the Eurozone. There could be changes to this table even though the IMF did its World Economic Outlook on Monday. Could you update the page by making the comparitive table become 2026 instead of 2025? Thanks, I would love to find out! MonicasHouse (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

We have to wait until April to make the changes. Cororó (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

When do we wait in April? Is there a specific day? MonicasHouse (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd say mid-April. Cororó (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

This map was actually more informative with less stipulations (i.e. "4+" v. separate colors for countries that achieve 5 and 6 criteria.

Achieving all six criteria requires more than simply social and economic indicators - for example, the IMF listed Croatia as a developed country only because it had adopted the Euro.

Countries such as Luxembourg have not achieved all six indicators because of their small size. The same is true of microstates such as Monaco and San Marino.

The government of Singapore has declined to participate or seek membership in a number of Western-oriented organizations such as the OECD, despite being one of the most developed countries in the world.

Setting the standard of requiring four out of six criteria for the deepest color gives the less-informed reader a clearer understanding of the hierarchy of developed countries.

The comparative table still gives the reader the complete picture, thereby explaining why countries such as Brazil and Guyana [for example] can claim any semblance of a developed country at all, and why Romania (for example) is not at the "highest" level of development. Andrew1444 (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree, will update the map now. Cororó (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

The UNDP does not calculate HDI for Taiwan, but all indications, including Taiwan's own calculation of HDI place it above .900. Is there a way to indicate that Taiwan meets three requirements for a developed country, perhaps with a footnote?

If Taiwan were recognized by the United Nations and able to participate in more international organizations, it certainly would be considered a developed country. Andrew1444 (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

True. There's already a footnote. I will update the map again. What do you think about the map? would you increase the threshold to +4 criteria? Because the current map lists Russia as a developed country and I'm not sure about that. Cororó (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with increasing the threshold to 4+. That would take care of the problem with listing Russia, Romania. Andrew1444 (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

It would also take out Taiwan Cororó (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Now we get into the grey area. We could do 4+ and put Taiwan with three.

I don't see how this can be more accurate without adding bias.

I still think 4+ creates a clearer image of what countries are developed and what are not. Andrew1444 (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Agree Cororó (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for updating the map. The color scheme is easier to read than the first map, and the 4+,3,2,1 format is the most accurate we can get without bias. Andrew1444 (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

The map that indicates countries that meet one, two, three, and four plus is the most accurate map to denote developed countries and the criteria they meet to attain that status. Separating countries based on meeting a certain number of criteria ensures both the progression of countries to meeting four criteria and the accuracy to show which countries meet these criteria.

Also of note is the comprehensive table.

This editor keeps insisting on including Romania as a full member of the OECD's Development Assistance Committee (DAC).

Romania is NOT a member of DAC. It is a participant. We can unequivocally determine that Romania is NOT a member succinctly: Romania is NOT in the OECD. Simple. A country cannot be a member of an OECD standing committee without being a member of the OECD.

These edits, aling with edits to the page "Development Assistance Committee", only serve to include Romania among the countries that meet four criteria; Romania meets three. There is a reason why the IMF has not declared Romania a "high income economy;" it has not uet reached that stage of development. As new reports are released this year, the map and table will be updated; however, those updates must reflect the current situation based on the respective organizations' internal criteria and membership. Andrew1444 (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

https://www.oecd.org/en/about/committees/development-assistance-committee.html specifies clearly that DAC Participants are Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Croatia, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates. Romania is an Associate Member (Associate because its not a full OECD member yet, full membership expected by Q3 2026.

And the SVG map is easier to overwrite by any Wikipedia Commons editor, unless the locked png map, If you wanna do something useful just improve the SVG one CivicWeaver (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I already updated the map to fit your correct information. You can view it in the article if you open your browser in incognito mode. Cororó (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

CivicWeaver is right. Romania is a member of the DAC, and puts in the same work as any other member. They even donate more % of GNI than Greece. The reason why it is classified as an associate is because they're not an OECD member. Cororó (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I believe the intention of using this criterion is to distinguish between developed and developing countries (i.e., identifying donor nations versus aid recipients). However, using exclusive DAC membership as the sole metric is flawed.

The DAC is strictly a committee of the OECD that measures and monitors aid given by its member countries in the form of Official Development Assistance (ODA). But DAC members are not the only ones providing aid. Participant countries and associates of the DAC also report the money they allocate in the form of ODA via other agencies, organizations, or programs.

If you look at the percentage of GNI they allocate as ODA, it is highly comparable to that of DAC members. For example, Saudi Arabia, which is neither an OECD member nor a part of the DAC, provided a total of 0.51% of its GNI in the form of ODA. By comparison, Greece provided 0.14% and Spain provided 0.25%.

This is true not only for Saudi Arabia but for all participants of the DAC. A change needs to be made.

Because these DAC participants act as major global donors, limiting the "developed" criteria exclusively to DAC members paints an incomplete picture. I propose we update the criterion to include OECD-recognized DAC participants and associates. These countries are Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Croatia, Kuwait, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Cororó (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I disagree that Romania's associate membership in DAC is congruent to full membership in that organization, but I will concede.

What I will not concede is this map that does far less to determine a developed country than the map that uses multiple sources as determinants of such a status.

Under this map, which is heavily biased towards income, countries such as Guyana are given greater value than the map showing each country's attainment of certain metrics, the aggregate being a clearer definition of what a developed country is.

This is not solely about income. This is not about least developed and developing countries.

Please keep the map that utilizes color coding (including Romania for some godforsaken reason) and not a map that adds nothing to the page. Andrew1444 (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

First of all, I modified the main map to address your concern (Romania not a DAC member) and won't be changed unless we come to an agreement with other users.

Look, I get where you're coming from, but I think CivicWeaver is spot on here. The whole point of the DAC criterion (and the Paris Club, for that matter) is to identify which countries are acting as capital exporters and creditors (the ones providing aid and loans instead of just receiving them). Romania, even as an Associate, is putting out ODA volumes right up there with full DAC members. You see the exact same thing with Participant countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Your main worry is that counting Associates will drag a bunch of developing countries into the "developed" category. But that’s only a problem if you look at DAC status completely on its own.

A better way to settle this is to break the criteria down into five main dimensions. To be considered fully developed overall, a country needs to check all of these boxes:

1. High income: meeting the World Bank high-income threshold.
2. Creditor: meeting either the DAC criterion (which includes Associates/Participants giving substantial ODA) or being a Paris Club member.
3. Robust economy: categorized as an Advanced Economy by the IMF or a Developed Economy by the WESP.
4. High human achievements: reaching the UN's "Very High" HDI tier.
5. Industrial economy: meeting UNIDO's industrial economy standards.

I actually went ahead and made a map to see exactly how this would play out, and the results are rock solid. The core analytical group of developed countries is clearly distinguished, and there are absolutely no outlying countries getting mislabeled. Under this framework, Romania doesn't qualify as a fully developed country, but its actual contributions through the DAC are no longer invisible. Looking at it this way keeps the overall classification rigorous while finally acknowledging the reality of these countries' global financial impacts.

What do you think about all of this? Cororó (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Why? This page is meant to include countries that have reached the highest level of development in the world. Once, we used membership in the OECD as a criteria for developed status. At one time, Turkey eas the only outlier.

We stopped including OECD membership when they began including countries like Mexico, Colombia, and Costa Rica as members. Membership in the OECD was no longer an exclusive club; instead, the OECD began including countries that were not developed countries with the intent to prepare them for further development.

You are unilaterally using a method that will include the greatest amount of countries possible, which is why we stopped using the OECD as a developed country determinant years ago.

The OECD is looking to expand; new IMF reports are likely to include Bulgaria as a developed country when their 2026 report is published (as it recently joined the Eurozone).

We should wait until those events happen or when reports are published -- not rush to include every country you want to meet "developed country" now.

Furthermore, this map you keep insisting on does absolutely nothing to give the casual reader a simple, concise map of developed countries. The map you insist on takes ONE determinant you decided to add only because it supports your cause to label as many countries as possible as developed states!

I gave in to the absurdity that a non-member ofthe OECD is somehow a full member of DAC, but this is preposterous! Let's also include associate members of the European Union as member states. Let's also add Kosovo and Montenegro to the Eurozone because they use that currency too. Let's add all the permanent guests to the OECD because they are allowed to speak in committee. Let's include Azerbaijan and Guyana, which do not enjoy high standards of living just because you can find some way to include them. The absurdity is palpable! Andrew1444 (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

How about we create another map based on criterias, 6 out of 6 criterias, 5/6, 4/6, 3/6, 2/6, 1/6, will u be okay with that? CivicWeaver (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you stop changing the main map? Andrew is right, your main map is based only on one determinant and does not help the reader see clearly which countries are more or less developed across all the dimensions of development this article provides. Cororó (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

"I gave in to the absurdity that a non-member ofthe OECD is somehow a full member of DAC, but this is preposterous!", Even if you disagree with Romania's status, it is still officially a Member Associate stating clearly,

Romania today on 19 December 2025 became the first Associate of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC), the leading international forum for bilateral providers of development co-operation. As a DAC Associate, Romania will contribute to the mandate of the DAC to promote development co-operation and contribute to sustainable development.

Associate status allows non-Members to participate in the full range of the DAC’s work, with the same rights and obligations as OECD-DAC members, including decision-making (except decisions related to the accession of OECD Members to the DAC).

Could you stop reverting ALL of my edits on this article? I am updating statistics and sources from 2025 to the 2026 reports, as well as providing updated higher quality SVG maps. Furthermore, the inclusion of the United Nations 'High-income industrial economies' criteria is essential for an accurate country development classification.

Andrew1444, you have to realise that there are fully developed nations beyond the G7. We should not limit the definition of a "developed country" to G7 members or exclude newly developed nations like Poland and Romania just because they have churches or conversative governments. It is a misconception to suggest that a country's development status is defined solely by social policies, such as the legalization of same-sex marriage. If you visit Timișoara, Brașov, Cluj-Napoca, or Oradea in Romania, you will see that they have the same quality of life as developed Western European cities. CivicWeaver (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey Andrew, I think there is a major misunderstanding here about what I am actually proposing. If you check out the other thread on this talk page where I laid out my full argument, you'll see I am definitely not trying to label as many countries as possible as developed. In fact, my method does the exact opposite.

I am proposing we organize the criteria into five essential dimensions: High Income, Capital Exporter/Creditor (DAC/Paris Club), Robust Economy (IMF/WESP), High HDI, and Industrial Economy. To be considered fully developed overall, a country has to check the boxes across the board—not just one.

The map I made doesn't rely on a single determinant to force countries into the developed list; it visualizes how these dimensions overlap. And the results are incredibly strict. Under my framework:

• Romania is not classified as a fully developed country.
• Azerbaijan and Guyana are not fully developed countries.
• No outlying countries are mislabeled.

The only thing this framework changes for Romania is that it accurately recognizes its active role in the "Capital Exporter" dimension. Comparing this to Kosovo using the Euro or OECD permanent guests is a false equivalency. DAC Associates and Participants are actively allocating massive volumes of ODA that rival full members. They are functionally acting as capital exporters, which is the entire point of evaluating that specific dimension.

Take a look at the five-dimension breakdown in the other thread. The goal here is a rigorous, multi-dimensional standard that stops the ambiguity, not a free-for-all. Cororó (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Some maps show Crimea as a part of russia, not Ukraine, from which the peninsula was annexed in 2014. Need to be fixed, Crimea is internationally recognized as a part of Ukraine! ThunderGit (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)