The Information Rich and IFLA's Information Poor

No satisfactory terms exist for the countries that are commonly agreed to be in the category of the information poor. "Developing countries" although apparently widely accepted by these librarians themselves and used by the UN agencies, seems to strike a derogatory note, "Third World" even more so. "Developed" and "industrialized" are equally inexact and inaccurate. For short-hand, but not exactness, the author has used interchangeably these words hoping that readers will clearly understand that the information poor countries are, generally, synonymous with the developing countries and in IFLA terms are those covered by the Regional Offices and Division VIII. Just as no heterogeneity exists within the developed world neither does it in the Third World although sometimes a picture is painted that suggests, incorrectly, that this is so. It is not.

Note: this analysis was undertaken in 1998 before the 1999 elections which have resulted in the current Standing Committees' memberships.

There has been some criticism of the use of the word "ghetto" on the grounds that it has emotive overtones and that one destroys a ghetto by knocking it down - hence the removal of Division VIII. I defend the choice of the word by arguing that it is used in a positive way to strongly indicate how in the past (possibly less nowadays) Third World issues were isolated from IFLA's other primary mainstream professional activities to be given separate considerations.

It was in 1971 for the Liverpool IFLA Conference that the doors were first opened with financial assistance from the British Council and the UK government to librarians from developing countries to attend. It marked an IFLA turning point; from a Eurocentric/ Atlantic Ocean "gentlemen's club" into a worldwide professional association. Although it took a number of years for IFLA's structure and organization to be altered to accommodate them.