The plethora of country classifications that emerged since the star of the 1950s is a remarkable phenomena in the arena of development policymaking. In our sample of country classifications, consisting of classifications for 111 developing countries, the average number of classifications per country is 3.1 at the start of 2013. The developing country differentiation landscape is of staggering complexity. For instance, of the 49 countries categorised as Least Developed Countries (LDC), 17 are also Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDC), 30 are Low Income Countries (LIC), 18 are Lower-middle Income Countries (LMIC), 39 are Low Human Development (LHD), 6 are Middle Human Development (MHD), 31 are Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC), and 24 are Fragile States (FS). Through literature review, document analysis and a case study that compares two of these categories, the article seeks to understand (i) why this hybrid complex structure developed, and (ii) what are the consequences of the “spaghetti bowl” of country classifications; considered to be detrimental to development and global governance. It investigates the main similarities and differences between selected categories of developing countries (created within the UN, including the Bretton Woods institutions), applying as an analytical lens the political economy of country differentiation to explore their rationale and purpose. Rather than creating predictability, rationality and transparency about rules and principles, and protecting states against the vagaries of large countries, the proliferation of classifications injects the global governance system with discretion, enabling the exercise of power over smaller and weaker states. Finally, in order to move this debate from observation and diagnosis to providing some direction to policymakers, policy changes that can contribute to a less problematic framework of developing country differentiation are proposed. Finally, in order to move this debate from observation and diagnosis to providing some direction to policymakers, policy changes that can contribute to a less problematic framework of developing country differentiation are proposed.
