[image source]
I love this movie. Poverty Inc. does a fantastic job explaining the missteps governments from developed nations take that actually end up harming developing or impoverished countries. I think what this movie highlights the most to me is the need to see the big picture. When discussing how to address extreme poverty, we need to look at the root causes and cycles that allow for and reinforce its existence. For example, in the movie, one of the men interviewed explained that rather than having rice imported, they wish that more countries would allow them to export rice. This highlights a system that we have put in place that partially reinforces poverty or lack of economic success by restricting other nations from exporting to us, so businesses here prosper more. Perhaps we need to see this as more of balance or case by case basis if we really want to make the claim that we want to help the advancement of poorer countries. For example, maybe we place heavier barriers on certain countries that are more of a threat, but we create a more balanced agreement with countries like Haiti who are trying to escape the poverty trap. This helps improve agricultural and economic systems in those countries as well as provide some immediate relief which doubles as aid and fostering of self-reliance. Current practices tend to destroy the already unstable or weak business and economic structures in those countries, so they become even more reliant on donations or international aid. By examining the larger picture, we could have helped avoid the problem that we were trying to treat by donating rice which then just made the problem larger. Additionally, by doing this, we may be able to avoid unintended consequences like the quick influx of people to urban areas resulting in slums that created more poverty and put Haiti in a less resilient state in the case of earthquakes.
I think this movie highlights two things. First, as described previously, governments like the U.S. often create problems for these countries prior to and as a result of the aid that they provide. Second, that this does not mean no aid is needed. While this movie tends to focus on the former, I infer the latter. This movie helps display what happens when aid is harmful and what that looks like, but I think it is important to remember that this is not the only way that aid can look. Aid may mean additional trade agreements being put in place, or it might mean helping finance campaigns for sanitation practices in India, or it may look a variety of different ways. However, what is most important is asking these nations what would actually help them and help them along the journey to achieve that rather than take a paternalistic stance and tell them what they need and doing it regardless of the outcry.
I find this very insightful. Asking the question, how can we help, rather than imposing our will :-)