As a prelude to our class discussion tomorrow, I wanted to offer some written thoughts on the film we viewed last week. On its surface, I thought the movie we viewed in class did a great job of including a number of different opinions and viewpoints on life in Africa. The images and conversations seen in the film certainly have a lasting impact due to their ability to induce “culture shock;” however, the ideas behind the causes of the plight in Africa and available solutions promotes an important and vital conversation, including an interesting entrepreneurial component. My discussion is limited to the distinction between poverty in Africa and its causes, and a potential entrepreneurial solution.

In the abstract, I found the discussion involving poverty in Africa to be insightful. Particularly, the view held by many African’s in the film that African poverty should be distinguished from its causes. That is, while much of the focus on African aid is predicated on alleviating poverty or assisting victims of disease, not enough thought has been given to the causes of these problems. Indeed, I thought the hypothetical dilemma discussed by the directors in the film helps portray this idea. While traveling, the filmmakers debated the decision to assist an injured child. While morally one would be inclined to assist the child, the purpose of the discussion was to consider what affect such assistance would actually have on the child. Sure, acquiring medical care for an injured child may be the right thing to do, but how does that impact her in the long run? As one filmmaker commented, who is to say that she does not use her ailment as a method for begging? Or, how would one assess whether the immediate relief would further long term health? This discussion seemed to encapsulate the theoretical discussion involving aid to alleviate poverty, or aid to eradicate its underlying causes.

I believe, like a few of the Africans interviewed in the film, that the response to issues of poverty and disease needs to occur at a deeper level. It is not enough for a developed country, the United States, to respond to the issues in Africa by merely pumping in millions of dollars and pounds of food. While these measures, notwithstanding their effectiveness, may alleviate particular instances of poverty or disease in the short term, like our injured child, it remains to be seen how they address the underlying causes of these problems. Instead, I purpose that efforts regarding the continent of Africa as a whole be more directed towards building a proper infrastructure within nation systems to adequately provide their citizens the opportunity to live healthier, better lives. Concentrating efforts on building a stable infrastructure is not a novel idea. Indeed, for years now, China has continued to invest in the building of African infrastructure, a separate issue that warrants an individual discussion of its merits. My proposition deals more with the “ground level.” I believe, and I think the film confirmed, that tremendous opportunity for growth exists in the form of microfinancing. Furthermore, this opportunity promotes an entrepreneurial solution to help eradicate the causes of poverty.

Since learning about microfinance as an undergraduate, I have been a strong proponent of the model as one mean of effective development. Of course, academic literature exists that would argue otherwise; however, many of the issues involving microcredit have related to the model’s application. At a theoretical level, I believe in the model of microcredit as a way to enhance development efforts, and if applied correctly could help promote an entrepreneurial class in developing nations. For example, in the film we watched a woman obtained a micro finance loan roughly equivalent to $10. After using that money to buy and sell produce, she realized about $30 in revenue. She then used that income to buy things for her home. This is one small example of the potential benefit of microcredit, as well as its potential harm. On the one hand, we saw an African woman receive a 3:1 return on investment, but critics are skeptical of how her income was used. In the film, she explained she bought household items with the money she had earned. One of the concerns of microcredit is lendees using realized revenue on consumer spending rather than reinvesting gains. This is why proper application and regulation of the microcredit model is necessary to achieve any real success. Relying on microcredit to act as an economic miracle is not credible, however with proper guidance such a model can help further the process of economic development at an individual level by providing for an entrepreneurial class.

The film effectively portrays a continent that continues to be riddled with poverty and disease despite years of development efforts. Efforts to provide aid may assist as a form of “band aid” solution, but the underlying causes of these issues remain prevalent. Instead, perhaps more efforts should be dedicated to building a sustainable infrastructure for Africa citizens to have the opportunity for a better life. Particularly, this film offers microcredit as a potential solution to help provide for such an infrastructure, particularly by establishing an entrepreneurial class. While microfinancing is not without its pitfalls, if properly applied can be one useful tool for providing key financial services to Africa’s population.