This is a link to an article critiquing “Poverty Inc.” in an academic sense not a normative one. I see it as offering further ideas for exploration.
Like the article mentions, I think the best part of the movie was its informative value. Like mentioned in class, I do not think willing donors should be chastised for development problems. A giving heart is the most important quality for helping developing countries and should be respected. I think in large, the problem lies in lack of understanding: particularly in economics (i.e.: how shipping a subsidized and already cheaper crop into a country with tariff restrictions can destroy a market in an African country). Donators cannot be to blame but at a point those in charge of such organizations after having been told of the troubles by locals should eventually result in different action on their behalf. And if there is no change I think it reasonable to explore why.
The article also discusses an important part of development – financing. The article mentions ways developed countries might work with developing nations in this area. “Working with,” denotes the “partnership,” over “paternalistic” paradigm of development argued for in the film. I don’t see how help can be much other than a partnership if we believe people in developing countries know what they need which I think is the case.
I do not know a whole lot about financing but more about the law as a law student. I think financing issues for middle class business men could potentially be helped by better laws though. If laws were established to promote well-being for the average person in developing countries I could see how finaciers would be more comfortable giving loans to medium sized businesses: small loans impute less risk because of the small amount loaned and large loans are likely to the “well-connected” in those countries whose risk of default is much lower. The uncertainty for the middle class might be at part to blame for exorbitant and seemingly userous interests rates for the middle-class business.
A way to get better laws for the average person in developing countries, including the kind promoting middle-level lending might be to tie economic interests of countries willing to lend with interests of the developing countries. This is just the idea of international trade – the blocking off from which was often used describe poverty by the main speakers in the film.
If developing countries received training to produce commodities they have a competitive advantage in – commodities that allow for them to produce that good more efficiently compared to other countries (an example in Africa might be involve use of its vast natural resources) – then in theory developing countries could create an economy. At first it could be based on working its way to production (teaching, building etc.). Then the economy could transition into actual production and engage in international trade. Help from developing countries would be integral in the development stage – the right kind of aid (resources education, medical attention: physical and psychological). Furthermore I believe people in these developing countries are adequately prepared to handle the change to development. This was evidenced in the film and I personally know several people from developing countries in Africa working in incredibly complex professions in the States, such as neuro-surgery). I also don’t know how the guy in the film developed a solar panel with the limited access to high-technical training and the internet. Limited access to both of those things I can only assume is the norm over there.
If developed countries are open to investing in development in these countries and engaging in trade with them, developing countries may experience shifts in resource allocation in different sectors (in the short-term) but in theory, hopefully that problem could be alleviated with sector subsidies or tax deductions and in the long run, with education and training. Also, in the long run, economic theory suggests persons abroad and at home would be better-off because efficiency (cheaper production) and trade which means higher net profit for both countries (all else equal). Of course this situation also assumes some of a commitment to altruism and not playing the economic game in a monopolistic, status-maintaining over adjusting manner. The result of such action could be better laws in developing countries. Investors need the security of laws for their investments and money talks – produces action.
Great find, and a wonderful piece to prompt discussion!
I don’t agree with the author that the documentary “does more harm than good.” In fact, I see a certain amount of paternalism in that perspective (e.g., saying in essence, “Let’s disregard the viewpoint of those from the countries in question who are speaking, in favor of our own more enlightened views.”) And some of his criticism aren’t really fair – for example, he criticizes the documentary for not acknowledging the fact that some members of the population (sick, addicted, etc) will always need charity. But that wasn’t what the film was addressing.
The piece nevertheless brings up a LOT of meaningful questions for discussion. For example, he says, “Without a global government that taxes rich countries and redistributes to poor countries” it’s not possible for wealth to be created in poor countries. Is that true? Is he advocating for a global government? He also mentions China’s use of top-down government control to raise the economic status of its poorest – would/will that still be effective once a critical mass of people are able to start their own businesses? And – how COULD NGOs be more effective? How could foreign aid be better targeted to do more good and less harm?
I will also add that I have seen similar reactions to other films (like “What Are We Doing Here”?). It’s amazing how defensive people get when their sacred cows get skewered.
As I said in class right after the film, I think a lot of people miss the point when they insist that the real motivation is greed. I don’t doubt that that’s true in some cases. But I do disagree that it’s the hardest motivation to challenge. To the contrary, I think abject greed is easy to identify and very easy to challenge.
What is FAR more difficult to challenge is misguided benevolence. Both domestically and abroad, those whose primary motivation is to help do NOT want to hear that their good intentions might reap bad results. And, it must be said, there are definite segments of the “expert” population whose raison d’etre depends upon demonizing business and profit. A worldview that suggests economic success is tied to *more* people starting businesses that can grow often runs afoul of such people, and their insistence that most business is greed and exploitation.
One detects a whiff of that sentiment in this piece.