I always thought of charity as being a constructive act. I think of charity as helping people become independent and regain their dignity, and hadn’t deeply considered potential negative consequences of charitable and well-meaning acts. In this regard, “Poverty, Inc.” is an eye-opening documentary that provides genuine food for thought. The cruel irony is that good intentions by outsiders can in many cases make the problem worse, along with the not-so-easy message that some aid organizations may be cashing in as part of this process. The idea is not to discourage giving, but to illustrate how many current attempts fail. Consider the situation in Haiti, where high-profile backers like ex-president Bill Clinton supported policies to dump American subsidized tariff-free rice that ultimately wiped out local agriculture and sent more people to the slums. In hindsight, Bill Clinton confesses that this was a mistake leading to the loss of capacity to produce rice in Haiti to feed the people that the aid was originally intended for. Another example involves Toms shoes where for every pair of shoes bought a pair was donated to poor countries in Africa. The result was that people wouldn’t buy shoes from the local industry, making them go out of business. Or consider the orphanages in Haiti that encouraged poor mothers to give up their children instead of helping these mothers become self-sufficient to raise their children. It is all too often that charity and donations provide a temporary fix while deepening the underlying issues that have lead to poverty. While the right approach typically involves training and empowering the local workers and industry to become independent and get connected to the global economy. Giving the poor a leg up in this way is more effective than focusing on short-sighted hand-outs!

The documentary Poverty Inc. examines the relationship between the U.S. and other Western nations and the countries experiencing poverty that receive their foreign aid. The documentary criticizes how Western countries have created systems of dependency in which countries such as Haiti are unable to rise out of poverty. For example, rice used to be a luxury item in Haiti. After the U.S. began supplying Haiti with free rice, farmers were forced to sell at cheaper prices until ultimately they had to move inwards towards the city. As more poor people moved into the city, slums were created along the fault line where many earthquakes have occurred. According to the documentary, Western corporations and governments kept African and Carribean countries poor and dependent so that they could exploit workers and resources. There were even instances of white NGO employees receiving the aid that was meant to be helping the people in said disadvantaged countries. One of the men in the documentary, Theodore Dalrymple, admitted to receiving such foreign aid money. The documentary defines poverty as exclusion from networks of exchange. In the African countries mentioned in the documentary, there are entrepreneurs and there are resources but the people lack the connections to sustain their companies. Ultimately what I took away from this documentary was that the core of the problem is a lack of communication. I learned how important it is for Western governments to actually consult with the countries and people they are trying to help rather than to just blindly provide money and resources. Together, they can figure out how to put that aid to good use so the countries can actually work to not only fulfill the immediate needs but create long-lasting effects.

The documentary Poverty Inc. was eye-opening in the way we should aid people in poverty-stricken countries across the world. When one thinks about non-governmental organizations, also known as NGOs, one pictures organizations bringing food and clothing to poor countries in Africa. Until last Saturday, I thought nothing wrong with this type of aid. After all there were companies like TOMS that donated a pair of shoes for every pair of shoes purchased. I felt that companies like TOMS were making a huge difference in the world and I was glad that so many people supported the cause by purchasing the company’s shoes.

It wasn’t until watching Poverty Inc. that I realized my mindset regarding aiding the poor was completely wrong. The documentary highlighted the negative effects of simply handing out supplies to poverty-stricken countries. For one, this type of aid hurts businesses in those countries selling those supplies. So what is an alternative that would make an actual difference? The documentary recommends NGOs support local businesses and focus on the resources the country has to offer. For example, the continent of Africa is oil-rich but many countries don’t take advantage of these resources and they do not put their resources on the market. By helping to establish businesses, NGOs would help foster a healthy economy so that the people will be able to afford their own supplies and in return help one another in their business ventures.

The only concern I have for establishing businesses would be poor working conditions. In many countries, companies set up “sweatshops” filled with children sometimes and have extremely dangerous working conditions. When helping to start up new businesses I think it would be important for NGOs to go to the local government to make sure regulations are in place to protect the safety and well-being of the workers.

On Saturday I watch the movie Poverty Inc. It was a very well produced documentary about how there has become a “poverty industry” that makes a profit by providing aid to poor countries, and it does not help the countries, and can sometimes even hurt them. For example, an organization that provides clothes to poor areas can put local businesses who produce clothing out of business. Then when the clothes are gone, there are no local businesses to provide more.

I was a little upset coming away from the film however, because there didn’t seem to be a good way to stop this kind of thing from happening. The director that we talked to suggested not donating to aid organizations, but I don’t think that everyone in the world will stop donating to these organizations. He also suggested to look into the products we buy before buying them, but I still don’t think it is readily apparent which companies are good or bad. The documentary talked about TOMs shoes, and how they put shoe manufacturers out of business, and I feel bad now for supporting the company, but I don’t think you could have known that by just researching the company.

One thing he did say that resonated with me was that you vote with your dollar, and I want to pay more attention in the future to what I’m buying, and what I’m voting for.

We watched a documentary called Poverty, Inc., which is primarily focused on poverty conditions in Haiti and several other African countries. I was first a little curious why the producers decided to focus on Haiti when there are many other countries that suffer from poverty in Asia, Latin America, etc. Later on, Mark Weber, one of the co-producers, explains that it was because Haiti and other African countries are just closer to the US, and a lot of our aid goes directly to them, which sets up the situation perfectly for viewers to digest.

My takeaway from this event is that those that keep people in poverty are the ones that control the most power, and lose the most from change, while the people who are in poverty have no power, and would gain the most of things changed. In context, we’re talking about the global aid system, which is supposed to be for the benefit of those in poverty, but what the documentary explains is that it creates a generation of people who are “dependent” on aid rather than working to get themselves out of poverty. Another interviewee explained in the documentary that the reason why those who try to work themselves out of poverty can’t is because they are excluded from international trade and the global society. The most striking thing to me is to find out that the money we pay in tax dollars that goes towards the government for global aid is actually hurting the countries, and we are wasting our tax dollars on that.

When people speak of means to reduce poverty reduction, the first thing that usually comes to mind is that developed countries can provide resources to impoverished communities and help alleviate the impact of poverty in the region. While this is a kind thought, how much does simply bringing some resources to the communities really help? After watching “Poverty Inc.”, I realized that it may have helped a little in the short run, and undermine the community progress to rid poverty in the long run.

There are two major reasons for giving the poor people means will do more harm than benefits. First, when the developed countries provide aids to the destitute communities, we are indeed disrupting their economies. Using the example from the documentary, the shoes company TOMS promises to donate a pair of shoes to someone in need when customers buy a pair from them. Although it sounds really nice that when a consumer buy a pair of shoes, they can also help some one from a poor region to get a pair of shoes. However, the problem is when the poor communities know about the free shoes, who will buy shoes from the local shoemaker? Some people may lose their jobs as a consequence of our so called “kindness” and the poverty problem will just continue. In addition, when we give the poor people means instead of the chance to work for themselves, we are instilling in their heads with the ideas that they are helpless and they can only depend on us. Communities cannot rid poverty not because they have no ability to make money but because we did all these thing to prevent them from making any economic progress by themselves. Perhaps, we should all think about what we should actually do to help the communities in need than blindly sending limited means to them.

This past weekend, I attended a screening of “Poverty, Inc”, a fascinating documentary about the devastating effects of well-meaning acts of charity. By showering third-world countries with donations, we are actually smothering their own economies. Growing up, my father always told me that donations will not solve the poverty problem. Rather, it will perpetuate the issue by de-insentivizing meaningful labor. But it’s so much worse than that. Not only are we eliminating all incentives to change, but we are also the very reason why these people are poor at all. The example that brought all this together for me was that of the earthquake in Haiti a few years back. In that instant, yes, Haiti needed help, but by continuing to funnel relief funds into these countries, we started to shut businesses down. Fledgling businesses simply couldn’t compete with the free goods appearing on their doorsteps. We talk and talk about how we want to teach the people to lead and provide for themselves, but we still haven’t take that all-important step back to see if we’ve actually succeeded. It needs to change, but this “charity” so engrained in our society’s culture that to alter it would almost seem a crime. People don’t understand what they are doing, and the only way to actually make a difference is to start educating them. Maybe then, we would be able to acknowledge our wrong-doing and truly work towards bringing an end to poverty.

Last Saturday, the Rose House Residents had the opportunity to see the documentary Poverty Inc. and speak to the producer of the documentary via Skype. Going into the screening, I wasn’t entirely sure what to expect. You hear the words “poverty,” “developing nation,” and “aid,” thrown around very often when speaking about the global nation. As Americans, the media often enforces a nation that it is the western world’s duty to help other less economically stable countries. However, this “help” is often delivered as free aid as opposed to tools those countries can use to develop. Essentially, this documentary embodies the idea of trade vs. aid. This movie captures how detrimental constant free aid can be on an economy’s nation. The producer specified the company Toms shoes, whose motto is “one for one.” With every pair if Toms purchased, the company gives a pair to a child who needs it. While the child does now have shoes, this movement is preventing local shoemakers and cobblers from selling their products. Why buy a pair of shoes from a local merchant, when you can get them for free? While the CEO of toms says that he plans to supply people with shoes for the rest of their lives, he simultaneously implies that they will always be poor. Although most charitable projects like this are extremely well intentioned, they are not allowing the country and economy to grow in the long run. This movie reminded me of a idea most people are taught when they are young, “give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him how to fish and he’ll never go hungry.” The documentary encouraged NGOs and projects that embody this principle in their endeavors. Speaking with Mark Webber afterwards also gave us more insight on his idea and how we as students can help perpetuate his message. I learned a lot from this documentary and will definitely be more analytical when I see eliminate poverty charities, and how they put an emphasis on instruction as opposed to handouts.

As someone who is interested in a career in global health policy, I found Poverty, Inc. fascinating to watch. The basic ideas of the documentary were nothing new to me; I’ve read a lot about how many well-meaning aid organizations end up having little positive impact (and sometimes a negative impact) on the communities they want to serve. I also knew that looking at impoverished people as incapable of making changes in their lives inevitably leads to failure. I didn’t realize, however, quite how widespread this problem was until Saturday. I hadn’t considered how complex the economics of poverty truly are, so I was happy to gain an understanding of poverty from this perspective.

Many of the examples the documentary highlighted were really powerful, but the part that stuck with me the most was about the Haitian orphanage system. Apparently, 80% of kids that live in most orphanages (which are usually started by westerners) have at least one living parent. The parents don’t have the money to feed their kids or send them to school, so they bring them to the orphanage in the hopes of giving them a better life. According to the documentary, in some large families it’s considered almost a privilege to go live at the orphanage. Parents can come visit their kids once in awhile, but a lot of kids are eventually adopted by wealthy westerners. This system appalled me, because not only is it entirely dependent on the whims of wealthy, foreign people, it’s forcing parents to make a decision between giving up their child or letting them go hungry. The American couple who set out to address this problem have had great success in creating jobs for parents, and I hope that this progress will continue.

This past weekend I attended the watching of Poverty Inc. I signed up for the event because it happened to be the only event I could attend this week. Originally, it was not an event I thought I would enjoy, but my mind quickly changed once the film started.

Poverty Inc discussed the aftermath of a natural or economical disaster in several countries. It showed how people all over the world begin efforts to send supplies and aid to those countries to help them. However, what I found most interesting, and what was the key point of the film, was that all of those NGO’s caused more harm than good. The film went through describing how sending in extremely cheap resources and giving things out for free in those countries directly hurts the few businesses there that could have flourished or helped the population. A good example they gave dealt with eggs. A small farmer was providing eggs for the entire town, however many GMOs came and gave our free eggs. As a result, the small farmer could not compete and went out of business. Then, when the GMO’s left he was not in business and the town suffered. This made me really think about the best way to help struggling people.

From the film and the video, I learned that the best way to help people isn’t through free stuff. You should teach them how to be indepenedt, and give them the infomation to succeed. It made a lot of sense, given the age old axiom “If you give a man a fish, he’ll have food for the night. But if you teach a man to fix, he’ll have food for the rest of his life”.

I thought this video and discussion was really great at explaining the harm of doing good, and not really thinking about the effects of your actions. Can anyone provide any personal experiences?

Poverty, Inc. presented some facts that I feel I should have known already but for some reason did not. For one, the images of Africa that are presented in the media show Africans as helpless, an image that goes back centuries. Also, the African economy is hurt by all these well-intentioned charities giving out goods and essentially making people dependent on handouts. The people of Africa are smart and resilient, when they are allowed to run their own economy the results would show the world that they are just as capable of creating prosperity as any other nation. The film itself is obviously a passion project, I could see all the effort the director and producers put in as they truly want the world to realize that a lot of the supposed help various organizations give Africa is actually hurting the people.

In essence, James Brown said it best, “I don’t want nobody to give me nothing, open up the door, I’ll get it myself.”

It is a question that never seems to have a concrete answer: Why are poor people poor? Some assert that poor people are, for the most part, responsible for their own social status. Perhaps they are simply lazy or unmotivated. Others argue that poor people are, for the most part, poor because of external factors or influences that lie beyond their control. Perhaps the system is simply against them. We, as a society, may never agree on the answer. However, the documentary “Poverty, Inc.” asks another question that might have a clearer answer: How can we help poor people?

The documentary looked at poverty across several countires (e.g., Haiti, Kenya, Peru, etc.). From an outsider’s perspective, foreign aid seems to help those in need. This short-term solution, however, can have detrimental long-term effects. For example, how can local businesses compete with free aid (e.g., rice, solar panels, eggs, shoes, etc.)? According to the documentary, this creates a society of beggars. Why should you pay for something down the street when you can simply get it for free from an NGO? Foreign aid should not be limited to food and clothing. It should also provide the opportunities and resources for one to escape poverty. It should give poor people control over their own lives so that they can shape their own futures. I thought the documentary was enlightening and eye-opening in several ways. It was also awesome and a privilege to Skype with Mark, the co-producer of the documentary!

“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” -Lao Tzu 

Yesterday I attended the screening of Poverty Inc. and the subsequent Skype Q & A with Mike. This was my first time seeing the documentary, and it really opened my eyes to the damage that too much or continuous aid can have on communities and the families that live there. I was unaware that countries like Haiti were still receiving aid even though its been years since the large earthquake there. They are receiving so much free aid that it is putting local farmers and businessmen out of business. Many families depend on these small businesses to make a living.

The film also portrayed some stories where aid was given, but not in the form of free goods. Instead of simply giving free things, these people helped by creating jobs and finding ways to help people get back on their feet. I think this model is a much better way to give aid because it helps people in a more constructive way. Teaching them a profession and giving them work give the people a chance to earn money for their families and make a better life for themselves. I think as students we could make a difference in countries like Haiti by donating our time to help teach individuals or help them get their own businesses going.

If you haven’t seen the movie yet, I would highly recommend watching it!

The documentary Poverty, Inc. is thought provoking and somewhat disturbing. The film described how foreign aid to impoverished countries can harm the economy of poorer countries and actually perpetuate poverty. The film gives an example of a Haitian solar panel business which was thriving and providing numerous jobs to local workers. These jobs provided workers with economic security and the ability to sustain themselves. Despite the success of the Haitian solar panel company, they were put out of business by aid organizations providing free solar panels to Haiti. The donations backfired by causing local people to lose their jobs.

I had never considered the potential negative economic impact of providing foreign aid to poorer countries. The film made me question how wealthy people can make a positive impact to fight poverty if, as the film asserts, providing foreign aid actually hurts the recipient country. The film made it seem as if billions of dollars in aid was actually hurting the situation rather than helping.

Luckily, the film provided some possible solutions. The theme of these solutions was to increase the economic infrastructure of a society so, for example, more people can get loans to start new businesses. Ultimately, a vibrant economy would increase employment and allow people to provide for themselves. The film also suggests making “the rule of law” stronger in order to help people protect their property.

The documentary also highlighted the Toms shoe company. The company provides one pair of shoes to a poor nation for every one pair of shoes they sell. I had always considered this social entrepreneurship a creative solution to a problem. However, the film discussed how the free shoe program destroyed local shoe factories which lead to local people loosing their jobs. After hearing about the unintended consequences of companies such as Toms I will think twice before buying their products. As the movie suggested, I think a much better solution would be to produce the shoes in poorer countries in order to provide jobs to local people and stimulate the economy.

Overall I thought the documentary was very well done. It made me think about issues that I have never considered, but are extremely important. As someone who enjoys studying economics I hope to learn more about this subject in the future.

Today I attended the screening of Poverty, Inc, a documentary about poverty around the world.  I wasn’t sure what to think about this event going in.  I kind of expected to walk away feeling really bummed out by the state of the world because of how poverty affected people.  I half expected to be told to donate money to different aid projects to help those in poverty.  I didn’t expect what I saw, but to be honest, I also wasn’t surprised by it.

At the beginning, the film confronted our ideas of poverty, reminding us that all of these people in poverty?  They are actually people.  And people have the ability to get out of poverty, given the rights and resources they need.  But our world view tends to perpetuate a sense of paternalism about third world countries, places with more extreme poverty.  And in fact, our systems of aid have extended and continued poverty, rather than curing or preventing it.

One example given in the film was with regards to rice in Haiti.  People use to grow their own rice, but it was a luxury item.  People would eat rice maybe one, two times a week.  But then governments and NGO’s started providing US rice as aid, for free.  This meant that rice became one of the most commonly eaten foods, but also that the people who used to grow rice were now out of a job.  This was just one of the ways the US wanted Haiti to be a consumer of US products.  With food coming in from the US for cheaper prices, Haitians couldn’t afford to keep their farms, and moved into the cities in search of work, living in slums.  And then when the earthquake happened, the cities were devastated.

A theme of this film was regarding how the people working in aid businesses and in other countries benefit the most from helping other countries with aid.  The other countries become reliant on the aid because it puts their people out of work, and when people are out of work, they fall deeper into poverty.  If aid could come in the form of helping people get jobs that would pay, rather than taking jobs away, the system would be much more effective and people in poverty would be escaping it.

One story in the film that really touched me was about how orphans in Haiti aren’t necessarily actually without parents.  They are sometimes poverty orphans, whose parents could no longer support them and gave them up to an orphanage where they would get a place to sleep, food to eat, and an education.  The story of the two people who went down to Haiti to try to help orphans in an orphanage, but who ended up realizing that it was the parents who they should be helping, was very inspiring.  By helping the parents get work, the parents could support the children themselves, and families would not have to be separated.

Another thing that stayed with me was the fact that whenever they talked about families, it was always a mother and her children, or a father and his children, but never a complete family of mother, father, and children.  There were no images of it, no mention of it.  I left wondering if in these poverty stricken countries, it is common to not see full family units, or if the portrayed image was just not the full picture.

At the end of the film, we got a chance to speak with the co-producer Mark Weber over skype and ask him some questions.  It was great to hear from a producer of the film, and to get more sides of the story.  We got to hear about how Mark got interested in poverty in the first place, dating back to when he was in college and on the boxing team at his school.

When I left, I left thinking about how I would like to be able to do more for people in poverty, but shaken by the knowledge that donating money to relief and aid programs might not be the best way to help.  But Mark told us all at the end that if we all pursue what we are interested in, hopefully we can do some good in the world with it.

i’m starting to really like documentary films. they’re not something i was very well versed with or interested in until the rose event last semester, where we watched the movie street fight and then talked with the director about it, which was incredibly interesting, so recently i’ve been trying to make a concerted effort to watch more documentary films. (last week i watched the act of killing, which was very good–10/10, would recommend to a top ten friend.) plus, as an ilr student, with wealth inequality being a big point of interest for me, the name poverty inc. sounded right up my alley. i liked this documentary a lot because, while i obviously knew about the existence of third world countries and foreign aid, i didn’t know very much about the intricacies the interplay between them, or why this was an issue. i thought the film did a great job of finding people from many different sides of the situation–former ngo employees, local businessmen in haiti, anthropologists, scholars etc. and bringing their perspectives together into a pointed and powerful exposé on this complex and important topic. i would imagine that many people, like myself, without having seen this film, wouldn’t intuitively understand why companies like toms, which ostensibly seem really courageous and beneficial, perpetuate a cycle of poverty for the very people they’re trying to help. for that reason i think this is a very important documentary and i’m very happy to have gone. i also thought it was really cool that we were able to skype with one of the producers; he seemed very passionate and well informed. overall i’d give the event a 10/10 and would certainly recommend it to a top ten friend.

Poverty, Inc. was such a great documentary to watch. If there was some way to make every human being on earth (especially those in the first world and more specifically those in poverty relief industries), I would in a heartbeat. Right off the bat, the first thing that absolutely shocked me was discovering that the song “Do They Know It’s Christmas?” by Band Aid was about the 1984 famine in Ethiopia. Taking the time to actually hear, and see, the lyrics, I realized that the song was nothing short of a joke, trivializing the struggles of those in third world, underserved countries. I completely and totally understand that celebrities, and many common people in developed nations, for that matter, just want to help. But, as a first generation Nigerian-American, I can confidently agree with the producers of Poverty, Inc. that there’s a better way to do this than releasing star-studded music videos. There’s a better way to help than perpetuating “stupid, poor, helpless” stereotypes about the people of Africa, South and Central America, and the Caribbean.

Another point that was heavily emphasized in this film, that I stand by 100%, was the fact that foreign aid alone isn’t actually helping! As one rice farmer from Haiti said, “Instead of foreign countries sending us rice, we would like to export it to them.” In other words, how are farmers, entrepreneurs, and businessmen and women in these countries expected to get back on their feet if they’re constantly leaning on the metaphorical crutch that Western nations are forcing on them? Like Ghanian business mogul Herman Chinery-Hesse noted, there’s never been a developed nation that ever got to where they were solely off of foreign aid. Instead of just shackling these countries hit by natural disasters and the like in loans and debt, better-off nations need to take responsibility and enable their poverty-stricken counterparts with the ability to become independent again. By not taking business for them, say by only shipping in free rice or providing free TOMS shoes for the period of time right after a disaster hits (and not for years and years after), first-world nations would thus be helping poorer nations more so than if they continued on the course that they’re currently on.

One last point that wasn’t particularly covered in the documentary, but one that I was prompted to think about nonetheless was the topic of service trips to third world countries. When people travel from their homes to “give back” in underserved areas, the whole idea of a “Savior complex” is perpetuated. Who benefits from such trips other than the people who go to “feel good”? I mean, of course, the families who have water wells and houses built for them now don’t have to worry about living without water or shelter, but those are skills that they could easily be taught to utilize themselves instead of just having hand-outs given to them. Like the old English saying goes, “If you give a man a fish, he eats for a day, but if you teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime.”

Poverty, Inc. was an incredible movie, and I so hope that in my lifetime as an immigrant to this country with family still back home, the way that poverty relief corporations are structured changes for the better.