Moviecut—Poverty, Inc.

source: Poverty, Inc.

The thrust behind this film might seem counter-intuitive. The film contends that all the well-intentioned aid coming from the First World to the Third World is actually NOT helping all that much. It instead has a tendency to keep folks poor and dependent on aid and may actually undermine domestic industries. While this sounds crazy, the film does a good job of explaining...using the analogy of giving a man a fish OR just giving him a fishing rod and letting him then help himself. So, by giving money to countless agencies and allowing dictators to control the donations (only 16 of 54 African nations have democratic elections), it keeps the dictators in power and inhibits local farmers and businesses. Instead of me trying to convince you by saying more...just watch the film for yourself. Overall, the film is well made and offers many interviews with folks who work in various aid agencies, live and work in the developing world. It also has nice graphics and a nice professional look. And, I have a hard time understanding why governments and aid groups keep doing the same old thing again and again...somehow hoping THIS time it will all somehow work!

The film seemed very good at first, but as you get into it one begins to notice that they are pushing an anti-government, libertarian, conservative ideology. It's a very simplistic film with simplistic answers. A libertarian think tank actually sponsored this movie. Life and Debt is a much better film that deals with issues in low income countries.

I think the lessons described in this film of good intentions meeting disastrous consequences. The analogy developed across the film isn't advocating to teach a man to fish, it's saying the village already has a fisherman, and shows what happens to his livelihood when an NGO starts giving the village free fish and the fisherman has to sell his boat to survive. And what happens to that village when the NGO stops giving away free fish, now that the fisherman is bankrupt? The film also offers solutions. NGOs and other agencies should contract with local organizations wherever possible, and not have strings attached that benefit the donating country. Social entrepreneurs like TOMS should help communities by producing locally and not by dumping (which they acknowledge they have started to do). Foreign aid after disasters needs to end shortly after the situation is stabilized. I recommend this film, and it's refreshing take on poverty applies just at much at home as it does abroad.

While this movie is critical of the existing system, I think it's not as strong as it believes on explaining exactly how its alternative would work. OK, you could argue that it is a pro-business, pro-trade, pro-let people do it themselves model. That might simplifying the filmmakers angle, but again, other than a few sample businesses and entrepreneurs, it's not really described. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to believe that we just cut off all aid and miraculously poor people will make themselves rich. So, I do give it credit for questioning the existing system. I suppose if it gets the viewer thinking more critically about how the system works and their own role in it, then I guess it's done its job, but expect to clearly lay out an alternative. Also, as someone else pointed out to me, Jeffrey Sachs & others have written, in a sense, on where the current system works well and under what circumstances. So, before we totally throw out the current system to adopt ???, it seems like more critical thinking and questioning is in order.

Poverty, Inc.