Poverty, Inc. is a documentary directed by Michael Matheson Miller, and it argues that poverty has turned into a global industry. We have seen it in the United States as well as other countries: there is generally a compulsion to help the needy. From providing free food (such as eggs or rice), to free clothes and shoes, to adopting children in orphanages, there are many ways that we attempt to help the poor. However, this documentary argues that this “help” has done more harm than good. In fact, it is more likely to cause long-term negative effects than help a country recover.
Many examples are provided in the documentary to prove that our help only keeps these countries dependent on aid. For example, large quantities of second-hand clothing were being donated and shipped to Kenya. This may seem like a good thing because there is free clothing for people in Kenya who cannot afford to buy clothes. However, this ended the clothing businesses in Kenya because they could not compete with the donations. Kenyans were less willing to pay for clothes and this drastically changed the clothing industry in Kenya. Similarly, there was a time when extra eggs were being shipped to Rwanda. Any chicken farmers at that time could not afford to remain in business due to the competition. However, when the supply of these extra eggs was taken away, Rwanda could not sustain itself in eggs because the chicken farmers had been put out of business. This meant that Rwanda had to find another source to import eggs into the country. In the end, the dumping of our leftover items ends up putting locals out of business and ruins their local markets. Our donations have an unpredictable effect on their economy and can wreak havoc when they become reliant on our leftovers.
This pattern is also seen in many orphanages. Especially in countries like Haiti, about 80 percent of orphans are poverty orphans. This means that they have at least one living parent who wants them but cannot afford to feed them. Orphanages are actually a coveted position in this situation, and kids in these countries are considered privileged to be in an orphanage. It is even common for parents to visit their children in the orphanage every couple of weeks. This system creates orphans because children can be better provided for as an orphan than they can at home. Additionally, most of these kids do not want to be adopted because they know at least one of their parents and consider their country home. The solution is not adoption but finding a way for parents to be able to provide for their children, like creating or finding jobs for them.
Third World countries need partnership. They need other nations to work with them, instead of giving away leftovers, to help them accomplish their own agenda. To countries like the United States, these countries tend to be portrayed as stupid or helpless. In reality, they are just disconnected from global trade, and they need a chance to become capable of creating their own wealth. Aid can be a good thing if provided amid some sort of natural disaster; however, if the aid continues, it creates a broken system where the country cannot stand on its own.
The documentary, Poverty, Inc., caused me to reflect on and reconsider my view of Third World countries and my attempts to help them. The documentary argued that most often, these countries do not need our donations. We have yet to see a country recover from having enough foreign aid; however, I had always assumed it just had not been enough. I was ignorant of some of the efforts that have taken place and assumed that people were not giving enough, and that was why it was not working. I had never considered the effect that our donations might have on the economies of these countries. Compassion International and World Vision are two organizations that were briefly mentioned in the documentary. I have heard about both, and my family has sponsored several kids in Africa through Compassion. These programs allow kids to stay in their parents’ home, but they receive more support than their parents can give them.
These organizations have different missions and focuses, but both of them claim to help reduce poverty. Compassion does not receive government funding, while World Vision does. Compassion provides care, food, and education to the kids in its programs. Based on the documentary, I think education is very important to help the kids get a job. This will give them power as parents and help break the cycles in the orphanages. Similarly, World Vision includes child sponsorship, but also focuses on short-term emergency relief, long-term sustainable community development, and working with policymakers and addressing the systems that continue the cycles of poverty. I wonder if any of the services that these organizations provide to their kids are replacing services that local businesses could provide. Is damage being done to the local communities because of these organizations and their efforts? What if these organizations are perpetuating the cycle, like the way orphanages do? Or is it allowing kids to grow up with food and education so they can provide for themselves and their families as adults? From what I know, I think these organizations are ways that we can partner with these countries and their people. Instead of donating our leftovers, we can help provide resources for training to prepare kids for the future.
