** Poverty Inc. - Discussion Paper**
The 2014 critically acclaimed film Poverty, Inc.,directed by Michael Matheson Miller, examines the fundamental flaws of the development industry’s common practices, and its role in perpetuating impoverished conditions in the Global South, we can also see how the film depicts the entrepreneurial struggle. The film deconstructs the widespread notion of ‘doing good’ by demonstrating the unintended harmful consequences of many mainstream development and anti-poverty initiatives. Through numerous interviews that were conducted with professionals and scholars in international development and local actors in developing countries, Poverty, Inc. relays the complex topic of paternalistic development discourse in a highly accessible manner, provoking its audience to reflect on how they themselves may be perpetuating harmful conceptions of ‘doing good’. While the film fails to address significant structural causes for global inequality, and propagates a somewhat problematic pro-capitalist approach to poverty reduction, it is nonetheless a valuable contribution in the effort to de-paternalize the development discourse. Based on those circumstances we can see how that can stifle an entrepreneur. Innovators in our society try their hardest to mitigate global inequality, in a way we can see that they are actually trying to benefit themselves in the process.
Poverty, Inc. critically examines popular poverty alleviation initiatives, including humanitarian relief, foreign aid, celebrity endorsement and international adoption, and successfully reveals the harmful consequences that can arise from these well-intended practices. The film uses post-2010 Haiti as a primary case study for how the development industry often creates dependencies that hinder domestic production and economic growth. We can tie those interactions to our entrepreneurs in our society today. There are unfortunate circumstances that arise from positive action and these are potential hindrances for an entrepreneur's product or service path to success. Research shows in the last decade, Haiti has witnessed an influx of hundreds of NGOs, whose temporary disaster relief efforts have evolved into permanent provisions of free goods to Haitian society, thus thwarting many domestic business endeavours. The film thereby effectively depicts how ‘do-good’ initiatives by NGOs can actually cause harm, when their own interests are prioritised over those of the supposed beneficiaries. International adoption is also heavily scrutinised, through the example of an American couple who travelled to Haiti with the intention of adopting a child, but ended up starting a jewellery-making business that employs local Haitians with the purpose of allowing them to earn enough money and creating substantial product value to take care of their children. The film therefore portrays a classic and concise example of two well-intentioned Western individuals who lack a proper understanding of the local context in which they wish to ‘do good’. It also shows viewers the importance of practising self-reflection and educating oneself when engaging in development work, as well as the importance of empowering local actors through employment rather than charity to promote self-sufficiency. This simply shows us how it can affect and or stifle our today’s innovators.
Celebrity endorsement of humanitarian action is also considered through the case of Bono, who has played an influential role in aid advocacy and raising awareness for charity campaigns. His endorsement is depicted as problematic in perpetuating false notions of ‘doing good’, such as sustained foreign aid and fundraising efforts through songs about ‘Africa’. For development scholars, the film’s illumination of the flaws of the development industry is no novel revelation. Poverty, Inc. 's anecdotes of ‘doing good gone wrong’ are classic examples with which students of development studies are all too familiar. Foreign aid, for example, has been critiqued for its ineffectiveness and role in perpetuating unequal North-South relations by a multitude of development scholars and professionals. Celebrity endorsement has also been subject to criticism for its self-serving interest as a marketing technique for preserving a positive public image , and its role in perpetuating hierarchical ideologies Nonetheless, Poverty, Inc. serves as an effective overview of the harmful effects of Western-dominated approaches to development by addressing the most fundamental flaws of ‘doing good’ practices that have been highlighted in development academia, with which non-development academics may be unfamiliar. Moreover, considering that despite an abundance of scholarly critiques the top-down development practices depicted in Poverty, Inc. continue to exist, the film remains a highly relevant and necessary resource.
A major shortcoming of Poverty, Inc. lies in its proposal of an alternative way to promote development and ending poverty. Through numerous interviews with scholarly experts, such as Hernando de Soto as well as local entrepreneurs in developing countries, the film proposes that the solution to ending poverty lies in facilitating entrepreneurship through establishing solid domestic rule of law and property rights, and spurring the integration of developing countries into the world market. This proposed solution actually fails to address significant structural issues that perpetuate unequal relations between the West and the developing world, and is situated in a pro-neoliberal capitalist framework.
In regard to the interactions throughout the film and simply analysing we can see that the proposal that entrepreneurship and spurring global market integration is an alternative and more effective way in development than contemporary Western-dominated approaches is somewhat contradictory. Facilitating entrepreneurship and global market integration are key elements of neoliberal capitalism, a Western-invented project aimed to foster prosperity that has dominated Western policy-making since we can remember. Therefore, while the film attempts to deconstruct Western notions of development, its proposed solution still falls within Western epistemology. Moreover, by situating the solution to poverty within a neoliberal capitalist
framework, the film disregards other, non-Western based, yet successful approaches to development and economic growth. The most notable example of countries that followed a non-integration based approach to development is that of the Asian Tigers, including South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong. Mentions of these cases could have honestly enhanced the audience’s understanding of alternative paths that one can take to reach pivotal development that is not based on a replication of the Western model. From that perspective, we can decipher how Global market integration and a pro-neoliberal capitalist solution therefore disregards these underlying structural issues of the world trading system, which perpetuate unequal relations between developed and developing nations.
