An aspect of entrepreneurship in the documentary that I found interesting was the relationship between regulations and aid-- that is provided by America and other countries like it-- and the economy and entrepreneurs of the third-world countries that are experiencing the effects of these. This is demonstrated in Poverty Inc. by the accounts of the Enersa creators, the Clay family at the orphanage, and a few other examples.
The Enersa creators developed solar powered lighting for the streets of Haiti, but then talked about how whenever the earthquake hit in 2010, outside aid brought in solar energy for free. The creators made a great point that if power is being offered for free, then who would pay for their solar power? The answer is not many. This aid from outside countries may seem like an economic way to help the struggling country, but we see that the reality is that the aid destroys the small entrepreneurial ventures, therefore hindering internal economic growth.
The same principle is true for the orphanages that the Clay's experienced. Due to external influences, parents have no income for their day-to-day lives. This leaves them unable to care for their children, so when the offer of free housing, food, and schooling arises in the form of orphanages, the parents have no choice but to give up their children. The solution that the Clay's are working on with this is the creation of artisan jewelry by parents so that form of income can help provide for their child.
I find this aspect of entrepreneurship of interesting because, as American's we like to help other countries for one reason or another. However, as a whole, we do not take into account that our regulations and aid do not actually help other nations economically. During on of the interviews in the documentary, it was said that the initial help is not the problem, but that "help" staying for too long, is. It interests me, because morally, continued aid seems like a good thing, but emotions aside, it is not economically beneficial in the long run. Instead it is actually harmful.
Successful governments often create subsidies for different products in the hopes of creating a surplus to use as aid for poverty-stricken countries. These subsidies and furthermore, the aid that stems from them, often create a bad effect on the latter countries. These aspects hinder the potential of entrepreneurial advances in the country and therefore sink the employment numbers and the income from jobs. The local jobs are pushed out by free aid, and there is no way they can compete within their own economy. This entrepreneurship can affect the aiding country's society positively by offering subsidies and providing mental value rather than money value, but it can greatly hurt the receiving country's society.
Society can effect this type of entrepreneurship on both the sending and the receiving ends. This happens especially when society only considers how they are personally affected by this, and not how it can actually work on a large scale. When American citizens (or citizens of countries like America) receive subsidies and desire to aid because of moral or image reasons, they support the goods being given to less fortunate companies for free. In the same way, when society receives these types of aid without thinking large-scale, they tend to only realize the help they receive in that exact moment, and not how it will affect the economy or society in the future. These ways of thinking condition senders and receivers alike to believe that success cannot be possible without external aid, which is not the case if full entrepreneurial potential can be utilized.
This interaction from a societal perspective is usually pretty positive. People like to give and people like to help, but this thinking is based on a narrow view. When this happens for too long, there is a negative affect that can be seen on society and on the economy which ends up keeping countries in poverty instead of allowing them to excel.
