Davis Mohn
Poverty, Inc Discussion
Aspect of the movie
The documentary Poverty, Inc. explores the characteristics of human happiness and the results of the multibillion-dollar industrial complex for eradicating poverty. The movie casts doubt on popular notions of international philanthropy and champions business as a potent substitute for reducing poverty. The Acton Institute, a research tank that supports free markets, produced the movie. One of Poverty, Inc.'s directors, Michael Matheson Miller, discusses the documentary's critical analysis of the "business" that supports international charity and development. The "ideological independence" of the movie and its relatively unusual distribution strategy are also discussed. The documentary explores whether economic development genuinely works and if it does or does not among aid beneficiaries and residents of underdeveloped areas. Emergency aid is frequently welcomed in times of need, but longer-term charity based on "dumping" subsidized commodities from affluent countries appears to be harmful to real economic growth. This film represents entrepreneurship in the way it casts doubt on popular notions of international philanthropy and champions entrepreneurship as a potent substitute for reducing poverty in the world.
Why is it Interesting?
This film was very interesting because it used more than 200 interviews captured on camera in 20 different places, the Michael Matheson Miller-directed film By situating "the poor" as objects of charity rather than as active characters in their own tales, the prevalent modes of aid frequently position "the poor" as the objects of charity, according to Poverty, Inc. "Fighting poverty is big business, but who profits the most?" is the movie's tagline. The role that philanthropic organizations play in battling poverty is one of the topics the movie examines. It explores whether aid organizations are sometimes a barrier to eradicating poverty. Herman Chinery-Hesse, Hernando de Soto, and Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohammad Yunus all appear in the movie. Bill Clinton and Bono are also mentioned in the movie. The Clinton Administration's decision to subsidize rice shipments from the US to Haiti in the 1990s, which he later acknowledged was a mistake, is the subject of a large chunk of the movie.
Entrepreneurial Aspect
This film represents entrepreneurship by property rights being blamed for the miracle of the Asian Tigers (Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Singapore). Are entrepreneurship rates higher in strong institutions economies than in weak institutions economies? Not quite. Consider Puerto Rico, a colony governed by the "strong" American legal system, where entrepreneurship (roughly measured by the percentage of people who own established businesses) is lower than in Peru and Guatemala, nations that are frequently condemned for having weak institutions. I concur with the video that more entrepreneurship is necessary for nations to flourish, however there are many more ways to build a strong entrepreneurial capacity besides only property rights. This film affects society tremendously in how property rights are being looked at. Nearly 3 billion people, or half of the world's population, survive on less than $2 each day. Children, women, and the elderly are those who are most affected everywhere. Over 800 million people worldwide experience hunger and malnutrition. 4 Global poverty is incredibly pervasive and profound. This just shows how much an impact this documentary has on our society and entrepreneurship.