This week I watched the documentary titles Poverty Inc. directed by Michael Matheson Miller, and let me say, it was an hour and a half of some truly shocking content. The documentary is a study on foreign aid in developing countries and the effects of that aid on those countries and their people. The message of the doc is somewhat counterintuitive. Most people are not aware of the the anti - aid position taken by the doc. It was certainly a shock to me. It is a hard pill to swallow, that all the goodwill and genuine care that goes into foreign aid efforts is harmful to the very people that are the subject, but the case against aid seems solid.

I think nearly every person in the developed world thinks that foreign aid is helpful to developing countries with extreme poverty, but the truth is shocking. The doc starts out in Haiti, where subsidized foreign rice has taken over as the main food in Haitian diets. The idea that cheap foreign food or other products for that matter, hurts local ability for people and countries to produce for themselves seems fairly simple, and nearly obvious. My question for this section is why was the aid given in the first place? The aid led to Haiti not being able to produce its own food, and to the development of slums, so it clearly had bad effects, but why was it given in the first place? The doc said Haiti was self - sufficient on rice, so where was the need for rice aid.

From there, the doc went to Africa, where some of the same effects were active, but there was also some more malicious stuff going on. Aid money that could not be spent on local businesses got sent back to companies from the developed countries. Dictators and totalitarian leaders are able to keep their power because foreign aid flows through them. The aid organizations themselves pay their employees well and are untaxed. All is is in addition to the economic displacement that happens as a result of all this free aid. 

One of the things that really hit me the most about the doc was the interviews and profiles of entrepreneurs and other locals who live in these systems and struggle to compete as a direct result of aid. It is one thing for economists and other wealthy people from wealthy countries to say that aid is bad and aid hurts developing countries. It is a fully different thing to hear that the people who have received aid and who are receiving aid say that they do not want it; that it is better for them to make their own way.

This documentary really challenged my perspective on this issue. I am definitely inspired to do further research. I have questions which the movie left unanswered, like what can all those people who support aid do to help alternatively to large scale foreign aid? *Is is ok to invest in small and medium businesses in developing countries, or is that a distortion too?* It seems like a difficult to navigate situation, where people with good intentions accidentally do harm. Is there a way to help without doing harm? Also, the message seemed to be get rid of aid as soon as possible. I have some concerns with any idea what wants to scrap a current system without a replacement system or transition system ready to go, so I am wondering what that looks like here. If aid is removed all at once, then those people who were forced to rely on aid suddenly have nothing, and nothing to fall back on, so it seems like a tricky situation.