Poverty Inc.
Poverty Inc. is a movie that gives us a clear picture of the various reasons why states that are previously known to get engulfed in poverty are still in the same state. It incorporates interviewers from different countries who attest to the same facts that have contributed the countries to attaining the third-word status badge. It brings up the aspect of the circle of foreign aid. The write up below reviews the various elements that grabbed my attention as I watched the movie and how the aspects relate to me as an individual.
The movie Poverty Inc encompasses aspects such as politics, health, and advocacy. In the political sector, the film describes the political scene as one that cannot get used to rescue the poverty state of these states. The political leaders in office believe in giving the donor states more power. As such, they get more aid and remain in a state of dependency where the government does not support local businesses.
The movie also portrays the health system of the nations as declining as the donor governments bring in to the countries grants and aids; it puts local businesses out of the market. When the locals are out of business, they run out of jobs and, as such, cannot cater to their local needs. It brings up a country with citizens who cannot afford suitable housing and good food. The situation leaves them at risk of being infected with diseases such as malnutrition and cold-related diseases.
The movie also brings out the aspect of advocacy, specifically system advocacy. In this case, the argument is that the poverty-stricken countries have no systems that fight for economic injustice. The states in the US producing the products to give out freely to the developing countries have policies that protect them from exporting goods to their country. So it is not trading; instead, it is just grants. The government should advocate for the rights of its citizens to own land business and protection against violence.
The film was innovative and left me utterly astonished. It is amazing how help could end up hurting people. The poverty-stricken countries have the potential to grow and develop on their own, but grants and aids have robbed them of the opportunity. I have nothing against aids, but once it started doing more harm than good, it should have gotten withdrawn. Aids got put in place to make the countries better places but seeing that there is no change up until implies that it is not helping. The NGO’s know what is happening, but they are not withdrawing for fear of losing their place and the money the business is generating.
Poverty is the subject of this movie and definitely a health problem, and as such, health professionals should not shy away from advocating for it. If health professionals advocate for the reduction of levels of poverty, it may aid in the decrease in the number of health problems associated with poverty. The health problems include water-borne diseases, diseases spread from food poisoning, and even those related to poor housing such as the cold and animal bites. Health professionals should advocate for better housing, retrieve supplies of grants and aids to poverty-stricken countries, and equal distribution of jobs.
The poverty situation will influence my future career as a nursing professional, given the rise in the number of people who will fall sick. An increase in the number of patients strains the health sector; hence there will not be adequate resources to be able to take care of the sick. If the sick cannot receive proper health care treatment, the number of deaths will increase, rendering the health care systems inefficient. In the future, I would like to advocate for the developing countries to be left to produce and market their own locally produced goods without the interference of donor countries. This will improve their ability to earn an income, and eventually, their health systems will be better.
The movie suggested a couple of things that if society changed, it might help solve their problems. They include the NGO’s could come in to help in times of disasters only; the government should develop a system to protects its citizens from theft and violence and protect them from economic injustice. Also, the government could help them acquire land title deed. The people should also have the freedom to start and register the business, and finally, the citizens should gain links to wider circles. On my part, I could venture into educating the society and showing it the side of foreign humanitarian aid the media is not showing them. This will aid in the creation of awareness of the real issues, and as such, they could collectively and independently look for solutions.
The problem cuts across all boarders to international and global levels. NGOs are on the rise as compared to any other organization in the country. Each donor should be made aware of the damage the system is causing. The countries being donated to should also get to know that they have their potential to achieve developed stable countries economically. Without this knowledge, it makes it utterly impossible to address the issue of poverty.
I loved the movie as it was an eye-opener. It gave me the side of the foreign aid story I had no idea existed. It reassured that if the poor torn countries switched up their policies for the better, they might end up at a better place in the future. It gave a couple of solutions that the country members figured out on their own. It made me imagine that there could a come a time when every country would be fending for itself and doing just fine. It was clear that I had never known that no nation ever develops out of only foreign aid.
References
Block, W. E., & Fryzek, N. (2017). Poverty Inc.: An Economic and Libertarian Analysis.