The documentary Poverty Inc. by Michael Matheson-Miller discusses the economic drawbacks of continuously sending aid to struggling countries. The main point is that these places do not need the continuous free stuff, but rather to give them a chance in the market. Paternalism is where people in authority are restricting others' freedom and responsibility in the name of helping. The president even claimed that he had no idea until after they sent the rice over how horrible that choice would end up being for the people in Haiti.
First the documentary talks about the rice crisis. Before the crisis, they explained that they would eat rice two or three times a week, and after they ate it at every meal every day. This happened because rice became cheap after being subsidized in Haiti. When the rice kept coming, they began to have too much food that they had to use, and this put a damper on certain farmers during that time. Free rice continued to be delivered when they didn’t need it, and in the end, it is not only not helping Haiti it is hurting their economy.
The documentary then talks about Enersa. This was a business where people in Haiti were building lights and LEDs and the like. Unemployed people were beginning to take on this contract and they were soon able to make a living off of being part of the project Enersa. At first, there was solar equipment sent from abroad for Enersa, and then other countries were sending this same equipment for free. And when a market has to compete against something that is free, there isn’t competition anymore. In succession, other countries continued to tell people that Haiti had nothing and to even bring their water. This delusion then struck even more people out of jobs and ruined their economy because then the tourists were visiting and not buying anything. In the documentary, a man asked what people expected local businessmen to do if they continued to give stuff for free. They can't compete with free, and their help is doing more harm than good.
Then there was the textile and clothing industry. A woman had said they used to buy clothes that were made in Haiti with Haitian cotton. Now, she explains that she would be shocked to find a shirt made in Haiti. European countries continued to send humanitarian aid in the form of second-hand clothing. But when they kept sending more and more clothes, the apparel industries had to start shutting down, and then the cotton farms had to start shutting down as well because there were no clothes to make with their cotton.
The issue, a man explains after the discussion of Tom’s shoes came up, is the mindset. If the founder of Tom’s wanted to continue to give free shoes to the kids who don't have any for the rest of his life, he is then implying that he believes these people will need free shoes for the rest of his life. He does not believe that one day he could stop sending shoes because they begin to function on their own again in the economy, and ends up part of paternalism.
The most interesting part of the documentary to me was the next portion on orphanages. It began with a couple coming to adopt a child, only to be asked if they wanted to meet his mother. And after this, they realized that most children in orphanages were not without parents, but rather had parents that often visited them. This sends the couple into rethinking their stay in Haiti and their original plans. They explained that the orphanages covered all expenses and education, so when the parents couldn’t get jobs, they would have to send their kids there to keep them educated and fed. So instead of adopting or starting an orphanage with the money they had, they decided to start a business for the parents. They then had jobs, and could buy their own places, and have their own income, and could keep the kids that they wanted. The wife explains that it had started as a place for mothers only, but quickly realized that men were fathers who had to take care of their children as well. In the end, they explained that by actually helping the parents get jobs, it helps many more kids than an orphanage ever would. Because in Haiti, almost all the kids had loving families that wanted them, they just couldn’t afford it.
This is important to realize that the parents realized that it would be stupid to adopt a child with a mother who wanted to raise him with 20,000 dollars instead of using that to help the mother. If people who were adopting were serious about wanting their main goal to be helping kids find families, then they would also see that it would be foolish to willingly adopt a child who has a parent who wants them instead of helping the parent. The idea that orphanages were a place where people continued to send their kids because they couldn’t afford them, and no one redistributed the way the money going into the orphanages was being used to help the root of the problem, seems to fight the entire moral idea behind it.