A common defense of purchasing goods made from impoverished areas is that doing so will raise them from poverty. Boycotting goods from those regions would, as they claim, cause them to fall further into poverty. These include areas such as Bangladesh, Mexico and Romania. The initial excuse for creating business in those regions was that through trickle down economics improvements would be made over time. The biggest problem with this hypothesis, however; is that poverty persists and the quality of life is falsely raised.
In the Western world the poor of any society is seen to begin in nomadic or native culture. So naturally we colonized these peoples, forced our religions upon them, made them give up their survival techniques and gave them production jobs. As seen in India, we also force them to buy goods from us that they once produced themselves (clothing, salt, etc). But what these workers are paid often cannot afford them adequate food and shelter. In Bangladesh many families share the same corrugated steel huts and live in squalor. So what we have done is not improve their lives but take away their ability to survive.
What we considered poverty; farming, fishing and hunting, allowed them to live. Perhaps they had less access to medicine, media and technology but they can not afford that even now. So purchasing goods from these regions only increases the profits of corporations but does very little to help the civilians. They would be better off being entrepreneurs and start their own industries, or attempt to regain their skills.
The skillset is changed from feeding themselves, to making clothing and shoes.
If you have any interest in how we are holding foreign women, men and children in poverty...
Google: Maquila Zones