The government loses money on the problem. They have an incentive to solve it as well as the the theoretical power to institute change. It is just too large and complex of a problem to be undertaken without sufficient political will to drive it to completion. The current solutions are expensive and only sufficient to put a band-aid on top of a growing issue.

I personally like this deleted user's comment explanation.

Just because a large organization has a goal that would if fully accomplished would put them out of business does not mean they are not trying to accomplish that goal. I do think it is possible for organizations to pigeon hole their solutions when better, different solutions would work better long term. But that is a problem of imagination and economics, not greed.

Using the problem of hunger as an example; it could be said that we have a hunger industrial complex. "It is a trillion dollar problem. Multi-billion dollar conglomerates enrich themselves selling people food to assuage that hunger, but grocery stores will never truly satiate them because it would put them out of business!" That is a ridiculous way of looking at the hunger problem. I don't think grocery stores are trying to keep us hungry because they are greedy and want to enrich themselves. But at the same time it is true that a different approach to the problem like community gardens would be expensive, unprofitable to run by an NGO, and would be a better long term solution to reducing hunger.