People’s views differ over whether developing nations should receive financial or practical port from developed countries. In my book, I strongly believe that practical assistance would support substantially contribute to the long-term growth of these countries.
On the one hand, getting monetary support/aid plays a crucial role in alleviatingvarious economic problems of a country. This amount of money would probablymake a huge difference in various aspects. In terms of transportation, the government can distribute their budget to the construction of railways towards slowing down traffic congestion. In terms of healthcare, it is vital to provide ethnic minority at the local territory with free medical services or raise public awareness through implementing nationwide campaigns. In addition, fiscal help would also temporarily lift Impoverished people out of hunger, and is used for constructing some factories creating jobs for millions of residents. This would greatly contribute to mitigating unemployment rate.
On the other hand, while grants might be misused for wrong purposes, it is easier to take control of practical support. This would produce long-term measures to theproblems of developing nations. The prosperous countries could spend high- educated experts to such nations in order to carry out a few training programs for local workers. For example, Vietnam has an agricultural economy; however, it has still struggled with low productivity for several decades due to the lack of advanced technology. In this context, it would be valuable to Vietnam if Japanese advisors travelled to Vietnam so as to introduce cutting-edge technology, for instance. Therefore, practical assistance apparently brings about a wider
range of benefits than fiscal support.
In conclusion, I am in favour of the opinion that developing territories should prioritize practical
support over monetary help. Should these nations want to gain a strong economy, they must get a
practical contribution from international institutions