People’s views differ over whether developing nations should receive financial or practical support from developed countries. In my opinion, I strongly believe that practical assistance would substantially contribute to the long-term growth of these countries.
On the one hand, getting monetary aid plays a pivotal role in alleviating various economic problems of a country. This amount of money would probably make a huge difference in various aspects. In terms of transportation, the government can allocate their budget to the construction of railways to slow down traffic congestion. In terms of healthcare, it is vital to provide the ethnic minority in the local territory with free medical services or to raise public awareness through nationwide campaigns. Additionally, fiscal help would also temporarily lift impoverished people out of hunger and could be used for constructing factories to create jobs for millions of residents. This would greatly contribute to mitigating the unemployment rate.
On the other hand, while grants might be misused for the wrong purposes, it is easier to take control of practical support. This would lead to long-term measures to the problems of developing nations. The prosperous countries could send highly educated experts to such nations in order to carry out training programs for local workers. For instance, 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 traveled to Vietnam 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 favor of the opinion that developing territories should prioritize practical support over monetary assistance. If these nations wish to build a strong economy, they must receive practical contributions from international institutions.