Few people would contest that more money should be invested into developing countries from international organizations, while others think that practical aid and advice could play more beneficial role. Personally, I hold the view that both of the cases might be used towards important developments in the following countries.
Nobody would dispute the fact that financial support can lead to a bright future for any country, either it is used to stabilizise national economy, or to reduce extreme poverty. Financial help can keep industries and services, such as educational and healthcare, stable while providing more job opportunities. Moreover, it also allows countries with recession to maintain their independence. Without such support, they might be forced to take drastic measures, like selling land to cover debts—for example, Kazakhstan sold Baikanur to Russia to avoid economic collapse.
Nevertheless, there are those who claim that direct help and guidance could be more effective because it often deliver immediate and targeted results, particularly for pressing humanitarian needs. While financial assistance can address systemic issues, crises such as immunization gaps, lack of access to clean water, and malnutrition require direct intervention by skilled professionals
To conclude, although opinions differ, I am convinced that financial assistance and practical aid should work hand in hand to address the multifaceted challenges facing developing countries. This approach not only addresses immediate needs but also lays the foundation for long-term growth and independence.