To mitigate issues such as poverty and instability, many developing nations rely on the support of global organisations. While some favour material assistance, others contend that practical help such as teaching, advising, and lending technology is more efficient. In spite of potential short-term complications, I am inclined toward the latter view.
The proponents of financial help often assert that it is the simplest and quickest solution to most issues. For instance, resolving food shortages and poverty can be done with monetary aid alone, as can building new infrastructure or expanding farmlands. Nevertheless, there are substantial vulnerabilities related to this method, including corruption or mismanagement common in developing countries. In such cases, this will not only waste money and time but also deter future investment. Additionally, lending money can render a country dependent on external factors rather than foster self-sufficiency. Thus, although monetary help can certainly be helpful, hazards arising from mismanagement are significant.
Meanwhile, advocates of practical support, myself included, argue that it is more effective and safe to offer tools rather than solutions. When more people are educated in less fortunate nations, they can cultivate the growth of this nation in turn. Teaching engineers, doctors, and teachers in these countries can lead to an uprise in the population’s quality of life. Furthermore, this would encourage them to develop a mindset of self-reliance and independence. However, it is important to note that such assistance yields no immediate results and aims for solving the issue in the long-term.
In conclusion, both of these methods can positively impact growing countries despite some drawbacks. Personally, I prefer practical help over monetary assistance, as it helps foster self-sufficiency and independence.