With the growth of the number of poor countries, people claim that developed countries should give other types of help to the poor countries rather than financial aid. I largely support this view because of many aspects, ranging from lack of knoweldge of how to manage money to average low longevity.In my opinion, this is a well-justified view for several key reasons.
One of these reasons is irrational use of funds. Generally, government do not spend funds on the underlying causes of poverty. For instance, providing funds to education can enable dwellers to acquire important skills and find stable employment, reducing their dependence on foreign assistance in the long term. This results in better public well-being and medium national erudition. On top of that, when large companies or other countries invest their money in a particular region, they even do not know the significant aim of expenses. Nowadays, with the prevalence of new technologies, economy stage of country can experience a significant increase. Of particular note, the education of high-qualified specialists leads to dependence of country.
However, financial aid continues to play a crucial role, substantially during emergencies and difficult political situations. For instance, if the country in a dangerous state or war, currence can be useful in many occasions. Furthermore, construction of schools, hospitals and other social buildings requires a lot of expenses. It can be a vital catalyst for community cohesion and cultural enrichment. This is particularly crucial in a modern urban environments, especially in a countries with inadequate number of funds.
In conclusion, I concur on the notion that other kinds of help can be more useful in some occasions because of two major reasons: one is that this idea leads to country’s development, while other is economic gains for government