Wealth states frequently support poor counties by providing financial help, however such action does not leads to decline level of destitution. Consequently, instead of helping by sending money for third world countries, it is far better provide other kinds of sustain. This essay completely agrees with this statement, because money that is given to authority of poor country in most cases disappear, moreover constructing infrastructure will have more favorable affect.
Rich states should not just send financial aid to local government, but also control the way in which money will be spent. Unfortunately, problem with corruption is worldwide, and it is even occurs in cases when money is sent as a support. Authority of poor countries is full of corruption, wealth countries do not check allocation of money, for this reason poor states are not able to reach optimistic results. For instance, take the country from Africa, Uganda have received a huge amount of money since 1980, from European and North American countries. Almost a half century later, we cannot see any developments in Uganda, only wealth government.
Building establishments, organizing basic amenities and improving infrastructure can easily replace aid that is sent by financial way. This approach will help to avoid situations when local authorities stealing money, hiring construction companies from abroad might lead to favorable consequences as a quality buildings and conveniences and duration in which all works will be completed. Example of Sweden which influenced on improving level of life in Bhutan, they did not give any type of finance instead Sweden government constructed all amenities that is necessary for people wellbeing, furthermore workplaces for citizens also were provided.
In conclusion, controlling ways in which money will spend is necessary for achieving improvements in poor countries. I believe, that instance of Sweden is the best way for sustain third world countries.