Opinions are divided on charitable organizations’ scope . Some may argue that they should aid unfortunate people irrespective of country of origin, while others argue that donations should be focused domestically . This essay will discuss both views before proposing my viewpoint.
On one hand, we can reap numerous benefits when volunteer organizations narrow down their working scope to their host countries. Firstly, working domestically can be cost-saving. Without paying traveling or transportation expenses, charitable organizations may utilize those expenses optimally by giving them to more underprivileged individuals. Additionally, without language, cultural or religious barriers, underprivileged people can share and raise their voices so that donors can actually know what their needs are, which can help donations more efficient.
On the other hand, aiding people from other countries also has tangible merits. To begin, there are global issues requiring collective efforts from all nations. Responsibilities for addressing such issues cannot be taken by any specific region; hence, charities should also help citizens in other areas. Furthermore, giving donations to other countries can foster a sense of solidarity among them and form communities that allow countries to support one another . This can be beneficial regarding solving pending concerns in the future or collaborating in every field.
Personally, although aiding people irrespective of nationality may provoke stronger relationships among areas, I believe that charities should allocate both their funds and work to local impoverished people. One compelling reason is that expenditures to cover donations for other countries tend to be unaffordable whereas those done on a local scale may solve the majority of existing domestic problems.
In conclusion, while benefits can be derived when helping people no matter what country they reside in, I contend that focusing on helping local people can be more advantageous.