There is a difference in opinions as to what form of international aid is more effective for third world countries. In my view, support in the form of money shows less practicality than other types of useful aid and consultancy.
On the one hand, I understand why some people argue that it is best to provide financial assistance to developing countries. Firstly, financial aid from developed countries enables governments of poorer nations to implement important infrastructural development, such as healthcare systems, fresh water and power supplies. This can help to avoid stagnation of development and help a country to foster economic progress. Secondly, when state income from taxes is inadequate, foreign cash injections are vital to maintain effective administration systems by paying salaries for government staff members in all sectors of a nation’s government.
On the other hand, I do agree with those who believe that other forms of assistance should be given. Sustainable growth does not merely depend upon money, but on how a country is governed and directed, particularly diplomacy and the resolution of serious issues like poverty, crime, and unemployment. In this spectrum, less developed countries certainly do not have enough experience, which emphasizes the need for direction and consultancy from other more experienced governments and organizations. Furthermore, even if financially supported, third world countries still need experts in the fields of science, law and medicine in order to help maintain their development in such areas. However, scientists, lawyers and doctors can only be trained, and professional and systematic education and training programs are therefore more practical and suitable in the context of developing nations.
In conclusion, owing to the aforementioned arguments, it seems to me that instead of monetarily assisting poor countries, global help should come in other forms such as advice and education.