There is a difference of opinions on what kind of help is more necessary 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 it is best to provide financial assistance for developing countries. Firstly, external monetary flow enables executive bodies of those countries to carry out a variety of functions, for example infrastructural development, social healthcare, water and power supplies. This would help avoid stagnation and foster economic progress. Secondly, when state income from taxes is inadequate, foreign cash injections are vital to maintain effective administration systems by paying standard salaries for governmental staff members who play supervisory roles in all sections of a nation.
On the other hand, I would side with those who believe other forms of assistance should be given. Sustainable growth does not merely depend on money, but on how a country is governed and directed, particularly diplomacy and the resolution of concerning internal issues like poverty, crime, or unemployment. In this spectrum, less developed countries certainly do not have enough experience, which emphasizes the need for direction and consultancy from experienced organizations. Furthermore, even if financially supported, third world countries still need experts in the fields of science, law and medicine in order to encourage their development. 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 training courses.