Currently, there is no denying the fact that wealthy governments donate funds to improved nations. While it is a commonly held belief that the financial aid should be converted into diiferent types of help, there is another argument that opposes it. In my opinion, I believe countries ought to find better ways to support developed economies.
To begin with, one of the significant merits of replacing money is that funds are easier to steal, where food, clothes, and blankets, for example are more difficult to be stolen. Furthermore, governments may look for more sustainable aids, such as establishing energy stations, or building schools, which can help enhancing the quality of life in poor nations, along with increasing knowledge, which will result in a higher salary trend.
On the other hand, the main drawback of this phenomenom, is the time needed to build sustaind solutions. In other words, countries tend to use funds as a quick source of help, since it may be transfered at the moment to any part of the world. For instance, it impossible to look for sustainable aids in war zones. Thus, in similar situations, the only rational way to help is donating cash, and after overcoming these difficulties, it could be replaced.
In conclusion, despite having different views, I consider cash as a reliable type of aid. However, to minimize poverty in the long term, buildings, schools, hospitals, are more prefered, as they can provide higher education. Consequently, better job opportunites and a lower poverty rate.