The issue of the significant gap between the leading countries and the undeveloped countries is a notable topic, where many have argued that economic supports should be given to the depressed countries. However, I firmly believe that the developed countries should not be investing in the poorer countries due to the ineffectiveness of using monetary assets for development.
A primary advantage of providing financial aid is to balance out the fairness between races. Underprivileged countries usually lack a competent education system. By increasing the funds for education, the talented students may thrive. In addition, the more elites a country has, the more potential the country can be developed. Although this is a valid standpoint, there is no guarantee that the elites will stay within the country. Migration would be an easier path to them as attaining achievement in their hometown can be strenuous, which means the country itself is not benefited.
Conversely, some may advocate that money makes no difference. There is a clear correlation between corruption rate and the level of development of one country, where the less developed one place is, the more corrupted the system is. Since the money never circulates, these money are tangible to no ordinary people; hence, any aid would be in the pocket of the authorities rather than the population itself.
To sum up, it is evidential to claim that financial aids would not be suitable for reinforcing the underdeveloped countries. Not only does the leakage in scholars demolishes the significance of financial aids in education system, but also the social gap between the upper class and the remaining population is broadened by corruptions. Therefore, I am fully pursuaded that we financial aids are not suitable.