developed countries should give other types of help to the poor countries rather than financial aid. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
many developed countries are now executing the diploma policies by giving impoverished countries money, yet it seems to have little effect. As a result, it is argued that rich governments should seek better measures rather than financial aid to help reduce poverty in poorer countries. From my perspective, I totally agree with the statement.
one of the problems with financial assistance is that the money offered may not always used in its original purposes. many corrupt governments use the well night of monetary aid for their own sake while civils who are immensely in need receive little or merely nothing. moreover, a huge aid that should have been used for promoting education and improving human living standards is abused for selfish satisfaction by tycoon magnates. this phenomenon has occurred for so long and therefore definitely can not help combat poverty in the long run.
to completely get over poverty, developed countries should scrutinize the root causes of the current status and offer appropriate types of aid for their partner. Money is not the key to all matters, especially those national ones. frequently, poverty may stem from a lack of an impregnable education system, weak healthcare services, and poor welfare policy. Based on this status, various aid policies can be applied. building more education institutions, and sending modern equipment, for example, can significantly help to enhance the education system. What's more, through the open diplomatic policy, wealthy countries can suggest a sustainable change for low-income countries. this policy does benefit both countries in the long run when it comes to the point of mutual understanding and cooperation.
in conclusion, I money can only help solve national issues to a limited extent and, more often than not even cause unwanted consequences. therefore, to help improve one country's status, rich countries should provide more practical help.
many developed countries are now executing the diploma policies by giving impoverished countries money, yet it seems to have little effect. As a result, it is argued that rich governments should seek better measures rather than financial aid to help reduce poverty in poorer countries. From my perspective, I totally agree with the statement.
one of the problems with financial assistance is that the money offered may not always used in its original purposes. many corrupt governments use the well night of monetary aid for their own sake while civils who are immensely in need receive little or merely nothing. moreover, a huge aid that should have been used for promoting education and improving human living standards is abused for selfish satisfaction by tycoon magnates. this phenomenon has occurred for so long and therefore definitely can not help combat poverty in the long run.
to completely get over poverty, developed countries should scrutinize the root causes of the current status and offer appropriate types of aid for their partner. Money is not the key to all matters, especially those national ones. frequently, poverty may stem from a lack of an impregnable education system, weak healthcare services, and poor welfare policy. Based on this status, various aid policies can be applied. building more education institutions, and sending modern equipment, for example, can significantly help to enhance the education system. What's more, through the open diplomatic policy, wealthy countries can suggest a sustainable change for low-income countries. this policy does benefit both countries in the long run when it comes to the point of mutual understanding and cooperation.
in conclusion, I money can only help solve national issues to a limited extent and, more often than not even cause unwanted consequences. therefore, to help improve one country's status, rich countries should provide more practical help.
