Even though technology is developing at a fast pace and the standard of living of most individuals has gone up, billions of people still live in poverty, and in many places, the rich countries give financial aid to
developing and under-developed countries. Some people consider it improper to give direct monetary help. I agree with them. I believe that the developed countries should give some other types of help to the
poor countries and not direct financial aid.
My first argument against financial aid is that this aid may not actually reach those for whom it is meant. lt may go into corrupt pockets. Secondly, it would make those people lazy, as they would be getting aid without doing any work. Thirdly, the aid may be used for the wrong purposes. For example, the aid may be given for development projects but it may be used to promote terrorism. Finally, if aid is given without proper research, then it may be used for projects, which are not the priority of the people. For instance, the people may need health and educational institutes, whereas the aid may be used for making dams or expanding roadways.
The best way to help poor countries would be to open good educational institutes, good health centers and create job opportunities for people of the poor countries. People of the poor countries start earning well their standard would definitely become better and the whole country would become richer. LF rich countries open factories and multinational companies in poor countries it would be a win-win the situation for both, as the poor would get employment and the rich would have to pay much lesser to these workers than they would have to pay their counterparts in their own country. So, more and more rich countries would step forward to help the poor. Direct financial aid would not bring such a situation.
To conclude, financial aid is not the best way to help poor countries. From my own perspective, the developed countries ought to assist the impoverished countries through other approaches'
Even though
technology is developing at a
fast
pace and the standard of living of most individuals has gone up, billions of
people
still
live
in poverty, and in
many
places, the
rich
countries
give
financial
aid
to
developing and under-developed
countries
.
Some
people
consider it improper to give direct monetary
help
. I
agree
with them. I believe that the developed
countries
should give
some
other types of
help
to the
poor
countries
and not direct
financial
aid.
My
first
argument against
financial
aid
is that this
aid
may not actually reach those for whom it
is meant
.
lt
may go into corrupt pockets.
Secondly
, it would
make
those
people
lazy, as they would be getting
aid
without doing any work.
Thirdly
, the
aid
may be
used
for the
wrong
purposes.
For example
, the
aid
may be
given
for development projects
but
it may be
used
to promote terrorism.
Finally
, if
aid
is
given
without proper research, then it may be
used
for projects, which are not the priority of the
people
.
For instance
, the
people
may need health and educational institutes, whereas the
aid
may be
used
for making dams or expanding roadways.
The best way to
help
poor
countries
would be to open
good
educational institutes,
good
health centers and create job opportunities for
people
of the
poor
countries
.
People
of the
poor
countries
start
earning well their standard would definitely become better and the whole
country
would become richer.
LF
rich
countries
open factories and multinational
companies
in
poor
countries
it would be a win-win the situation for both, as the
poor
would
get
employment and the
rich
would
have to
pay much lesser to these workers than they would
have to
pay their counterparts in their
own
country
.
So
, more and more
rich
countries
would step forward to
help
the
poor
. Direct
financial
aid
would not bring such a situation.
To conclude
,
financial
aid
is not the best way to
help
poor
countries
. From my
own
perspective, the developed
countries
ought to assist the impoverished
countries
through other approaches
'