Some people believe that multinational companies should provide financial assistance to underdeveloped nations to help them thrive, other people argue that consultation would be more beneficial to those countries. Personally, I strongly agree that assistance in the form of advice would outperform the monetary aid.
Advocates of the financial side believe that large sums of money may help impoverished countries to address a number of social issues and help to build their countries. First, this money will accommodate the basic needs of their citizens such as money, food, and water, addressing social problems such as poverty, hunger, and water shortage. Second, with a sustainable supply of money, ordinary people would have no reason to commit social crimes such as thief or robbing; hence, the quality of life is dramatically improved. Lastly, by spending the budget received from those companies on enhancing the infrastructure of roads and public facilities like hospital or community centers, the lives of their citizens will be more satisfactory.
On the other hand, supporters of the advice would argue that consultation and practical advice are conducive to the long-term development of poverty-stricken nations. In fact, there are some countries which are disoriented in terms of their development plans. Therefore, it would help the governments of those countries to become clear about their plans, leading to proper execution. In my opinion, it is likely that financial assistance may fall into the hands of corrupt politicians who will use the money to serve their own purposes and interests, so giving suggestions is an optimal option. For instance, a notoriously infamous Vietnamese politician, Nguyen Van A, keeping millions of dollars received from Microsoft to support poor families in remote areas for his private use, got caught and sentenced to life imprisonment.
In conclusion, while there are clear benefits of either financial aid or advice, I hold a view that the advice solution would have an even greater impact on needy countries in reality.
Some
people
believe that multinational
companies
should provide
financial
assistance to underdeveloped nations to
help
them thrive, other
people
argue that consultation would be more beneficial to those
countries
.
Personally
, I
strongly
agree
that assistance in the form of
advice
would outperform the monetary aid.
Advocates of the
financial
side believe that large sums of
money
may
help
impoverished
countries
to address a number of social issues and
help
to build their
countries
.
First
, this
money
will accommodate the basic needs of their citizens such as
money
, food, and water, addressing social problems such as poverty, hunger, and water shortage. Second, with a sustainable supply of
money
, ordinary
people
would have no reason to commit social crimes such as thief or robbing;
hence
, the quality of life is
dramatically
improved
.
Lastly
, by spending the budget received from those
companies
on enhancing the infrastructure of roads and public facilities like hospital or community centers, the
lives
of their citizens will be more satisfactory.
On the other hand
, supporters of the
advice
would argue that consultation and practical
advice
are conducive to the long-term development of poverty-stricken nations. In fact, there are
some
countries
which
are disoriented
in terms of their development plans.
Therefore
, it would
help
the
governments
of those
countries
to become
clear
about their plans, leading to proper execution. In my opinion, it is likely that
financial
assistance may fall into the hands of corrupt politicians who will
use
the
money
to serve their
own
purposes and interests,
so
giving suggestions is an optimal option.
For instance
, a
notoriously
infamous Vietnamese politician, Nguyen Van A, keeping millions of dollars received from Microsoft to support poor families in remote areas for his private
use
,
got
caught and sentenced to life imprisonment.
In conclusion
, while there are
clear
benefits of either
financial
aid or
advice
, I hold a view that the
advice
solution would have an even greater impact on needy
countries
in reality.