With the wealth gap gradually widening, prosperous countries often make financial donations as aid to poorer ones. However, many argue that this approach is not necessarily the most effective for alleviating poverty. I concur with that, and I firmly believe that giving money is not the only way to help poor nations.
To being with, the phenomenal failure of money donations is often attributed to poor management of that aid. Firstly, as a result of corruption, the money may not reach the people who most need it. In other words, there would be some people taking that money for personal use. In fact, it is quite common for international aid money to end up in the pockets of the political elite in such countries. Thus, overseas financial donations can actually lead to increased corruption instead of helping the poor people of those countries. Secondly, money is only capable of solving temporary problems, but longer-term ones like famine which last long are difficult to tackle by this kind of approach. So in the long run, financial donations are not as effective as other long-term investments.
Instead of donating money, the rich countries can adopt different measures to help the poorer ones. First, they can provide advanced technology to poor countries to help them improve productivity. This can lead to economic growth and alleviate social problems such as poverty in a sustainable way. Second, developed countries can provide professional training to raise the skill levels of the workforce in poorer ones. To be clearer, if workers in poor countries have the necessary up-to-date knowledge and skills in their fields, they will remain competitive and productive. Therefore, investment in technology and training in poor countries would be a much better kind of aid.
In conclusion, donating money is not the best way for the rich countries to help the poorer ones. It can lead to corruption and it is not as good as long-term investments in training and technology.
With the wealth gap
gradually
widening, prosperous
countries
often
make
financial
donations
as aid to
poorer
ones
.
However
,
many
argue that this approach is not
necessarily
the most effective for alleviating poverty. I concur with that, and I
firmly
believe that giving
money
is not the
only
way to
help
poor
nations.
To
being
with, the phenomenal failure of
money
donations
is
often
attributed to
poor
management of that aid.
Firstly
,
as a result
of corruption, the
money
may not reach the
people
who most need it.
In other words
, there would be
some
people
taking that
money
for personal
use
. In fact, it is quite common for international aid
money
to
end
up in the pockets of the political elite in such
countries
.
Thus
, overseas financial
donations
can actually lead to increased corruption
instead
of helping the
poor
people
of those
countries
.
Secondly
,
money
is
only
capable of solving temporary problems,
but
longer-term
ones
like famine which last long are difficult to tackle by this kind of approach.
So
in the long run, financial
donations
are not as effective as other long-term investments.
Instead
of donating
money
, the rich
countries
can adopt
different
measures to
help
the
poorer
ones
.
First
, they can provide advanced technology to
poor
countries
to
help
them
improve
productivity. This can lead to economic growth and alleviate social problems such as poverty
in a sustainable way
. Second, developed
countries
can provide professional training to raise the
skill
levels of the workforce in
poorer
ones
. To be clearer, if workers in
poor
countries
have the necessary up-to-date knowledge and
skills
in their fields, they will remain competitive and productive.
Therefore
, investment in technology and training in
poor
countries
would be a much better kind of aid.
In conclusion
, donating
money
is not the best way for the rich
countries
to
help
the
poorer
ones
. It can lead to corruption and it is not as
good
as long-term investments in training and technology.