Some people consider that developing countries should be financially supported by international bodies
while the opponents are sure that it is more beneficial for such countries to be provided with consultations
and get support in certain spheres. in my opinion, the second point of view is more correct due to the
fact that not only can it help to avoid uncontrolled wasting of money but it can also stimulate the growth
of economies of such countries.
On the one hand, international financial support helps underdeveloped countries to get by avoiding financial
crisis. Countries which are provided long-term loans are able to spend money more confidently. Local
businesses get the support they needed and as a concequence employees are less tend to leave their jobs
as well as to immigrate from these countries. All of these have hugely positive psychological impact
on the society of the countries.
On the other hand, in most cases it turns out that uncontrolled financial help from abroad, stimulates the
corruption in countries, that significantly reduce the growth of their economies. That is why it is
more productive to productive to provide these countries advice from highly educated consultants who
will coordinate the actions countries do to overcome the problems and turn financial flows in the
spheres where it is really needed. Such type of help provides a golden opportunity for that countries
to overcome many obstacles a way easier. For example therecent research has revealed that countries
that got such kind of help previous decades, nowadays demonstrate the highest economy grow rates.
in conclusion, although uncontrolled financial help makes the governments of developing countries feel
more confident, advice of experts and regulated narrow financial help will hbe more beneficial in
the long run.
Some
people
consider that developing
countries
should be
financially
supported by international bodies
while the opponents are sure that it is more beneficial for such
countries
to
be provided
with consultations
and
get
support in certain spheres.
in
my opinion, the second point of view is more correct due to
the
fact that not
only
can it
help
to avoid uncontrolled wasting of money
but
it can
also
stimulate the growth
of
economies of such countries.
On the one hand, international
financial
support
helps
underdeveloped
countries
to
get
by avoiding financial
crisis
.
Countries
which
are provided
long-term loans are able to spend money more
confidently
. Local
businesses
get
the support they needed and as a
concequence
employees are less tend to
leave
their jobs
as
well as to immigrate from these
countries
. All of these have
hugely
positive
psychological
impact
on
the society of the countries.
On the other hand
,
in most cases
it turns out that uncontrolled
financial
help
from abroad, stimulates the
corruption
in
countries
, that
significantly
reduce
the growth of their economies.
That is
why it
is
more
productive to productive to
provide these
countries
advice from
highly
educated consultants who
will coordinate the actions
countries
do to overcome the problems and turn
financial
flows in the
spheres
where it is
really
needed. Such type of
help
provides a golden opportunity for that
countries
to
overcome
many
obstacles a way easier.
For example
therecent
research has revealed that
countries
that
got
such kind of
help
previous decades, nowadays demonstrate the highest economy grow rates.
in
conclusion, although uncontrolled
financial
help
makes
the
governments
of developing
countries
feel
more confident, advice of experts and regulated narrow
financial
help
will
hbe
more beneficial in
the
long run.