Rich countries often give money to poorer countries, but it does not solve poverty. Therefore, 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 rich countries tend to provide moratorium support to the poor or developing countries.

Although

it helps many countries, it is widely argued that

this

does not solve the major problem of poverty.

Hence

, many suggest the aids should be in

such

forms which can boost the poor countries in the long run.

This

essay discusses about why poor countries need more than just financial aids. Historically, we have seen that the developed countries often form alliances by helping the poorest countries with money. In return, these poor countries offer labourers and other political advantages to the developed nations. Even though the underprivileged countries are benefiting from money and jobs,

this

does not boost the economy of the

country

in the long run.

Moreover

,

such

reforms seldom impact the growth of these countries and

this

can be sited by the various small countries which supply cheap labourers to the developed ones.

Conversely

, a better way to uplift the under-developed countries would make the

country

strong and self-reliant.

Instead

of offering financial aid, establishing an educational institute can help the

country

produce well-educated individuals. While education is the key to develop a

country

,

this

will help the

country

shape itself in the future.

Similarly

, super countries can invest in manufacturing units, which would directly provide employment to the locals of the

country

.

For instance

, in countries like India, many families have benefitted from

such

foreign investments. In conclusion, I agree that the well off countries should not just focus on financial aids but, lead the poorer countries to be of a better social-economic status. In my view, education and employment can make these developing countries empowered.