Countries often give money to poorer countries, but it does not solve poverty. Therefore, developed countries should give other type of help to the poor countries rather than financial aid. To what extent do you agree

The gap between wealthy and unrich regions become a major problem.

Thus

, some less developed nations achieve cash as apply help from the richer, but the poverty is still not solved. So, some believe that the poor

countries

should be given other kinds of help, outside financial aid. Personally, I agree with

this

idea because if money is only consumed for food and water, it cannot change people's development.

Besides

, a teaching service is better than consumer funding. To commence with, wealth cannot enhance the productivity of a community if it is used for daily consumption.

For example

, Australia gives funds to South Africa, and the money is spent on food and water.

Then

,

this

situation would result in poverty again. So,

this

is a useless way due to improving

countries

economy.

However

, if a rich country supports the poorer

countries

with education services, folk in the latter

countries

will learn and improve their capabilities in order to increase their productivity.

For instance

, The UK arranges Chevening as a scholarship education program that supports poor students in some undeveloped state to study in The UK and force them to come back to their home and apply what they learnt for increasing their standard of living.

Hence

,

this

makes it clear that other types of help,

such

as academic services, can change the poorer

countries

significantly. To sum up, I reiterate my opinion that money is not always changing conditions if people are not educated to use it wisely.

Furthermore

, other measures like learning opportunities can help communities to enhance their life. The better education humans get, the better life humans live.