Some people believe that giving aid to poorer countries has more negative effects than positives effects. To extent do you agree or disagree?

It is contentious whether the drawbacks would outweigh the benefits after an impoverished country receives assistance. I believe aids will conduct more salutary impacts than bad ramifications. There are several benefits after a poorer region gets support.

Firstly

, it is obvious that people’s life quality would be enhanced by the development of some fundamental facilities

such

as schools, hospitals and transportation. With the improvement of citizens’ living ambient, they tend to be more upbeat and industrious to reinforce their land, and

further

revive the economy into a flourishing state.

For example

, China has always been helping impoverished countries especially by donating money directly and sending scientists, engineers and managers to build highways, railways and bridges. Those assistances all lead to a promising future for these lands.

On the other hand

, it will

also

cause negative impacts on those aided countries. Local governments tend to over-rely on support, and

then

lose their own destination of getting rid of the poor plight by themselves.

Therefore

,

such

over-reliance would hinder the long-term progress of the country itself.

For example

, Pakistan is completely relying on the financial assistance of developed societies

such

as America, China, and Russia, which has obstructed the development of the country and compelled it to be reliant on them. Another negative effect is that the financial relief given by the developed society may go into corrupt hands and not reach those for whom it was meant.

As a result

,

such

assistance may not serve the purpose. In conclusion,

although

risks exist in being supported, I argue that the aids themselves would contribute more instrumental influences to a poorer agrarian.