Rich countries often give money to poorer countries, but it does not solve poverty. Therefore, developed countries should give other types of help to poorer countries rather than financial aid. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Nowadays, developed

countries

often provide developing

countries

with some financial support.

However

, it does not solve poverty effectively.

Instead

, it is argued that the poor

countries

should be supported by other forms of aid. In my opinion, I completely agree with

this

statement , as money can only help the country in the short term.

To begin

with, money is a highly influential factor which decides the growth of the people and the country. In spite of being an essential factor, it is not enough to judge a country's growth and development. Infrastructure, health care facilities, education, transportation,...

also

play a key role in deciding

countries

' status. If poor

countries

were only given financial backing, it might not serve its primary purpose if it ends up in the hands of bad politicians or used the wrong way by them. There are some different kinds of aid that the rich nations can offer to address

this

problem.

Instead

of giving financial help, they can organize a wide range of educational courses for young people

such

as computer science, technology, and soft skills. These courses would help them have a better education which can bring them more opportunities to find well-paid jobs.

For example

, the top world

countries

like the USA,

Correct word choice

and

show examples

Canada open their national companies in some poorer

countries

such

as Viet Nam, Thailand,... which can create jobs for local citizens and decrease unemployment rates effectively. In conclusion, I believe that the true meaning of help is the results that the recipient can achieve. Indeed, in the long run, alternative forms of help can bring more advantages than giving money to these nations.