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

It is considered by some that monetary support of developed

countries

is not a solution for eradicating poverty in developing

countries

and,

on the contrary

,

alternative

forms

of assistance are the most effective ways to solve humanitarian problems. From my perspective the efficacy of financial

aid

in eradicating poverty is debatable. There are definite drawbacks to financial

aid

and benefits to other

forms

of help. On one hand, there are strong arguments that monetary

aid

is useless and even harmful for many poor

countries

.

Firstly

, monetary policy might be harmful if a country is plagued by kleptocracy. In fact, poor

countries

often have governments with corrupt leaders,

therefore

financial

aid

is often misused in

such

countries

.

Secondly

, continuous financial

aid

can debilitate a nation’s drive for self-reliance and lead to economic dependency. In

this

case of lack of foresight, a country might even capitulate to the political demands of donors.

For example

, there is Ukraine which cannot sustain without the financial

aid

of other

countries

right now.

On the other hand

, an

alternative

aid

seems to be a great solution in terms of long-term benefits. When we juxtapose financial

aid

and

alternative

forms

of assistance, the latter is a great decision because skill development

as well as

investing in education and health is a more viable solution for long-term growth.

Moreover

, there are no risks of corruption and more chances for improving its populace’s welfare. In conclusion, it seems that

while

money reasonably does not solve poverty the

alternative

forms

of

aid

might be an effective and quintessential type of assistance for developing

countries

.