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?

The past 50 years have seen a dramatic increase in financial assistance from affluent countries to undeveloped

nations

.

This

raises a certain question about the efficiency of

such

help in eradicating poverty. Some may argue that

this

is the powerful nation's responsibility to help poor countries,

while

, I believe that these are superficial helps and more fundamental changes should be applied to these sorts of help. The reasons for

this

are as follows. First of all, it is an irrefutable fact that the influx of financial help to undeveloped

nations

to excess would have a significant role in bringing up a more dependent country. Imagine the negative traits like laziness and futility that would emerge if people get used to receiving

such

financial aid. Having received money without effort , people are unlikely to work hard and make progress in the future. So, if governments wish to be consistent in pursuing their dreams against poverty, they should contribute to reinforcing the foundation of poor

nations

.

Secondly

and even more flourishing could be cooperation in enhancing educational systems in undeveloped

nations

. One particularly salient example of

this

is Japan. Despite having no natural resources, it has been converted into one of the most powerful countries in the world

due to

high educational standards. Learning skills like innovative thinking, hard work, perseverance and teamwork from school age have the potential to contribute to society's progress and wealth.

To conclude

, given the disadvantageous consequences associated with direct financial aid to undeveloped

nations

, I feel that improving education systems will be more beneficial.