Your Answer ▼
Rich countries have been providing both financial and non financial aids to poor countries. But some believe it is better to provide poor countries non-financial aids. I agree with this opinion for some reasons. First of all, money itself has no power. Money is only meaningful when it can be exchanged with actual materials. But a lot of poor countries lack essential infrastructures or resources. Even if people of poor countries are given money, they still do not have a hospital to go when ill, food to eat when hungry. So non financial aids such as giving foods, building schools or hospitals could be more helpful. A bowl of soup is better than $1000 for the people who are dying from feminine. Of course it is possible to develop infrastructures or import resources from other countries with money but in order to start these relatively massive projects, the involvement of the government is crucial and this can bring another problem. There is a chance of misuse when rich countries help poor countries financially. As mentioned in the former paragraph, money can increase the countries' chance of overcoming poverty. However many of poor countries are under a rule of the malignant government. And the government might use money for their own good other than the original purpose. Giving financial aids blindly can end up making a nuisance threatening global peace. In conclusion, as non financial aids are more direct and has a higher chance of achieving the original purpose of helping poor country and its people, rich countries better provide poor countries non financial aids.
형식에 신경써서 작성 해보았습니다. 일부러 제 관심사가 아닌 주제를 골랐는데, 할말이 없어서 작성하기가 어려웠습니다 ㅜㅜ 첨삭 미리 감사합니다. |