Task：Rich countries provide financial aid to poor countries but this aid has little effect, therefore rich countries should provide other types of help. To what extent do you agree with this statement?
What kind of relief from rich countries should be given priority in terms of supporting developing countries? Some people think the best answer of this issue is simply money. Others, however, hold an opposed view that other practical aids, instead of finance, are a sound decision. Personally, I am in favor of the latter view, and I will explore possible reasons as below.
Firstly, the common root problem of developing countries is the collapsed administration and economy systems, and their recovery seriously depends on the transfusing of external capital. Firstly, financial aids allow a poor country to build up an effective government by paying salaries of governmental personnel without delay. With stable income, most officials would be satisfied and motivated to be fully in charge of social technical, executive and supervisory positions like courts of law, police stations, water and power supply departments and so forth, thus lifting the community out of street violence, crimes and living chaos. Besides, financial injection helps to restore the banking system, which means the availability of commercial loan with low interest for a large amount of companies eagerly needing money for material purchase, hiring workers and products manufacturing. Accordingly, what the capital input brings include vibrant industry and business, ever-increasing job opportunities and tax revenue for public welfare--in short, a booming social development on a right track.
Another reason for supporting financial aids is that money is always a favored kind of donation, because it gives recipients in poor countries a high flexibility to buy what they are really lack of. In fact, practical needs are always variable and unpredictable in different countries, people and times ,so that it is very likely that the common physical goods endowed from rich countries may not precisely suit demands of local regions. For example, as for Vietnam which suffers from wars for decades, surprisingly, any type of food aid from foreign countries is undesirable , for the reason that the yield of grain produced in this poor country can not only fully feed its people, but also be more than enough for food export. In contrast, if Vietnam were offered money directly, it will buy whatever it needs most from international markets, probably from public transportation to vaccines to school facilities. Therefore, straight money support is indispensable, its universal effectiveness is always superior over any other goods-based donation.
However, financial aids do not come without risks, and one of them is about their misuse. Obviously, in too many developing countries lacking democracy, public supervision, or accountability and transparency in government operation, there is a high possibility that the money might be appropriated for personal sake or even flow into the pocket of bureaucrats--corruption in short, expectedly. In addition, the most worrying aspect is that in poor countries in civil war, money will be misspent by warlords buying new weapons and bombs, instead of foodstuffs or medicines. Consequently, In cases above, the final application of financial support would depart from its initial charitable purpose, and it will make social poverty worse, not better.
Moreover, when it comes to healthy and sustainable growth, there are more to require for a poor country than just buying stuffs by money. Specifically, the acquirement of core factors that have lasting and fundamental impacts on the society, such as qualified teachers, doctors, lawyers and scientists, cannot be achieved by buying, but rather by systematic training and teaching. In other words, non-financial aids from developed countries are also necessary. For example, professional teams containing experts in all kinds of fields from science to medication, from law to social work, should be sent in poor countries for the purpose of educating their future talents. What is more, observers from rich countries should also join the running of local government, which ensures that all kinds of benefaction can be allocated to the public fairly.
In conclusion, financial aids are always needed as the first step for economy revival. To a larger extent, however, money is very limited and even risky, and other practical helps, especially the ones associated with human resources, should be introduced into poor countries.