Some people think that developing countries need financial help from international organizations, while others think that it is practical aid an advice that is needed.

Question

Q: Some people think that developing countries need financial help from international organizations, while others think that it is practical aid an advice that is needed. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

Nowadays, developing countries, especially those that are not affluent, are searching for financial aid from developed ones owing to economical increase. Nevertheless, I myself tend to think that it is somehow far better for those countries to ask for practical help and useful advices from international organizations.

It has been a hot debate that the financial help is a suitable way for impoverished countries since it provides money as a solution for an array of issues. For instance, a country facing starvation can produce the number of people who are being killed by hunger by receiving money and apply food as well as clothing or a better condition for them to inhabit. However, everything has its own pros and cons. Receiving financial help is nothing but to raise your debt with the international organizations. In other words, financial help is just a short-term solution compared to practical help.

Financial help has its massive good aspects that make it becomes prevalent, but in my opinion, advice and practical aid is outweighed in many ways. Although practical help is complicated to progress and need a long time to conduct, it is somehow a long-term solution for countries that are facing with poverty. It helps the government and also the civilians gaining the awareness of solving all the issues by themselves. For example, in Japan, everyone was taught to face with earthquake by a myriad of ways and to deal with the problem of recovering the city after that disaster. By doing this, both the government and the citizens get used to the catastrophe and their country still highly develop despite the frequently earthquake.

In conclusion, the financial aid provides many merits but it is just a short-term solution to face with poverty. Governments should concentrate on advice and practical aid for a long-term solution one from international organizations, which somehow is a better way to get rid of poverty and difficulty developing countries are facing.

Answer 1

Nowadays, developing countries, especially those that are not affluent (-> developing countries vs not affluent? It's not logical, I'm afraid), are searching for financial aid from developed ones owing to economical increase (economic growth). Nevertheless, I myself tend to think that In my opinion, it is somehow far better for those countries to ask for receive practical help and useful advices from international organizations.

It has been a hot debate that the financial help is a suitable way for impoverished countries since it provides money could be regarded as a solution for an array of issues. For instance, a country facing starvation can produce the number of people who are being killed by hunger by receiving money and apply food as well as clothing or a better condition for them to inhabit (Too confused! I suggest that you rewrite it in a simple and direct manner.). However, for all of its advantages, financial help is something a double-edged swordeverything has its own pros and cons. (Try to avoid it, use 'advantages/disadvantages' or 'strenths/limitations' instead) . Receiving financial help is nothing but to raise your (-> not correct!) external debt burden with the international organizations (-> the idea is not clear, examples?). In other words, financial help is just a short-term solution compared to practical help.