“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?”

Rich countries frequently provide financial assistance to poor states, but

this does not end poverty. Some people contend that aid should be given
by the developed world in ways other than financial. I concur with this
statement because, in my opinion, corruption and poor economic practices
squander all the money before it reaches the needy.

Governments in less developed countries tend to be corrupt. The leaders

are avaricious and don't care about their subjects; only their bank accounts.
Because if the needy become established and educated, they will begin to
ask questions. For instance, instead of helping the victims, the US financial
assistance to India following the 2004 tsunami was used to build the prime
minister's home. As a result, these dishonest and corrupt officials deprive
citizens of their rights.

These states' terrible policies are the other issue. The money is allocated
in a way that prevents it from ever reaching the deserving. It is sometimes
never used, or it is spent on pointless things like beautification and the
construction of pointless monuments. As an example, Pakistan's inability to
use its donation budget during the fiscal year 2017–2018 necessitated its
eventual return to reserves. This frequently leads to assistance falling into
the wrong hands.

In conclusion, giving money to poor countries won't be able to alleviate

their problems with poverty. Many people contend that assistance should
not only be provided financially but also in other ways. I concur with this
statement, in my opinion, because an untrustworthy government and bad
policies deny the deserving of their right to assistance.