Write about the following topics: Many developed countries give financial

and practical support to poor countries. Some people think that money is the most
useful form of aid, while others believe that practical advice is more beneficial.
Discuss both views and give your opinion. ( Write at least 250 words )
ASSIGNMENT
A poor country? Is an economically poor country? Is a country poor in
knowledge? Or both of the above? My answer is both of the above. So do you think
the poor country needs more economic aid or more advice? Do not rush to answer
this question right away, but let's try to think for a bit. On the way you go, you can
easily meet beggars, poor people. So what do they ask of us? Is money, is a piece
of rice, a shirt, ... are things related to material things. Have you met a beggar who
asked you for advice or knowledge? My answer is no. So, are money and material
things the things we need most in times of difficulty and poverty? I personally
think it is. When I was most hungry, what I needed was a piece of bread, not advice
and instructions from passersby. I think this is understandable because while you're
hungry, you won't think about anything but filling your empty stomach. Money is
the immediate thing, it can be grasped, can help you get out of trouble immediately,
but advice is not. But that is from the perspective of an individual, a person, so if
we put this problem in the framework of a country, will it be different?
Starting from the point of view Money is the most useful form of aid , I
personally think this is not wrong. Because the country is poor, they lack the
financial base, so they need the economic aid of more developed countries to revive
their country, to invest and develop each sector of the country. Economy is the
immediate thing, the most practical thing, helping to see the effect quickly. So it is
completely understandable to say that economic aid is the most useful thing.
Coming to the point of “practical advice is more beneficial”. Those who hold
this view are also completely right. Why? This is because: If it is said that
economics is the immediate thing, the advice derived from practice has long-term
meaning. A country once poor in knowledge is poor in everything. Then, no matter
how much money you give them, if that money is not used properly, it will all be
meaningless. Instead, give them advice, as well as give them a long-term
foundation, lessons learned to build and develop the country in the right direction ,
combined with the wise leadership of the leaders. country, will certainly be able to
make the country more and more developed.
Those are some of my thoughts when viewed from everyone's point of view.
Personally, I have a completely different view: You are making a point of view
from the perspective of developed countries, what they should and shouldn't give.
But forget that giving and receiving must come from both sides. If the country is
poor and they don't ask to be funded by the big countries, there won't be a problem
of economic aid or advice here.
Derived from the practice of each country is different. I give two cases as
follows:
The first case: For countries with a relatively stable political and social
background, which already have policies and ways to develop the country, at this
moment, what they are lacking is only an economic source. costs to implement
those solutions. At that time, economic aid was most needed.
For example: After the second world war, Japan was a defeated country, the
country was devastated by war, the economy was difficult, lost all colonies, poor in
natural resources, unemployment, lack of raw materials and food. and inflation.
Industrial production in 1946 was only a quarter of what it was before the war.
Japan must rely on economic "aid" from the US in the form of debt to recover its
economy. Thanks to this wise foreign policy, Japan got out of the crisis and became
one of the economic powers.
Thus, it can be seen that receiving economic aid in this case is the first
choice.
In addition, I have a few more comments when not supporting the view that
practical advice is the most beneficial : No one can understand his country's
situation better than the people who live in that country, so Advice can be
completely helpful or completely useless. We should know that everything in this
world exists only in relative terms, let alone an advice derived from the will of
another. The advice even comes from the reality of the poor country, it only exists
in theory, if you want to know if it really works or not, you have to apply it in
practice again. If it works, then that's a very good thing, but if it doesn't work, then
it's really a bad thing, it will make all the investment, all the money in vain. will
make a poor country even poorer, it will bring the country to the edge of the abyss.
Thus, it can be seen that receiving economic aid becomes the first choice.
In the second case : The poor country is really stuck in thinking, guidelines
and policies and needs to receive advice from larger countries to get the country's
development orientation. Then advice now plays an essential role, more important
than economic aid for the reason I mentioned in the previous section. Reality has
shown that foreign aid also causes extremely serious negative effects on poor
countries:
 Moyo (2010) also clarifies the fact that pouring billions of dollars into Africa
has led many African countries to fall into a terrifying trap: overdependence on
foreign aid, rampant corruption, distort markets and exacerbate poverty 1.
Overall, foreign aid can be the solution for many poor countries, but not all.
There are prerequisites for a country to make better use of aid. In my opinion, those
are solid socio-political premise, specific orientations and plans to use aid
effectively.
In summary, I think that to accurately assess whether economic aid or advice
is more essential should come from the practice of poor countries.

Moyo, D. (2010), Dead Aid: Why Aid Makes Things Worse and How There Is Another Way for Africa ,
1

Penguin.