Prompt: 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?

There is currently a large wealth disparity between countries in the world. In order to aid poor nations, their wealthy counterparts provide them with financial help but the problem of poverty there remains. There is a belief that some other ways of support should to be offered instead. This essay will expand on why I mostly agree with this idea in detail. Ċ First and foremost, it is a morally right thing to help those in need. Provided that financial support does not work, developed nations have a moral obligation to support their less fortunate counterparts in other ways. Indeed, if someone notices a person lying on the street, a good and moral reaction would be to find a way to help that person not just give money and hope for the best. I think the same works at a larger scale with nations and while it is not easy to help a whole country but it is morally right to do so. Ċ Besides, it is in the interest of rich countries to end poverty, particularly in adjacent countries, for their own safety. Unfortunately, poverty goes along with high crime rates, and many criminals from impoverished areas may sneak to a wealthier state to find luck. If rich countries find a way to lift their neighbors out of poverty, the threat of imported crime will decrease. This way, for instance, was chosen by the core states of the European Union as they implemented strategies to bring their newly accepted countries from Eastern Europe to a higher level. Ċ In conclusion, developed nations should aid poor ones as it is morally right, and it is safer to have a well-off neighbor than a poor one. Therefore, I predominantly agree that if this cannot be achieved with financial suport, other soulutions need to be found.