IELTS Band 7 Essay | Discussion | Government
It is sometimes said that governments should dedicate a fixed proportion of their country’s income to foreign aid each year, and this fixed proportion should always be donated on other countries. Opponents of this idea, however, say that aid should have no fixed proportion, and help should only be sent to other countries at times when it is really needed. What are the arguments on both sides of this debate? What is your own view on the matter?
Submitted on: Fri Nov 01 2024
Many people argue that a fixed amount of foreign support from wealthy governments should always be allocated to less developed countries, while others believe that this aid should only be donated to those nations when needed. This essay will outline both views before providing my opinion.
On the one hand, there are several reasons why proponents consider that governments from rich nations should allocate fixed foreign aid to other nations. The most compelling reason is the stable growth for these funded countries. By dedicating a fixed portion of their revenues to poorer nations, governments may ensure that their essential needs, including healthcare and education, are constantly satisfied. Therefore, this financial aid can relieve off their social burden and subsequently motivate these developing nations to strive for long-term goals such as economic growth and enhanced quality of life, leading to sustainable development for them. Furthermore, such stability can mitigate the likelihood of unexpected problems, making it easier for them to analyze their development and consequently plan more effective long-term projects. To illustrate, Vietnam received significant foreign aid from numerous countries to stabilize and improve their country after their economic reforms, enabling them to execute initiatives that led Vietnam to become one of the fastest-growing nations in the world today.
On the other hand, opponents believe that this fixed foreign support should only be allocated to specific occasions. Their foremost justification is that it can result in budget misdirection. When wealthy nations relentlessly allocate their financial aids to countries, it can lead to wasted resources because the current demands of those nations may have been fulfilled previously. Consequently, this misallocation may contribute to an imbalanced development where critical areas like disaster preparedness are provided with little investment to address , exacerbating the overall growth. In addition, this miscalculation may lead to the monopoly of officials for their benefits if the administrative bodies govern ineffectively. Such corruption may hinder these countries from investing in improving their quality of life and addressing social issues like poverty, perpetuating a cycle of underdevelopment.
In conclusion, both sides of the argument are reasonable. It is advisable that a balance in both funding and governance should bring optimal results.
- Task Achievement: 7
- Coherence And Cohesion: 6
- Lexical Resource: 7
- Grammatical Range and Accuracy: 6
The essay demonstrates a good understanding of the topic and presents arguments from both sides. However, the organization could be improved. The introduction is clear, but the body paragraphs lack a clear structure and some sentences are too long and complex. The conclusion is concise but doesn't offer a strong personal opinion.
Suggestions for Improvement:
- Structure: Each body paragraph should focus on one main argument. Use topic sentences to introduce each argument.
- Sentence Structure: Break down long sentences into shorter, simpler ones.
