GT Writing Task 2 / Essay Sample # 71
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Present a written argument or case to an educated reader with no specialist knowledge of the following topic.
Improvements in health, education and trade are essential for the development of poorer nations. However, the governments of richer nations should take more responsibility for helping the poorer nations in such areas.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
Write at least 250 words.
Model Answer 1: [Agreement]
Health, education and trade are the keys to the sustainable development of the developing countries. However, there has been heated debate about whether the governments of developed nations ought to place responsibility for aiding the poorer countries in these sectors. I firmly believe rich nations should step forward to help underdeveloped nations to be lifted out of the poverty trap.
To commence with, healthcare is without a doubt something we are entitled to; it is our basic right to have access to healthcare. For hundreds of thousands of people, however, it is simply not a right, but a luxury. Societies devastated by civil wars and grinding poverty do not have access to healthcare; even the most primary medical supplies are out of reach for those vulnerable people. In countries like Yemen, health aid can go a long way towards ameliorating poverty and helping underprivileged people in their time of need.
Similarly, education is an essential right that we all believe we are also entitled to. Education can play a paramount role in an individual’s personal development and society as a whole. It paves the way for job prospects and can help those disadvantaged people in severe poverty. Not only does education alleviate an individual’s condition, but also improve their community. Therefore, rich nations should launch programmes that teach specific skills set that poor people can use to find work. Likewise, aid for trade creates a window of opportunity for developing countries, particularly for the least developed countries. Many poorer nations encounter trade-related infrastructural obstacles which constrain their potentiality to engage in global trade. However, trade and commerce is likely to stimulate economic growth and can eradicate poverty eventually.
In fine, the best way to help poorer countries is to improve the holy trinity of health, education and trade. Therefore, richer countries should embark on aid projects in these areas so as to ward off poverty.
Model Answer 2: [Disagreement]
It goes without saying that health, education and commerce take the centre stage in the sustainable development of the third world countries. People, however, are deeply divided on the issue of whether developed countries ought to shoulder more responsibility for aiding the developing countries in those sectors. In the case, I firmly disagree with the opinion expressed, and I will explain why.
First and foremost, recipient countries do not have the primary institutional capacity to carry out aid projects supported by rich nations. Therefore, they cannot manage the development programmes by reason of the lack of robust institutions and for corruptions. A case in point is Nigeria. The country still cannot ward poverty off despite receiving a substantial amount of foreign aid for the last three decades. So offering aids is not a viable solution.
Secondly, overseas assistance, in most cases, fuels corruption and entrenches authoritarian regimes consequently. The development aids are channelled into politicizing economies rather than aid projects, like a hospital, school and economic zone for example. Ultimately, the money spent to suppress political opponents, like sub-Saharan Africa for instance. In addition to this, trade proposals face vehement opposition from the powerful vested interests.
Last but not least, foreign aid promotes a culture of dependency. Donor countries try to play an unwanted role in shaping the politics and economy of the host country. Consequently, it reduces the quality of governance. A good example here is ‘Zimbabwe’. The country has a long history of aid dependency. The major risk here is that the rich country has the political leverage, which in turn shapes the policy of the recipient country that serves the donor country ultimately.
To draw the conclusion, foreign assistance often puts a curse on the recipient countries. Therefore, aids in selective sectors by the rich countries is not going to change the future of poorer nations unless those poor nations themselves try to improve their fate.