What is more appropiate, human or monetary aid?

If a country had to choose to give one of the two types of aid, which one would it have to choose? In one part, the humanitary aid it’s very difficult to get, and, in anither part, the money would have negative consequences for the country to which the aid is given. In any case, the humanitary aid could prevent the misuse of the money, as well that, in addition, the monetary aid will be destined to humans. However, the money could pay food and other services...

NicolasRuiz20 wrote:If a country had to choose to give one of the two types of aid, which one would it have to choose? In one part, the humanitary aid it’s very difficult to get, and, in anither part, the money would have negative consequences for the country to which the aid is given. In any case, the humanitary aid could prevent the misuse of the money, as well that, in addition, the monetary aid will be destined to humans. However, the money could pay food and other services...

I think that depending on the country, the type of aid should be considered. For example, in Africa, is better to provide human aid, although as you said it is difficult to get; Africa’s corruption rate is very high, so with a monetary aid the misuse of the money is almost guaranteed. In other countries, such as Greece, monetary aid will only increase the countrie’s external debt. So taking into account if the country is developed or not and its corruption rate, it would be much easier to decide which type of aid is the best one for the country.

I think in the case of an extreme situation, it is better to receive human aids instead of monetary aids, because if monetary resources are received, there will be at least a little part which will "disappear" due to the corruption.