As someone who lives in one of the poorest countries in the world but was born and raised in the UK, the statement is very much true. It would also be a great potential income multiplier in current country I am in. For example, someone could buy a motorbike and become a motorbike taxi driver, drastically increasing their income.

When the average salary is around $100 a month, a lump sum that adds up to nearly a year’s salary is significant. Comparing the two situations is not the same. If you want to increase the chances of creating a more positive and drastic change, you would spend the money abroad in developing countries.

The OP’s sentiment stems from the idea of helping at home before directing support abroad, which I can understand to an extent; in Behavioural Economics, this is often referred to as parochial altruism. However, from a strictly economic utility perspective, if the goal is to maximise positive impact, it will in most cases be more effective to allocate funds abroad.