Today, it is commonly seen that financial support that has been provided by some rich countries, from UK to USA, is being used in some countries in povertysuch as some parts in Africa. At the same time, alternative ways of helping in medicine or technology are available. As a result of the aids, millions of people benefit from the generous donation. Many people living in South Africa, for example, have wells to obtain underground water, which was unavailablebecause of poverty.

In spite, it is said by a group of people that countries of affluence are expected to offer non-financial aid just because they think that the financial support given by rich countries has had little effect on the poor countries. However, I doubt whether the cause-effect thinking can hold water. It is mainly because the positive and dramatic effects, in most of the cases, on poor countries as well as the local people should be approved.

It is easily caught of international news that some poor countries can build up a new dam or power plant that can be used to solve the problem of local water shortageand lack of energy with the help of funds made by rich countries. No doubt, the great changes will improve the life quality of local people and the development of the countries.

Of course, sometimes, the sole aid in finance is not always enough for poor countries. As we all know, some of them sometimes have more desire for techniques, talents or something else than money. On this occasion, aid in the form. of money seems to be insignificant. In other words, aid should be poor-country-centered. So, my view is that any forms of aid, financial or other, should be encouraged in order to help some country shake off the poverty, being put into practice as soon as possible.