It is true that the question of whether global relief would be effective if multinational organisations offer financial help for undeveloped countries or not has caused vigorous debate. While many individuals argue that this kind of support is promissing, I contend that other helps, either practical aid or advice, merit considerations.
On the one hand, it is understandable why a handful of organisations prefer money support. With this relief, recipient countries, where often endure economical deprivation, would eliminate poverty and stand a chance with developed world in the long run. Africa, for example, a nation that is infamous for poor standard of living, could be invested heavily in heavy industry with state-of-the-art technology or ecotoursim with safari, which is a promissing sector thanks to financial assistance. Consequently, the more money those underprivileged nations receive, the more tangible benefits the gain, the sooner they shake off poverty.
On the other hand, I would advocate with those who maintain that hands-on help and advice could be more effective than finjancial one. It is fair to say that those developing countries have been suffering from the severe lack of well-educated workforce, which is the core factor contribute to the sustainable development of a nation. Financial relief, therefore, do not suffice for these countries and seems to be futile if practical aid and advice are underestimated. In other words, those international bodies should send specialists and advisers to these nations to instruct the locals how to manufacture effectively and efficiently such as tech them about extensive farming method and operation of latest technology, voluntary teachers could also be allocated to teach deprived children.
In conclusion, it seems to me that although financial help could stand developing nations in good stead to some extent, other practical aid and advice are by far the most effective ways.
It is true that
the question of whether
global relief would be effective if multinational
organisations
offer
financial
help
for undeveloped
countries
or not has caused vigorous debate. While
many
individuals argue that this kind of support is
promissing
, I contend that
other
helps
, either practical aid or
advice
, merit considerations.
On the one hand, it is understandable why a handful of
organisations
prefer
money support. With this relief, recipient
countries
, where
often
endure economical deprivation, would eliminate poverty and stand a chance with developed world in the long run. Africa,
for example
, a
nation
that is
infamous for poor standard of living, could
be invested
heavily
in heavy industry with state-of-the-art technology or
ecotoursim
with safari, which is a
promissing
sector thanks to
financial
assistance.
Consequently
, the more money those underprivileged
nations
receive, the more tangible benefits the gain, the sooner they shake off poverty.
On the
other
hand, I would advocate with those who maintain that hands-on
help
and
advice
could be more effective than
finjancial
one. It is
fair
to say that those developing
countries
have been suffering from the severe lack of well-educated workforce, which is the core factor contribute to the sustainable development of a
nation
.
Financial
relief,
therefore
, do not suffice for these
countries
and seems to be futile if practical aid and
advice
are underestimated
. In
other
words, those international bodies should
send
specialists and advisers to these
nations
to instruct the locals how to manufacture
effectively
and
efficiently
such as tech them about extensive farming method and operation of
latest
technology, voluntary teachers could
also
be allocated
to teach deprived children.
In conclusion
, it seems to me that although
financial
help
could stand developing
nations
in
good
stead to
some
extent,
other
practical aid and
advice
are by far the most effective ways.