So here it is. You can check: I am short, I'm French, I have a pretty strong French accent, so that's going to be clear in a moment.
各位 你们可以看到 我很矮 我是法国人 我有很重的法国口音 一会你们就会发现这一点
Maybe a sobering thought and something you all know about. And I suspect many of you gave something to the people of Haiti this year. And there is something else I believe in the back of your mind you also know. That is, every day, 25,000 children die of entirely preventable causes. That's a Haiti earthquake every eight days. And I suspect many of you probably gave something towards that problem as well, but somehow it doesn't happen with the same intensity.
或者这很触目惊心 你们都知道这些事 我想你们中的很多人 今年还给海地人捐献了东西 但还有些别的事 我相信在你们脑中 你们也知道 就是每天都会有 25,000个孩子丧生 死于完全可以预防的原因 那是每八天的海地地震情况 我想你们中的很多人也许 也想过这个问题 但是 每次灾难的破坏程度不太一样
So why is that? Well, here is a thought experiment for you. Imagine you have a few million dollars that you've raised -- maybe you're a politician in a developing country and you have a budget to spend. You want to spend it on the poor: How do you go about it? Do you believe the people who tell you that all we need to do is to spend money? That we know how to eradicate poverty, we just need to do more? Or do you believe the people who tell you that aid is not going to help, on the contrary it might hurt, it might exacerbate corruption, dependence, etc.? Or maybe you turn to the past. After all, we have spent billions of dollars on aid. Maybe you look at the past and see. Has it done any good?
那么 这是为什么呢? 你们看一下这样一个实验 想象下 你募集了几百万美金 你可能是某个发展中国家的官员 你有个花钱的预算 你想把钱用在帮助贫困上 你会怎样做? 你会相信这样的人: 他们认为 我们所有该做的就是花钱 我们知道如何消除贫困 我们只是需要做更多 还是会相信另外一些人: 他们认为 援助没啥用,反而有坏处 它可能助长腐败、依赖性等等 或者你会想想过去 毕竟,我们花费了数十亿美金在援助上 你们看看过去 看看援助是否做了些好事
And, sadly, we don't know. And worst of all, we will never know. And the reason is that -- take Africa for example. Africans have already got a lot of aid. These are the blue bars. And the GDP in Africa is not making much progress. Okay, fine. How do you know what would have happened without the aid? Maybe it would have been much worse, or maybe it would have been better. We have no idea. We don't know what the counterfactual is. There's only one Africa.
很遗憾,我们不知道 最糟糕的是,我们永远也不会知道 而原因是——拿非洲作为例子 非洲人得到很多援助 就是这些蓝条 而非洲的GDP却没咋增长 好的, 你们如何得知 没有援助会发生什么 或许会坏很多 或许会好很多 我们不知道 不知道这样假设会如何 只有一个非洲
So what do you do? To give the aid, and hope and pray that something comes out of it? Or do you focus on your everyday life and let the earthquake every eight days continue to happen? The thing is, if we don't know whether we are doing any good, we are not any better than the Medieval doctors and their leeches. Sometimes the patient gets better, sometimes the patient dies. Is it the leeches? Is it something else? We don't know.
那么 你们会怎样做 给援助 然后希望、祈祷它会带了些好处 还是 仅仅关注自己的每日生活 而让每八天一次的地震 继续发生? 要注意 如果我们不知道 我们是否在做好事 我们就甚至还不如 中世纪的医生和那些寄生虫做得更好 有时候病人治好 有时候病人死去 这是因为寄生虫,还是因为别的什么? 我们不知道
So here are some other questions. They're smaller questions, but they are not that small. Immunization, that's the cheapest way to save a child's life. And the world has spent a lot of money on it: The GAVI and the Gates Foundations are each pledging a lot of money towards it, and developing countries themselves have been doing a lot of effort. And yet, every year at least 25 million children do not get the immunization they should get. So this is what you call a "last mile problem." The technology is there, the infrastructure is there, and yet it doesn't happen. So you have your million. How do you use your million to solve this last mile problem?
还要另外几个问题 这些问题很小 但又不是那么小 免疫 这是挽救孩子生命 最便宜的方法 世界花了很多钱在免疫上 国际免疫预防联合会(GAVI)和盖茨基金会 都在免疫上投入很多钱 发展国家自身也做了很多努力 然而,每年 至少2500万儿童 不能得到他们本应得到的免疫 这就是所谓的“最后一英里难题” (last mile problem 指人们能得到并正确使用质量好的药物) 我们有技术 我们有基础设施 但是,问题却没有得到解决 那么 当你有百万美金时 你怎样花钱 才能解决“最后一英里难题”
And here's another question: Malaria. Malaria kills almost 900,000 people every year, most of them in Sub-Saharan Africa, most of them under five. In fact, that is the leading cause of under-five mortality. We already know how to kill malaria, but some people come to you and say, "You have your millions. How about bed nets?" Bed nets are very cheap. For 10 dollars, you can manufacture and ship an insecticide treated bed net and you can teach someone to use them. And, not only do they protect the people who sleep under them, but they have these great contagion benefits. If half of a community sleeps under a net, the other half also benefits because the contagion of the disease spread. And yet, only a quarter of kids at risk sleep under a net. Societies should be willing to go out and subsidize the net, give them for free, or, for that matter, pay people to use them because of those contagion benefits. "Not so fast," say other people. "If you give the nets for free, people are not going to value them. They're not going to use them, or at least they're not going to use them as bed nets, maybe as fishing nets." So, what do you do? Do you give the nets for free to maximize coverage, or do you make people pay in order to make sure that they really value them? How do you know?
还有另外一个问题 疟疾 疟疾每年夺走 90万人的生命 大多数死者在撒哈拉以南的非洲 大多数年龄小于5岁 事实上 疟疾是5岁下儿童的最主要死因 我们已经知道如何治愈疟疾 但有些人找到你 并对你说 “你有几百万,不如买蚊帐吧” 蚊帐很便宜 只要10美元,你就能制造并运输 一个经过杀虫剂处理的蚊帐 而且,你能教人们使用蚊帐 此外,蚊帐不仅能保护谁在蚊帐里的人 而且还有巨大的防传染功效 如果社区里一半的人睡在蚊帐里 另一半也能受惠 因为疾病能传染、扩散 然而,只有四分之一面临疟疾风险的孩子睡在蚊帐里 社会应该愿意行动 资助购买蚊帐,并且免费捐赠 或者,在这个问题上,补贴那些使用蚊帐的人 因为蚊帐的防传染功效 而另外一些人说 “别这么快” “如果你免费提供蚊帐 人们不会珍惜蚊帐 他们不会去使用蚊帐 或者至少他们不会把蚊帐当蚊帐使用 而可能是当作鱼网 (蚊帐为bed net,net的意思是”网“) 那么,你会怎样做? 是免费提供蚊帐,以求最大限度的蚊帐覆盖率? 还是要人们为蚊帐买单 以使他们认识到蚊帐的价值? 你怎么知道?
And a third question: Education. Maybe that's the solution, maybe we should send kids to school. But how do you do that? Do you hire teachers? Do you build more schools? Do you provide school lunch? How do you know?
第三个问题是 教育 或许这才是解决之道 或许我们应该送孩子去上学 但是你会怎么去做? 你会聘请更多教师? 你会建更多校舍? 你会提供学校午餐吗? 你怎么知道哪种方法更好?
So here is the thing. I cannot answer the big question, whether aid did any good or not. But these three questions, I can answer them. It's not the Middle Ages anymore, it's the 21st century. And in the 20th century, randomized, controlled trials have revolutionized medicine by allowing us to distinguish between drugs that work and drugs that don't work. And you can do the same randomized, controlled trial for social policy. You can put social innovation to the same rigorous, scientific tests that we use for drugs. And in this way, you can take the guesswork out of policy-making by knowing what works, what doesn't work and why. And I'll give you some examples with those three questions.
这就是问题所在。 我无法回答那个大问题 即 援助是好是坏 但是,我能回答这三个小问题 现在不再是中世纪 而是二十一世纪 在二十世纪里 随机的、可控的试验 已经将医药革命了 因为它让我们能够区分 有效的药物 和无用的药物 现在 你可以采用同样的方式: 针对社会政策的 随机的、可控的试验 你可以对社会革新施以同样的 精确而又科学的测试 就像我们为药物所做的那样 以这种方式, 你可以把推测的成分 从政策制定中区分出来 因为你知道了什么可行 什么不可行 为什么是这样 我会针对这三个问题举一些例子
So I start with immunization. Here's Udaipur District, Rajasthan. Beautiful. Well, when I started working there, about one percent of children were fully immunized. That's bad, but there are places like that. Now, it's not because the vaccines are not there -- they are there and they are free -- and it's not because parents do not care about their kids. The same child that is not immunized against measles, if they do get measles, parents will spend thousands of rupees to help them. So you get these empty village subcenters and crowded hospitals. So what is the problem? Well, part of the problem, surely, is people do not fully understand. After all, in this country as well, all sorts of myths and misconceptions go around immunization. So if that's the case, that's difficult, because persuasion is really difficult. But maybe there is another problem as well. It's going from intention to action. Imagine you are a mother in Udaipur District, Rajasthan. You have to walk a few kilometers to get your kids immunized. And maybe when you get there, what you find is this: The subcenter is closed. Ao you have to come back, and you are so busy and you have so many other things to do, you will always tend to postpone and postpone, and eventually it gets too late. Well, if that's the problem, then that's much easier. Because A, we can make it easy, and B, we can maybe give people a reason to act today, rather than wait till tomorrow.
首先从免疫开始 这是印度拉贾斯坦邦的乌代布尔区 ,非常美丽 当我开始在那工作时 约1%的儿童 得到了完全免疫 这很糟糕 但是还有很多地方好不到哪去 现在,并不是因为那里没有疫苗 疫苗在那,而且是免费的 也不因为父母不关心孩子 一个没有免疫过麻疹的孩子 一旦感染麻疹 父母将要花费 数千卢用于治疗 现在 你看到这些空荡荡的乡村中心 和拥挤的医院 那么问题在哪? 部分问题当然是人们不太懂 毕竟在这个国家 有各种关于疟疾的 传说和误解. 如果这是问题所在, 很麻烦 因为很难说服人们. 但是 或许还有另外一个问题. 人们开始从关注它到采取行动 想象下你是位母亲 就生活在拉贾斯坦邦的乌代布尔区 你不得不不行几公里才能让孩子得到免疫 或许当你到达免疫地点时 你会发现 副中心关门了 那么你就不得不打道回府 如果你很忙 你有很多事要做 你将一直拖延拖延 直到有一天已经太迟了. 如果这是问题所在的话 倒是简单很多 因为: A 我们能让免疫更容易 B 我们或许 能给人们一个今天就行动的理由 而不是等到明天.
So these are simple ideas, but we didn't know. So let's try them. So what we did is we did a randomized, controlled trial in 134 villages in Udaipur Districts. So the blue dots are selected randomly. We made it easy -- I'll tell you how in a moment. In the red dots, we made it easy and gave people a reason to act now. The white dots are comparisons, nothing changed. So we make it easy by organizing this monthly camp where people can get their kids immunized. And then you make it easy and give a reason to act now by adding a kilo of lentils for each immunization. Now, a kilo of lentils is tiny. It's never going to convince anybody to do something that they don't want to do. On the other hand, if your problem is you tend to postpone, then it might give you a reason to act today rather than later.
这是很简单的想法 但过去我们不知道. 那么让我们将这些想法付诸行动. 我们过去的是 随机的、可控的试验 在拉贾斯坦邦的乌代布尔区的134个村庄 这些蓝点 是随机选定的. 我们的做法很简单 一会我就告诉你们. 在红点处 我们简单地 告诉人们一个今天就行动的理由。 白点处是作为对比,什么也没变 我们简单地组织 每月营地,在这里人们可以 让孩子得到免疫 然后你就简单地 告诉人们一个今天就行动的理由 通过给每次免疫一公斤扁豆的补助 现在 一公斤扁豆真是微不足道。 你永远也不会说服任何人 去做他们不想做的事。 另一方面 如果你的问题是你老是拖延, 那就给你个今天就行动的理由 而不是以后再去做
So what do we find? Well, beforehand, everything is the same. That's the beauty of randomization. Afterwards, the camp -- just having the camp -- increases immunization from six percent to 17 percent. That's full immunization. That's not bad, that's a good improvement. Add the lentils and you reach to 38 percent. So here you've got your answer. Make it easy and give a kilo of lentils, you multiply immunization rate by six. Now, you might say, "Well, but it's not sustainable. We cannot keep giving lentils to people." Well, it turns out it's wrong economics, because it is cheaper to give lentils than not to give them. Since you have to pay for the nurse anyway, the cost per immunization ends up being cheaper if you give incentives than if you don't.
那么我们发现了什么? 起初 一切如故 这就是随机试验的好处 后来 这些营地 仅仅是每月营地 将免疫率从6%增长到17% 是指完全免疫 还不错,很大的进步 加了扁豆后 数字达到了38% 现在你就知道答案了 简单点 给一公斤扁豆 就将免疫率乘以6 现在 你会说 ”很好,可这是不可持续的 我们不能总是给扁豆” 结果是 这是错误的经济学 因为给扁豆 比不给扁豆要便宜 既然 你总是要为护士付费 每次免疫费用 最终是给激励时比不给时要便宜
How about bed nets? Should you give them for free, or should you ask people to pay for them? So the answer hinges on the answer to three simple questions. One is: If people must pay for a bed net, are they going to purchase them? The second one is: If I give bed nets for free, are people going to use them? And the third one is: Do free bed nets discourage future purchase? The third one is important because if we think people get used to handouts, it might destroy markets to distribute free bed nets. Now this is a debate that has generated a lot of emotion and angry rhetoric. It's more ideological than practical, but it turns out it's an easy question. We can know the answer to this question. We can just run an experiment. And many experiments have been run, and they all have the same results, so I'm just going to talk to you about one.
蚊帐又该如何? 你是免费发放 还是让人们付费? 答案取决于 三个简单问题的答案 第一个问题是如果人们必须为蚊帐付费 他们还会买吗? 第二个问题是 如果蚊帐是免费的 人们还会用吗? 第三个问题是 免费蚊帐会导致日后不再购买蚊帐吗? 第三个问题很重要 因为 如果我们认为人们习惯了救济后 将会破坏发放免费蚊帐的市场 现在 这个争论已经 带来了很多感情和愤怒的言辞。 这更理想主义而非实用主义, 但又回答了一个简单的问题。 我们可以知道问题的答案 我们只要做下试验 很多试验 都有相同的结果 接下来 我会给你们讲一个
And this one that was in Kenya, they went around and distributed to people vouchers, discount vouchers. So people with their voucher could get the bed net in the local pharmacy. And some people get 100 percent discount, and some people get 20 percent discounts, and some people get 50 percent discount, etc. And now we can see what happens. So, how about the purchasing? Well, what you can see is that when people have to pay for their bed nets, the coverage rate really falls down a lot. So even with partial subsidy, three dollars is still not the full cost of a bed net, and now you only have 20 percent of the people with the bed nets, you lose the health immunity, that's not great. Second thing is, how about the use? Well, the good news is, people, if they have the bed nets, will use the bed nets regardless of how they got it. If they get it for free, they use it. If they have to pay for it, they use it. How about the long term? In the long term, people who got the free bed nets, one year later, were offered the option to purchase a bed net at two dollars. And people who got the free one were actually more likely to purchase the second one than people who didn't get a free one. So people do not get used to handouts; they get used to nets. Maybe we need to give them a little bit more credit.
这个试验是在肯尼亚做的 他们到处走动 分发给村民 优惠券 折扣券 然后 人们用优惠券 可以在当地的要点买到蚊帐 有些人得到100%折扣 有些是20%折扣 有些事50%折扣 等等 现在我们可以看看发生了什么 若是要购买会如何 你可以看到 当人们不得不为蚊帐付费时 蚊帐覆盖率大幅下降 即使有部分补助- 3美元依然不是蚊帐的完全花费 现在你只有20%的人拥有蚊帐 你失去了[覆盖率] 那样不好 第二件事是 年轻人会如何 好消息是 当人们拥有蚊帐时 他们会使用蚊帐 不管蚊帐是如何得到的 他们免费得到蚊帐 会使用 他们付费得到蚊帐 也会使用 长期情况如何呢? 长远看来 得到免费蚊帐的人们 一年后 面临花两美元 买一个蚊帐的选择 免费获得蚊帐的人们 实际上更可能买第二个蚊帐 相比没得到免费蚊帐的人而言 所以 人们没有习惯于救济 而是习惯于蚊帐! 或许我们应该更相信他们
So, that's for bed nets. So you will think, "That's great. You know how to immunize kids, you know how to give bed nets." But what politicians need is a range of options. They need to know: Out of all the things I could do, what is the best way to achieve my goals? So suppose your goal is to get kids into school. There are so many things you could do. You could pay for uniforms, you could eliminate fees, you could build latrines, you could give girls sanitary pads, etc., etc. So what's the best? Well, at some level, we think all of these things should work. So, is that sufficient? If we think they should work intuitively, should we go for them? Well, in business, that's certainly not the way we would go about it.
那些就是关于蚊帐的 你会想“太好了 你知道怎样免疫 你知道怎样发放蚊帐” 但是政客们需要的是一组选择 他们需要知道: 在所有这些我能做的事当中 哪一个是能最好地实现目标的方式? 假如你的目标是让孩子们上学 有这么多事可做 你可以为制服买单 你可以降低费用 你可以建造公厕 你可以给女孩提供卫生垫 等等 那么最好的是什么? 某种程度上而言 我们认为 所有这些事都该做 那么 这些足够吗? 比如, 假如我们凭直觉认为这些应该有效 我们应该去做这些事吗? 在商业里 这显然不是我们做事的方式
Consider for example transporting goods. Before the canals were invented in Britain before the Industrial Revolution, goods used to go on horse carts. And then canals were built, and with the same horseman and the same horse, you could carry ten times as much cargo. So should they have continued to carry the goods on the horse carts, on the ground, that they would eventually get there? Well, if that had been the case, there would have been no Industrial Revolution. So why shouldn't we do the same with social policy? In technology, we spend so much time experimenting, fine-tuning, getting the absolute cheapest way to do something, so why aren't we doing that with social policy?
考虑下这个例子 运输货物 在运河被发明之前 英国在工业革命前 货物是通过马车运输 接着运河被修建后 用同样的马夫和同样的马匹 你可以运输十倍于之前的货物 那么 他们应该继续 用马车在路上运输货物吗? 反正他们最终总是能到达目的地 如果 现实是这样 就不会发生工业革命 那么 为什么我们不应以同样方式来制定社会政策? 在科技领域 我们花费了大量时间 做实验 调节 获得绝对最便宜的方式去做某事 那么 为什么我们没有以同样方式来制定社会政策?
Well, with experiments, what you can do is answer a simple question. Suppose you have 100 dollars to spend on various interventions. How many extra years of education do you get for your hundred dollars? Now I'm going to show you what we get with various education interventions. So the first ones are if you want the usual suspects, hire teachers, school meals, school uniforms, scholarships. And that's not bad. For your hundred dollars, you get between one and three extra years of education. Things that don't work so well is bribing parents, just because so many kids are already going to school that you end up spending a lot of money. And here are the most surprising results. Tell people the benefits of education, that's very cheap to do. So for every hundred dollars you spend doing that, you get 40 extra years of education. And, in places where there are worms, intestinal worms, cure the kids of their worms. And for every hundred dollars, you get almost 30 extra years of education. So this is not your intuition, this is not what people would have gone for, and yet, these are the programs that work. We need that kind of information, we need more of it, and then we need to guide policy.
通过做实验 你可以做到的是 回答一个简单的问题 假如你有100美元 可以用于各种干预措施 用你的几百美元 可以得到多少年额外的教育? 现在我会告诉你 各种教育干预能带来什么 最先的答案 是一些普遍的假设: 请老师 学校午餐 学校制服 奖学金 这都不错 用你的一百美金 你可以得到一到三年的额外教育 不太好的事是贿赂家长 仅仅因为很多孩子已经开始上学 你终止了花费大量金钱 这儿是最让人惊讶的结果 告诉人们教育的益处 这佯做很便宜 你花费在这件事的每一百美元 你将得到40年额外教育 在那些有寄生虫的地方 蛔虫 治疗有蛔虫的小孩 用每一百美元 你将得到几乎30年的额外教育 这不复合你的直觉 这不是人们希望的 然而 这些项目很有效 我们需要那样的信息 我们需要更多 然后 我们需要引导政策
So now, I started from the big problem, and I couldn't answer it. And I cut it into smaller questions, and I have the answer to these smaller questions. And they are good, scientific, robust answers.
好的 我是从那个大问题开始的 我不能回答它 然后 我将它分为几个小问题 而我能回答这些小问题 这些回答是很好的、科学的、有力的回答
So let's go back to Haiti for a moment. In Haiti, about 200,000 people died -- actually, a bit more by the latest estimate. And the response of the world was great: Two billion dollars got pledged just last month, so that's about 10,000 dollars per death. That doesn't sound like that much when you think about it. But if we were willing to spend 10,000 dollars for every child under five who dies, that would be 90 billion per year just for that problem. And yet it doesn't happen. So, why is that? Well, I think what part of the problem is that, in Haiti, although the problem is huge, somehow we understand it, it's localized. You give your money to Doctors Without Borders, you give your money to Partners In Health, and they'll send in the doctors, and they'll send in the lumber, and they'll helicopter things out and in. And the problem of poverty is not like that. So, first, it's mostly invisible; second, it's huge; and third, we don't know whether we are doing the right thing. There's no silver bullet. You cannot helicopter people out of poverty. And that's very frustrating.
我们回过头来谈谈海地 在海地 大约20万人丧身 事实上 最新的估计比这个数字还要多 世界的反应时强烈的 过去一个月 募集了20亿美元 大约是 每一个死亡1万美元 你仔细想想 其实这并不像听起来那么多 但是 如果我们愿意为每个去世的小于5岁的孩子 花费1万美元 那将是每年900美元 仅仅是为那个问题 然而 这并没有发生 那 这是为什么呢? 我认为部分问题在于 尽管海地的问题很大 可是我们总能懂一些 我们就能定位问题 你捐钱给无国界医生组织 你捐钱给健康伙伴组织(Partners in Health) 他们会送医生过去 他们会送物品过去 他们会用直升飞机运东西进进出出 但是贫困的问题并非如此 首先 它通常是看不见的 其次 它是很严重的 最后 我们不清楚我们所做的是否正确 没有任何绝招可用 你不能用直升飞机将人们从贫困中运出 这真是让人沮丧
But look what we just did today. I gave you three simple answers to three questions: Give lentils to immunize people, provide free bed nets, deworm children. With immunization or bed nets, you can save a life for 300 dollars per life saved. With deworming, you can get an extra year of education for three dollars. So we cannot eradicate poverty just yet, but we can get started. And maybe we can get started small with things that we know are effective.
但是看看我们今天所做的 我给你们三个问题的三个简单答案 让免疫[更便利] 提供免费蚊帐 给孩子打蛔虫 通过免疫或者蚊帐 你可以用300美元拯救一条生命 通过打蛔虫 你可以用300美元 得到一年额外的教育 我们不能立刻消除贫困 但是我们可以开始行动 或许我们能以那些 我们知道是有效的方式开始
Here's an example of how this can be powerful. Deworming. Worms have a little bit of a problem grabbing the headlines. They are not beautiful and don't kill anybody. And yet, when the young global leader in Davos showed the numbers I gave you, they started Deworm the World. And thanks to Deworm the World, and the effort of many country governments and foundations, 20 million school-aged children got dewormed in 2009. So this evidence is powerful. It can prompt action.
这个例子告诉我们这样做多么强有力 打蛔虫 蛔虫不会引起新闻头条的一丝主义 他们不漂亮 他们不杀死人 然而 当年轻的全球领袖 在达沃斯 展示这些我告诉你们的数字时 他们开始了”世界除虫“行动 幸亏有这个世界除虫行动 以及很多国家政府和基金会的努力 2009年有2千万学龄儿童得到除虫 这个证据是强有力的 它能推动行动
So we should get started now. It's not going to be easy. It's a very slow process. You have to keep experimenting, and sometimes ideology has to be trumped by practicality. And sometimes what works somewhere doesn't work elsewhere. So it's a slow process, but there is no other way. These economics I'm proposing, it's like 20th century medicine. It's a slow, deliberative process of discovery. There is no miracle cure, but modern medicine is saving millions of lives every year, and we can do the same thing.
我们现在就应开始行动 现在 这不是件容易的事 这是很漫长的过程 你必须坚持试验 有时候 必须用实用性来鼓吹想法 有时候 在此地有效的方式在彼处失效 这是很漫长的过程 但是有其他放肆 我所建议的经济学 就像20实际的药物 这是一个漫长,很慎重 发现过程 没有魔法疗法 但是现代药物 每年都在挽救数以百万计的生命 而我们可以做到同样的事
And now, maybe, we can go back to the bigger question that I started with at the beginning. I cannot tell you whether the aid we have spent in the past has made a difference, but can we come back here in 30 years and say, "What we have done, it really prompted a change for the better." I believe we can and I hope we will.
现在 或许我们能回归到那个 我一开始就提出的大问题 我不能告诉你 过去的援助花费是否起了作用 但是 30年后我们可以回到这里 然后说 ”我们所做的一切 真的促进了事情往好的方向改变“ 我相信我们可以做到 我希望我们能够做到
Thank you.
谢谢
(Applause)
(掌声)