I suspect that every aid worker in Africa comes to a time in her career when she wants to take all the money for her project — maybe it's a school or a training program — pack it in a suitcase, get on a plane flying over the poorest villages in the country, and start throwing that money out the window. Because to a veteran aid worker, the idea of putting cold, hard cash into the hands of the poorest people on Earth doesn't sound crazy, it sounds really satisfying.
我懷疑 每位在非洲的救援人員 職業生涯中都會有段時間 想把所有計畫的經費, 也許是支付學校或訓練的費用, 全都放進皮箱裡, 搭上飛機,飛到全國最窮的村子裡, 然後開始把錢丟出窗外。 因為對經驗豐富的救援人員來說, 把白花花的現金送到 地球上最窮的人手上 聽起來不怎麼瘋狂, 反而非常大快人心。
I had that moment right about the 10-year mark, and luckily, that's also when I learned that this idea actually exists, and it might be just what the aid system needs. Economists call it an unconditional cash transfer, and it's exactly that: It's cash given with no strings attached. Governments in developing countries have been doing this for decades, and it's only now, with more evidence and new technology that it's possible to make this a model for delivering aid. It's a pretty simple idea, right?
我大概在工作滿十年的時候 有這種感覺, 幸運的是,我正好在那個時候發現 這種想法真的存在現實生活中, 而那也許符合救援機構的需求。 經濟學家稱這種方式為現金移轉 (unconditional cash transfer)。 意思是:沒有任何條件就直接提供現金。 發展中國家的政府 做這件事已經幾十年了, 直到現在才有更多證據 和新興科技顯示 這種捐助方式可行。 這是個很簡單的概念,對吧? 那為什麼我還花了十年做其他的事
Well, why did I spend a decade doing other stuff for the poor? Honestly, I believed that I could do more good with money for the poor than the poor could do for themselves. I held two assumptions: One, that poor people are poor in part because they're uneducated and don't make good choices; two is that we then need people like me to figure out what they need and get it to them. It turns out, the evidence says otherwise. In recent years, researchers have been studying what happens when we give poor people cash. Dozens of studies show across the board that people use cash transfers to improve their own lives. Pregnant women in Uruguay buy better food and give birth to healthier babies. Sri Lankan men invest in their businesses. Researchers who studied our work in Kenya found that people invested in a range of assets, from livestock to equipment to home improvements, and they saw increases in income from business and farming one year after the cash was sent. None of these studies found that people spend more on drinking or smoking or that people work less. In fact, they work more.
來幫助窮人? 老實說,我以前相信 我比窮人更擅於管理錢, 比他們自己處理得更好。 我假設兩件事: 第一,窮人之所以窮, 有一部分是因為他們沒有受教育, 而且不懂得做出好選擇; 第二,我們需要像我這樣的人, 設想他們需要什麼,並提供他們所需。 結果事實證明完全相反。 最近幾年,調查員一直研究 我們給窮人現金之後的發展。 許多研究都顯示 大家把現金用在 改善自己的生活。 烏拉圭的孕婦會買好一點的食物, 生下的嬰兒就會比較健康。 斯里蘭卡男性則投資在自己的生意上。 調查員研究我們在肯亞做的服務, 發現大家投資在各種財產上, 從家畜、設備到改善家園, 而且他們還看見收入的成長, 從經商到務農都獲利, 成效就出現在他們送出錢的一年後。 沒有任何研究顯示 大家花更多錢去抽煙、喝酒, 也沒有人因此減少工作。 事實上,他們做得更多。 前面談到的都是物質需求。
Now, these are all material needs. In Vietnam, elderly recipients used their cash transfers to pay for coffins. As someone who wonders if Maslow got it wrong, I find this choice to prioritize spiritual needs deeply humbling. I don't know if I would have chosen to give food or equipment or coffins, which begs the question: How good are we at allocating resources on behalf of the poor? Are we worth the cost? Again, we can look at empirical evidence on what happens when we give people stuff of our choosing. One very telling study looked at a program in India that gives livestock to the so-called ultra-poor, and they found that 30 percent of recipients had turned around and sold the livestock they had been given for cash. The real irony is, for every 100 dollars worth of assets this program gave someone, they spent another 99 dollars to do it. What if, instead, we use technology to put cash, whether from aid agencies or from any one of us directly into a poor person's hands. Today, three in four Kenyans use mobile money, which is basically a bank account that can run on any cell phone. A sender can pay a 1.6 percent fee and with the click of a button send money directly to a recipient's account with no intermediaries. Like the technologies that are disrupting industries in our own lives, payments technology in poor countries could disrupt aid. It's spreading so quickly that it's possible to imagine reaching billions of the world's poor this way.
在越南,年長的受助者 把現金拿來買棺材。 就像有人懷疑馬斯洛的理論是否錯了, 我發現這個優先滿足精神需求的選擇 著實令人感到謙遜。 我不知道我會選擇提供食物、 設備還是棺材, 這就回到最關鍵的問題: 我們有多擅於分配資源 來為窮人爭取利益? 我們值那些錢嗎? 同樣的,我們可以檢視過去的經驗, 看看給窮人我們選擇的東西之後, 發生了什麼事。 有份很有說服力的研究 檢視印度做的計畫顯示 給所謂的赤貧者牲畜之後, 他們發現有 30% 的受助者 情況大幅好轉,並賣出得到的牲畜 來換取現金。 很諷刺的是, 價值 100 美元的資產 透過計畫提供給受助者, 他們還要多花 99 美元才能有收穫。 有沒有可能,我們換個方式運用科技捐款, 不論是由慈善團體,還是任何捐助人 直接捐款到窮人手上。 現在有四分之三的肯亞人使用電子錢包, 基本上就是能在任何行動電話上 操作的銀行帳戶。 捐款人支付 1.6% 的手續費, 點一下按鈕, 就能直接捐款到受助者的帳戶, 不需要透過任何人轉手。 就像在我們生活中破壞產業的科技一樣, 貧窮國家的付款科技 也會瓦解救援。 科技傳遞得如此快速, 讓人可以想像用這種方式 幫助世界上的幾十億窮人。
That's what we've started to do at GiveDirectly. We're the first organization dedicated to providing cash transfers to the poor. We've sent cash to 35,000 people across rural Kenya and Uganda in one-time payments of 1,000 dollars per family. So far, we've looked for the poorest people in the poorest villages, and in this part of the world, they're the ones living in homes made of mud and thatch, not cement and iron. So let's say that's your family. We show up at your door with an Android phone. We'll get your name, take your photo and a photo of your hut and grab the GPS coordinates. That night, we send all the data to the cloud, and each piece gets checked by an independent team using, for one example, satellite images. Then, we'll come back, we'll sell you a basic cell phone if you don't have one already, and a few weeks later, we send money to it. Something that five years ago would have seemed impossible we can now do efficiently and free of corruption.
那就是我們在「馬上捐」(GiveDirectly) 開始做的事。 我們是第一個決定直接 將現金移轉給窮人的組織。 我們送了現金給三萬五千名 住在肯亞和烏干達鄉村的人, 一次提供一千美元 給每個家庭。 至今,我們仍尋找最窮苦的人, 那些人住在世界這個地區 最窮的村莊裡, 他們住的房子 用泥巴和茅草搭成, 而不是鋼筋水泥。 假設那是你家, 我們帶著安卓手機出現在你家門口。 我們問了你的名字, 幫你還有小屋照張相, 然後用衛星定位。 當天晚上,我們會把所有資料傳上雲端, 每一個案件都由獨立團體審查, 運用衛星影像等方式。 之後我們會再回來, 我們會賣你一支簡易手機, 如果你本來沒有手機。 幾週後, 我們會付錢到那上面。 五年前, 這件事看似天方夜譚, 現在,我們可以有效率地執行, 而且免受貪汙之苦。
The more cash we give to the poor, and the more evidence we have that it works, the more we have to reconsider everything else we give. Today, the logic behind aid is too often, well, we do at least some good. When we're complacent with that as our bar, when we tell ourselves that giving aid is better than no aid at all, we tend to invest inefficiently, in our own ideas that strike us as innovative, on writing reports, on plane tickets and SUVs. What if the logic was, will we do better than cash given directly? Organizations would have to prove that they're doing more good for the poor than the poor can do for themselves. Of course, giving cash won't create public goods like eradicating disease or building strong institutions, but it could set a higher bar for how we help individual families improve their lives.
我們給窮人越多錢, 就有越多的證據顯示這個作法成功, 我們也就越需要重新思考 該提供的是什麼。 現在救援背後的念頭經常是 「嗯,至少我們做了點好事。」 當我們沾沾自喜 認為那是我們的成就, 當我們告訴自己有援助 總比什麼援助都沒有還好的時候, 我們反而會做效益不大的投資, 抱著我們自認為創新的想法, 像是投資在寫報導, 或是機票和休旅車上。 要是採用當時的邏輯, 我們能做得比直接給錢還好嗎? 組織必須證明 他們幫窮人做得更好, 更勝於窮人自己動手做。 當然,給錢無法創造公共利益, 像是消滅疾病或蓋穩固的建築, 但給錢可以提高目標, 讓我們幫助每個家庭 改善他們的生活。
I believe in aid. I believe most aid is better than just throwing money out of a plane. I am also absolutely certain that a lot of aid today isn't better than giving directly to the poor. I hope that one day, it will be.
我相信援助。 我相信大部分的援助都好過於只是 從飛機上丟錢。 我也確信 現在許多援助 都不比直接給窮人錢還好。 我希望有一天,我們能做得更好。
Thank you.
謝謝。
(Applause)
(掌聲)