every aid worker in Africa

每位在非洲的救援人員

comes to a time in her career

職業生涯中都會有段時間

when she wants to take all the money for her project —

想把所有計畫的經費，

maybe it's a school or a training program —

也許是支付學校或訓練的費用，

pack it in a suitcase,

全都放進皮箱裡，

get on a plane flying over the poorest villages in the country,

搭上飛機，飛到全國最窮的村子裡，

and start throwing that money out the window.

然後開始把錢丟出窗外。

Because to a veteran aid worker,

因為對經驗豐富的救援人員來說，

the idea of putting cold, hard cash

把白花花的現金送到

into the hands of the poorest people on Earth

地球上最窮的人手上

doesn't sound crazy,

聽起來不怎麼瘋狂，

it sounds really satisfying.

反而非常大快人心。

I had that moment right about the 10-year mark,

我大概在工作滿十年的時候有這種感覺，

and luckily, that's also when I learned

幸運的是，我正好在那個時候發現

that this idea actually exists,

這種想法真的存在現實生活中，

and it might be just what the aid system needs.

而那也許符合救援機構的需求。

Economists call it an unconditional cash transfer,

經濟學家稱這種方式為現金移轉 (unconditional cash transfer)。

and it's exactly that: It's cash given

意思是：沒有任何條件

with no strings attached.

就直接提供現金。

Governments in developing countries

發展中國家的政府

have been doing this for decades,

做這件事已經幾十年了，

and it's only now, with more evidence

直到現在才有更多證據

and new technology that it's possible

和新興科技顯示

to make this a model for delivering aid.

這種捐助方式可行。

It's a pretty simple idea, right?

這是個很簡單的概念，對吧？

Well, why did I spend a decade doing other stuff

那為什麼我還花了十年做其他的事

for the poor?

來幫助窮人？

Honestly, I believed that I could do more good

老實說，我以前相信

with money for the poor

我比窮人更擅於管理錢，

than the poor could do for themselves.

比他們自己處理得更好。

I held two assumptions:

我假設兩件事：

One, that poor people are poor in part

第一，窮人之所以窮，

because they're uneducated and

有一部分是因為他們沒有受教育，

don't make good choices;

而且不懂得做出好選擇；

two is that we then need people like me

第二，我們需要像我這樣的人，

to figure out what they need and get it to them.

設想他們需要什麼，並提供他們所需。

It turns out, the evidence says otherwise.

結果事實證明完全相反。

In recent years, researchers have been studying

最近幾年，調查員一直研究

what happens when we give poor people cash.

我們給窮人現金之後的發展。

Dozens of studies show across the board

許多研究都顯示

that people use cash transfers

大家把現金用在

to improve their own lives.

改善自己的生活。

Pregnant women in Uruguay buy better food

烏拉圭的孕婦會買好一點的食物，

and give birth to healthier babies.

生下的嬰兒就會比較健康。

Sri Lankan men invest in their businesses.

斯里蘭卡男性則投資在自己的生意上。

Researchers who studied our work in Kenya

調查員研究我們在肯亞做的服務，

found that people invested in a range of assets,

發現大家投資在各種財產上，

from livestock to equipment to home improvements,

從家畜、設備到改善家園，

and they saw increases in income

而且他們還看見收入的成長，

from business and farming

從經商到務農都獲利，

one year after the cash was sent.

成效就出現在他們送出錢的一年後。

None of these studies found that people

沒有任何研究顯示

spend more on drinking or smoking

大家花更多錢去抽煙、喝酒，

or that people work less.

也沒有人因此減少工作。

In fact, they work more.

事實上，他們做得更多。

Now, these are all material needs.

前面談到的都是物質需求。

In Vietnam, elderly recipients used

在越南，年長的受助者

their cash transfers to pay for coffins.

把現金拿來買棺材。

As someone who wonders if Maslow got it wrong,

就像有人懷疑馬斯洛的理論是否錯了，

I find this choice to prioritize spiritual needs

我發現這個優先滿足精神需求的選擇

deeply humbling.

著實令人感到謙遜。

I don't know if I would have chosen to give food

我不知道我會選擇提供食物、

or equipment or coffins,

設備還是棺材，

which begs the question:

這就回到最關鍵的問題：

How good are we at allocating resources

我們有多擅於分配資源

on behalf of the poor?

來為窮人爭取利益？

Are we worth the cost?

我們值那些錢嗎？

Again, we can look at empirical evidence

同樣的，我們可以檢視過去的經驗，

on what happens when we give people stuff

看看給窮人我們選擇的東西之後，

of our choosing.

發生了什麼事。

One very telling study looked at a program in India

有份很有說服力的研究檢視印度做的計畫顯示

that gives livestock to the so-called ultra-poor,

給所謂的赤貧者牲畜之後，

and they found that 30 percent of recipients

他們發現有 30% 的受助者

had turned around and sold the livestock they had been given

情況大幅好轉，並賣出得到的牲畜

for cash.

來換取現金。

The real irony is,

很諷刺的是，

for every 100 dollars worth of assets

價值 100 美元的資產

this program gave someone,

透過計畫提供給受助者，

they spent another 99 dollars to do it.

他們還要多花 99 美元才能有收穫。

What if, instead, we use technology to put cash,

有沒有可能，我們換個方式運用科技捐款，

whether from aid agencies or from any one of us

不論是由慈善團體，還是任何捐助人

directly into a poor person's hands.

直接捐款到窮人手上。

Today, three in four Kenyans use mobile money,

現在有四分之三的肯亞人使用電子錢包，

which is basically a bank account that can run

基本上就是能在任何行動電話上操作的

on any cell phone.

銀行帳戶。

A sender can pay a 1.6 percent fee

捐款人支付 1.6% 的手續費，

and with the click of a button

點一下按鈕，

send money directly to a recipient's account

就能直接捐款到受助者的帳戶，

with no intermediaries.

不需要透過任何人轉手。

Like the technologies that are disrupting industries

就像在我們生活中

in our own lives,

破壞產業的科技一樣，

payments technology in poor countries

貧窮國家的付款科技

could disrupt aid.

也會瓦解救援。

It's spreading so quickly that it's possible

科技傳遞得如此快速，

to imagine reaching billions

讓人可以想像用這種方式

of the world's poor this way.

幫助世界上的幾十億窮人。

That's what we've started to do at GiveDirectly.

那就是我們在「馬上捐」(GiveDirectly)開始做的事。

We're the first organization

我們是第一個

dedicated to providing cash transfers to the poor.

決定直接將現金移轉給窮人的組織。

We've sent cash to 35,000 people across rural Kenya

我們送了現金給三萬五千名住在肯亞

and Uganda

和烏干達鄉村的人，

in one-time payments of 1,000 dollars

一次提供一千美元

per family.

給每個家庭。

So far, we've looked for the poorest people

至今，我們仍尋找最窮苦的人，

in the poorest villages, and in this part of the world,

那些人住在世界這個地區最窮的村莊裡，

they're the ones living in homes

他們住的房子

made of mud and thatch,

用泥巴和茅草搭成，

not cement and iron.

而不是鋼筋水泥。

So let's say that's your family.

假設那是你家，

We show up at your door with an Android phone.

我們帶著安卓手機出現在你家門口。

We'll get your name, take your photo

我們問了你的名字，

and a photo of your hut

幫你還有小屋照張相，

and grab the GPS coordinates.

然後用衛星定位。

That night, we send all the data to the cloud,

當天晚上，我們會把所有資料傳上雲端，

and each piece gets checked

每一個案件都由

by an independent team

獨立團體審查，

using, for one example, satellite images.

運用衛星影像等方式。

Then, we'll come back,

之後我們會再回來，

we'll sell you a basic cell phone

我們會賣你一支簡易手機，

if you don't have one already,

如果你本來沒有手機。

and a few weeks later,

幾週後，

we send money to it.

我們會付錢到那上面。

Something that five years ago

五年前，

would have seemed impossible

這件事看似天方夜譚，

we can now do efficiently

現在，我們可以有效率地執行，

and free of corruption.

而且免受貪汙之苦。

The more cash we give to the poor,

我們給窮人越多錢，

and the more evidence we have that it works,

就有越多的證據顯示這個作法成功，

the more we have to reconsider

我們也就越需要重新思考

everything else we give.

該提供的是什麼。

Today, the logic behind aid is too often,

現在救援背後的念頭經常是

well, we do at least some good.

「嗯，至少我們做了點好事。」

When we're complacent

當我們沾沾自喜

with that as our bar,

認為那是我們的成就，

when we tell ourselves that giving aid

當我們告訴自己有援助

is better than no aid at all,

總比什麼援助都沒有還好的時候，

we tend to invest inefficiently,

我們反而會做效益不大的投資，

in our own ideas that strike us as innovative,

抱著我們自認為創新的想法，

on writing reports,

像是投資在寫報導，

on plane tickets and SUVs.

或是機票和休旅車上。

What if the logic was,

要是採用當時的邏輯，

will we do better than cash given directly?

我們能做得比直接給錢還好嗎？

Organizations would have to prove

組織必須證明

that they're doing more good for the poor

他們幫窮人做得更好，

than the poor can do for themselves.

更勝於窮人自己動手做。

Of course, giving cash won't create public goods

當然，給錢無法創造公共利益，

like eradicating disease or building strong institutions,

像是消滅疾病或蓋穩固的建築，

but it could set a higher bar

但給錢可以提高目標，

for how we help individual families

讓我們幫助每個家庭

improve their lives.

改善他們的生活。

I believe in aid.

我相信援助。

I believe most aid is better than just

我相信大部分的援助都好過於只是

throwing money out of a plane.

從飛機上丟錢。

I am also absolutely certain

我也確信

that a lot of aid today

現在許多援助

isn't better than giving directly to the poor.

都不比直接給窮人錢還好。

I hope that one day, it will be.

我希望有一天，我們能做得更好。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）