Name: 如何擺脫貧窮？最有效的終極方法！ (What’s the best way to lift people out of poverty?)
Uploaded: 2026-03-25T14:14:20.000Z
Duration: 5 min 37 s

In 2018, a nonprofit gave every adult in Western Kenya's Ahenyo village $500.

2018年，一個非營利組織給了肯亞西部Ahenyo村的每位成年人500美元。

過去完成式

Most of their families had lived in extreme poverty for generations,

他們的大多數家庭幾代人都生活在極度貧困之中，

情態副詞

and this sum was roughly equivalent to most recipients' annual salaries.

而這筆錢大約相當於大多數受助者一年的薪水。

Despite all this, the money came with no strings attached outside a commitment to speak with researchers after two years.

儘管如此，這筆錢除了兩年後與研究人員對話的承諾外，沒有任何附加條件。

They hoped this influx of cash would lift the villagers out of poverty,

他們希望這筆現金的注入能讓村民擺脫貧困，

but they also knew this could easily be the latest in a long line of failed philanthropic interventions.

但他們也知道，這很可能只是眾多失敗的慈善幹預中的最新一個。

In the 1960s, charitable organizations began ramping up their philanthropic efforts, spending billions funding education, job training, agricultural development, infrastructure projects, and

在1960年代，慈善組織開始加強他們的慈善努力，花費數十億美元資助教育、職業培訓、農業發展、基礎設施項目，以及

healthcare programs in attempts to help poor countries.

醫療保健計畫，試圖幫助貧窮國家。

These programs hoped to create a springboard of knowledge and capital that would foster financial independence and bolster struggling economies.

這些計畫希望能創造一個知識和資本的跳板，從而促進經濟獨立並提振掙扎中的經濟體。

But when economists started studying this kind of aid in the late '90s and early 2000s, they made some surprising discoveries.

但當經濟學家在90年代末和2000年代初開始研究這類援助時，他們做出了一些令人驚訝的發現。

After running various randomized control trials where one group received education or job training and another group did not, the researchers found this kind of aid often had minimal impact.

在進行了各種隨機對照試驗後，其中一組接受了教育或職業培訓，而另一組則沒有，研究人員發現這類援助的影響通常微乎其微。

School supplies failed to improve education, job training didn't always raise incomes,

學校用品未能改善教育，職業培訓也未能總是提高收入，

and the benefits of nutrition education varied dramatically from group to group.

營養教育的益處在不同群體之間差異很大。

These disappointing results even extended to newer philanthropic models.

這些令人失望的結果甚至擴展到了較新的慈善模式。

At this time, many theorists advocated heavily for microfinance, a model that offered small loans to aspiring entrepreneurs in weak economies.

當時，許多理論家大力提倡小額信貸，這種模式向經濟薄弱地區有抱負的企業家提供小額貸款。

But while microfinance recipients consistently repaid their loans with interest, the programs failed to meaningfully raise their incomes.

但儘管小額信貸的接受者持續償還貸款並支付利息，這些計畫卻未能顯著提高他們的收入。

All these failures led researchers to consider a strategy many considered ridiculous: direct cash giving.

所有這些失敗都促使研究人員考慮一種許多人認為荒謬的策略：直接現金發放。

Most philanthropists saw this approach as the worst kind of short-sighted philanthropy.

大多數慈善家認為這種方法是最糟糕的短視慈善行為。

They assumed recipients would quickly spend the cash and then end up back where they started.

他們假設接受者會很快花光現金，然後又回到原點。

But when researchers returned to Ahenyo two years later, the results were astonishing.

但當研究人員兩年後回到 Ahenyo 時，結果令人震驚。

家庭儲蓄更多，飲食也更豐盛。

There was less alcoholism, depression, domestic violence, and inequality between families.

酒癮、憂鬱症、家庭暴力和家庭間的不平等都減少了。

And these impacts weren't unique to Ahenyo.

Since this study, direct cash giving has become one of the most researched poverty interventions,

這項研究之後，直接現金發放成為研究最多的脫貧幹預措施之一，

and it's consistently shown impacts that often exceed traditional aid programs.

而且它的成效經常超越傳統的援助計畫。

In fact, a subsequent study spanning hundreds of Kenyan villages found the surrounding economy grew by more than twice what was given out just a year after the cash transfers.

事實上，後來一項針對數百個肯亞村莊的研究發現，在現金轉移後不到一年，周邊經濟的成長就超過了發放的總金額兩倍以上。

However, direct cash giving isn't a silver bullet.

然而，直接現金發放並非萬靈丹。

Poverty is a generational issue that requires long-term changes to solve,

貧窮是世代問題，需要長期的改變才能解決，

and since this intervention is relatively new, we still don't fully understand the effects of cash giving on extended timelines.

而且由於這項幹預措施相對較新，我們對現金發放的長期影響仍不完全瞭解。

For example, a Ugandan study beginning in 2008 found that while a cash transfer improved some families' earnings over the first four years, the positive effect disappeared after the next five years.

例如，一項始於 2008 年的烏幹達研究發現，雖然現金轉移在最初四年改善了一些家庭的收入，但在接下來的五年後，這種正面影響消失了。

Then it returned again under the pressure of the COVID-19 pandemic.

然後在 COVID-19 疫情的壓力下又再次出現。

Clearly, we still have a lot to learn about how cash giving unfolds over time.

顯然，我們對現金發放如何隨著時間推移而展開，還有很多需要學習的地方。

But regardless of what we learn in the future, the theory for why direct cash giving works can help change how we think about poverty today.

但無論我們未來學到什麼，直接現金發放之所以有效的理論，都能幫助我們改變對當今貧窮的看法。

Where traditional aid programs assume that philanthropists have the best knowledge of a community's needs, cash giving programs believe the people experiencing poverty best understand what they need to escape it.

傳統的援助計畫假設慈善家最瞭解社區的需求，而現金發放計畫則相信，身處貧窮中的人們最瞭解自己擺脫困境所需。

For example, perhaps for one person, repairing their home is more important to long-term success than starting a new business.

例如，對某個人來說，修繕房屋對長期成功的重要性可能比創辦新事業來得高。

And for another, ensuring their child can finish school might allow them to bring in more money in the future.

而對另一個人來說，確保孩子能完成學業，或許能讓他們未來賺進更多錢。

Fortunately, we can afford this kind of help.

幸運的是，我們負擔得起這種幫助。

Today, wealthy countries spend $200 billion a year in international aid,

如今，富裕國家每年花費 2000 億美元用於國際援助，

and philanthropists have a trillion and a half more sitting in private foundations.

而慈善家在私人基金會裡還有價值一兆五千億美元的資產。

We already have the means to eliminate extreme poverty,

我們其實已經有能力消除極端貧窮了，

but doing so will require these institutions to trust the expertise of the people actually living in these conditions.

但這需要這些機構相信，真正身處困境中的人們才是最有經驗的。

So how can we design programs that actually help lift people out of generational poverty?

那麼，我們該如何設計出真正能幫助人們擺脫世代貧窮的計畫呢？

Take a look at the paradox of welfare programs and find out what we can do to fix them with this video.

一起來看看福利計畫的矛盾，並透過這支影片找出我們可以如何改善它們。