Is this the most effective development programme in history?” asks Chris Blattman, a political scientist at Columbia University. He adds, “I think it’s a contender.”
“這是否是史上最有用的成長項目?”哥倫比亞大學(Columbia University)政治科學家克裏斯布拉特曼(Chris Blattman)問。他彌補道：“我以為這個項目可以或許介入比賽。”
The programme is simple enough to explain: give cash handouts of $50,000 to aspiring Nigerian entrepreneurs. Yes, you read that last sentence correctly — but more about the Nigerian cash drop in due course. It is merely the most eye-catching in a stack of research and policy papers to conclude that an excellent cure for the problem of poverty is simply to give poor people money.
這個項目說明起來異常簡略：給有誌成為企業家的尼日利亞人發放5萬美元的現金。是的，上一句話你沒看錯——更多關於這筆錢的內容會在背面講到。這只是一大堆研討論文和政策文件中最惹人註目標一部門，即以為辦理貧苦題目的一個善策是直接給窮漢發錢。
That idea seems almost naive. Instinctively, we tend to feel that victims of famines and earthquakes need food and shelter rather than inedible cash. We may feel, also, that cash will be wasted — stolen, spent on drink, frittered away on treats or siphoned off by grasping relatives. Even if the money is well spent, will it generate self-sustaining economic growth? Yet an increasing number of development policy types are reaching the conclusion that cash beats many of the alternatives.
看起來，這個設法主意險些可以說是無邪的。咱們本能地認為，饑饉和地動的受害者須要的是食品和卵翼所，而不是不克不及拿來吃的款項。咱們還大概認為，這些錢會被糟蹋——被偷了、用來飲酒了，糟蹋在享樂上了，大概被貪婪的親戚卷走了。就算這些錢獲得了很好的應用，是不是就可以帶來可自我保持的財政增加呢?但是，愈來愈多種類的成長政策正得出結論：錢賽過了很多替換選項。
Ponder the most obvious objection first: that poor people will waste the money. David Evans and Anna Popova of the World Bank surveyed 19 randomised trials across the world studying cash transfers. Not one of them found evidence that spending on alcohol or tobacco had increased by a statistically significant amount. Poor people have better things to do with the money and often spend it well or even invest it successfully.
先來斟酌一下最不言而喻的否決看法：窮漢會糟蹋這筆錢。天下銀行(World Bank)的戴維埃文斯(David Evans)和安娜波波娃(Anna Popova)對散布於天下各地、研討現金轉移的19個隨機性實驗舉行了查詢拜訪。兩人都沒有發明任何證據，註解接收現金轉移的人花在煙酒上的付出湧現了有統計意義的增加。窮漢會用這筆錢去做更好的工作，他們平日會很好地應用這筆錢，乃至舉行勝利的投資。
Blattman and his colleagues conducted what one might regard as a test-to-destruction of the “just give cash” policy. They handed out $200 at a time to homeless thieves and drug dealers in the slums of Liberia as part of a larger randomised trial. One could hardly think of a cash injection more likely to be squandered. And yet, on average, just $8 was spent on drinking or drugs; the rest was spent on rent, food, clothes and “business investments”. The most successful of these was a barrel full of strong drink that was resold by the cupful on the street.
布拉特曼和他的同事對“直接給錢”政策舉行了一種“損壞性實驗”。作為一個規模更大的隨機性實驗的一部門，他們一次給利比裏亞窮人窟裏無家可歸的小偷和毒販發放200美元的現金。很難想象另有甚麽現金投入比這更易受到浪費了。但是，拿到這些錢的人花在飲酒或福壽膏上的金額均勻僅為8美元;其他則花在了房錢、食品、衣服和“貿易投資”上。個中最勝利的付出是買了一滿桶烈酒，然後在街上一杯杯轉賣出去。
What about the rather different idea of handing out cash in emergency situations — after earthquakes or famines or to refugees? (It is now possible to do this electronically through an ATM card or mobile phone.)
那末，與此分歧的另外一個設法主意怎樣?即在緊迫情形下發放現金——好比在地動大概饑饉產生後，大概發放工具為災黎。(經由過程一張可用於ATM機的卡大概電話，如今完整可以經由過程電子手腕做到這件事。)
Clearly there will be times when cash is useless because there is nothing to buy. But if refugees have money, entrepreneurs will scramble to solve logistical problems and supply them with things to spend the money on. Except for a few cases, such as vitamins and vaccines, refugees are likely to understand their own needs best.
明顯，偶然款項毫無用途，由於沒有可以購置的器械。但一旦災黎有了錢，企業家就會盡力戰勝運輸題目，供給他們可以費錢購置的器械。除維生素和疫苗等少數器械，災黎平日最能懂得他們本身的需求。
And while cash can be stolen, it is easier to keep electronic cash transfers secure than to ship food long distances through hostile terrain, with each warlord along the way extracting a cut.
只管錢大概會被竊取，但包管電子現金轉移的平安要比經過敵對國土長間隔運輸食品更易，在後一種情形下，沿途的每個軍閥都邑雁過拔毛。
Donor agencies are starting to experiment with cash transfers in humanitarian crises. A commission chaired by Owen Barder of the Center for Global Development recently made its recommendations to the UK’s Department for International Development. The first one: “Give more unconditional cash transfers. The questions should always be asked, ‘Why not cash?’ and ‘If not now, when?’”
捐助機構已開端試下在人性主義危急中舉行現金轉移。由環球成長中間(Center for Global Development)的歐文巴德(Owen Barder)引導的一個委員會比來對英國國際成長部(DFID)提出發起。第一個發起是：“舉行更多無前提現金轉移。咱們老是須要問本身如許的題目，‘為什麽不給現金呢?’和‘假如不是如今，何時呢?’”
So what about those Nigerian entrepreneurs? We already knew that small business grants could have big impacts. A few years ago I reported on an experiment conducted by David McKenzie, Suresh de Mel and Chris Woodruff in Sri Lanka after the catastrophic tsunami of 2004.
那些尼日利亞企業家又若何呢?咱們已曉得，小筆的貿易贊助金可以或許發生偉大的影響。幾年前，我曾報導過戴維麥肯齊(David McKenzie)、蘇雷什德梅爾(Suresh de Mel)和克裏斯伍德拉夫(Chris Woodruff)在2004年產生海嘯災害後的斯裏蘭卡舉行的一次實驗。
They gave out modest grants of around $100 to $200 to business owners, and found that on average these cash injections were invested with very high returns — around 10 per cent a month. But these were tiny one-person businesses.
他們向企業主發放了100美元到200美元上下的小筆現金，發明這些現金投入的均勻投資回報率異常高——約莫為每個月10%。但這些是由一小我構成的微型企業。
Now David McKenzie has conducted this Nigerian trial of much larger handouts, with the aim of producing larger businesses with the potential to create jobs. The trial examined a business-plan competition — a policy wonk’s version of Dragons’ Den — that was funded by the Nigerian government and run by the World Bank and the Department for International Development. Several hundred applicants won outright but several hundred more were chosen by lottery from the runners-up. By comparing the lottery winners and the lottery losers, McKenzie could see the impact of the cash grant. It was large: three years on, the lucky winners were almost twice as likely as the losers to be running a business, and three times as likely to be employing more than 10 people. Such employers are exceedingly rare in Nigeria but a third of the lottery winners were among their ranks.
如今，戴維麥肯齊在尼日利亞舉行的這個實驗發放的金額要大很多，目標是發生有大概發明事情機遇的更大的企業。這項實驗研討了一項貿易謀劃競賽——一個政策專家版的《龍穴》(Dragons’ Den，一檔英國貿易真人秀節目——譯者註)。該競賽由尼日利亞當局出資，舉行者為天下銀行和英國國際成長部。有幾百名申請者直接博得贊助，但另有別的幾百人經由過程從余下申請者中抽獎發放資金。經由過程比擬被抽中和沒被抽中的人，麥肯齊可以或許發明現金贊助的影響。這類影響是偉大的：3年曩昔了，被榮幸抽中的人創辦企業的概率險些是落第者的兩倍，而前者雇傭逾10名員工的概率則是後者的3倍。如許的店主在尼日利亞極為稀疏，但有三分之一的被抽中者是如許的店主。
Of course, $50,000 is a lot of money and one might expect it to do some good — but McKenzie estimates that the cost per job created compares very favourably with popular entrepreneurship programmes such as mentoring or training. The truth is that while entrepreneurs in Nigeria and other poor countries are held back by corruption, red tape, poor roads and patchy electricity, they are also constrained by a lack of the funds needed to get their ideas off the ground. That is a solvable problem.
固然，5萬美元是一大筆錢，人們理應等待這筆錢能施展一些感化——但據麥肯齊估量，這類方法發明每份事情的本錢遠遠優於指點和培訓等風行的創業項目。本相是，尼日利亞和其他窮國的企業家不但受腐爛、繁文縟節、糟的路況和時偶然無的電力掣肘，還受限於缺少實現他們的設法主意所需的資金。而這是一個可以辦理的題目。
But does McKenzie agree with Blattman that he may have discovered the most effective development programme in history? No, he tells me with a chuckle. The most effective development programme, he says, is to let people move to another country. Now that’s a topic for another day.
那末麥肯齊是不是贊成布拉特曼的說法，以為他大概發明了史上最有用的成長項目?並不是如斯，他輕笑著告知我。他說，最有用的成長項目，是許可人們遷徙到另外一個國度。而這又是另外一個議題了。
市場價：HK$ 92
