Iqbal Quadir: The power of the mobile phone to end poverty

譯者: Marie Wu 審譯者: Zhu Jie

I'll just take you to Bangladesh for a minute.

我想讓各位瞭解一下孟加拉。

Before I tell that story, we should ask ourselves the question:

在我開始之前，我想要問各位一個問題：

Why does poverty exist?

為什麼會有貧窮存在？

I mean, there is plenty of knowledge and scientific breakthroughs.

我是說，現在的知識這麼普及，科技也這麼發達，

We all live in the same planet,

我們都同樣住在這個地球上，

but there's still a great deal of poverty in the world.

但世界上還是有很多窮人。

And I think -- so I want to throw a perspective that I have,

我想要告訴各位我對貧窮的看法，

so that we can assess this project, or any other project, for that matter,

這樣我們才能共同參與這個計畫，或是任何改善貧窮的計畫，

to see whether it's contributing or --

看看我們是否能夠

contributing to poverty or trying to alleviate it.

為窮人做些什麼，或是幫助他們改善貧窮。

Rich countries have been sending aid to poor countries for the last 60 years.

富裕國家已經幫助貧窮國家六十年了，

And by and large, this has failed.

最後，這項行動還是失敗了。

And you can see this book,

你看看這本書，

written by someone who worked in the World Bank for 20 years,

是一個在世界銀行工作了二十年的人寫的，

and he finds economic growth in this country to be elusive.

他發現這些國家的經濟幾乎沒有成長，

By and large, it did not work.

所以，這種援助沒有效果。

So the question is, why is that?

問題是：為什麼會這樣？

In my mind, there is something to learn from the history of Europe.

我認為，我們應該從歐洲的歷史裡記取教訓。

I mean, even here, yesterday I was walking across the street,

昨天，就在這裡，我走過街道，

and they showed three bishops were executed 500 years ago,

他們告訴我有三位主教在五百年前被處決了，

right across the street from here.

就在那條街的對面。

So my point is, there's a lot of struggle has gone in Europe,

我要講的重點是，歐洲也經過自己的一番掙扎與努力，

where citizens were empowered by technologies.

人民則因科技而取得權力，

And they demanded authorities from --

他們要求當權者

to come down from their high horses.

從高位走下來，

And in the end, there's better bargaining

最後，當權者與人民

between the authorities and citizens,

才能坐下來談判，

and democracies, capitalism -- everything else flourished.

民主思想、資本主義等，也才能蓬勃發展。

And so you can see, the real process of --

現在我們才能看到這中間真實的過程，

and this is backed up by this 500-page book --

全都記載在這本五百頁的書裡，

that the authorities came down and citizens got up.

最後當權者下台，人民上台執政。

But if you look, if you have that perspective,

如果你瞭解這一段歷史，

then you can see what happened in the last 60 years.

你就會瞭解過去六十年發生了什麼事。

Aid actually did the opposite.

外國的援助其實幫了倒忙，

It empowered authorities,

那只會坐大當權者的權力，

and, as a result, marginalized citizens.

幫助他們剝削人民。

The authorities did not have the reason to make economic growth happen

當權者沒有理由去促進經濟發展，

so that they could tax people

雖然這樣做就可以對人民課稅，

and make more money for to run their business.

然後就有經費來建設國家，

Because they were getting it from abroad.

但他們不需要這樣做，因為已經有外國的援助了。

And in fact, if you see oil-rich countries,

如果你看看產油國家，

where citizens are not yet empowered, the same thing goes --

那裡的人民也沒有自主權力，這是同樣的道理。

Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, all sorts of countries.

奈及利亞、沙烏地阿拉伯這些產油國都一樣，

Because the aid and oil or mineral money acts the same way.

因為外援就像石油或礦產一樣，已經幫他們創造出金錢了，

It empowers authorities, without activating the citizens --

這些錢壯大了當權者的實力，不需要人民出力，

their hands, legs, brains, what have you.

人民不需要出勞力，也不需要動腦力。

And if you agree with that, then I think the best way to improve these countries

如果你同意這一點，那麼我認為，要改善這些國家的經濟，

is to recognize that economic development is of the people,

最好的方法就是認清「經濟發展」這件事，其實是民主、

by the people, for the people.

民有、民享的。

And that is the real network effect.

這才是真正有效的方法。

If citizens can network and make themselves more organized and productive,

如果人民能夠組織起來，創造自己的生產力，

so that their voices are heard,

他們才能夠發聲讓別人聽見，

so then things would improve.

整件事才會有轉機。

And to contrast that, you can see the most important institution in the world,

相反的，這個世界上最重要的組織，

the World Bank, is an organization of the government,

是世界銀行，這個組織則是由政府把持、

by the government, for the governments.

為政府所用、為政府效力的。

Just see the contrast.

看看這個相反的例子。

And that is the perspective I have, and then I can start my story.

這就是我的看法，現在我可以開始我的演說了。

Of course, how would you empower citizens?

要怎麼讓人民擁有權力？

There could be all sorts of technologies. And one is cell phones.

有許多科技可供選擇，手機是其中之一。

Recently "The Economist" recognized this,

最近經濟學人雜誌發現了這一點，

but I stumbled upon the idea 12 years ago,

但我早在十二年前就發現了，

and that's what I've been working on.

而且我一直朝這個方向努力。

So 12 years ago, I was trying to be an investment banker in New York.

十二年前，我那時正打算成為一個紐約的投資銀行家，

We had -- quite a few our colleagues were connected by a computer network.

有許多同事都連上同一個電腦網路，

And we got more productive because we didn't have to exchange floppy disks;

這讓我們節省了許多時間，因為我們不必交換磁碟片，

we could update each other more often.

就能頻繁地幫別人更新資料。

But one time it broke down.

但有一次，網路當掉了，

And it reminded me of a day in 1971.

這讓我想起1971年的某一天，

There was a war going on in my country.

那時我的國家正有戰事發生，

And my family moved out of an urban place, where we used to live,

我的家人於是從原本居住的城市，

to a remote rural area where it was safer.

搬到較為安全的鄉村去。

And one time my mother asked me to get some medicine for a younger sibling.

有一次，我母親要我去為年幼的弟弟拿藥，

And I walked 10 miles or so, all morning, to get there, to the medicine man.

我走了一整個早上，走了大約十英哩(16公里)，才到藥師那裡，

And he wasn't there, so I walked all afternoon back.

但他竟然不在，所以我又花了一個下午走回來，

So I had another unproductive day.

那一天也是一樣，一事無成。

So while I was sitting in a tall building in New York,

所以，那天當我坐在紐約的高樓裡，

I put those two experiences together side by side,

我把這二個經驗放在一起比對，

and basically concluded that connectivity is productivity --

我發現原來「連結力」就是生產力，

whether it's in a modern office or an underdeveloped village.

不管你是在現代的辦公大樓裡，或是在未開發的鄉村裡都一樣。

So naturally, I -- the implication of that is

很自然地，我認為這件事背後所隱含的意義是，

that the telephone is a weapon against poverty.

電話是對抗貧窮的武器。

And if that's the case, then the question is

如果我的想法沒錯，那麼問題來了，

how many telephones did we have at that time?

以前那個年代，我們有多少電話？

And it turns out, that there was one telephone in Bangladesh

我發現，在以前那個年代，孟加拉每五百個人

for every 500 people.

才有一具電話，

And all those phones were in the few urban places.

而且所有的電話都集中在少數都市區域，

The vast rural areas, where 100 million people lived,

在有一億人口居住的廣大鄉村地區，

there were no telephones.

則連一具電話也沒有。

So just imagine how many man-months or man-years are wasted,

想想看，有多少人的時間是這樣被浪費的，

just like I wasted a day.

就像我那天一樣一事無成。

If you just multiply by 100 million people, let's say losing one day a month,

假設每個人每個月都會浪費一天，而我們有一億人口，

whatever, and you see a vast amount of resource wasted.

你會發現有天文數字的資源就這麼被浪費掉了。

And after all, poor countries, like rich countries, one thing we've got equal,

畢竟，窮國和富國間，只有一件事是平等的，

is their days are the same length: 24 hours.

那就是：我們一天都只有24個小時。

So if you lose that precious resource,

一旦我們浪費了時間，

where you are somewhat equal to the richer countries,

就和富裕國家的人民浪費了時間一樣，

that's a huge waste.

都是巨大的耗損。

So I started looking for any evidence that --

所以我開始研究，

does connectivity really increase productivity?

連結力是否真能提高生產力？

And I couldn't find much, really, but I found this graph produced by the ITU,

我找不到太多文獻，但是我找到這張由ITU所發布的圖表，

which is the International Telecommunication Union, based in Geneva.

ITU就是設在日內瓦的國際電訊協會，

They show an interesting thing.

他們的這張圖讓我看到了一件有趣的事。

That you see, the horizontal axis is where you place your country.

在橫軸上你可以找出你國家的位置，

So the United States or the UK would be here, outside.

像是美國或是英國，就在這邊比較外面的地方；

And so the impact of one new telephone,

而每裝設一具新的電話所產生的影響，

which is on the vertical axis, is very little.

就顯示在縱軸上，看起來沒什麼影響。

But if you come back to a poorer country, where the GNP per capita is,

但如果你的國家是較貧窮的國家，每人的國民生產毛額

let's say, 500 dollars, or 300 dollars,

大約是五百美金，或是三百美金，

then the impact is huge: 6,000 dollars. Or 5,000 dollars.

那麼一具新的電話產生的影響就很大了，有五千到六千美金這麼多。

The question was,

問題是：

how much did it cost to install a new telephone in Bangladesh?

在孟加拉裝一具新電話的成本是多少？

It turns out: 2,000 dollars.

大約是二千美金，

So if you spend 2,000 dollars, and let's say the telephone lasts 10 years,

所以如果你花了二千美金裝一具電話，假設可以用十年，

and if 5,000 dollars every year -- so that's 50,000 dollars.

每年可以產生五千美金的收入，十年下來就有五萬美金，

So obviously this was a gadget to have.

這具電話我們絕對應該要裝。

And of course, if the cost of installing a telephone is going down,

裝置電話的成本當然會逐年下降，

because there's a digital revolution going on,

因為數位科技總是不斷進步，

then it would be even more dramatic.

所以我們會看到更明顯的收入變化。

And I knew a little economics by then --

我知道那時有些經濟學家，

it says Adam Smith taught us that specialization leads to productivity.

像是亞當．史密斯就認為只有專精某項技術，才能提高生產力，

But how would you specialize?

但我們該如何去專精我們的技術？

Let's say I'm a fisherman and a farmer.

假設我是一個漁夫也是個農夫，

And Chris is a fisherman farmer. Both are generalists.

而克里斯也是一個漁夫兼農夫，我們二個都沒有專精技術，

So the point is that we could only -- the only way we could depend on each other,

所以最好的方式就是我們二個互相幫忙，

is if we can connect with each other.

但前提是我們二個得能先取得聯繫。

And if we are neighbors, I could just walk over to his house.

如果我們二個是鄰居，我可以直接走到他家去跟他談，

But then we are limiting our economic sphere to something very small area.

但我們的經濟活動範圍就會被限縮在一個很小的區域裡，

But in order to expand that, you need a river,

所以若要進行擴張，我就需要一條河、

or you need a highway, or you need telephone lines.

一條公路，或是一條電話線。

But in any event, it's connectivity that leads to dependability.

總之，要先能取得聯繫，才能互相幫忙，

And that leads to specialization.

也才能談所謂專精技術的問題，

That leads to productivity.

最後才能提升生產力。

So the question was, I started looking at this issue,

當我開始研究孟加拉的貧窮問題時，

and going back and forth between Bangladesh and New York.

我不斷地往返班孟加拉和紐約，

There were a lot of reasons people told me

我發現當地電話數量不足，

why we don't have enough telephones.

其實有各式各樣的原因，

And one of them is the lacking buying power.

其中一個原因是沒有錢，

Poor people apparently don't have the power to buy.

窮人當然沒有錢裝電話，

But the point is, if it's a production tool, why do we have to worry about that?

但如果那是生財工具，又有什麼好擔心的？

I mean, in America, people buy cars,

我是說，在美國，大家都買車子，

and they put very little money down.

而且只付一點點訂金；

They get a car, and they go to work.

拿到車子後，大家才能去上班，

The work pays them a salary;

上班才有薪水可領，

the salary allows them to pay for the car over time.

有了薪水才能定期支付汽車貸款，

The car pays for itself.

汽車本身就是生財工具。

So if the telephone is a production tool,

所以如果電話也是一項生財工具的話，

then we don't quite have to worry about the purchasing power.

我們應該不必擔心沒錢可以裝設才對。

And of course, even if that's true, then what about initial buying power?

但如果這個假設成立，還是得要付得出訂金才行啊...

So then the question is, why can't we have some kind of shared access?

為什麼我們不能讓大家共同擁有一具電話？

In the United States, we have -- everybody needs a banking service,

在美國，每個人都會使用銀行提供的服務，

but very few of us are trying to buy a bank.

但很少有人會真的去買下一間銀行，

So it's -- a bank tends to serve a whole community.

因為一間銀行就能服務整個社區，

So we could do that for telephones.

電話應該也可以共用才對。

And also people told me that we have a lot of important primary needs to meet:

在此同時，孟加拉的人還告訴我他們缺乏許多基本的

food, clothing, shelter, whatever.

食衣住行項目，

But again, it's very paternalistic.

但以家長教育小孩的角度來看，

You should be raising income

你得先讓這些人學會賺錢，

and let people decide what they want to do with their money.

才能讓這些人決定要怎麼使用這些錢。

But the real problem is the lack of other infrastructures.

真正的問題在於基礎建設的不足，

See, you need some kind of infrastructure to bring a new thing.

有了基礎建設，才會帶來新的事物。

For instance, the Internet was booming in the U.S.

舉例來說，網路在美國很盛行，

because there were -- there were people who had computers.

因為大部分的人都有電腦，

They had modems.

也有數據機，

They had telephone lines, so it's very easy to bring in a new idea, like the Internet.

還有電話線，所以像網路這種新概念才會如此風行。

But that's what's lacking in a poor country.

但在窮國就沒有這些東西，

So for example, we didn't have ways to have credit checks,

沒有人會幫我們審核信用額度，

few banks to collect bills, etc.

也沒有幾家銀行會收支票，沒有這些先進的服務。

But that's why I noticed Grameen Bank, which is a bank for poor people,

但我發現了鄉村銀行(Grameen Bank)，那是專為窮人設立的銀行，

and had 1,100 branches, 12,000 employees, 2.3 million borrowers.

有一千一百家分行，一萬二千個員工，二百三十萬筆貸款，

And they had these branches.

他們的分行真的很多，

I thought I could put cell towers and create a network.

我覺得我可以把基地台設在分行上面，這樣就形成了通訊網路。

And anyway, to cut the time short -- so I started --

好吧，長話短說，

I first went to them and said,

我去找他們說：

"You know, perhaps I could connect all your branches and make you more efficient."

「我可以幫你們把所有分行串連起來，讓你們更有效率。」

But you know, they have, after all, evolved in a country without telephones,

但我發現，既然他們可以在沒有電話的國家立足，

so they are decentralized. I mean, of course there might be other good reasons,

就表示他們不是靠集中管理成功的，雖然成為分散式的分行

but this was one of the reasons -- they had to be.

一定有其原因，但他們只想維持分散，

And so they were not that interested to connect all their branches,

所以對我的提議興趣缺缺，

and then to be -- and rock the boat.

各個分行都不願意特立獨行。

So I started focusing. What is it that they really do?

我開始思考，他們究竟是如何運作的呢？

So what happens is that somebody borrows money from the bank.

需要錢的人會去銀行借錢，

She typically buys a cow. The cow gives milk.

大部分的人是去買一隻牛，牛會生產牛奶，

And she sells the milk to the villagers, and pays off the loan.

再把牛奶賣給村民，就可以償還貸款了。

And this is a business for her, but it's milk for everybody else.

這對借錢的人來說是做生意，但對其他人來說就只是買牛奶而已。

And suddenly I realized that a cell phone could be a cow.

我突然聯想到手機也可以是一隻牛，

Because some way she could borrow 200 dollars from the bank,

這個人可以向銀行借二百美金，

get a phone and have the phone for everybody.

買一支手機，再提供給其他人使用，

And it's a business for her.

這就是做生意啊...

So I wrote to the bank, and they thought for a while, and they said,

所以我寫信給銀行，他們想了一陣子，回覆說：

"It's a little crazy, but logical.

「有點瘋狂，但還算合理，

If you think it can be done, come and make it happen."

如果你覺得行得通，就來試試看吧。」

So I quit my job; I went back to Bangladesh.

然後我就辭去工作，回到孟加拉，

I created a company in America called Gonofone,

我在美國成立了一家叫做Gonofone的公司，

which in Bengali means "people's phone."

孟加拉語的意思是「大家的電話」，

And angel investors in America put in money into that.

許多友善的美國投資人都願意一起投入資金。

I flew around the world.

我開始飛到世界各地，

After about a million -- I mean, I got rejected from lots of places,

飛了大約一百萬英哩--我被很多人拒絕，

because I was not only trying to go to a poor country,

因為我不只是想要在窮國做這個生意，

I was trying to go to the poor of the poor country.

而是在最窮最窮的國家裡做生意，

After about a million miles, and a meaningful --

所以在飛了一百萬英哩，掉了很多，

a substantial loss of hair, I eventually put together a consortium, and --

很多頭髮之後，我終於籌組成立了公司，

which involved the Norwegian telephone company,

挪威電信公司也是股東之一，

which provided the know-how,

他們提供有關手機業務的基本知識，

and the Grameen Bank provided the infrastructure to spread the service.

而鄉村銀行則提供分行來擴展我的服務。

To make the story short, here is the coverage of the country.

簡單來說，這是我們公司的覆蓋率，

You can see it's pretty much covered.

你可以看到很高的覆蓋率，

Even in Bangladesh, there are some empty places.

但即使在孟加拉，還是有一些地方沒有覆蓋到，

But we are also investing around another 300 million dollars this year

所以我們今年打算再投入三億美金，

to extend that coverage.

來擴展覆蓋率。

Now, about that cow model I talked about.

現在，來談談我想到的養牛的點子，

There are about 115,000 people who are retailing telephone services

有十一萬五千人提供電話服務

in their neighborhoods.

給他們的鄰居，

And it's serving 52,000 villages, which represent about 80 million people.

有五萬二千個鄉鎮有這種服務，也就是涵蓋了約八千萬人口，

And these phones are generating

而這些電話則幫我們公司

about 100 million dollars for the company.

每年創造約一億美金的營收，

And two dollars profit per entrepreneur per day, which is like 700 dollars per year.

每一個股東每天可以賺進二塊美金，一年就賺進七百美金。

And of course, it's very beneficial in a lot of ways.

這個生意為人們帶來了許多好處，

It increases income, improves welfare, etc.

為人們增加收入、改善福利等等。

And the result is, right now, this company is the largest telephone company,

現在，這間公司成為最大的電話公司，

with 3.5 million subscribers,

有三百五十萬個用戶，

115,000 of these phones I talked about --

剛才我所提到的十一萬五千支電話也在其中，

that produces about a third of the traffic in the network.

這些共用電話佔了約三分之一的電話流量。

And 2004, the net profit, after taxes --

2004年的稅後淨利--

very serious taxes -- was 120 million dollars.

我們繳了很多稅--稅後淨利是一億二千萬美金，

And the company contributed about 190 million dollars to the government coffers.

而這間公司也為政府的財政帶來約一億九千萬美金的收入。

And again, here are some of the lessons.

從這件事上，我們學到了很多：

"The government needs to provide economically viable services."

「政府必須為人民提供可發展經濟的服務」

Actually, this is an instance where private companies can provide that.

我們證明了私人企業也可以提供這類服務；

"Governments need to subsidize private companies."

「政府必須補助私人企業」

This is what some people think.

這是某些人的想法，

And actually, private companies help governments with taxes.

其實私人企業反而是幫助政府收到更多稅收；

"Poor people are recipients."

「窮人得靠人施捨」

Poor people are a resource.

窮人其實是未經開發的資源；

"Services cost too much for the poor."

「要花大錢才能為窮人提供服務」

Their involvement reduces the cost.

只要讓窮人參與，就能降低成本；

"The poor are uneducated and cannot do much."

「窮人未受教育，成不了大事」

They are very eager learners and very capable survivors.

他們其實很願意學習，也很懂得生存之道，

I've been very surprised.

我曾親身感受過他們的學習能力，

Most of them learn how to operate a telephone within a day.

大部分的人都能在一天之內學會操作手機；

"Poor countries need aid."

「窮國需要援助」

Businesses -- this one company has raised the --

我們這家公司已經幫--

if the ideal figures are even five percent true, this one company

即使這個數據只有5%的可信度，我們這家公司為國家

is raising the GNP of the country much more than the aid the country receives.

提昇的國民生產毛額，已經超過了外國的援助。

And as I was trying to show you, as far as I'm concerned,

而如同我前面所提到的，

aid does damages because it removes the government from its citizens.

我擔心外國的援助反而會幫倒忙，因為援助會讓政府遠離人民，

And this is a new project I have with Dean Kamen, the famous inventor in America.

所以我和Dean Kamen一起進行一項新計畫，他是美國著名的發明家，

He has produced some power generators,

他開發了一些發電機，

which we are now doing an experiment in Bangladesh,

我們現在正在孟加拉測試，

in two villages where cow manure is producing biogas,

我們在二個村莊裡測試，我們用牛糞所產生的天然瓦斯，

which is running these generators.

當做這些發電機的燃料，

And each of these generators is selling electricity to 20 houses each.

每一台發電機可以供電給二十個家庭，

It's just an experiment.

目前還在測試階段，

We don't know how far it will go,

我們不知道還要測試多久，

but it's going on.

但我們會做下去。

Thank you.

謝謝！