 very much and welcome to my talk about delegating poverty. I bet in your life you have donated money to charities like the Retro-Saw, Doctor with Our Borders, or maybe you itself. But how do you know that your money is put to effective use? Maybe you're not the same. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Give a teacher man a fish and you feed him for a lifetime. And nowadays, most of the development assistance organizations work by anxiety and principle. But there are probably as many ways how to teach fishing as there are ways of fish. How do you know which ones are the best? This year's laureates of this ridiculous rig spectrum of economic sciences have been examined several ways how to teach fishing. And they have field tested them for effectiveness. They have applied a scientific method from another field of science to rank and evaluate those methods. And in this talk, I want to present to you what they did exactly and how they contributed in alleviating poverty. Let me first introduce a method how you can measure poverty. The GDP across the western corner in the economy usually is what can be used as a measure for the wealth of the country. As you see here, the definition says it is the monetary measure of all goods and services in the country, usually in the year. And in our case, we measure it by capital time. So this is the measure for the productivity of the country. And this is linked to luck. The more productive the country is, the richer it is usually. And with that, we can measure the wealth and therefore also the poverty. What you see here on this graph is the GDP of all the countries of the world. The data is from 2018. And as you can see, the purple and black countries here with a GDP of more than 20,000 US dollars, those are the so-called developed rich countries like the US or Canada, like Russia, like the rich European countries or Australia. On the other hand, we have some countries in Africa with very low GDP and also in India for example. And those are considered as developing countries as poor countries. Those are the ones, among others, where the aid money of development assistance organizations flow to. But there is a discrepancy. As you can see here in this chart, the aid money has increased massively in the last 50 to 60 years. In 1960, it was at roughly three to four billion mass dollars and it raised to almost 40 billion in 2006. Today's numbers are even higher. And at the same time, the GDP per capita of African countries has stayed more or less on the same level. It fluctuated between 400 and 600 billion dollars. So why is that? Or let's better ask the question, what would you expect? If you pump money into a country, you would expect that the people can sustain themselves better. If the basic needs, like food or shell job, are met at a certain level, then you would expect that the people get productive and that they get independent from the money. And then you would expect to see the GDP rising, like in the spring line. Who is in India? Raise your hands. Okay. And who is disagreeing? Okay, let's see. Well, I kind of asked a quick question. My apologies for that. I did that because I want to emphasize the importance of what comes next. What I just told you is just an assumption. We don't know if there is a relation between the GDP and the aid money. We have no means of comparing it here. We don't know how the GDP would have developed without the aid money. Maybe like this yellow line or also like the red line. We just don't know. The good thing is, there are possible answers to examine that. Scientists do that all the time. They first go on the data and have a look at it and then they make assumptions, like we did just now. And after that, they test those assumptions. And one possible test for such an assumption is called a randomized controlled trial. Imagine you want to test if there is a relation between GDP and aid money then we could, we were technically speaking, make a copy of this world. In one copy, it runs like it is right now. And in the other copy, we make some modifications. For example, increasing or decreasing the amount of aid money. And then we let run both copies for a few years or for a few decades now, for example. And after that, we have a look at the GDP and we see for ourselves. And this is what scientists call a randomized controlled trial. It's a scientific method to determine if a certain trial to improve something has an effect. Usually, this is used in other fields of science, like in pharma or physics, for example. In pharma, you can use this to see if the drug is working or not. Instead of copying the world, you divide the number of patients in the two groups. One group gets a new developed medicine and the other one gets a classical book. And after some time, you compare the patient with the wing and then you can tell if the drug is working or not and what the side effects are. Well, back to our big question on alleviating poverty. The laureates try to answer this big question by breaking it down into a number of smaller and more precise approaches. If you talk about alleviating poverty, there are underlying issues you can solve. Things like improving healthcare, providing education, or building up infrastructure. And that's what they did. They divided it into smaller questions and they used specifically designed free experiments to tackle all those questions. They used the randomized controlled trials to examine the methods they have invented and to test it for efficiency. They tackle each question with several approaches so they can compare. And in the remainder of this talk, I want to show you two examples from the sectors of healthcare and education so you can see what they did exactly and how. The healthcare sector was picked because of one particular reason. It is the death rate of children. In the developing country, as many children die in the age of five and the main reasons for that are diseases. There is also a method to tackle that and this is vaccination. Croco-vaccination can prevent diseases and deaths in so many cases. But still, the vaccination rate in developing countries is very low. In 2018, more than 10 billion children did not get any vaccination at all. The laureates picked the region of Udaipur, Rajasthan in India for their feed experiments because there, the vaccination rate was at only 1%. So what is the problem in that region? It's not about the medicine. Medicine is cheap and available. In the whole region, there are several medical sub-centers and they provide how many services for the vaccination. It is also not about the parents. They are willing to pay if a child which is not immunized gets sick. The parents are willing to pay a huge amount of money to cure the kid. The problem is those sub-centers, those medical sub-centers, they are not in every village and they are also not always open. This is an image of such a center. So imagine the mother and the village nearby. She has so many things to do to feed the family, so many things at hand. And for vaccinating the kids, they have to walk several miles, several hours and then the sub-center might be closed and they came there for nothing. So she tends to postpone the decision until eventually it is too late. And all of this leads to empty village sub-centers and drug hospitals. In logistics, they call it a last mile problem. It's just about bringing the vaccination to the meeting over the last mile, across the last mile and getting them from intention to action. The field insurance went down as follows. They divide in several villages into three groups. As you can see here, on this map, white is the control group. Don't change this when I'm here. In the green group, they provided additional mobile clinics to complement the medical sub-centers. So it was made more easy for the people to get vaccinated. And in the blue group, they even provided an additional pack of lentils for each vaccinated kid. But for the people in that region, the kilo of lentils is not much. They can't afford to buy that for themselves. So this was just a small deal, an incentive. And the reason for that was to test how much you can reach with just spending a little bit more. And the results, they were a strong group. In the white group, the vaccination rates take them in lower at roughly 6%. In the green group, it tripled to 18%. And in the blue group, we have an additional doubling for 39%. So the incentive for the lentils worked. It not only doubled the outcome, it also increased the cost for vaccination from 56 to $28. And this was due to the high fixed cost they had by providing those mobile clinics and the additional personnel. So the lentils helped to increase the capacity utilization of those clinics massively. The second example is all about how to get kids into school. Also here, there are several methods where the money is spent for. And the lawrence wanted to find out how effective they are. Also here, they divided several schools into groups. One was the control group. And in each other of those groups, they implemented one specific method to increase the number of years of education. The first one was providing extra resources, like more teachers. Then we have two other methods, which were giving the family some goods they usually have to pay for, like three school meals and three school uniforms. Especially the school meals were a candidate with high expectations because in so many regions, children were coming to school hungry all the time. Then we have providing scholarships. Another method is called Infos and Returns. Tell the families, the parents and the children of the benefits of education. It is kind of educating on education. And the last method is particularly interesting. In regions where the kids have intestinal worms, they cured the kids at school. It is a little bit like the insectifold lentils on the last ensemble. Cured someone from a worm in the bum hole is almost painless. And it is cheap if the medicine is available. It is just swallowed and killed for a few times. And this effect of getting cured or feeling better is then linked to going to school and becoming educated. So let's see how effective those methods were. It turned out that just providing the resources had very little effect. The three uniforms, the scholarships, the extra teachers, even the free school meals, they were not useless. But the deworming in comparison to that was so effective that they even liked to be campaigning in other regions of Africa where children suffer the same problem. And the best method was the Infos and Returns. Tell the people about the benefit of education. Giving people a reason why to work for a certain goal is apparently the best way to get done. The thing is, those results, they are not intuitive. There was so much money spent on the usual suspects. And now, as those randomized controlled trials, it is possible to renovate them. Companies put it on the tile. Firms spent millions of dollars for research, how to get better production, how to make more gains, more revenue. And now, it's impossible to do that in such an economics. So let me summarize what we found so far. In the beginning, there was this big question, how to alleviate poverty in the most effective way? The audience broke down this big question into a number of smaller and different approaches. They used the randomized controlled trials to test those approaches, to quantify them. And with that, they could also rank them on comparison to tell what is working and what is not and why. And with that, I'm at the end of my talk and I thank you very much for your attention. Thank you very much for your thoughts. So we're going to do the same thing now. So do you have any questions? There's a question in the middle, please. Hi. It's a great call. What happens more than the fact that in an education class, how does the fact that you can make it like with your normalist or... You'll ask about the fact or the efficiency of the second example, right? No, not tomorrow, but the efficient of the fact that you can make it. And we will test the previous problem. Yes. Yes. You mean this one? The fact that you can model it and it will be there. Ah, yes, okay. Well, usually, originally, this is a number which represents additional years of schooling per money, per hundred dollars. The lobbyists wanted to see if you spend one hundred dollars more, how many kids can get into school additionally? Not how many kids, but how many years of education can you provide additional? And as a inspector, so if you spend one hundred dollars, you get 40 years of additional schooling. It's a little abstract, so we decided for this talk to just write this fact down. But if you want to know more about this, I can tell you about the answer. If you have any more questions, please. There is a question there. Thank you very much. Is there anybody, can you tell about how this experiment affected the countries in which this experiment, these experiments have been devastating, but is there really some data about the benefit to the country and the benefits to the fish? Okay, so the question is if there is already some data about the effects of those methods. I must admit, I don't know actually, the data I have presented to you is from 2012. And also you might have noticed that the Trumpist GDP goes until 2006. And as far as I know, the laureates did their field experiments during the period of 20 years. So I assume in the beginning they noticed this pregnancy between GDP and development aid money was somewhere in the mid-1990s maybe, and then they did their field experiments. And they got the Nobel Prize 20 years after the Nobel Prize. So it has just happened recently. I must admit I have no information about any disseminations about proceedings or something like that. We have time for the last question. So please come here. So is there anything known for the risk of how these methods have been adopted by some countries? Later? So the question is if those methods have been adopted by countries? I know of one thing. This e-branding method, for example, it has been adopted in other countries of Africa and there was a big campaign called e-grounding.org. And this has run for several years. Right now the website is offline but it has been replaced by another campaign and they still do e-branding and they have also two or three other methods of eliminating poverty. I must admit I also don't know here if those other methods come from the laureates but they claim that they have also examined those methods and have examined them effectively. But the premise was in the e-branding and the premise was in the school? Yeah, right. They did it. So they did it in the school? They did it in conjunction with getting educated kids. Exactly the same as I did in India. Thank you very much. So yes, we need to conclude. Unfortunately, thank you very much. Thank you very much.