穷人越穷,富人越富.docx

For richer, for poorer穷者愈穷 富者愈富

Growing inequality is one of the biggest social, economic and political challenges of our time. But it is not inevitable, says Zanny Minton Beddoes
贫富差距越来越大，这是当今时代最大的社会经济政治问题之一。笔者以为，这个问题是可以解决的。（经济学人编辑：坚尼•明顿-布多伊斯）
Oct 13th 2012 | from the print edition
•       
•       

IN 1889, AT the height of America’s first Gilded Age, George Vanderbilt II, grandson of the original railway magnate, set out to build a country estate in the Blue Ridge mountains of North Carolina. He hired the most prominent architect of the time, toured the chateaux of the Loire 【2for inspiration, laid a railway to bring in limestone from Indiana and employed more than 1,000 labourers. Six years later “Biltmore”【1】 was completed. With 250 rooms spread over 175,000 square feet (16,000 square metres), the mansion was 300 times bigger than the average dwelling of its day. It had central heating, an indoor swimming pool, a bowling alley, lifts and an intercom system at a time when most American homes had neither electricity nor indoor plumbing.

1889年，正是美国第一个黄金时代的巅峰。铁路大亨的孙子，George Vanderbilt二世决定要在北卡罗来纳州，蓝岭山脉修建一座庄园。他雇了当时最有名的建筑师，游历法国著名的卢瓦河谷古堡群，从中汲取灵感。为了从印第安纳州运石灰岩，他甚至铺设了一条铁路，雇佣了上千名工人。历时六年，比特摩尔庄园竣工，占地面积17万5000平方英尺（1万6000平方米），总共有250个房间。城堡的面积是当时普通人房子的300倍以上，拥有中央供暖系统，室内游泳池，保龄球场，电梯，内部通话设备，而当时普通美国家庭连供电和抽水马桶都没有。

A bit over a century later, America’s second Gilded Age has nothing  quite like 【3】the Vanderbilt extravaganza. Bill Gates’s home near Seattle is full of high-tech gizmos, but, at 66,000 square feet, it is a mere 30 times bigger than the average modern American home. Disparities in wealth are less visible in Americans’ everyday lives today than they were a century ago. Even poor people have televisions, air conditioners and cars.

过了大约一个世纪之后，第二个黄金时代同之前的奢华不尽相同。比尔盖茨坐落在西雅图郊区的家里面全是高科技的玩意。不过它总面积有6万6000平方英尺，光这就是普通人家的30倍还多。相比一个世纪之前，在美国人的日常生活中，贫富悬殊并不是很容易看出来。现在穷人家里也有电视、空调、汽车了。（楼主躺着中枪了，呜呜）

But appearances deceive. The democratisation of living standards has masked a dramatic concentration of incomes over the past 30 years, on a scale that matches, or even exceeds, the first Gilded Age. Including capital gains, the share of national income going to the richest 1% of Americans has doubled since 1980, from 10% to 20%, roughly where it was a century ago. Even more striking, the share going to the top 0.01%—some 16,000 families with an average income of $24m—has quadrupled, from just over 1% to almost 5%. That is a bigger slice of the national pie than the top 0.01% received 100 years ago.

但是眼见未必为真。在过去的三十年里，民主制度掩盖了财富的高度集中，贫富差距比100年前丝毫不差，甚至还增加了。如果加上资本带来的收益，美国1%最富有的人拥有的财富占全国财富的比例自1980年已经翻了一番，从一成上升至两成，基本上和100年前相当。更令人震惊的是，最最富有的0.01%-大概是1万6000个平均收入超过2400万美元的家庭——他们的收入比例翻了两番【4】，从1%涨到了将近5%。他们分到的蛋糕比一个世纪以前还大块。

This is an extraordinary development, and it is not confined to America. Many countries, including Britain, Canada, China, India and even egalitarian Sweden, have seen a rise in the share of national income taken by the top 1%. The numbers of the ultra-wealthy have soared around the globe. According to Forbes magazine’s rich list, America has some 421 billionaires, Russia 96, China 95 and India 48. The world’s richest man is a Mexican (Carlos Slim, worth some $69 billion). The world’s largest new house belongs to an Indian. Mukesh Ambani’s 27-storey skyscraper in Mumbai occupies 400,000 square feet, making it 1,300 times bigger than the average shack in the slums that surround it.

贫富差距的演变是惊人的，而且不仅仅局限于美国。英国，加拿大，中国，印度，甚至是宣扬平等主义的瑞典，最富的1%占国民财富的比例都上升了。全球的巨富人数飙升。根据福布斯杂志公布的富人排行，美国有421人拥有超过十亿美元，俄罗斯96人，中国95人，印度48人。世界首富来自墨西哥（卡洛斯斯利姆 ，690亿美元）。世界最大的别墅在印度。穆克什•安巴尼在孟买的别墅有27层之高，总面积40万英尺，是周围那些平民窟棚屋的1300倍。

The concentration of wealth at the very top is part of a much broader rise in disparities all along the income distribution. The best-known way of measuring inequality is the Gini coefficient, named after an Italian statistician called Corrado Gini.【5】 It aggregates the gaps between people’s incomes into a single measure. If everyone in a group has the same income, the Gini coefficient is 0; if all income goes to one person, it is 1.

财富向最富裕的人群集中，仅仅是收入分分配不均不断加剧的一个方面。衡量贫富差距最知名的方式就是基尼系数，以意大利统计学家科拉多基尼的名字命名。他将人们收入差距整合为单一的度量标准。如果每个人收入都一样，基尼系数就是0 ，如果全部的财富都属于一个人，系数就是1.

The level of inequality differs widely around the world. Emerging economies are more unequal than rich ones. Scandinavian【6】 countries have the smallest income disparities, with a Gini coefficient for disposable income of around 0.25. At the other end of the spectrum the world’s most unequal, such as South Africa, register Ginis of around 0.6. (Because of the way the scale is constructed, a modest-sounding difference in the Gini ratio implies a big difference in inequality.)

全球贫富不均的程度有着天壤之别。新兴国家要比发达国家更加不平等。北欧的国家差距最小，可支配收入的基尼系数只有0.25。而另一个极端，最不平等的国家，比如南非数据显示的基尼系数大概是0.6（由于衡量标准的问题，基尼系数细微的变化即表示巨大的贫富差距）

Income gaps have also changed to varying degrees. America’s Gini for disposable income is up by almost 30% since 1980, to 0.39. Sweden’s is up by a quarter, to 0.24. China’s has risen by around 50% to 0.42 (and by some measures to 0.48). The biggest exception to the general upward trend is Latin America, long the world’s most unequal continent, where Gini coefficients have fallen sharply over the past ten years. But the majority of the people on the planet live in countries where income disparities are bigger than they were a generation ago.

各地的收入分配不均也发生了不同程度的变化。从1980年至今，美国可支配收入基尼系数上涨了三成，为0.39。瑞典上涨25%，为0.24.中国涨了50%，为0.42（也有数据显示是0.48）。在基尼系数疯涨的潮流中，拉丁美洲却是最大的例外。它曾经是最贫富不均的大洲，但在过去十年基尼系数骤然下降 。不过，世界大部分的人民所生活的地方分配不均都比上一代人更为严重

That does not mean the world as a whole has become more unequal. Global inequality—the income gaps between all people on the planet—has begun to fall as poorer countries catch up with richer ones. Two French economists, François Bourguignon 【8】and Christian Morrisson, have calculated a “global Gini” that measures the scale of income disparities among everyone in the world. Their index shows that global inequality rose in the 19th and 20th centuries because richer economies, on average, grew faster than poorer ones. Recently that pattern has reversed and global inequality has started to fall even as inequality within many countries has risen. By that measure, the planet as a whole is becoming a fairer place. But in a world of nation states it is inequality within countries that has political salience【7】, and this special report will focus on that.

不过，不是说整个世界变得更不平等了。全球的不平等——全世界的收入差距已经随着穷国迎头赶上富裕的国家而下降。两位法国经济学家，弗朗索瓦•布吉尼翁和克里斯蒂娜莫里森统计了全球基尼系数，衡量全球人民的贫富差距。数据显示，在19世纪和20世纪，发达国家的整体发展速度高于穷国，全球基尼系数上升。目前局势得到了扭转，即便在国家内部基尼系数升高的情况下，全球的基尼系数仍然下降了。不过，世界是由国家组成的，国内的不平等才具有政治意义。因此，本文将重点放在各国内部。

From U to N从U到N
The widening of income gaps is a reversal of the pattern in much of the 20th century, when inequality narrowed in many countries. That narrowing seemed so inevitable that Simon Kuznets, a Belarusian-born Harvard economist, in 1955 famously described the relationship between inequality and prosperity as an upside-down U. According to the “Kuznets curve”【9】, inequality rises in the early stages of industrialisation as people leave the land, become more productive and earn more in factories. Once industrialisation is complete and better-educated citizens demand redistribution from their government, it declines again.

收入分配不均的扩大，正与20世纪相反，那时许多国家的收入差距都在减小。这似乎是不可避免的，因此在1955年，一位生于白俄罗斯的哈佛经济学家库兹涅茨将分配不均与经济繁荣的关系画成著名的倒U曲线。根据库兹涅茨曲线，在工业化的初期，人们背井离乡，生产率增加，人们在工厂获得更多的报酬，这时收入差距处于上升中。一旦工业化完成，受过高等教育的公民要求政府二次分配财富，收入差距又缩小了。

Until 1980 this prediction appeared to have been vindicated. But the past 30 years have put paid to the Kuznets curve, at least in advanced economies. These days the inverted U has turned into something closer to an italicised N, with the final stroke pointing menacingly upwards.

到1980年的时候，倒U的假设还是正确的。但是过去的三十年让倒U理论神话不再，至少在发达国家身上得不到应验。这些年，倒U曲线似乎变成了斜体的N，最后的那段斜线还在显著的上升。

Although inequality has been on the rise for three decades, its political prominence is newer. During the go-go years before the financial crisis, growing disparities were hardly at the top of politicians’ to-do list. One reason was that asset bubbles and cheap credit eased life for everyone. Financiers were growing fabulously wealthy in the early 2000s, but others could also borrow ever more against the value of their home.

尽管收入不平等已经持续上升了30年，但它对于政治的影响力却是崭新的。在金融危机之前，那些年经济蓬勃的时候，政治家们亟待解决的问题从来都不是收入分配不均。原因之一是房产泡沫和便宜的信贷让每个人都得以轻松的生活。新千年的头几年，银行家都赚的盆满钵满，令人瞠目。普通人也能贷到超过抵押房产价值的钱。

That changed after the crash. The bank rescues shone a spotlight on the unfairness of a system in which affluent bankers were bailed out whereas ordinary folk lost their houses and jobs. And in today’s sluggish economies, more inequality often means that people at the bottom and even in the middle of the income distribution are falling behind not just in relative but also in absolute terms.

这一切在金融危机之后化为泡影。对银行的救助让不平等的分配系统站在了聚光灯下。富裕的银行家获得了救助，而普通人却没有了自己的家，丢掉了工作。在如今的经济萧条里，不平等越来越严重，与富人相比，底层、中产越来越穷，这不仅仅体现在相对数量上，甚至体现在绝对数量上。

The Occupy Wall Street campaign proved incoherent and ephemeral, but inequality and fairness have moved right up the political agenda. America’s presidential election is largely being fought over questions such as whether taxes should rise at the top, and how big a role government should play in helping the rest. In Europe France’s new president, François Hollande, wants a top income-tax rate of 75%. New surcharges on the richest are part of austerity programmes in Portugal and Spain.

占领华尔街运动虽然只是昙花一现，但是解决不公平的问题已经成为政治头等大事。美国总统选举争论的议题主要集中在是否对富人加税，以及政府在帮助穷人时应该发挥多大的作用。欧洲，法国新上任的总统，想对富人征收75% 的税。在葡萄牙还有西班牙，紧缩措施中包括对富人征收附加税。

Even in more buoyant emerging economies, inequality is a growing worry. India’s government is under fire for the lack of “inclusive growth”【10】and for cronyism that has enriched insiders, evident from dubious mobile-phone-spectrum auctions and dodgy mining deals. China’s leaders fear that growing disparities will cause social unrest. Wen Jiabao, the outgoing prime minister, has long pushed for a “harmonious society”.

相比发达世界，欣欣向荣的新兴经济体也越来越担心不平等问题。从值得怀疑的移动通讯经营范围拍卖和猫腻丛生的的矿产交易，印度缺少“包容性增长”而且任人唯亲，滋长内部人员腐败，印度政府遭受了猛烈的批评。中国的领导人也担心贫富差距的增大会引发社会骚乱。即将离任的温家宝总理长期推行着构建和谐社会的政策。

Many economists, too, now worry that widening income disparities may have damaging side-effects. In theory, inequality has an ambiguous relationship with prosperity. It can boost growth, because richer folk save and invest more and because people work harder in response to incentives. But big income gaps can also be inefficient, because they can bar talented poor people from access to education or feed resentment that results in growth-destroying populist policies.

还有为数众多的经济体担心收入差距的进一步扩大会带来严重的副作用。理论上说，收入不平等与经济繁荣之间的关系是复杂的。一方面，它促进经济增长，因为富人有更多的投资和储蓄，而且刺激人们努力工作。另一反面，它又是无用的，因为它剥夺了有才能的穷人受教育的权利，滋长反对情绪，引发民粹主义政策，对经济增长不利。

The mainstream consensus has long been that a growing economy raises all boats, to much better effect than incentive-dulling redistribution. Robert Lucas, a Nobel prize-winner, epitomised the orthodoxy when he wrote in 2003 that “of the tendencies that are harmful to sound economics, the most seductive and…poisonous is to focus on questions of distribution.”

人们达成的主流共识是惠及全民的经济增长会比再度分配财富更好，后者带来消极的刺激。而诺奖得主，罗伯特卢卡斯挑战了这一正统观点，在2003年他写道：在发展健康经济的不利因素中，最容易犯的，也是最不好的就是专注于分配问题。

But now the economics establishment has become concerned about who gets what. Research by economists at the IMF suggests that income inequality slows growth, causes financial crises and weakens demand. In a recent report the Asian Development Bank argued that if emerging Asia’s income distribution had not worsened over the past 20 years, the region’s rapid growth would have lifted an extra 240m people out of extreme poverty. More controversial studies purport to link widening income gaps with all manner of ills, from obesity to suicide.

但是现在这些经济机构都开始关心分配问题。世界货币基金组织的经济学家发表的研究显示，收入不均会降低经济增速，引发经济危机，削弱需求。最近亚洲发展银行报告也显示，如果过去20年分配情况未发生恶化的话，亚洲地区经济的高速发展将使更多人脱离赤贫，可能有24亿人。还有更多有争议性的报告把收入差距扩大和各种疾病联系起来，包括肥胖或是自杀。

The widening gaps within many countries are beginning to worry even the plutocrats. A survey for the World Economic Forum meeting at Davos pointed to inequality as the most pressing problem of the coming decade (alongside fiscal imbalances). In all sections of society, there is growing agreement that the world is becoming more unequal, and that today’s disparities and their likely trajectory are dangerous.

甚至连许多国家的富裕阶层也开始担心收入分配问题。达沃斯世界经济论坛开展的一项调查显示，下个十年最紧迫的问题就是解决不平等问题（还有财政赤字）。各个阶层的人都认为世界变得越来越不平等。分配失衡以及恶化的趋势都十分危险。

Not so fast
That is too simplistic. Inequality, as measured by Gini coefficients, is simply a snapshot of outcomes. It does not tell you why those gaps have opened up or what the trend is over time. And like any snapshot, the picture can be misleading. Income gaps can arise for good reasons (such as when people are rewarded for productive work) or for bad ones (if poorer children do not get the same opportunities as richer ones). Equally, inequality of outcomes might be acceptable if the gaps are between young people and older folk, so may shrink over time. But in societies without this sort of mobility a high Gini is troubling.

以上是把问题简单化了。用基尼系数衡量的分配不平等，仅仅是整个事件的缩影。它无法告诉你不平等的原因也无法了解随着时间变迁，问题发生了什么变化。同所有的快照一样，看到的东西可能会让你误入歧途。收入分配增加的背后可能是好的原因，（比如说这是人们由于勤奋工作获得的奖励），也可能是不好的原因（比如穷人的孩子得不到同富二代一样的机会）。类似情况还有收入差距可能是在年轻人和老人之间，这种差距会随着时间消弭。但如果一个社会缺乏由穷到富的流动，基尼系数高就十分棘手。

Some societies are more concerned about equality of opportunity, others more about equality of outcome. Europeans tend to be more egalitarian, believing that in a fair society there should be no big income gaps. Americans and Chinese put more emphasis on equality of opportunity. Provided people can move up the social ladder, they believe a society with wide income gaps can still be fair. Whatever people’s preferences, static measures of income gaps tell only half the story.

一些社会更看重机会的平等，而另一些更注重结果。欧洲人似乎要更推崇平均主义，他们认为一个健康的社会不应该存在巨大的收入差距。美国人和中国人更看重机会均等。如果阶级的流动不存在问题，他们认为即便社会收入差距很大也可以称之为公平。无论人们倾向哪一种，单靠数据衡量分配情况是不全面的。

Despite the lack of nuance, today’s debate over inequality will have important consequences. The unstable history of Latin America, long the continent with the biggest income gaps, suggests that countries run by entrenched wealthy elites do not do very well. Yet the 20th century’s focus on redistribution brought its own problems. Too often high-tax welfare states turned out to be inefficient and unsustainable. Government cures for inequality have sometimes been worse than the disease itself.

尽管细节不详，对不平等的热议将带来深远的影响。长期处于巨大收入差距中的拉丁美洲，它命运多舛的历史告诉我们，由富人把持的国家无法有效发展。但是20世纪一些国家执着于分配也带来新的问题。高税收、高福利国家的缺乏效率、不可持续的弊端已经不是什么新鲜事了。政府采取控制不平等的措施，带来的恶果甚至超过问题本身。

This special report will explore how 21st-century capitalism should respond to the present challenge; it will examine the recent history of both inequality and social mobility; and it will offer four contemporary case studies: the United States, emerging Asia, Latin America and Sweden. Based on this eviden