快讯
主页 > 国际商务 > 四十年的数据揭露了有关全球化的三个谣言

四十年的数据揭露了有关全球化的三个谣言

40 Years of Data Suggests 3 Myths About Globalization

四十年的数据揭露了有关全球化的三个谣言

Three beliefs about globalization have propagated since the early 1980s. First, that globalization leads to a reduction in global inequality. Second, that high income growth among the richest will lift the incomes of the poorest. Third, that there is no alternative to rising inequality without turning our backs on trade and technology. The recently released World Inequality Report, the first research study to comprehensively examine wealth and income inequality trends across rich and emerging countries over approximately 40 years, dispels these notions.

早在20世纪80年代就流传着关于全球化的三个观念。首先,全球化会减少全球的不平等。其次,富人的高收入状况会改善贫困人群的收入状况。第三,如果不依赖贸易和技术,不平等的状况是不可避免的。最近发布的《世界不平等报告》,首次通过全面研究发达国家和发展中国家40年间财富和收入的不平等趋势,消除了以上这些观念。

Globalization has led to a rise in global income inequality, not a reduction

全球化加剧了全球收入的不平等状况,而不是削弱了。

Inequality between individuals across the world is the result of two competing forces: inequality between countries and inequality within countries. For example, strong growth in China and India contributed to significant global income growth, and therefore, decreased inequality between countries. However, inequality within these countries rose sharply. The top 1% income share rose from 7% to 22% in India, and 6% to 14% in China between 1980 and 2016.

世界各地个体间的不平等是有两个因素作用的结果:国家间的不平等和国内的不平等。例如,中国和印度的强劲经济增长显著的改善了全球的收入水平,从而降低了国家间的不平等。但是,这两国国内的不平等状况却与日俱增。1980年至2016年间,两个国家前财富前1%的人群收入的占比,印度从7%上涨到22%,而中国则从6%上涨到14%。

Until recently, it has been impossible to know which of these two forces dominates globally, because of lack of data on inequality trends within countries, which many governments do not release publicly or uniformly. The World Inequality Report 2018 addresses this issue, relying on systematic, comparable, and transparent inequality statistics from high-income and emerging countries.

直到最近,由于许多政府不能发布或有效的发布有关不平等的数据,我们仍旧不清楚哪一个因素在全球更具影响力。《2018全球不平等报告》(尝试)通过研究高收入国家和发展中国家的系统性、可类比和简明的不平等统计数据解决这个问题。

The conclusion is striking. Between 1980 and 2016, inequality between the world’s citizens increased, despite strong growth in emerging markets. Indeed, the share of global income accrued by the richest 1%, grew from 16% in 1980 to 20% by 2016. Meanwhile the income share of the poorest 50% hovered around 9%. The top 1% – individuals earning more than $13,500 per month – globally captured twice as much income growth as the bottom 50% of the world population over this period.

报告的结论十分惊人。在1980至2016年间,尽管发展中国家的经济取得了先出增长,全球各地公民间的不平等状况不降反升。实际情况是,全球财富前1%人群的收入占比,从1980年的16%上升到2016年的20%。与此同时,半数贫困人群的占比一直徘徊在9%。前1%人群人均月收入为13500美元,其增长幅度是全球收入后50%人口增长的2倍。

Income doesn’t trickle down

收入并未发生涓滴(涓滴效应)

The second belief contests that high growth at the top is necessary to achieve some growth at the bottom of the distribution, in other words that rising inequality is necessary to elevate standards of living among the poorest. However, this idea is at odds with the data. When we compare Europe with the U.S., or China with India, it is clear that countries that experienced a higher rise in inequality were not better at lifting the incomes of their poorest citizens. Indeed, the U.S. is the extreme counterargument to the myth of trickle down: while incomes grew by more than 600% for the top 0.001% of Americans since 1980, the bottom half of the population was actually shut off from economic growth, with a close to zero rise in their yearly income. In Europe, growth among the top 0.001% was five times lower than in the U.S., but the poorest half of the population fared much better, experiencing a 26% growth in their average incomes. Despite having a consistently higher growth rate since 1980, the rise of inequality in China was much more moderate than in India. As a result, China was able to lift the incomes of the poorest half of the population at a rate that was four times faster than in India, enabling greater poverty reduction.

第二个观念是少数人群收入的高增长会分配到底层人群,换言之,不平等的增加可以提高贫困人群的生活水平。但是,这种观点却与数据相矛盾。当我们对比欧洲与美国,或中国与印度,都显示这些国家的不平等状况并没有因为经济学上的涓滴效应而得到改善。事实上,美国是个否定收入涓滴效应的极端佐证。自1980年起,其前0.001%人群的收入水平增涨了600%,而后50%人群的收入并未从增长中获益,其年收入的增长幅度几乎为0%。在欧洲,其前0.001%人群的收入增涨幅度约为美国的五分之一,但是后50%人群的状况好很多,出现了人均收入增长26%的局面。尽管自1980年开始经济经历了持续的高增长,中国的不平等的增长状况与印度相比更显温和,中国实现了收入的有效分配,其后50%人口的收入状况的增长幅度是印度的4倍,极大的消除了贫困状况。

The trickle-down myth may have been debunked, but its ideas are still rooted in a number of current policies. For example, the idea that high income growth for rich individuals is a precondition to create jobs and growth at the bottom continues to be used to justify tax reductions for the richest, as seen in recent tax reform in the U.S. and France. A closer look at the data demands we rethink the rationale and legitimacy of such policies.  

有关于经济涓滴效应的谣言已经揭穿,但是其思想却根深于众多的现有政策之中。例如,富人收入的增加能为低收入人群创造更多的就业岗位和收入增长,这种观点就被用来为富人减税而辩护,从最近美国和法国的税制改革就可见一斑。

Policy – not trade or technology – is most responsible for inequality

政策 – 而非贸易或技术 – 是不平等的元凶

It is often said that rising inequality is inevitable — that it is a natural consequence of trade openness and digitalization that governments are powerless to counter. But the numbers presented above clearly demonstrate the diversity of inequality trajectories experienced by broadly comparable regions over the past decades. The U.S. and Europe, for instance, had similar population size and average income in 1980 — as well as analogous inequality levels. Both regions have also faced similar exposure to international markets and new technologies since, but their inequality trajectories have radically diverged. In the U.S., the bottom 50% income share decreased from 20% to 10% today, whereas in Europe it decreased from 24% to 22%.

我们经常说不平等的增加是不可避免的 – 那是政府无力去阻止贸易开放和数字化的结果。但是以上数据表明,在过去的十多年状况类似的国家间,不平等状况的发展却呈现出了差异性。例如美国与欧洲,在1980年拥有类似的人口规模和人均收入,同时也处于相似的不平等水平,但是它们的不平等发展轨迹却差异显著。在美国,收入后50%的人群的收入占比从20%降到今天的10%。而欧洲则从24%降到现在的22%。

Rather than openness to trade or digitalization, it is policy choices and institutional changes that explain divergences in inequality. After the neoliberal policy shift of the early 1980s, Europe resisted the impulse to turn its market economy into a market society more than the US — evidenced by differences on key policy areas concerning inequality. The progressivity of the tax code — how much more the rich pay as a percentage — was seriously undermined in the U.S., but much less so in continental Europe. The U.S. had the highest minimum wage of the world in the 1960s, but it has since decreased by 30%, whereas in France, the minimum wage has risen 300%. Access to higher education is costly and highly unequal in the U.S., whereas it is free in several European countries. Indeed, when Bavarian policymakers tried to introduce small university fees in the late 2000s, a referendum invalidated the decision. Health systems also provide universal access to good-quality healthcare in most European countries, while millions of Americans do not have access to healthcare plans.

与其归因于贸易开放程度或数字化,不如说是政策选择和制度变化更能解释不平等发展轨迹的背离现象。在20世纪80年代新自由主义发生改变之后,与美国相比,欧洲减缓了其将市场经济市场社会转变的步伐 – 这点从影响到不平等的主要政策的差异性可以得到佐证。累进税制 – 富人按照百分比缴纳税款 – 在美国被严重的破坏, 这种情况在欧洲大陆却并不显著。在20世纪60年代,美国拥有全球最高的最低工资标准,但目前这一标准降低了30%,与之相对的法国,却上涨了300%。 在美国享受高等教育花费高昂且严重不平等,但在欧洲的许多国家是免费的。事实上,在2000年代末当,巴伐利亚的政策制定者尝试对大学教育收取少量费用时,一次全民公投否决了这份提案。在欧洲的许多国家,医疗体系保证了公众都能享受到高质量的医疗服务,于此同时,数百万的美国人不能享受到医疗保障计划。

Re-examining these pervasive beliefs around globalization and its impacts on global inequality is more important now than ever before. Using new data from the World Inequality Report is the first step in rectifying these myths and generating a new public discourse that has the potential to effect long-lasting, systemic change.

重新审视这些先前对于全球化普遍认可的观念以及对全球不平等的影响,变的前所未有的紧迫。首先要做的就是运用《全球不平等报告》的数据来纠正之前那些观念,并开展具有长远影响和系统性改变的新的探讨。

https://hbr.org/2018/03/40-years-of-data-suggests-3-myths-about-globalization

Lucas Chancel was the general coordinator of the World Inequality Report 2018. Codirector of the World Inequality Lab at the Paris School of Economics, he teaches at Sciences Po.

《全球不平等报告》下载地址:http://wir2018.wid.world/