《The Economist》《经济学人》中文版

Asia
Asia's rich and poor
For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more
亚洲之贫富：富者愈富[1]

Aug 9th 2007 | HONG KONG
From The Economist print edition

Income inequality in emerging Asia is heading towards Latin American levels
在新兴的亚洲，收入不平等水平正赶上拉美



“GROWTH with equity” was the mantra of the Asian tigers during the three decades to the 1990s. Unlike Latin America, most of them combined speedy economic growth with relatively low and sometimes even falling income inequality, thereby spreading the economic gains widely. More recently, Asian economies have continued to enjoy the world's fastest growth, but the rich are now growing richer much faster than the poor.
“公平的经济增长（growth with equity）”是亚洲各小虎在直至二十世纪九十年代的三十年间的箴言。与拉美不同，这些国家中的多数国家将快速的经济增长同相对较低（甚至有时下降）的 收入不平等结合到一起，从而使人们得以普遍享有经济成果。不过最近，尽管亚洲各国经济继续保有世界上最快的增长，但富国的富裕速度要比穷国快得多。

According to a report by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), income inequality has increased over the past decade or so in 15 of the 21 countries it has studied. The three main exceptions are Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia, the countries worst hit by the 1997 financial crisis. The biggest increases in inequality were in China, Nepal and Cambodia (see chart 1).
根据亚洲发展银行（Asian Development Bank，ADB）的一项报告显示，在它所调查的21个国家里，在过去约十年的时间里有15个国家的收入不平等程度加剧了。其它的三个例外是泰国、马来西 亚和印度尼西亚，它们也是受1997年金融风暴打击最严重的三国。收入不平等程度加剧最严重的是中国、尼泊尔和柬埔寨（见图表一）。

Income inequality is usually measured by a country's Gini coefficient, in which 0 is perfect equality (everyone has the same income) and 1 is perfect inequality (ie, one household takes everything). China's Gini coefficient rose from 0.41 in 1993 to 0.47 in 2004, the highest in Asia after Nepal (see chart 2).
收入不平等通常根据一国的基尼系数（Gini coefficient）[2]来衡量。基尼系数为0时表示完全平等（人人都收入相同），为1时表示完全不平等（也就是说，某一家庭占有了全部东西）。中 国的基尼系数1993年时为0.41，2004年提高到0.47，在全亚洲仅次于尼泊尔（见图表二）。

On this measure, China has more income inequality than America (whose Gini coefficient is 0.46). Governments in Beijing and elsewhere in Asia like to comfort themselves with the thought that they still have less inequality than Latin America does. Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Mexico all have Gini coefficients of considerably over 0.5; Brazil's is 0.57.
按照这一标准，中国的收入不平等超过美国（美国的基尼系数为0.46）。北京以及其它亚洲各国政府喜欢用本国不平等水平低于拉美的想法来自我安慰。阿根廷、巴西、智利以及墨西哥的基尼系数都大大超过0.5；巴西达到了0.57。

However, this may partly reflect differences in measurement. Gini coefficients in Latin America are based on income; those in Asia are mainly based on expenditure, because reliable income data are often not available. Using income data produces higher estimates of inequality in developing countries because it tends to understate the well-being of self-employed and agricultural workers, who are generally the poorest. In Asian countries where inequality data are available on both measures, the income coefficient is typically a fifth higher than that based on expenditure. Thailand's, for example, jumps from 0.43 to 0.52.
然而，这部分反映出标准的不同。在拉美，基尼系数是根据收入计算；而在亚洲，主要依据于支出，因为通常得不到可靠的收入数据。在发展中国家，利用收入数据 计算会导致不平等水平的高估，因为它往往对个体户和农民的安乐情况有所保留，这些人又通常是最贫穷的。在那些不平等数据可以从两种方式获得的亚洲国家里， 通过收入计算出的系数一般都要比基于支出计算出的高出五分之一。比如，泰国的基尼系数就会从0.43跳到0.52。



Infographics（信息图表）

This suggests inequality in many Asian countries could now be nudging Latin American levels if measured on a comparable basis. The figures in the chart are for 2004, but inequality has been rising in China, while in Brazil it has been falling over the past decade. Assuming this trend has continued, China's inequality may be as great as Brazil's already.
这就表明，如果采用类似的分析方法，许多亚洲国家的不平等程度如今可能正在接近拉美水平。图表里的数据是2004年的，在中国不平等日益扩大，而巴西则在过去十年里一直处于下降中。鉴于这一趋势一直在持续，中国的不平等程度可能已经同巴西差不多严重了。

Moreover, in some Asian countries, expenditure figures may understate the true extent of inequality. India's Gini coefficient is in the lower half of the chart, yet health and education measures suggest the country suffers from wide disparities. In the richest 20% of households, only 5% of children are severely underweight, compared with 28% in the poorest 20%—a wider gap than in countries which have higher Gini coefficients. In India's richest state 99.8% of the population has access to clean water, but only 2% does in the poorest. The comparable figures for China, where income inequality is officially much greater, are 100% and 75%.
此外，在一些亚洲国家，支出数字可能低估了真实的不平等程度。印度的基尼系数在图表中处于较低水平，然而健康和教育的评估表明，该国存在普遍的不平衡现 象。在最穷的20%家庭中，有28%的儿童体重严重不足，相比之下，在最富的20%的家庭中，对应的数字只有5%——这一差距要比基尼系数更高的国家更 大。在印度最富裕的邦，99.8%的人口可以饮用到清洁水，但在最穷的邦，这一数字只有2%。在官方公布的收入不平等程度更大的中国，相应的数字分别是 100%和75%。

The main cause of increased inequality, especially in China, is the differing fortunes of rural and urban households. Productivity—and hence income—is growing much more slowly in agriculture, on which most of the poor depend, than in manufacturing or services.
不平等加剧的主要原因在于农村与城市家庭命运的不同，在中国尤其如此。农业生产力——从而获得的收入——的增长要比制造业或服务业的慢得多，而前者正是大多数穷人的依赖所在。

A second factor is the widening gap between those with and without skills. The shift from socialism to a market economy in China and India has increased the financial benefits of an education. Across Asia, the opening up of economies also means that some high-skilled workers are now paid more in line with international rates.
第二个因数是有无技术之间日益扩大的差距。在中国和印度，从社会主义向市场经济的转变提高了教育的财政受益。在整个亚洲，经济的开放意味着高技能工人的酬劳更加与国际水平一致。

Does rising inequality matter so long as poverty is falling? It is clear that Asia's poor have not been bypassed by growth—popular claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Even where inequality has increased sharply, the poorest 20% of households are still better off in real terms than they were ten years ago everywhere except in Pakistan. The number of people living on less than $1 a day has fallen everywhere except in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Indeed, poverty has fallen by much more in some countries with high and rising inequality than in more egalitarian ones. The share of India's population living on less than $1 a day fell from 42% in 1993 to 35% in 2004. China saw a sharper fall, from 28% to 11%, largely thanks to faster growth.
既然贫困在减少，那么日益扩大的不平等还重要么？很显然，亚洲的穷人并未因为增长而被忽视——尽管流行的说法与此相反。除了巴基斯坦，即便是在不平等程度 急剧增大的国家，最贫穷的20%家庭的实际生活水平仍要比10年前好很多。除了巴基斯坦和孟加拉国，各国日生活费用不到1美元的人口数字已经减少。事实 上，相比更加平等的一些国家，一些不平等水平较高并仍在增大的国家的贫困减少得更多。印度日生活费用不足1美元的人口比例从1993年的42%降低到 2004年的35%。中国降低得更快。从28%降到了11%，这主要得利于更加快速的增长。

But even if poverty has continued to fall despite rising inequality, it may not have dropped as fast as it might have if economic gains had been more equally distributed. The other main reason to worry about widening inequality, says the ADB, is that it can threaten growth if it results in social unrest. High and rising inequality played a big role in Nepal's recent troubles. Rumblings of discontent across the region suggest governments cannot afford to ignore such risks.
但是即便在不平等日益扩大的同时贫困持续得以下降，它可能不如在更加公平地分配经济收益的情况下降低得那么快。亚发行认为，担忧不平等加剧的另一个主要理 由是，如果它导致社会动荡不安的话，它可能危及经济增长。不平等水平较高并不断扩大在尼泊尔近来的动乱中起到很大的作用。该地区轰雷震天般的不满表明，政 府承受不起忽视这一危机的后果。

How to help—maybe
如何补救——或许可以

Populist measures to soak the rich are not the answer: they would stunt growth. The ADB instead recommends governments focus on policies that lift the incomes of the poor, such as improving rural access to health, education and social protection. More investment in rural infrastructure could boost productivity in farming and increase job opportunities for the poor.
向富人强索的民粹主义措施并非答案：可能阻碍经济增长。亚发行则建议各国政府将注意力集中在提高穷人收入的政策上，比如改善农村的卫生保健、教育和社会保障。对农村基础设施的更多投资可以提高农业生产力，并扩大穷人的就业机会。

But that is easier said than done. Rajiv Gandhi famously remarked that only 15% of government money intended for India's poor ever reached them. Most of it leaks out in bureaucratic incompetence or corruption—fattening the wallets of those who are already well-to-do.
不过说易行难。拉杰夫·甘地（Rajiv Gandhi）曾说过一句著名的话：原本用以发放给印度穷人的政府款项中，只有15%最终能到达他们手中。其中大多数耗费在官僚主义的无能和腐败中——肥了那些已经富足的人的口袋。

[1]文题语出《圣经·新约·马太福音·廿五章》：For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.（凡有的，还要加给他，叫他有馀。没有的，连他所有的，也要夺过来。）也即著名的“马太效应（Matthew Effect）”，意指好的愈好，坏的愈坏，多的愈多，少的愈少的一种现象。美国科学史研究者罗伯特·莫顿(Robert K. Merton)归纳“马太效应”为：任何个体、群体或地区，一旦在某一个方面（如金钱、名誉、地位等）获得成功和进步，就会产生一种积累优势，就会有更多 的机会取得更大的成功和进步。

[2] Gini coefficient，基尼系数，意大利经济学家基尼于1922年提出的，定量测定收入分配差异程度，国际上用来综合考察居民内部收入分配差异状况的一 个重要分析指标。其经济含义是：在全部居民收入中，用于进行不平均分配的那部分收入占总收入的百分比。基尼系数最大为“１”，最小等于“０”。前者表示居 民之间的收入分配绝对不平均，即100％的收入被一个单位的人全部占有了；而后者则表示居民之间的收入分配绝对平均，即人与人之间收入完全平等，没有任何 差异。按照国际惯例，基尼系数在0.2以下，表示居民之间收入分配“高度平均”，0.2~0.3之间表示“相对平均”，在0.3~0.4之间为“比较合 理”，同时，国际上通常把0.4作为收入分配贫富差距的“警戒线”，认为0.4~0.6为“差距偏大”，0.6以上为“高度不平均”。