America’s inequality need not determine the future of Britain

英國比美國更平等？

America’s inequality need not determine the future of Britain

英國《金融時報》首席經濟評論員 馬丁·沃爾夫

“The poor you will always have with you,” said Jesus. Despite vast rises in wealth, mainly over the last century, this remains true today because we define poverty relatively. Some object to this judgment: has destitution not disappeared from high-income countries and is it not diminishing in the developing world? The answer is: yes, although much poverty remains. But we are social animals. As stomachs fill, we wish to participate fully in our societies. But rising inequality is in the way.

耶穌說：“你們將永遠與窮人相伴。”儘管財富大幅增長（這主要體現在上個世紀），但由於我們對貧困的定義是相對的，所以耶穌的話在今天仍然適用。有些人反對這一觀點：高收入國家的貧困現象難道沒有銷聲匿跡？發展中國家的貧困難道沒有日益減少嗎？答案是：確實如此，不過仍存在很多貧困現象。但我們都是“社會動物”。填飽肚子之後，我們就希望參與到社會生活的方方面面。然而，但是，不平等狀況的加劇卻成為了攔路虎。

As the US Congressional Budget Office noted in a fascinating recent study, for the 1 per cent of the population with the highest income, average real after-tax household income grew by 275 per cent between 1979 and 2007, reaching 17 per cent of the total. For the others in the top quintile of the distribution, average real after-tax household income grew by 65 per cent. For the 60 per cent in the middle (the 21st to 80th percentiles), the growth in average real after-tax household income was a little less than 40 per cent. For the bottom quintile, average real after-tax household income rose about 18 per cent. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development states that “the wealthiest Americans have collected the bulk of the past three decades’ income gains”. Moreover, it notes, most of these gains accrued to executives and finance professionals.

美國國會預算辦公室(CBO)在近來一份有趣的調查中指出，收入最高的1%人口——平均稅後實際家庭收入在1979年至2007年間增長了275%——占總收入的比例已達到了17%。而對於收入最高20%人群中的其他人而言，平均稅後實際家庭收入增幅為65%。處於中間的60%（21%至80%）人口，平均稅後實際家庭收入增長略低於40%。最貧困的20%人口，平均稅後實際家庭收入增幅為18%左右。經合組織(ECOD)表示，“在過去30年收入增長中，大部分落入了美國最富有人群的囊中。”此外，該機構還指出，這些收入增加的部分大多流向了企業高管和金融從業人員的腰包。

An important question is whether similar shifts are happening – or are likely to happen – in the UK and other high-income countries. This was the theme of a discussion sponsored by the UK’s Resolution Foundation in November.* The conclusion I drew was that, although the forces for greater inequality seen in the US were at work across the high-income countries – a point confirmed by the OECD’s recent analysis – outcomes differed in terms of levels and trends.**

一個重要的問題是，在英國和其他高收入國家，是否正出現（或有可能將出現）類似的變化？這正是英國決議基金會(Resolution Foundation)11月份發起的一次研討會的主題。*我得出的結論是：儘管在所有高收入國家，導致類似美國那種不平等加劇的力量也在發揮作用——經合組織近來的分析證實了這一觀點——但在結果上體現出了程度和趨勢的不同。**

The UK has been similar to the US, in both respects, over the past two decades. Inequality is far lower in, say, the Netherlands and Germany has hardly grown over the past two decades in, say, France. In 2005 the share of the top 1 per cent in pre-tax incomes varied from 5.6 per cent in the Netherlands and 6.3 per cent in Denmark and Sweden to 12.7 per cent in Canada, 14.3 per cent in the UK and 17.4 per cent in the US. Policies and social preferences – particularly the role of stock-driven rewards and of financial services, at the top – make a very big difference.

過去20年中，英美兩國在上述兩方面表現得都十分相似。比如說，不平等狀況在荷蘭和德國要輕微得多，而法國則在過去20年裏基本上沒有加劇。2005年，最頂端1%人群占稅前收入的比例，荷蘭為5.6%，丹麥和瑞典為6.3%，加拿大為12.7%，英國為14.3%，而美國為17.4%。政策和社會偏好——尤其是頂層人群在股票相關回報和金融服務業所扮演的角色方面——造成了非常大的差異。

It is also important to distinguish what is happening among the bulk of the population from trends at the top. It is as important to distinguish levels from changes: the US has always been relatively unequal. But much of the rise in inequality dates to the last century. Stephen Machin of the London School of Economics noted at Resolution’s seminar that the ratio of earnings at the middle of the distribution to that at the bottom has stabilised over the past decade. Again, the share of the top 1 per cent in the US was already 16.5 per cent in 2000, close to the 17.7 per cent reached in 2008. In the UK it was already 12.7 per cent in 2000.

另外，區分一下大多數人和頂端人群在趨勢上的不同也十分重要。而區分變化的幅度也是同樣重要：美國相對而言一直不太平等。但不平等加劇在很大程度上可以追溯到上個世紀。倫敦經濟學院(LSE)的史蒂芬•梅欽(Stephen Machin)在參加決議基金會主辦的研討會時指出，過去10年間，中等收入階層與底層的收入比例保持穩定。再看一下美國，其最富有的1%人群的收入占比到2000年已達16.5%，到2008年則接近17.7%。2000年時，英國的這一比例已達到12.7%。

What is driving developments? The OECD concludes, surprisingly perhaps, that “neither rising trade integration nor financial openness had a significant impact on either wage inequality or employment trends”. Technological changes are almost certainly more important, though the two forces are hard to distinguish. There are also more single-headed households and a greater tendency for high-earning men and women to form couples. But the higher dispersion of male earnings is even more important.

這些變化背後的推動力是什麼？經合組織得出的結論是（或許令人吃驚），“無論是日益緊密的貿易融合，還是金融開放，都沒有對薪酬不公或就業趨勢產生重大影響。”幾乎可以確定的是，技術變革更為重要，儘管兩種力量很難區分開來。單身家庭數量增多，高收入男女結婚的可能性增大。但男性收入分散度的上升則更為緊要。

People will disagree over why rising inequality matters and what should be done about it. I suggest it matters most, at least in the high-income countries because it both undermines hopes for any reasonable degree of equality of opportunity and cements the inequalities in power that have, in turn, allowed the preservation of a wide range of privileges, particularly in taxation.

對於不平等現象加劇之所以事關重大、以及本應採取何種對策，人們會有不同的看法。我認為，至少在高收入國家，不平等現象加劇最為緊要，因為它既摧毀了人們對於實現任何合理程度的機會均等的希望，也加固了權力上的不平等，進而使大範圍的特權得以保留，尤其在稅收方面。

These outcomes should matter even to those who have no concern for equality of outcome. I would add that some – perhaps a great deal – of the ultra-high incomes at the top are almost certainly the fruit of rent extraction facilitated by a breakdown in the control exercised by principals – outside investors – over their agents – corporate executives and financiers. Huge rewards then are both unjust and inefficient.

這種結果甚至對於那些不關心結果公平的人都具有重要意義。我想補充一點，有些人（或許非常多的人）能夠獲取處於頂層的超高收入，原因就在於委託人（外部投資者）對於其代理人（公司高管和金融家）的管理失控造成了抽租現象。一次巨額回報不但有失公平，同時也是無效的。

What is to be done? That demands a huge agenda. It must cover employment, education, corporate governance and financial reform and, however difficult, also elements of redistribution. It will be unavoidably divisive. So be it. This debate cannot be avoided if western democracies are to stay legitimate in the eyes of their peoples. That may not be true in the US. It is surely true in the UK. Warren Buffett has argued that “there’s been class warfare going on for the last 20 years and my class has won.” The remark has not made him popular with his peers. But he was surely right.

我們應當怎麼辦？我們需要一個宏大的議程。它必須涵蓋就業、教育、公司治理和金融改革，而且無論有多大困難，還應包括再分配的內容。這個議程將不可避免地導致分裂。那就由它去吧。如果西方民主國家想在本國民眾的眼中保持合法性，這場論爭不可避免。美國的情況或許並非如此。但在英國，情況就是這樣。沃倫•巴菲特(Warren Buffett)曾辯稱，“過去20年發生了一場階級鬥爭，我所屬的階級已在鬥爭中勝出。”此番言論沒有讓他受到同一階層的人的追捧。但巴菲特說得肯定沒錯。

譯者/邢嵬