全球不平等正在缩小-这值得庆祝
正文翻译
题图：印度绝对贫困人口数量的大幅下降，堪称世界历史上人类福祉最显著的改善之一。
Imagine that across the length and breadth of America, working-class wages grew much faster than the incomes of millionaires. Rustbelt states started catching up with their more prosperous coastal counterparts. But these developments came with a caveat: greater income inequality in Beverly Hills. The pay cheque gap between Leonardo DiCaprio and his supporting cast increased. Superhero sequels crushed indie movies at the box office.
试想一下，在全美各地，工人阶级的工资增长速度远远超过百万富翁的收入增长速度。铁锈地带各州开始赶上更繁荣的沿海各州。但这些发展也伴随着一个警告：比佛利山庄的收入不平等加剧。莱昂纳多-迪卡普里奥和他的配角们之间的收入差距拉大了。超级英雄续集票房碾压独立电影。
Taken as a whole, these developments would be cause for joyous celebration. Few would shed a tear for the Golden Globe nominees falling further behind their Oscar-winning colleagues.
从整体上看，这些进展值得欢庆。很少有人会为金球奖提名影片落后于奥斯卡获奖影片而流泪。
Something analogous to this happy fiction has been happening at a worldwide level over roughly the past half century. While the public discourse focuses overwhelmingly on rising domestic inequality in western countries, global inequality has fallen sharply, primarily due to the rise of two Asian giants, China and India. In 1980, the two countries accounted for almost 40 per cent of the world population but only 5 per cent of world income. Today they still make up roughly the same share of global population, but account for a much larger 25 per cent of global income. The global income distribution remains unequal, but not nearly as unequal as it used to be.
大约在过去的半个世纪里，世界范围内一直在发生着类似于这种美好幻想的事情。虽然公众讨论的焦点绝大多数集中在西方国家国内不平等现象的加剧上，但全球不平等现象却急剧下降，这主要归功于中国和印度这两个亚洲巨人的崛起。1980年，这两个国家的人口占世界人口的近40%，但收入仅占世界收入的5%。今天，这两个国家在全球人口中所占的比例仍然大致相同，但在全球收入中所占的比例却高得多，达到25%。全球收入分配仍然不平等，但已不像过去那么不平等。
Since they started liberalising their economies in the late 20th century, both China and India have been utterly transformed from the plodding and insular economies they used to be. In neither country was liberalisation a once-and-for-all event; reforms gathered speed at times and subsided or even went into reverse at others. Nonetheless, the overall trajectory has been unmistakable.
自20世纪末开始实行经济自由化以来，中国和印度都彻底改变了过去那种步履蹒跚、闭关锁国的经济状况。在这两个国家，自由化都不是一劳永逸的；改革时而加速，时而减弱，甚至倒退。然而，总体轨迹是明确无误的。
Both countries registered a step-increase in GDP growth post liberalisation compared with previous decades. More important, the new economic dynamism lifted all boats. Although both countries saw an increase in inequality after liberalising, there was nonetheless rapid income growth even at the bottom of the income distribution. The steep fall in the number of people living in absolute poverty in China and India must count as one of the most dramatic improvements in human welfare in the history of the world. Together, the two countries were responsible for lifting an astonishing 1.1bn people above the international poverty line over the past four decades.
与前几十年相比，这两个国家在自由化后的国内生产总值增长都有了质的飞跃。更重要的是，新的经济活力使所有的人都受益。虽然自由化后两国的不平等现象都有所加剧，但即使在收入分配的最底层，收入也在快速增长。中国和印度的绝对贫困人口数量急剧下降，这是世界历史上人类福祉最显著的改善之一。在过去的四十年里，这两个国家共使11亿人脱离了国际贫困线。
Over the same period, income inequality rose sharply in the west, so much so that it now dominates the political discourse and is one of the chief culprits behind a resurgent populism on both sides of the Atlantic. In most OECD countries the labour share of income has declined substantially in recent decades, with the gains from economic growth accruing disproportionately to the owners of capital and the highly educated. A vivid illustration is provided by the US, where GDP per capita has more than doubled since the mid-1980s, but median household income has risen by only about 30 per cent.
在同一时期，西方国家的收入不平等现象急剧上升，以至于它现在主导着政治话语，成为大西洋两岸民粹主义卷土重来的罪魁祸首之一。近几十年来，在大多数经合组织国家，劳动收入所占比例大幅下降，经济增长带来的收益不成比例地归属于资本所有者和受过高等教育的人。美国就是一个生动的例子，自20世纪80年代中期以来，美国的人均国内生产总值增长了一倍多，但家庭收入中位数仅增长了约30%。
These numbers are disturbing and politically consequential. They have fuelled populist attacks on what might be called the liberal economic order: a system of free(ish) trade and cross-border investment, substantial immigration from poor to rich countries, and a rules-based international order adjudicated by institutions such as the World Trade Organization.
这些数字令人不安，也具有政治影响。它们助长了民粹主义对所谓自由经济秩序的攻击：自由贸易和跨境投资体系、从穷国向富国的大量移民，以及由世界贸易组织等机构裁定的基于规则的国际秩序。
But they need to be put in perspective. The US and western Europe collectively comprise about 11 per cent of the global population. Their deteriorating domestic income distributions must be set against the gains made by much vaster numbers of much poorer people. The economist Branko Milanovic has pointed out that the Theil index — a standard measure of global income inequality — has shown considerable improvement since the 1980s, with widening within-country inequality more than outweighed by narrowing between-country inequality.
但我们必须正确看待这些问题。美国和西欧合计约占全球人口的11%。它们不断恶化的国内收入分配情况必须与数量庞大得多的贫困人口所获得的收益相提并论。经济学家布兰科-米拉诺维奇指出，自20世纪80年代以来，衡量全球收入不平等状况的标准指标--泰尔指数已经有了相当大的改善，国家内部不平等的扩大被国家之间不平等的缩小所抵消。
How should a universalist — somebody who holds that human life has equal worth irrespective of location — regard the overall trajectory of the past half century?
一个普世主义者--一个认为人的生命不分地域具有同等价值的人--应该如何看待过去半个世纪的总体发展轨迹？
The philosopher John Rawls suggested that questions about the just ordering of society should be considered from behind a “veil of ignorance”. If you knew nothing about your own attributes — whether you were rich or poor, male or female, Chinese or American — which society would you choose to inhabit: today’s world, or the world of 50 years ago? Given that your chances of being Chinese or Indian are roughly two-fifths, while your chances of being a westerner are about one-tenth, you would almost certainly choose the present. Trouble in Beverly Hills should not obscure the much wider progress of those who live on less elevated ground.
哲学家约翰-罗尔斯提出，应该在“无知的面纱”后面考虑有关社会公正秩序的问题。如果你对自己的属性一无所知--无论你是富人还是穷人、男性还是女性、中国人还是美国人--你会选择居住在哪个社会：今天的世界，还是50年前的世界？鉴于你成为中国人或印度人的几率约为五分之二，而成为西方人的几率约为十分之一，你几乎肯定会选择现在的社会。比弗利山庄的麻烦不应该掩盖那些生活在地势较低地区的人们取得的广泛进步。
题图：印度绝对贫困人口数量的大幅下降，堪称世界历史上人类福祉最显著的改善之一。
Imagine that across the length and breadth of America, working-class wages grew much faster than the incomes of millionaires. Rustbelt states started catching up with their more prosperous coastal counterparts. But these developments came with a caveat: greater income inequality in Beverly Hills. The pay cheque gap between Leonardo DiCaprio and his supporting cast increased. Superhero sequels crushed indie movies at the box office.
试想一下，在全美各地，工人阶级的工资增长速度远远超过百万富翁的收入增长速度。铁锈地带各州开始赶上更繁荣的沿海各州。但这些发展也伴随着一个警告：比佛利山庄的收入不平等加剧。莱昂纳多-迪卡普里奥和他的配角们之间的收入差距拉大了。超级英雄续集票房碾压独立电影。
Taken as a whole, these developments would be cause for joyous celebration. Few would shed a tear for the Golden Globe nominees falling further behind their Oscar-winning colleagues.
从整体上看，这些进展值得欢庆。很少有人会为金球奖提名影片落后于奥斯卡获奖影片而流泪。
Something analogous to this happy fiction has been happening at a worldwide level over roughly the past half century. While the public discourse focuses overwhelmingly on rising domestic inequality in western countries, global inequality has fallen sharply, primarily due to the rise of two Asian giants, China and India. In 1980, the two countries accounted for almost 40 per cent of the world population but only 5 per cent of world income. Today they still make up roughly the same share of global population, but account for a much larger 25 per cent of global income. The global income distribution remains unequal, but not nearly as unequal as it used to be.
大约在过去的半个世纪里，世界范围内一直在发生着类似于这种美好幻想的事情。虽然公众讨论的焦点绝大多数集中在西方国家国内不平等现象的加剧上，但全球不平等现象却急剧下降，这主要归功于中国和印度这两个亚洲巨人的崛起。1980年，这两个国家的人口占世界人口的近40%，但收入仅占世界收入的5%。今天，这两个国家在全球人口中所占的比例仍然大致相同，但在全球收入中所占的比例却高得多，达到25%。全球收入分配仍然不平等，但已不像过去那么不平等。
Since they started liberalising their economies in the late 20th century, both China and India have been utterly transformed from the plodding and insular economies they used to be. In neither country was liberalisation a once-and-for-all event; reforms gathered speed at times and subsided or even went into reverse at others. Nonetheless, the overall trajectory has been unmistakable.
自20世纪末开始实行经济自由化以来，中国和印度都彻底改变了过去那种步履蹒跚、闭关锁国的经济状况。在这两个国家，自由化都不是一劳永逸的；改革时而加速，时而减弱，甚至倒退。然而，总体轨迹是明确无误的。
Both countries registered a step-increase in GDP growth post liberalisation compared with previous decades. More important, the new economic dynamism lifted all boats. Although both countries saw an increase in inequality after liberalising, there was nonetheless rapid income growth even at the bottom of the income distribution. The steep fall in the number of people living in absolute poverty in China and India must count as one of the most dramatic improvements in human welfare in the history of the world. Together, the two countries were responsible for lifting an astonishing 1.1bn people above the international poverty line over the past four decades.
与前几十年相比，这两个国家在自由化后的国内生产总值增长都有了质的飞跃。更重要的是，新的经济活力使所有的人都受益。虽然自由化后两国的不平等现象都有所加剧，但即使在收入分配的最底层，收入也在快速增长。中国和印度的绝对贫困人口数量急剧下降，这是世界历史上人类福祉最显著的改善之一。在过去的四十年里，这两个国家共使11亿人脱离了国际贫困线。
Over the same period, income inequality rose sharply in the west, so much so that it now dominates the political discourse and is one of the chief culprits behind a resurgent populism on both sides of the Atlantic. In most OECD countries the labour share of income has declined substantially in recent decades, with the gains from economic growth accruing disproportionately to the owners of capital and the highly educated. A vivid illustration is provided by the US, where GDP per capita has more than doubled since the mid-1980s, but median household income has risen by only about 30 per cent.
在同一时期，西方国家的收入不平等现象急剧上升，以至于它现在主导着政治话语，成为大西洋两岸民粹主义卷土重来的罪魁祸首之一。近几十年来，在大多数经合组织国家，劳动收入所占比例大幅下降，经济增长带来的收益不成比例地归属于资本所有者和受过高等教育的人。美国就是一个生动的例子，自20世纪80年代中期以来，美国的人均国内生产总值增长了一倍多，但家庭收入中位数仅增长了约30%。
These numbers are disturbing and politically consequential. They have fuelled populist attacks on what might be called the liberal economic order: a system of free(ish) trade and cross-border investment, substantial immigration from poor to rich countries, and a rules-based international order adjudicated by institutions such as the World Trade Organization.
这些数字令人不安，也具有政治影响。它们助长了民粹主义对所谓自由经济秩序的攻击：自由贸易和跨境投资体系、从穷国向富国的大量移民，以及由世界贸易组织等机构裁定的基于规则的国际秩序。
But they need to be put in perspective. The US and western Europe collectively comprise about 11 per cent of the global population. Their deteriorating domestic income distributions must be set against the gains made by much vaster numbers of much poorer people. The economist Branko Milanovic has pointed out that the Theil index — a standard measure of global income inequality — has shown considerable improvement since the 1980s, with widening within-country inequality more than outweighed by narrowing between-country inequality.
但我们必须正确看待这些问题。美国和西欧合计约占全球人口的11%。它们不断恶化的国内收入分配情况必须与数量庞大得多的贫困人口所获得的收益相提并论。经济学家布兰科-米拉诺维奇指出，自20世纪80年代以来，衡量全球收入不平等状况的标准指标--泰尔指数已经有了相当大的改善，国家内部不平等的扩大被国家之间不平等的缩小所抵消。
How should a universalist — somebody who holds that human life has equal worth irrespective of location — regard the overall trajectory of the past half century?
一个普世主义者--一个认为人的生命不分地域具有同等价值的人--应该如何看待过去半个世纪的总体发展轨迹？
The philosopher John Rawls suggested that questions about the just ordering of society should be considered from behind a “veil of ignorance”. If you knew nothing about your own attributes — whether you were rich or poor, male or female, Chinese or American — which society would you choose to inhabit: today’s world, or the world of 50 years ago? Given that your chances of being Chinese or Indian are roughly two-fifths, while your chances of being a westerner are about one-tenth, you would almost certainly choose the present. Trouble in Beverly Hills should not obscure the much wider progress of those who live on less elevated ground.
哲学家约翰-罗尔斯提出，应该在“无知的面纱”后面考虑有关社会公正秩序的问题。如果你对自己的属性一无所知--无论你是富人还是穷人、男性还是女性、中国人还是美国人--你会选择居住在哪个社会：今天的世界，还是50年前的世界？鉴于你成为中国人或印度人的几率约为五分之二，而成为西方人的几率约为十分之一，你几乎肯定会选择现在的社会。比弗利山庄的麻烦不应该掩盖那些生活在地势较低地区的人们取得的广泛进步。
评论翻译
题图：印度绝对贫困人口数量的大幅下降，堪称世界历史上人类福祉最显著的改善之一。
Imagine that across the length and breadth of America, working-class wages grew much faster than the incomes of millionaires. Rustbelt states started catching up with their more prosperous coastal counterparts. But these developments came with a caveat: greater income inequality in Beverly Hills. The pay cheque gap between Leonardo DiCaprio and his supporting cast increased. Superhero sequels crushed indie movies at the box office.
试想一下，在全美各地，工人阶级的工资增长速度远远超过百万富翁的收入增长速度。铁锈地带各州开始赶上更繁荣的沿海各州。但这些发展也伴随着一个警告：比佛利山庄的收入不平等加剧。莱昂纳多-迪卡普里奥和他的配角们之间的收入差距拉大了。超级英雄续集票房碾压独立电影。
Taken as a whole, these developments would be cause for joyous celebration. Few would shed a tear for the Golden Globe nominees falling further behind their Oscar-winning colleagues.
从整体上看，这些进展值得欢庆。很少有人会为金球奖提名影片落后于奥斯卡获奖影片而流泪。
Something analogous to this happy fiction has been happening at a worldwide level over roughly the past half century. While the public discourse focuses overwhelmingly on rising domestic inequality in western countries, global inequality has fallen sharply, primarily due to the rise of two Asian giants, China and India. In 1980, the two countries accounted for almost 40 per cent of the world population but only 5 per cent of world income. Today they still make up roughly the same share of global population, but account for a much larger 25 per cent of global income. The global income distribution remains unequal, but not nearly as unequal as it used to be.
大约在过去的半个世纪里，世界范围内一直在发生着类似于这种美好幻想的事情。虽然公众讨论的焦点绝大多数集中在西方国家国内不平等现象的加剧上，但全球不平等现象却急剧下降，这主要归功于中国和印度这两个亚洲巨人的崛起。1980年，这两个国家的人口占世界人口的近40%，但收入仅占世界收入的5%。今天，这两个国家在全球人口中所占的比例仍然大致相同，但在全球收入中所占的比例却高得多，达到25%。全球收入分配仍然不平等，但已不像过去那么不平等。
Since they started liberalising their economies in the late 20th century, both China and India have been utterly transformed from the plodding and insular economies they used to be. In neither country was liberalisation a once-and-for-all event; reforms gathered speed at times and subsided or even went into reverse at others. Nonetheless, the overall trajectory has been unmistakable.
自20世纪末开始实行经济自由化以来，中国和印度都彻底改变了过去那种步履蹒跚、闭关锁国的经济状况。在这两个国家，自由化都不是一劳永逸的；改革时而加速，时而减弱，甚至倒退。然而，总体轨迹是明确无误的。
Both countries registered a step-increase in GDP growth post liberalisation compared with previous decades. More important, the new economic dynamism lifted all boats. Although both countries saw an increase in inequality after liberalising, there was nonetheless rapid income growth even at the bottom of the income distribution. The steep fall in the number of people living in absolute poverty in China and India must count as one of the most dramatic improvements in human welfare in the history of the world. Together, the two countries were responsible for lifting an astonishing 1.1bn people above the international poverty line over the past four decades.
与前几十年相比，这两个国家在自由化后的国内生产总值增长都有了质的飞跃。更重要的是，新的经济活力使所有的人都受益。虽然自由化后两国的不平等现象都有所加剧，但即使在收入分配的最底层，收入也在快速增长。中国和印度的绝对贫困人口数量急剧下降，这是世界历史上人类福祉最显著的改善之一。在过去的四十年里，这两个国家共使11亿人脱离了国际贫困线。
Over the same period, income inequality rose sharply in the west, so much so that it now dominates the political discourse and is one of the chief culprits behind a resurgent populism on both sides of the Atlantic. In most OECD countries the labour share of income has declined substantially in recent decades, with the gains from economic growth accruing disproportionately to the owners of capital and the highly educated. A vivid illustration is provided by the US, where GDP per capita has more than doubled since the mid-1980s, but median household income has risen by only about 30 per cent.
在同一时期，西方国家的收入不平等现象急剧上升，以至于它现在主导着政治话语，成为大西洋两岸民粹主义卷土重来的罪魁祸首之一。近几十年来，在大多数经合组织国家，劳动收入所占比例大幅下降，经济增长带来的收益不成比例地归属于资本所有者和受过高等教育的人。美国就是一个生动的例子，自20世纪80年代中期以来，美国的人均国内生产总值增长了一倍多，但家庭收入中位数仅增长了约30%。
These numbers are disturbing and politically consequential. They have fuelled populist attacks on what might be called the liberal economic order: a system of free(ish) trade and cross-border investment, substantial immigration from poor to rich countries, and a rules-based international order adjudicated by institutions such as the World Trade Organization.
这些数字令人不安，也具有政治影响。它们助长了民粹主义对所谓自由经济秩序的攻击：自由贸易和跨境投资体系、从穷国向富国的大量移民，以及由世界贸易组织等机构裁定的基于规则的国际秩序。
But they need to be put in perspective. The US and western Europe collectively comprise about 11 per cent of the global population. Their deteriorating domestic income distributions must be set against the gains made by much vaster numbers of much poorer people. The economist Branko Milanovic has pointed out that the Theil index — a standard measure of global income inequality — has shown considerable improvement since the 1980s, with widening within-country inequality more than outweighed by narrowing between-country inequality.
但我们必须正确看待这些问题。美国和西欧合计约占全球人口的11%。它们不断恶化的国内收入分配情况必须与数量庞大得多的贫困人口所获得的收益相提并论。经济学家布兰科-米拉诺维奇指出，自20世纪80年代以来，衡量全球收入不平等状况的标准指标--泰尔指数已经有了相当大的改善，国家内部不平等的扩大被国家之间不平等的缩小所抵消。
How should a universalist — somebody who holds that human life has equal worth irrespective of location — regard the overall trajectory of the past half century?
一个普世主义者--一个认为人的生命不分地域具有同等价值的人--应该如何看待过去半个世纪的总体发展轨迹？
The philosopher John Rawls suggested that questions about the just ordering of society should be considered from behind a “veil of ignorance”. If you knew nothing about your own attributes — whether you were rich or poor, male or female, Chinese or American — which society would you choose to inhabit: today’s world, or the world of 50 years ago? Given that your chances of being Chinese or Indian are roughly two-fifths, while your chances of being a westerner are about one-tenth, you would almost certainly choose the present. Trouble in Beverly Hills should not obscure the much wider progress of those who live on less elevated ground.
哲学家约翰-罗尔斯提出，应该在“无知的面纱”后面考虑有关社会公正秩序的问题。如果你对自己的属性一无所知--无论你是富人还是穷人、男性还是女性、中国人还是美国人--你会选择居住在哪个社会：今天的世界，还是50年前的世界？鉴于你成为中国人或印度人的几率约为五分之二，而成为西方人的几率约为十分之一，你几乎肯定会选择现在的社会。比弗利山庄的麻烦不应该掩盖那些生活在地势较低地区的人们取得的广泛进步。
题图：印度绝对贫困人口数量的大幅下降，堪称世界历史上人类福祉最显著的改善之一。
Imagine that across the length and breadth of America, working-class wages grew much faster than the incomes of millionaires. Rustbelt states started catching up with their more prosperous coastal counterparts. But these developments came with a caveat: greater income inequality in Beverly Hills. The pay cheque gap between Leonardo DiCaprio and his supporting cast increased. Superhero sequels crushed indie movies at the box office.
试想一下，在全美各地，工人阶级的工资增长速度远远超过百万富翁的收入增长速度。铁锈地带各州开始赶上更繁荣的沿海各州。但这些发展也伴随着一个警告：比佛利山庄的收入不平等加剧。莱昂纳多-迪卡普里奥和他的配角们之间的收入差距拉大了。超级英雄续集票房碾压独立电影。
Taken as a whole, these developments would be cause for joyous celebration. Few would shed a tear for the Golden Globe nominees falling further behind their Oscar-winning colleagues.
从整体上看，这些进展值得欢庆。很少有人会为金球奖提名影片落后于奥斯卡获奖影片而流泪。
Something analogous to this happy fiction has been happening at a worldwide level over roughly the past half century. While the public discourse focuses overwhelmingly on rising domestic inequality in western countries, global inequality has fallen sharply, primarily due to the rise of two Asian giants, China and India. In 1980, the two countries accounted for almost 40 per cent of the world population but only 5 per cent of world income. Today they still make up roughly the same share of global population, but account for a much larger 25 per cent of global income. The global income distribution remains unequal, but not nearly as unequal as it used to be.
大约在过去的半个世纪里，世界范围内一直在发生着类似于这种美好幻想的事情。虽然公众讨论的焦点绝大多数集中在西方国家国内不平等现象的加剧上，但全球不平等现象却急剧下降，这主要归功于中国和印度这两个亚洲巨人的崛起。1980年，这两个国家的人口占世界人口的近40%，但收入仅占世界收入的5%。今天，这两个国家在全球人口中所占的比例仍然大致相同，但在全球收入中所占的比例却高得多，达到25%。全球收入分配仍然不平等，但已不像过去那么不平等。
Since they started liberalising their economies in the late 20th century, both China and India have been utterly transformed from the plodding and insular economies they used to be. In neither country was liberalisation a once-and-for-all event; reforms gathered speed at times and subsided or even went into reverse at others. Nonetheless, the overall trajectory has been unmistakable.
自20世纪末开始实行经济自由化以来，中国和印度都彻底改变了过去那种步履蹒跚、闭关锁国的经济状况。在这两个国家，自由化都不是一劳永逸的；改革时而加速，时而减弱，甚至倒退。然而，总体轨迹是明确无误的。
Both countries registered a step-increase in GDP growth post liberalisation compared with previous decades. More important, the new economic dynamism lifted all boats. Although both countries saw an increase in inequality after liberalising, there was nonetheless rapid income growth even at the bottom of the income distribution. The steep fall in the number of people living in absolute poverty in China and India must count as one of the most dramatic improvements in human welfare in the history of the world. Together, the two countries were responsible for lifting an astonishing 1.1bn people above the international poverty line over the past four decades.
与前几十年相比，这两个国家在自由化后的国内生产总值增长都有了质的飞跃。更重要的是，新的经济活力使所有的人都受益。虽然自由化后两国的不平等现象都有所加剧，但即使在收入分配的最底层，收入也在快速增长。中国和印度的绝对贫困人口数量急剧下降，这是世界历史上人类福祉最显著的改善之一。在过去的四十年里，这两个国家共使11亿人脱离了国际贫困线。
Over the same period, income inequality rose sharply in the west, so much so that it now dominates the political discourse and is one of the chief culprits behind a resurgent populism on both sides of the Atlantic. In most OECD countries the labour share of income has declined substantially in recent decades, with the gains from economic growth accruing disproportionately to the owners of capital and the highly educated. A vivid illustration is provided by the US, where GDP per capita has more than doubled since the mid-1980s, but median household income has risen by only about 30 per cent.
在同一时期，西方国家的收入不平等现象急剧上升，以至于它现在主导着政治话语，成为大西洋两岸民粹主义卷土重来的罪魁祸首之一。近几十年来，在大多数经合组织国家，劳动收入所占比例大幅下降，经济增长带来的收益不成比例地归属于资本所有者和受过高等教育的人。美国就是一个生动的例子，自20世纪80年代中期以来，美国的人均国内生产总值增长了一倍多，但家庭收入中位数仅增长了约30%。
These numbers are disturbing and politically consequential. They have fuelled populist attacks on what might be called the liberal economic order: a system of free(ish) trade and cross-border investment, substantial immigration from poor to rich countries, and a rules-based international order adjudicated by institutions such as the World Trade Organization.
这些数字令人不安，也具有政治影响。它们助长了民粹主义对所谓自由经济秩序的攻击：自由贸易和跨境投资体系、从穷国向富国的大量移民，以及由世界贸易组织等机构裁定的基于规则的国际秩序。
But they need to be put in perspective. The US and western Europe collectively comprise about 11 per cent of the global population. Their deteriorating domestic income distributions must be set against the gains made by much vaster numbers of much poorer people. The economist Branko Milanovic has pointed out that the Theil index — a standard measure of global income inequality — has shown considerable improvement since the 1980s, with widening within-country inequality more than outweighed by narrowing between-country inequality.
但我们必须正确看待这些问题。美国和西欧合计约占全球人口的11%。它们不断恶化的国内收入分配情况必须与数量庞大得多的贫困人口所获得的收益相提并论。经济学家布兰科-米拉诺维奇指出，自20世纪80年代以来，衡量全球收入不平等状况的标准指标--泰尔指数已经有了相当大的改善，国家内部不平等的扩大被国家之间不平等的缩小所抵消。
How should a universalist — somebody who holds that human life has equal worth irrespective of location — regard the overall trajectory of the past half century?
一个普世主义者--一个认为人的生命不分地域具有同等价值的人--应该如何看待过去半个世纪的总体发展轨迹？
The philosopher John Rawls suggested that questions about the just ordering of society should be considered from behind a “veil of ignorance”. If you knew nothing about your own attributes — whether you were rich or poor, male or female, Chinese or American — which society would you choose to inhabit: today’s world, or the world of 50 years ago? Given that your chances of being Chinese or Indian are roughly two-fifths, while your chances of being a westerner are about one-tenth, you would almost certainly choose the present. Trouble in Beverly Hills should not obscure the much wider progress of those who live on less elevated ground.
哲学家约翰-罗尔斯提出，应该在“无知的面纱”后面考虑有关社会公正秩序的问题。如果你对自己的属性一无所知--无论你是富人还是穷人、男性还是女性、中国人还是美国人--你会选择居住在哪个社会：今天的世界，还是50年前的世界？鉴于你成为中国人或印度人的几率约为五分之二，而成为西方人的几率约为十分之一，你几乎肯定会选择现在的社会。比弗利山庄的麻烦不应该掩盖那些生活在地势较低地区的人们取得的广泛进步。
很赞 4
收藏