世界經濟金融化加劇不平等

In 1920, the 1 per cent — the top percentile of the income distribution — accounted for 15-20 per cent of total gross income in developed countries. Germany was strikingly unequal, while the Most egalitarian societies were countries such as Australia, Canada and the US, made up largely of immigrants.

1920年，發達國家中收入最高的1%人口占了全部總收入的15%到20%。德國的不平等程度令人吃驚，而最平等的社會是像澳大利亞、加拿大及美國這樣的主要由移民建立的國家。

In the 50 years that followed, the share of the 1 per cent fell almost everywhere by about half, to 7-10 per cent of total income. The relative decline in the standing of the top 0.1 per cent was even more dramatic.

在這之後的50年間，這1%人口所佔財富比例幾乎在所有地方都下降了約一半，至總收入的7%到10%。收入最高的0.1%人口財富比例的相對下降甚至更加明顯。

I will focus on the experience of the 1 per cent in Britain, France, Germany and the US, drawing on Atkinson and Morelli’s Chartbook of Economic Inequality, a comprehensive analysis of gross income — but other economically advanced countries (Australia, Canada, Netherlands, Sweden) tell much the same story.

我將主要關注英國、法國、德國和美國的這1%人口的經歷，藉助託尼•阿特金森(Tony Atkinson)和薩爾瓦託雷•莫雷利(Salvatore Morelli)對總收入的全面分析——Chartbook of Economic Inequality。但其他經濟發達國家（澳大利亞、加拿大、荷蘭及瑞典）的情況也大致相同。

During that half century, public spending on health, education and especially social benefits increased; taxation became more burdensome and more progressive. The forces of equalisation were powerful indeed.

在這半個世紀裏，投入醫療、教育，特別是社會福利的公共支出有所增加；稅負變得更加沉重、累進程度更高。均等化的推動力量確實強大。

By 1970, West Germany was still a conspicuously unequal outlier, with the top 0.1 per cent receiving more than twice the share of the equivalent group in Britain, France or the US. The German Mittelstand, the medium-sized family-controlled enterprises that drive export success, had created a cadre of very well remunerated business owners, and continues to do so.

1970年，西德仍呈現出明顯的不平等，收入最高的0.1%人口的收入是他們在英國、法國或美國對應羣體的兩倍多。在德國，推動出口成功的家族控制的中小型企業(Mittelstand)催生了一批收入極高的企業主，這一局面持續至今。

From 1970, the egalitarian trend came to an end everywhere. But experiences diverged. In France and Germany the share of the top 1 per cent and 0.1 per cent has remained flat. In the US it has soared: the top 1 per cent now earn relatively more than they did in 1920. Britain has also experienced a sharp rise in the share of top incomes, although this reversal is not as dramatic as in the US, and the UK figures are still well below those of 1920. What has happened in other states seems to reflect cultural origins: Canada and Australia look rather like the UK, and the Netherlands rather like Germany.

1970年之後，平等主義的勢頭在各國都走到終點。但各國的經歷有所不同。在法國和德國，收入最高的1%和0.1%人口占有財富的比例與以往持平。在美國，這一比例已經驟升：收入最高的1%人口如今的相對收入高於1920年。英國收入最高人口的財富比例也經歷了大幅上升，雖然這一逆轉不像美國那樣戲劇化，英國的數據仍遠低於1920年水平。其他國家發生的事似乎反映了文化上的淵源：加拿大和澳大利亞看起來更像英國，而荷蘭更像德國。

To understand the trends, and their implications, we need more data on who the top 1 per cent are — and tax authorities are coy about telling us. A survey in the US shows that about one-third of the top 1 per cent, and more of the top 0.1 per cent, are corporate executives.

要理解這些趨勢及其影響，我們需要更多的數據——瞭解收入最高的1%人口是誰，但稅務部門不太願意公開此類信息。美國的一項調查顯示，這1%人口中約三分之一是企業高管，而且這些人在收入最高的0.1%人口中佔比更大。

Almost a quarter of the 1 per cent are doctors or lawyers, although there are fewer among the very highest paid. The phalanx of affluent medics and attorneys is probably a distinctively US phenomenon: in other countries, public health systems and more limited roles for litigation keep these incomes under more control.

在1%人口中，近四分之一是醫生或律師，儘管在最頂端高收入者中較少有這兩種職業。富裕的醫生和律師羣體可能是美國特有的現象：在其他國家，公共衛生系統以及比較有限的訴訟角色使他們的收入處於更多的控制之下。

But the big change since the 1970s has, of course, been in the representation of finance professionals: their share in the top 1 per cent of incomes has risen from 8 per cent to 14 per cent; and, among the top 0.1 per cent, from 11 per cent to 18 per cent. Since the income level needed to put you in the 1 per cent has increased dramatically, this understates how much the growth of finance has contributed to inequality in income distribution.

但自上世紀70年代以來，最大變化當然體現於金融專業人士的比例：他們在1%人口中的比例已從8%上升至14%；而且，在收入最高的0.1%人口中，從11%升至18%。由於跨入這1%人口的收入門檻已大幅提高，這低估了金融業壯大對於加劇收入分配不平等的影響。

The rise in inequality in some western countries is principally the result of two interrelated causes: the growth of the finance sector; and the explosion of the remuneration of senior executives. The people who ran big companies were always relatively well paid, but the meaning of “relatively well paid” is now altogether different. Finance employs more people, recruits more able people and pays them a lot more.

在一些西方國家，不平等的加劇主要是由兩個相互關聯的因素造成的：金融業的壯大以及高管薪酬的爆炸性增長。管理大公司的人歷來獲得相對高薪，但如今“相對高薪”的內涵已完全不同。金融業僱用更多的人，招募更多優秀人才，並付給他們高得多的薪酬。

These effects have not been seen in countries, such as France and Germany, that have proved more resistant to financialisation. It is in Britain and the US, which have experienced the most extensive growth in the sector, where they have made their greatest impact.

這些影響並沒有出現在法國和德國等國，這些國家已被證明對經濟金融化更有抵抗力。而英國和美國經歷了最廣泛的金融業增長，金融業在這兩個國家產生的影響也最大。