How economic inequality harms societies | Richard Wilkinson

翻译人员: Chunyang Hu 校对人员: Dante Jiang

You all know the truth of what I'm going to say.

你们都应该知道我要讲的事实。

I think the intuition that inequality is divisive and socially corrosive

我认为不平等能够引起社会分裂和腐化的这种直觉

has been around since before the French Revolution.

在法国大革命之前就存在了。

What's changed

不同的是

is we now can look at the evidence,

我们现在可以找出证据，

we can compare societies, more and less equal societies,

我们可以通过比较社会，平等程度不同的社会，

and see what inequality does.

来了解不平等导致的影响。

I'm going to take you through that data

我将给你们展示一些数据

and then explain why

并解释为什么

the links I'm going to be showing you exist.

那些数据确实存在关联。

But first, see what a miserable lot we are.

但是首先，来看看我们的命有多苦。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

I want to start though

我想以一个

with a paradox.

矛盾开始我的演讲。

This shows you life expectancy

这张图显示了我们的平均寿命

against gross national income --

相对于国民总收入的关系——

how rich countries are on average.

后者衡量的是国家的平均富裕程度。

And you see the countries on the right,

你们可以看看右侧的那些国家，

like Norway and the USA,

像挪威和美国，

are twice as rich as Israel, Greece, Portugal on the left.

它们的富裕程度是以色列、希腊、葡萄牙这些左侧的国家的两倍。

And it makes no difference to their life expectancy at all.

但这并没有影响它们国民的平均寿命。

There's no suggestion of a relationship there.

没有相互关联的迹象。

But if we look within our societies,

但是如果我们去了解社会内部，

there are extraordinary social gradients in health

就能发现在它们整个社会内部

running right across society.

有很大的健康状况差异。

This, again, is life expectancy.

这张图展示的，依然是平均寿命。

These are small areas of England and Wales --

这些都是英格兰和威尔士的小镇——

the poorest on the right, the richest on the left.

最穷的在右侧，最富的在左侧。

A lot of difference between the poor and the rest of us.

穷人和其他人之间有很大的差异。

Even the people just below the top

甚至是那些刚好在顶端之下的人，

have less good health

他们的健康状况

than the people at the top.

都比在顶端的人要差。

So income means something very important

所以收入在我们的社会中

within our societies,

意味非常，

and nothing between them.

但在不同社会间的的比较并没有意义。

The explanation of that paradox

那个矛盾的解释

is that, within our societies,

就是，在我们社会中，

we're looking at relative income

我们看的是相对收入

or social position, social status --

或者说社会地位、身份——

where we are in relation to each other

就是我们之间的相互关系

and the size of the gaps between us.

以及人与人之间的差距大小。

And as soon as you've got that idea,

一旦你有了那种想法，

you should immediately wonder:

你就应该马上想到：

what happens if we widen the differences,

如果差距扩大会发生什么？

or compress them,

要是缩小差距呢？

make the income differences bigger or smaller?

扩大或是减小收入差距会怎么样呢？

And that's what I'm going to show you.

这就是我马上要告诉你们的。

I'm not using any hypothetical data.

我没有使用任何假设的数据。

I'm taking data from the U.N. --

我的数据来自联合国——

it's the same as the World Bank has --

和世界银行的数据一样——

on the scale of income differences

是关于这些富有、发达市场的

in these rich developed market democracies.

民主国家间的收入差距的。

The measure we've used,

我们用的方法，

because it's easy to understand and you can download it,

简单易懂，并且你们可以下载，

is how much richer the top 20 percent

就是比较每个国家的前 20%

than the bottom 20 percent in each country.

与后 20% 的收入差距。

And you see in the more equal countries on the left --

你们可以看到左侧的国家都比较平等——

Japan, Finland, Norway, Sweden --

日本、芬兰、挪威、瑞典——

the top 20 percent are about three and a half, four times as rich

他们的前 20% 的富裕程度大概是后 20% 的

as the bottom 20 percent.

3.5 到 4 倍。

But on the more unequal end --

但是在比较不平等的另外一侧——

U.K., Portugal, USA, Singapore --

英国、葡萄牙、美国、新加坡——

the differences are twice as big.

收入差距要大一倍。

On that measure, we are twice as unequal

按这种比较方式，我们国家（英国）的不平等程度是

as some of the other successful market democracies.

另外一些同样成功的民主市场的两倍。

Now I'm going to show you what that does to our societies.

接下来我将会展示这对我们社会有什么影响。

We collected data on problems with social gradients,

我们针对社会内部差异产生的问题收集了数据，

the kind of problems that are more common

这类问题在社会最底层

at the bottom of the social ladder.

更加的普遍。

Internationally comparable data on life expectancy,

国际上可供比较的数据包括平均寿命、

on kids' maths and literacy scores,

儿童的数学和语文成绩、

on infant mortality rates, homicide rates,

婴儿死亡率、自杀率、

proportion of the population in prison, teenage birthrates,

监狱人口比例、少女早孕率、

levels of trust,

互信程度、

obesity, mental illness --

肥胖、心理疾病——

which in standard diagnostic classification

这些病都符合标准的诊断分类

includes drug and alcohol addiction --

包括毒瘾和酒瘾——

and social mobility.

以及社会流动率。

We put them all in one index.

我们把所有这些都归到一个系数里。

They're all weighted equally.

他们都被平均加权。

Where a country is is a sort of average score on these things.

一个国家的分数就是这些因子平均得到的。

And there, you see it

你可以看到，这些分数是

in relation to the measure of inequality I've just shown you,

与刚才我展示过的不平等比较相关的，

which I shall use over and over again in the data.

我将反复展示这些数据。

The more unequal countries

越是不平等的国家

are doing worse

在各种社会问题上

on all these kinds of social problems.

表现得就越差。

It's an extraordinarily close correlation.

关联性非常强。

But if you look at that same index

但是如果你看同样的

of health and social problems

健康和社会问题

in relation to GNP per capita,

与人均国民收入以及

gross national income,

国民总收入的指数的比较，

there's nothing there,

那你就什么也不会发现，

no correlation anymore.

再没有相关性了。

We were a little bit worried

我们有一点担心

that people might think

人们可能会想

we'd been choosing problems to suit our argument

我们是挑选特定的问题以迎合我们的理论

and just manufactured this evidence,

然后人为的制造证据。

so we also did a paper in the British Medical Journal

所以我们也在《英国医学期刊》发表了一篇关于

on the UNICEF index of child well-being.

联合国儿童基金会儿童福利指数的论文。

It has 40 different components

它包含 40 个不同的部分，

put together by other people.

来自他人的总结。

It contains whether kids can talk to their parents,

它包括儿童是否能与父母交谈，

whether they have books at home,

家中是否有图书，

what immunization rates are like, whether there's bullying at school.

免疫率有多少，以及学校是否存在欺辱现象。

Everything goes into it.

所有都包括进去了。

Here it is in relation to that same measure of inequality.

这就是该指数与同样的不平等程度的关系。

Kids do worse in the more unequal societies.

在越不平等的社会，儿童的表现就越差。

Highly significant relationship.

关系及其显著。

But once again,

但是再一次，

if you look at that measure of child well-being,

如果你看的是儿童福利

in relation to national income per person,

与人均国民收入的关系，

there's no relationship,

你将一无所获。

no suggestion of a relationship.

没有关联的迹象。

What all the data I've shown you so far says

我目前向你们展示的所有数据所揭示的

is the same thing.

都是同一样的东西。

The average well-being of our societies

我们社会的平均福利

is not dependent any longer

再也不是取决于

on national income and economic growth.

国民收入和经济增长。

That's very important in poorer countries,

它们在较穷的国家非常重要，

but not in the rich developed world.

但是对于富裕的发达国家来说却并非如此。

But the differences between us

而我们之间的差异

and where we are in relation to each other

以及我们相对于他人的位置

now matter very much.

如今看来非常重要。

I'm going to show you some of the separate bits of our index.

下面我将为大家展示我们指数的一些分部。

Here, for instance, is trust.

这是相互信任指数。

It's simply the proportion of the population

指的是同意大多数人都可信

who agree most people can be trusted.

的人数比例。

It comes from the World Values Survey.

这是来自“世界价值观调查”的数据。

You see, at the more unequal end,

可以看到，在较不平等的一侧，

it's about 15 percent of the population

大约有 15% 的人

who feel they can trust others.

感觉他们能相信他人。

But in the more equal societies,

但是在更加平等的社会，

it rises to 60 or 65 percent.

这一比例上升到了 60% 或 65%。

And if you look at measures of involvement in community life

如果再看社区活动参与度

or social capital,

或者是社会资本的评估，

very similar relationships

都有非常相似的关联

closely related to inequality.

与不平等紧密相关。

I may say, we did all this work twice.

我要说，我们重复了这项工作两次。

We did it first on these rich, developed countries,

第一次针对的是这些富裕发达国家，

and then as a separate test bed,

我们之后更换了测试对象，

we repeated it all on the 50 American states --

对美国 50 个州重复了这个测试——

asking just the same question:

调查同样的问题：

do the more unequal states

是否那些越是不平等的州

do worse on all these kinds of measures?

在所有这些评估上就做得越差？

So here is trust from a general social survey of the federal government

这是联邦政府在一项一般社会调查中得出的相互信任

related to inequality.

与不平等之间的关系。

Very similar scatter

非常相似的散点分布

over a similar range of levels of trust.

在相似的信任程度范围上。

Same thing is going on.

同样的事情还在继续。

Basically we found

基本上我们发现

that almost anything that's related to trust internationally

几乎所有在国际调查中反映出来的与互信有关的因素

is related to trust amongst the 50 states

也同样反映在我们分别调查的

in that separate test bed.

50 个州里面。

We're not just talking about a fluke.

这并非巧合。

This is mental illness.

这张图是心理疾病。

WHO put together figures

世界卫生组织通过随机采样

using the same diagnostic interviews

采用相同的诊断采访方式

on random samples of the population

搜集数据

to allow us to compare rates of mental illness

使得我们能够比较每个社会的

in each society.

心理疾病率。

This is the percent of the population

这是上一年患有任意一种

with any mental illness in the preceding year.

心理疾病人口的比率。

And it goes from about eight percent

它的范围是从 8%

up to three times that --

直到 24% 多——

whole societies

这表明整个社会

with three times the level of mental illness of others.

患有心理疾病的比例是其它社会的 3 倍。

And again, closely related to inequality.

同样的，这些都与不平等有着紧密的联系。

This is violence.

这张图是犯罪率。

These red dots are American states,

红点表示美国各州，

and the blue triangles are Canadian provinces.

蓝三角表示加拿大各省。

But look at the scale of the differences.

但是看看它们的数量差异。

It goes from 15 homicides per million

谋杀率从每一百万 15 起

up to 150.

直到 150 起。

This is the proportion of the population in prison.

这是监狱囚犯的比率。

There's a about a tenfold difference there,

这是 10 倍的差距，

log scale up the side.

指数函数会放大这差距。

But it goes from about 40 to 400

但监禁人数的变化范围

people in prison.

是从 40 到 400。

That relationship

犯罪

is not mainly driven by more crime.

并非这一关系的主要原因。

In some places, that's part of it.

在一些地方，犯罪可以解释一部分原因。

But most of it is about more punitive sentencing,

但是更多的是严厉的审判，

harsher sentencing.

或者说更苛刻的审判。

And the more unequal societies

社会越是不平等

are more likely also to retain the death penalty.

就越倾向于保留死刑。

Here we have children dropping out of high school.

这张图是儿童高中辍学状况。

Again, quite big differences.

同样，差距很大。

Extraordinarily damaging,

如果我们讨论社会人才的选拔，

if you're talking about using the talents of the population.

就会发现这种差距的危害非常严重。

This is social mobility.

这张图是社会流动率。

It's actually a measure of mobility

实际上是基于收入的

based on income.

流动率计算。

Basically, it's asking:

基本上，它所追问的是：

do rich fathers have rich sons

是否富爸爸有富孩子

and poor fathers have poor sons,

穷爸爸有穷孩子，

or is there no relationship between the two?

或者这两者之间没有任何关系？

And at the more unequal end,

在较不平等的一侧，

fathers' income is much more important --

爸爸的收入更加的重要——

in the U.K., USA.

比如说英国、美国。

And in Scandinavian countries,

而在北欧，

fathers' income is much less important.

爸爸的收入就不那么重要。

There's more social mobility.

那里有更多的社会阶层流动。

And as we like to say --

正如我们常说的——

and I know there are a lot of Americans in the audience here --

我知道这里有很多美国听众——

if Americans want to live the American dream,

如果美国人想要实现他们的“美国梦”，

they should go to Denmark.

他们应该去丹麦。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

(Applause)

（掌声）

I've shown you just a few things in italics here.

我已经展示过的在这里用斜体字标记。

I could have shown a number of other problems.

我还可以展示一些其它的问题。

They're all problems that tend to be more common

那些问题都更普遍存在

at the bottom of the social gradient.

于社会梯度的底层。

But there are endless problems with social gradients

但是社会梯度存在着无穷的问题，

that are worse in more unequal countries --

这些问题在不平等的国家显得更糟——

not just a little bit worse,

不仅仅是一点点糟，

but anything from twice as common to 10 times as common.

而是什么都要差到 2 倍 10 倍。

Think of the expense,

想想花费，

the human cost of that.

人力成本的花费。

I want to go back though to this graph that I showed you earlier

我想回到这张先前展示过的图

where we put it all together

我们把所有都结合起来

to make two points.

为了说明两点。

One is that, in graph after graph,

第一，通过一张复一张的图表，

we find the countries that do worse,

我们发现那些表现较差的国家，

whatever the outcome,

无论什么，

seem to be the more unequal ones,

都似乎是那些更不平等的国家，

and the ones that do well

但是那些表现得好的

seem to be the Nordic countries and Japan.

似乎都是北欧和日本。

So what we're looking at

所以我们看到的是

is general social disfunction related to inequality.

普遍社会紊乱与不平等之间的关系。

It's not just one or two things that go wrong,

不仅仅是一两件事出了问题，

it's most things.

而是几乎所有事。

The other really important point I want to make on this graph

这张图上我想指出的另外一个很重要的点

is that, if you look at the bottom,

就是，如果你看看底部，

Sweden and Japan,

瑞士和日本，

they're very different countries in all sorts of ways.

他们在所有方面都显示出他们是非常不同的国家。

The position of women,

妇女的地位，

how closely they keep to the nuclear family,

他们对小家庭的坚守程度，

are on opposite ends of the poles

在富裕发达的国家之中，

in terms of the rich developed world.

是在两个极端。

But another really important difference

但是另外一个很重要的不同就是

is how they get their greater equality.

他们如何实现较大平等的。

Sweden has huge differences in earnings,

瑞典在收入上有很大的差异，

and it narrows the gap through taxation,

但它用税收、

general welfare state,

国家福利、

generous benefits and so on.

慷慨的救济等等来缩小差距。

Japan is rather different though.

日本则相当不同。

It starts off with much smaller differences in earnings before tax.

首先日本税前工资差距比较小。

It has lower taxes.

它的税收较低。

It has a smaller welfare state.

它的福利也比较少。

And in our analysis of the American states,

而对美国各州的研究中，

we find rather the same contrast.

我们发现了鲜明的对比。

There are some states that do well through redistribution,

有一些州表现好是通过再分配，

some states that do well

而另外有一些州表现好

because they have smaller income differences before tax.

是因为税前收入差距小。

So we conclude

所以我们得出结论

that it doesn't much matter how you get your greater equality,

如何实现较大的平等并不重要，

as long as you get there somehow.

重要的是能实现这种平等。

I am not talking about perfect equality,

我不是在说完全的平等，

I'm talking about what exists in rich developed market democracies.

我说的都是确实存在于富裕发达市场民主国家的。

Another really surprising part of this picture

关于这个图，另外一个出乎意料的事情就是

is that it's not just the poor

不仅仅是穷人

who are affected by inequality.

会受不平等的影响。

There seems to be some truth in John Donne's

约翰·多恩（英国诗人）的话似乎有点道理：

"No man is an island."

“没有人是一座孤岛。”

And in a number of studies, it's possible to compare

通过一系列的研究，我们能够比较

how people do in more and less equal countries

每一个社会阶层的人在

at each level in the social hierarchy.

平等程度或多或少的不同国家的行为。

This is just one example.

这只是一个例子。

It's infant mortality.

这张图是婴儿死亡率。

Some Swedes very kindly classified a lot of their infant deaths

根据英国一般社会经济分类记录，

according to the British register of general socioeconomic classification.

一些瑞典人非常仁慈的归类了很多婴儿死亡。

And so it's anachronistically

这是一种不符合时代的

a classification by fathers' occupations,

基于父亲职位的分类，

so single parents go on their own.

所以单身母亲自成一组数据。

But then where it says "low social class,"

但是我们看所谓的“社会低级阶层”，

that's unskilled manual occupations.

那是无需技术的手工工作。

It goes through towards the skilled manual occupations in the middle,

中间是需要技术的手工工作，

then the junior non-manual,

再到高级非手工工作，

going up high to the professional occupations --

一直高到专业工作——

doctors, lawyers,

医生、律师、

directors of larger companies.

大公司的经理。

You see there that Sweden does better than Britain

这里可以看出瑞典比英国做得好，

all the way across the social hierarchy.

在每一个社会阶层上都做得更好。

The biggest differences are at the bottom of society.

最大的差异出现在社会的底层。

But even at the top,

但即使是在顶端，

there seems to be a small benefit

生活在一个较平等的社会

to being in a more equal society.

都有一些优势。

We show that on about five different sets of data

我们展示了 5 组不同的数据

covering educational outcomes

包括了美国和国际的教育结果

and health in the United States and internationally.

以及健康状况。

And that seems to be the general picture --

似乎总体而言——

that greater equality makes most difference at the bottom,

较为平等的社会在社会底层展示出的差异最明显，

but has some benefits even at the top.

但在社会上层也同样会有一些优势。

But I should say a few words about what's going on.

我该解释一下怎么回事。

I think I'm looking and talking

我认为我是在展示和讨论

about the psychosocial effects of inequality.

不平等对社会心理的影响。

More to do with feelings of superiority and inferiority,

更多的是关注优越感和自卑感，

of being valued and devalued,

被重视和被看不起，

respected and disrespected.

被尊重和被贬低。

And of course, those feelings

当然，那些由于

of the status competition that comes out of that

身份地位的竞争而产生的感觉

drives the consumerism in our society.

促动了社会消费主义的前进。

It also leads to status insecurity.

但它同样也导致了地位的不确保性。

We worry more about how we're judged and seen by others,

我们更担心的是别人如何评判和看待我们，

whether we're regarded as attractive, clever,

我们是否显得有吸引力、聪明、

all that kind of thing.

或是诸如此类。

The social-evaluative judgments increase,

社会价值评价增强了

the fear of those social-evaluative judgments.

对这些社会价值评价的恐惧。

Interestingly,

有趣的是，

some parallel work going on in social psychology:

社会心理学领域一些类似的工作也在同样进行着：

some people reviewed 208 different studies

一些人查阅了 208 项不同的研究；

in which volunteers had been invited

在研究中，志愿者被邀请到

into a psychological laboratory

一个心理试验中心

and had their stress hormones,

然后测试他们的压力霍尔蒙以及

their responses to doing stressful tasks, measured.

他们执行压力任务时的反应。

And in the review,

在这观察中，

what they were interested in seeing

科学家感兴趣是

is what kind of stresses

哪一种压力

most reliably raise levels of cortisol,

最能提高体内皮质醇，

the central stress hormone.

最重要的压力霍尔蒙的水平。

And the conclusion was

结果正是

it was tasks that included social-evaluative threat --

那些包括社会评价威胁的任务——

threats to self-esteem or social status

威胁到自尊和社会地位的任务——

in which others can negatively judge your performance.

这些任务中他人能负面评价你的表现。

Those kind of stresses

这些压力

have a very particular effect

在压力生理学上

on the physiology of stress.

有非常特别的效果。

Now we have been criticized.

目前我们已经接受了批评。

Of course, there are people who dislike this stuff

当然，有些人不喜欢这个，

and people who find it very surprising.

也有人发现这个很出人意料。

I should tell you though

然而我还是应该告诉你们

that when people criticize us for picking and choosing data,

当人们批评我们挑拣数据时，

we never pick and choose data.

我们从来没有这样做过。

We have an absolute rule

我们有一个无条件的规定

that if our data source has data for one of the countries we're looking at,

如果我们的数据源包含所观测国家的数据，

it goes into the analysis.

那么我们就将其纳入分析。

Our data source decides

我们的数据源决定

whether it's reliable data,

数据是否有效，

we don't.

而不是我们。

Otherwise that would introduce bias.

否则就会产生偏差。

What about other countries?

其它国家呢？

There are 200 studies

学术同行审查的期刊中，

of health in relation to income and equality

有 200 项研究是关于健康与

in the academic peer-reviewed journals.

收入和平等的关系的。

This isn't confined to these countries here,

这并没有局限于这里的这些国家，

hiding a very simple demonstration.

暗藏着一个很简单的证明。

The same countries,

同样的国家

the same measure of inequality,

同样的不平等测量方法，

one problem after another.

问题一个接一个。

Why don't we control for other factors?

我们为什么不控制其它的因素呢?

Well we've shown you that GNP per capita

我已经向大家展示了人均国民收入

doesn't make any difference.

并没有产生任何影响。

And of course, others using more sophisticated methods in the literature

当然，另外有人在文献中应用了更为复杂的方法

have controlled for poverty and education

在实验中排除了贫困、教育

and so on.

等因素。

What about causality?

因果关系如何呢？

Correlation in itself doesn't prove causality.

相关性本身并不能证明因果联系。

We spend a good bit of time.

我们花了相当的时间。

And indeed, people know the causal links quite well

确实，人们对我们这些结果的因果联系

in some of these outcomes.

有很好的了解。

The big change in our understanding

我们对富裕发达国家

of drivers of chronic health

长期保持健康的驱动因素的理解中

in the rich developed world

最大的改变就是

is how important chronic stress from social sources

来自社会的长期压力对免疫力

is affecting the immune system,

以及心血管系统的影响

the cardiovascular system.

有多重要

Or for instance, the reason why violence

或者比如说，暴力在较不平等的国家

becomes more common in more unequal societies

变得越来越普遍的原因

is because people are sensitive to being looked down on.

就是因为人们对自己被瞧不起非常敏感。

I should say that to deal with this,

我要说，为了解决这个问题，

we've got to deal with the post-tax things

我们应该解决税后以及

and the pre-tax things.

税前的一系列问题。

We've got to constrain income,

我们应该限制收入，

the bonus culture incomes at the top.

遏制顶端的奖金收入文化。

I think we must make our bosses accountable to their employees

我认为我们必须竭尽所能让我们的领导们

in any way we can.

对员工负责。

I think the take-home message though

我最后想要总结的

is that we can improve the real quality of human life

就是我们能够通过减少我们的收入差距来

by reducing the differences in incomes between us.

提高我们的真实的生活质量。

Suddenly we have a handle

这样的话，我们会发现我们突然就解决了

on the psychosocial well-being of whole societies,

整个社会的社会心理健康问题，

and that's exciting.

那真是棒极了。

Thank you.

谢谢。

(Applause)

（掌声）