[2012.10.13] Having your cake 公平与效率：鱼和熊掌，能得兼否？

终极奔跑者

【导语】一直以来，公平与效率就如跷跷板一般，总想平衡却难免顾此失彼。如今，收入分配不均的现象广泛存在，我们既想分好蛋糕，又想做大蛋糕。公平与效率是否真的能“两全其美”呢？

Trade-offs
权衡取舍

Having your cake
鱼和熊掌，能得兼否？

Less inequality does not need to mean less efficiency
更公平的收入分配并不一定会牺牲效率

Oct 13th 2012 | from the print edition



MITT ROMNEY, AMERICA’S Republican presidential candidate, caused a kerfuffle earlier this year when he dismissed concerns about inequality as the result of “class warfare” that had no place in America’s public discourse. Rather than an “envy-oriented” debate about distribution, he argued in favour of creating a “merit-based” America, with policies that focus on economic growth.

美国共和党总统候选人米特·罗姆尼于本年早些时候曾表示，他不会理会有关收入不平等的种种担忧，这一举动引发了轩然大波。罗姆尼认为，这些担忧不过是“阶级斗争”的产物，而“阶级斗争”不应出现在美国公众的讨论之中。他不愿就收入分配展开一场“以嫉妒为导向”的辩论，而是主张创建一个“立足于价值”、政策着眼于经济增长的美利坚。

Mr Romney’s nonchalance about income gaps is controversial, even in America. But he is not alone in assuming that distribution and dynamism do not go together. The predominant view among economists has long been that there is a trade-off between prosperity and income equality.

即便在美国，罗姆尼对收入差距的漠不关心也会引发公众的争论。但他并不是唯一一个认为公平分配与经济活力二者不可兼得的人。长期以来，经济学家们的主导观点都表明：经济繁荣与收入平等之间存在权衡与取舍。

A century ago inequality was deemed an essential condition for investment and growth because rich people save more. Keynes wrote in 1919 that it was “precisely the inequality of the distribution of wealth which made possible those vast accumulations of fixed wealth and of capital improvements which distinguished [the Gilded Age] from all others”. More recently the focus has been on its incentive effect. Milton Friedman argued that greater inequality would spur people to work harder and boost productivity. Gary Becker, of the University of Chicago, thinks that inequality encourages people to invest in their education. Redistribution, in contrast, brings inefficiencies as higher taxes and government handouts deter hard work. The bigger the state, the greater the distortion of private incentives.

早在一个世纪前，收入的不平等还被看作是投资与增长的必要条件，因为富裕者会把更多的钱存起来。凯恩斯曾在1919年写道，“严格地说，正是财富分配的不平等让固定财产和改良型资本支出的大量积累成为可能，让镀金时代有别于以往所有时代”。后来，讨论的焦点又集中在收入不平等的刺激效应上。米尔顿·弗里德曼认为，收入分配越不平等，越能激发人们更加努力地工作，从而提高生产率。芝加哥大学的加里·贝克尔认为收入不平等会促使人们在教育上加大投资。相反，收入的再分配将造成效率低下，因为更高的税收和政府救济会使人们不再努力工作。再分配规模越大，对个体激励的扭曲就越严重。

That logic remains as powerful as ever. Economic freedom and better incentives boosted growth in China, India and elsewhere. Sweden’s experience shows that deregulation, lower taxes and fewer benefits increase economic dynamism even as they reduce equality. Yet the analysis in this special report suggests that logic is incomplete. Some of today’s inequality may be inefficient rather than growth-promoting, for several reasons.

直到今天，这个道理依旧应验不爽。经济自由和更好的刺激机制推动了中国、印度等地的经济增长。瑞典的经验则表明，撤销管制、下调税率、减少救济会提高经济活力，尽管同时他们降低了公平性。但本篇特别报道的分析认为，这种理论是不完整的。因为某些原因，在当下，收入不平等可能会导致低效率，而不会促进经济增长。

First, in countries with the biggest income gaps, increasing inequality is partly a function of rigidities and rent-seeking—be it labour laws in India, the hukou system and state monopolies in China or too-big-to-fail finance in America. Such distortions reduce economies’ efficiency. Second, rising inequality has not, by and large, been accompanied by a smaller (and hence less distortive) state. In many rich countries government spending has risen since the 1970s. The composition has changed, with more money spent on the health care of older, richer folk, and relatively less invested in poorer kids. Modern transfers are both less progressive and less growth-promoting.

首先，在那些收入差距最为悬殊的国家，收入不平等的增加在某种程度上是刻板的制度体系和寻租行为[2]在起作用——印度的劳动法、中国的户口体制、国有垄断企业和美国那些大到不可能挫败的金融界都是如此，它们的扭曲效应降低了经济效率。再者，大体而言，收入不平等的恶化并不会伴随着再分配规模的缩小（也就因此不会减少其扭曲性）。在很多富裕国家，政府支出自上世纪70年代起就持续上涨。支出的组成也已改变。对那些较年长较富裕人群的医保投入越来越多，相比之下对贫苦孩子们的投入却越来越少。这些现代转变既没有促进经济增长，也无进步性可言。

Third, recent experience from China to America suggests that high and growing levels of income inequality can translate into growing inequality of opportunity for the next generation and hence declining social mobility. That link seems strongest in countries with low levels of public services and decentralised funding of education. Bigger gaps in opportunity, in turn, mean fewer people with skills and hence slower growth in the future.

第三，近来从中国到美国的实践都表明：收入不均的程度持续上升、居高不下将导致下一代的机遇也越发不平等，从而降低社会流动性。这种关系在那些公共服务不健全、教育经费分散的国家表现得尤为突出。而机会上的不平等反过来意味着有真才实学的人越来越少，因此未来的经济增长也就越来越慢。

It is not easy to distinguish between efficient and inefficient types of inequality. The development of big cross-country statistical databases in the 1990s allowed economists to compare Gini coefficients and GDP growth in lots of countries over many years, but the results were mixed. Some studies found that wide income gaps were associated with slower growth. Others found the opposite. In a 2003 paper entitled “Inequality and Growth: What Can the Data Say?”, Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo of MIT concluded that the answer was “not very much”.

要区分有效率的不平等和无效率的不平等并不容易。上世纪90年代，大型跨国统计数据库的发展让经济学家们能够将多个国家多年的基尼系数和GDP增长情况加以比较，但结果却错综复杂。一些研究发现收入差距悬殊与较慢的经济增长相关，而另一些研究得到的结果却恰恰相反。在03年，有一篇论文的题名为“收入不平等与经济增长：数据能反映什么？”，麻省理工学院的阿布希吉特·班纳吉和艾斯特·迪弗洛的答案是：“反映不了什么”。

More recent studies, however, support the idea that inequality can be inefficient. In an influential analysis in 2011 two IMF economists, Andrew Berg and Jonathan Ostry, looked at the length of “growth spells” rather than simply comparing growth rates. They found that growth was more persistent in more equal countries, and that income distribution mattered more for the length of growth spells than either the degree of trade liberalisation or the quality of a country’s political institutions.

然而，更近一些的研究认为收入不平等也会使经济变得缺乏效率。2011年，两位国际货币基金组织的经济学家，安德鲁·伯格和乔纳森·奥斯特里在一份颇具影响的研究分析中关注了“增长期”的长度而不是简单地比较增长率。他们发现在分配较公平的国家，经济增长较持久，且相比于贸易自由化程度和国家政治机构的好坏，收入分配更能决定增长期的长度。

Other researchers have tried to isolate the “unhealthy” types of inequality using the two indices of inequality of opportunity first developed by the World Bank and described earlier in this special report. Two Spanish economists, Gustavo Marrer0 and Juan Gabriel Rodríguez, built an index of economic opportunity for individual American states. They found that states’ GDP growth was inversely correlated with their inequality of opportunity, but not with overall inequality. In a forthcoming World Bank working paper, Ezequiel Molina, Jaime Saavedra and Ambar Narayan find that countries with lower educational equality, as measured by the Human Opportunity Index, grow more slowly.

其它一些研究者试图借两个机会不平等指数来单独考虑“不健康”的收入不平等。该指数由世界银行提出并完善，在本辑特别报道的前面也有介绍。两位西班牙经济学家，古斯塔沃·马雷罗和胡安·加布里埃尔·罗德里格斯创立了一个适用于美国每一个州的经济机会指数。他们发现，每个州的GDP增长与机会的不平等呈负相关，但和总体的社会不平等却无负相关关系。在一份即将发布的世界银行工作报告中，伊齐基尔·莫利纳、杰米·萨韦德拉和安巴尔·纳拉扬发现，（通过人类机遇指数计算得出的）教育较为不平等的国家往往经济增长更为缓慢。

This line of research is in its early stages, but a second strand of evidence, which examines the link between inequality and social mobility, is more developed. There are now plenty of studies which use the inter-generational elasticity of income to measure social mobility in different countries. Miles Corak, a Canadian economist, first plotted the results of these studies on a single graph. It is known as the “Great Gatsby Curve” (see chart 4), and suggests that countries with higher Gini coefficients tend to have lower inter-generational social mobility.

这条研究路线还处在早期阶段，但随后考查收入不平等与社会流动性关系的一系列证据都已较为完善地建立起来了。现在有很多研究都运用代际收入弹性来衡量不同国家的社会流动性。加拿大经济学家迈尔斯·克罗科率先将这些研究成果标示在一张图上，被称作“了不起的盖茨比曲线”（见图表）[3]。这张图表明，基尼系数较高的国家往往代际社会流动性较低。



Perpetuating advantage
延续优势

In some ways the link between wider income gaps and lower social mobility is unsurprising. From violin lessons to tutors for tests, richer parents can invest more in their children, improving their chances of getting into the best universities. The meritocratic assumption is that public provision of basic services, particularly education, does enough to counter this advantage to give everyone a reasonable start. That was never true in poor countries with rudimentary social services. Increasingly, it does not seem to be true in rich ones either, particularly America. But the link between inequality and declining mobility is not inevitable. Countries such as Sweden that invest heavily and progressively in public services are more likely to prevent widening income inequality from reducing opportunity. And Latin America shows that investing more in education at the bottom can improve social mobility even in the most stratified places.

从某种程度上来说，较大的收入差距与较低的社会流动性之间存在联系并不令人意外。不论是小提琴课还是应试家教，更富裕的父母们能为自己的子女进行更多教育投资，提高他们进入一流大学的机会。社会想要任人唯贤，就必须让公共部门提供的基础服务，特别是教育，能够足以抵消这种金钱优势，给每个人一个较为公平合理的起跑线。社会服务不健全的贫穷国家向来做不到这一点。而渐渐的，富裕国家的事实也不再如此，美国就尤为突出。但收入不平等与社会流动性减弱二者间并无绝对的关系。像瑞典这样逐步加大公共服务投入的国家就较有可能阻止日益严重的收入不平等进一步降低机会的平等性。而拉美国家则证明，多在底层教育上投资能提升社会流动性，哪怕是在阶级最为分明的地方。

Lower growth rates may not be the only symptom of economic damage from inequality. Another could be macroeconomic instability. In an influential recent book, “Fault Lines”, Raghuram Rajan pointed to inequality as the underlying cause of America’s 2008 crash. As less-educated Americans saw their incomes fall, he suggested, politicians encouraged reckless mortgage lending so that poorer folk could keep up their living standards by borrowing. This argument echoed John Kenneth Galbraith, who wrote in the 1950s that “bad distribution of income” was the main cause of the Depression.

由收入不平等造成经济损伤的症状表现可能不只在于较低的经济增长率，还有可能表现为宏观经济上的不稳定。在最近一本名为《断层线》的颇具影响的专著中，拉古拉迈·拉詹把矛头指向收入不平等，认为这是美国2008年经济崩溃的根本原因。他指出，因为受教育程度较低的美国民众意识到自己的收入在减少，而政客们又怂恿不计后果的按揭贷款，这样一来较贫困的民众就靠借贷来维持他们的生活水平。这一论证与约翰·肯尼思·加尔布雷思的理论遥相呼应，后者在上世纪50年代就曾写明“收入的不良分配”是大萧条的罪魁祸首。

The thesis seems plausible. There is evidence that widening income gaps in America pushed less affluent people to stretch their finances, particularly to buy pricier houses. Robert Frank, an economist at Cornell University, has documented “expenditure cascades” where rich people’s spending patterns affect those of the near-rich. (One reason is that the less affluent want their children to go to the best schools, and house prices often reflect the quality of the local school.) Other scholars have spotted a link between inequality and financial distress. David Moss at Harvard Business School, for instance, found that the rate of American bank failures was highly correlated with the level of inequality.

这一论点似乎是说得通的。有证据表明，日益扩大的收入差距推动了美国那些经济不太宽裕的民众竭尽财力[4]地消费，这在购买高价房一项上尤为突出。康奈尔大学的经济学家罗伯特·弗兰克称之为“支出瀑布”，也就是富人的消费形式会影响那些较富裕人群的消费形式。（其中一个原因就在于不太富裕的人群希望子女能进入最好的学校，而房价往往能反映附近学校的好坏。）另一些学者指出，收入不平等和金融困境也存在联系。比如哈佛商学院的大卫·莫斯发现美国银行破产倒闭的比例与收入不平等的严重程度密切相关。

But the link is not ubiquitous. In Germany and, especially, in China, higher inequality has encouraged saving rather than spending. Nor are financial crises always preceded by widening income gaps. Michael Bordo of Rutgers University and Christopher Meissner of the University of California, Davis, looked at 14 financial busts in rich countries between 1920 and 2008 and found that these crises were typically preceded by credit booms, but only occasionally by rising inequality. In the most comprehensive analysis Anthony Atkinson and Salvatore Morelli of Oxford University looked at financial crises in 25 countries over the past 100 years and concluded that there was no systematic relationship between inequality and macroeconomic disaster.

但收入差距与消费情况的关联并不是普遍适用的。在德国，收入差距的扩大并没有提振消费，而是促进了储蓄，在中国则更是如此。而金融危机前也并非一定伴随着收入差距的不断扩大。罗格斯大学的迈克尔·波尔多和加利福尼亚大学戴维斯分校的克里斯托弗·迈斯纳研究了从1920年到2008年富裕国家发生的14次经济危机，发现这些危机之前往往都伴随着信贷泛滥，但只是偶尔会存在收入差距的扩大。在一份最具综合性的分析中，牛津大学的安东尼·爱金逊和赛尔瓦托·莫雷利研究了过去100年来发生在25个国家的经济危机，总结的结论认为收入不平等和宏观经济危机并无系统性关联。

Since both the levels and the origins of inequality vary widely, it is hardly surprising that there is no established relationship between income gaps and financial crises. That does not mean inequality never aggravates macroeconomic instability, but unfortunately critics of inequality often exaggerate their claims. A case in point is “The Spirit Level”, a book by two British epidemiologists, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, published in 2009. They claimed that higher levels of inequality were associated with higher murder rates, lower life expectancy, more obesity and all manner of other ills. Their explanation was a medical one. Inequality literally gets “under your skin” because the stress of keeping up with the Joneses raises cortisol levels.

二者没有确定的关系其实不足为奇，因为收入不平等的程度、起因往往有很大差别。这并不是说收入差距不会加剧宏观经济的不稳定性。遗憾的是，收入不平等的批评者们常常夸大其词。《精神层面》这本书就是典型的例子。该书于2009年出版，作者是英国的两位流行病学家理查德·威尔金森和凯特·皮克特。他们认为较高的收入差距会使谋杀率上升、预期寿命下降，造成肥胖者增多，带来各种各样的疾病。他们从医学的角度做出了解释：收入差距会真正让你感到“心痒难挠”[5]，因为和富家邻居比阔的压力会使得体内皮质醇的含量上升。

“The Spirit Level” caused a sensation when it was first published in Britain, probably because it reflected the post-crash Zeitgeist. Its conclusions, however, have been largely debunked. In a devastating critique, published by the Democracy Institute, Christopher Snowdon showed that Mr Wilkinson and Ms Pickett made highly selective use of statistics. Other, more careful studies show that although there is a strong relationship between individual income and health (richer people tend to be healthier and live longer than poorer ones), the link between countries’ income gaps and their citizens’ health is weak.

《精神层面》在英国一经出版便引起轰动，可能是因为这本书反映了后危机时期的时代精神。然而书中的结论却被广泛地指明是虚假的、错误的。在一篇引人注目的批评中，民主研究所的克里斯托弗·斯诺登证实，威尔金森和皮克特的数据是经过高度筛选的。另一些更为周密的研究则表明，尽管个人收入和健康之间有着强烈的关系（富人往往比穷人更健康也更长寿），但各国之间的收入差距和民众健康之间就没有多少关联。

Exaggerated claims of the damage from inequality have themselves done damage by reinforcing caricatures in an already highly charged debate. Quite legitimately, different people have different notions of what is fair, and what is the right balance between fairness and efficiency. But whatever their views, there is a reform agenda which both sides should embrace, one that both boosts efficiency and mitigates inequality.

在这场早已激烈交锋的争论中，那些对收入不平等损害的种种夸大其词反而不攻自破。不过，从情理上讲，对于什么是公平，公平与效率之间怎样取舍才算平衡，不同的人有着不同的看法。但不论大家怎么看，未来的改革议程应当把两个方面都顾及到，既要提高效率，又要保证公平。




————————————————————————————————

注释与讨论：
[1]
have you cake
题目短语取自You can’t have your cake, and eat it.
成语的字面意思是, 你不可能吃了蛋糕，同时又想拿着蛋糕。
即汉语里“鱼和熊掌，不可兼得”或者“世事两难全”

[2]
rent-seeking
寻租
    公共领域里有价值的资源就是“租”，自利的经济人都想据为己有。寻租（rent-seeking）是指自利的经济人在不新增社会财富的情况下追求社会财富的非公平性转移和社会资源的非公平性配置，从而导致一部分人福利的改善，而另一部分人福利的减损。寻租不是一种单纯的经济现象，而是一种具有内在制度依据的广泛的社会现象。
参考资料：http://finance.sina.com.cn/roll/20081219/09332582694.shtml

[3]
Great Gatsby Curve
了不起的盖茨比曲线
    《了不起的盖茨比》是美国作家菲茨杰拉德的小说，小说主人公盖茨比用现在的话来说，曾经是一枚屌丝，有一个屌丝女友黛西。黛西后来嫁入豪门，盖茨比则发奋成为富翁，以为她当年为了金钱背叛自己，也能为了金钱重回自己身边，结果却被她利用，最后连命也搭上了。
　　而以这部著名小说的主人公命名的“了不起的盖茨比曲线”，是一根向右上方倾斜的曲线，用以说明了这么一种社会经济现象：高度不平等的国家具有较低的代际流动性——社会越不平等，个人的经济地位就越由其父母的地位决定， 子女处于父辈的经济阶层的可能性就越高。
参考资料：http://news.hexun.com/2012-08-25/145129783.html

[4]
stretch
词典里有两种相反的意项
(使)延长使用;节俭地使用 If you stretch an amount of something or if it stretches, you make it last longer than it usually would by being careful and not wasting any of it.
耗尽，竭尽(财力或物力) If something stretches your money or resources, it uses them up so you have hardly enough for your needs.
这里结合上下文选后者

[5]
get under one's skin使人烦躁，（因为爱）使人不安；激怒某人；使某人恼火。
皮质醇是从肾上腺皮质中提取出的，是对糖类代谢具有最强作用的肾上腺皮质激素。皮质醇过多会造成的代谢紊乱，主要表现为满月脸，向心性肥胖，多血质，皮肤紫纹，血糖、血压升高，骨质疏松，对感染抵抗力降低等
参考资料：http://baike.baidu.com/view/322796.htm

终极奔跑者

文章很长，这里我理出了一条思路供大家参考（纯属个人理解）

主线
原始观点：经济繁荣与收入平等不可得兼
    ↓
现代观点：收入不平等不会带来经济增长（理由1、2、3）
    ↓
进阶观点：收入不平等带来效率低下、社会流动性减弱、导致了经济危机
    ↓
完善观点：收入不平等与经济危机的联系不是普适的
    ↓
矫正观点：收入不平等的危害没有一些人夸大的那么严重

说一下我对题目的理解，
题目里说了这个成语一半儿的意思，然而遍观全文，（我觉得）通篇论争了很多“证否”的观点，比如“收入不平等不会带来经济增长”、“收入不平等的危害没有一些人夸大的那么严重”，既严密却又让人觉得无甚可取之处（因为并没有告诉我们提高效率或是繁荣经济到底怎样才好，只是说这样那样不行），最后结尾又说“既要公平、也要效率”。文章导语里说提升公平不会过损效率，但正文的重心则放在“收入不平等”会如何如何。所以我觉得题目还是翻成问句吧。（到底能不能得兼，读者自寻答案）

红色部分还请各位多多指教，尤其是最后一段标红处……不知所云。

lwj92

great

arsenal5ive

1.nor are那里翻译成“金融危机也并不是经常紧随在不断扩大的收入差距之后”会不会更好
2....crises were typically preceded by credit booms这个credit booms翻译成信贷泛滥或信用泛滥会不会更好
3.Exaggerated claims of the damage from inequality have themselves done damage by reinforcing caricatures in an already highly charged debate太拗口了。。。感觉应该是
<这些夸大不平等危害的的(人)>利用<讽刺漫画><在已经热血化的争辩中>加大(收入不平等带来的危害的)影响力(或伤害)。不知道理解的对不对

终极奔跑者

arsenal5ive 发表于 2012-10-16 17:34
1.nor are那里翻译成“金融危机也并不是经常紧随在不断扩大的收入差距之后”会不会更好
2....crises w ...

谢谢提议！

1.
这里对nor are的理解可能存在偏差，我试着说一下我的理解：
We are not soldiers, nor are they.
我们不是士兵,他们也不是。

也就是说nor are关键就在于省去了not……

看前半句higher inequality has encouraged saving rather than spending
也就是说 higher inequality has not encouraged spending, nor are financial crises

考虑到这一层意思讨论的都是higher inequality、widening income gaps
所以我把financial crises和widening income gaps调换了

如果我的理解确实有误请再说明一下


2 确实更好，改过

3.
感觉不是那么回事儿
也附一个句子：
nothing could better reinforce the caricature of trigger-happy superpowerdom on the rampage.
没有什么比这一幕能更好的讽刺狂暴好战的超级霸权了。

所以还是再想想吧

gangangwen

整篇文章翻译得挺好。。。这种译文已经不多见了。。赞一个

一些小问题如下（建议双开网页，以避免查看原文的麻烦）：
第三段
“到了更近一些时期”，直接译为“然后”即可

“再分配的规模越大”
the state这里还是指政府规模，这期SR的state没有指代“再分配规模”的先例。再者说，“再分配规模”其实也可视作“政府规模”的一个体现

第四段
“而本篇特别报道的分析认为”
对比还是比较强烈的，建议把“而”改为“但”

第五段
“刻板的制度体系”，rigidities指“价格粘性”

“寻租手段”，建议“手段”改为“行为”

“并会不”改为“并不会”

“再分配规模的缩小”同理

“这些现代转变既没有促进经济增长，也无进步性可言。”
我个人偏向于认为transfers指“转移支付”。在本期SR的美国报道中，第13段如有如下表述Poorer Americans are hit disproportionately by payroll taxes, which are regressive and have grown in importance. But the biggest hit is on the benefit side.，因此可以认为此处less pregressive即指regressive。试译“目前的政府转移支付正在退步，逐渐丧失对经济的促进作用”

第六段
“分布不均”，“不均”改为“分散”

第七段
“收入不平等与经济增长：数据能反映什么？”加书名号

第九段
“借显示机会不平等的两个指数”改为“借助两个机会不平等指标”

第十段
“随后”，没有时间上的先后顺序，这里second不必一定译出

十一段
“必须设想公共部门提供的基础服务”，“设想”改为“让”

“但收入不平等带来的社会流动性减弱并不是不可避免的。”
译文与原文脱离。原文是说两者的关系也并非完全绝对一致。上文说平等性降低会导致流动性降低，下文所举的两例都是平等性降低了，但流动性没降低或提升了

十三段
“财政困境”
根据下文的举例，应当认为此处financial指金融

十四段
“而在金融危机前夕，收入差距扩大也并不会推动消费。”
译文脱离原文。试译“金融危机前也并非一定伴随着收入差距的不断扩大”

十六段
“甫经”
我百度了一下，“甫经”似乎使用范围并不大。还是建议译为“一经”，毕竟不是文学作品，一篇经济学论文而已

“但民众的收入差距和民众健康之间就没有多少关联”
译文脱离原文。试译“但各国之间的收入差距与民众健康就没有多少关联”


以上。

@敛刃 @contrary @migmig @悠悠万事97  

gangangwen

终极奔跑者 发表于 2012-10-15 21:13
文章很长，这里我理出了一条思路供大家参考（纯属个人理解）

主线

你思考的问题是“效率与公平如何兼得”，背后的思想还是两者很难兼得

作者在这里提出了一个新的思路：不公平会导致不效率，从而得出公平可以与效率同向运行

作者的关键论点就是：不公平会导致不效率

终极奔跑者

gangangwen 发表于 2012-11-11 14:28
整篇文章翻译得挺好。。。这种译文已经不多见了。。赞一个

一些小问题如下（建议双开网页，以避免查看原文 ...

建议非常好！
很多处我总是把自己的理解写成译文，以致于曲解了全文意思。没有做到“忠实”，今后一定注意。
“甫经”这样的词以后用的时候会更谨慎一些。
建议大部分我都参照着修改了，
另有两处：
关于书名号，论文为《收入不平等与经济增长：数据能反映什么？》
                  论文的题名为“收入不平等与经济增长：数据能反映什么？”
个人倾向这里用引号，暂未修改

第十段second，注意段首有一个first

而关于state和rigidities、transfers三处的翻译，容我再看一看。我弄明白一些后再修改。

谢谢~昨天重感冒太厉害，本来想晚上解决的，脑子稀里糊涂的什么都看不进去，回复得较晚还请谅解。