Liberty, Equality, Efficiency
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Most people, if pressed on the subject, would probably agree that extreme income inequality is a bad thing, although a fair number of conservatives believe that the whole subject of income distribution should be banned from public discourse. (Rick Santorum, the former senator and presidential candidate, wants to ban the term “middle class,” which he says is “class-envy, leftist language.” Who knew?) But what can be done about it?

The standard answer in American politics is, “Not much.” Almost 40 years ago Arthur Okun, chief economic adviser to President Lyndon Johnson, published a classic book titled “Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff,” arguing that redistributing income from the rich to the poor takes a toll on economic growth. Okun’s book set the terms for almost all the debate that followed: liberals might argue that the efficiency costs of redistribution were small, while conservatives argued that they were large, but everybody knew that doing anything to reduce inequality would have at least some negative impact on G.D.P.

But it appears that what everyone knew isn’t true. Taking action to reduce the extreme inequality of 21st-century America would probably increase, not reduce, economic growth.

Let’s start with the evidence.

It’s widely known that income inequality varies a great deal among advanced countries. In particular, disposable income in the United States and Britain is much more unequally distributed than it is in France, Germany or Scandinavia. It’s less well known that this difference is primarily the result of government policies. Data assembled by the Luxembourg Income Study (with which I will be associated starting this summer) show that primary income — income from wages, salaries, assets, and so on — is very unequally distributed in almost all countries. But taxes and transfers (aid in cash or kind) reduce this underlying inequality to varying degrees: some but not a lot in America, much more in many other countries.

So does reducing inequality through redistribution hurt economic growth? Not according to two landmark studies by economists at the International Monetary Fund, which is hardly a leftist organization. The first study looked at the historical relationship between inequality and growth, and found that nations with relatively low income inequality do better at achieving sustained economic growth as opposed to occasional “spurts.” The second, released last month, looked directly at the effect of income redistribution, and found that “redistribution appears generally benign in terms of its impact on growth.”

In short, Okun’s big trade-off doesn’t seem to be a trade-off at all. Nobody is proposing that we try to be Cuba, but moving American policies part of the way toward European norms would probably increase, not reduce, economic efficiency.

At this point someone is sure to say, “But doesn’t the crisis in Europe show the destructive effects of the welfare state?” No, it doesn’t. Europe is paying a heavy price for creating monetary union without political union. But within the euro area, countries doing a lot of redistribution have, if anything, weathered the crisis better than those that do less.

But how can the effects of redistribution on growth be benign? Doesn’t generous aid to the poor reduce their incentive to work? Don’t taxes on the rich reduce their incentive to get even richer? Yes and yes — but incentives aren’t the only things that matter. Resources matter too — and in a highly unequal society, many people don’t have them.

Think, in particular, about the ever-popular slogan that we should seek equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes. That may sound good to people with no idea what life is like for tens of millions of Americans; but for those with any reality sense, it’s a cruel joke. Almost 40 percent of American children live in poverty or near-poverty. Do you really think they have the same access to education and jobs as the children of the affluent?

In fact, low-income children are much less likely to complete college than their affluent counterparts, with the gap widening rapidly. And this isn’t just bad for those unlucky enough to be born to the wrong parents; it represents a huge and growing waste of human potential — a waste that surely acts as a powerful if invisible drag on economic growth.

Now, I don’t want to claim that addressing income inequality would help everyone. The very affluent would lose more from higher taxes than they gained from better economic growth. But it’s pretty clear that taking on inequality would be good, not just for the poor, but for the middle class (sorry, Senator Santorum).

In short, what’s good for the 1 percent isn’t good for America. And we don’t have to keep living in a new Gilded Age if we don’t want to.

改善所得不均 經濟才能加分

大多人可能同意，所得極度不均是件壞事，但要如何改善這個現象？

美國政壇的標準答案是「能做的不多」。詹森總統首席經濟顧問歐肯40年前的經典書「平等與效率：艱困的取捨」，講的是貧富所得重分配重挫經濟成長。歐肯的著作奠定日後辯論的基礎：自由派主張財富重分配的效率成本低，保守派認為成本高，但每個人都知道，減緩所得不均對經濟有負面衝擊。

減緩21世紀美國所得極度不均，很可能提升、而非抑制經濟成長。讓我們從一些證據開始。

大家都知道，所得不均在先進國家情況不一，尤其是美國和英國可支配所得不均的情況，比法國、德國或北歐都嚴重。但較少人知道，這種差異主要受政策影響。根據盧森堡所得調查中心（LIS），主要所得（即工資、薪水、資產）在所有國家幾乎都分配不均，但稅和補助（如現金補助）把這種不平等降到不同程度：美國減緩一些、但不是很多，多數國家好得多。

那麼，減緩所得不均會不會傷害經濟成長？國際貨幣基金（IMF）經濟學家的兩個指標性研究認為不會，而IMF可不是什麼左派機構。第一項研究探討所得不均與經濟成長的歷史關聯，發現相較於偶爾「努力」的國家，所得不均較和緩的國家，達成永續經濟成長的表現較佳。

第二項研究直接探討所得重分配的效果，發現普遍而言，重分配似乎有益經濟成長。讓美國政策往歐洲標準邁進，可能提升、而非降低經濟效率。

到此一定有人說，「歐洲危機不正凸顯了福利國家的毀滅性後果？」，答案為否。歐洲想在沒有政治聯盟的情況下創造貨幣聯盟，付出昂貴代價，但真要找出差異的話，在歐元區裡，較努力重分配財富的國家，比不努力的國家更能因應危機。

然而，財富重分配如何有利於經濟成長？有句話說，「我們應該尋求機會平等，而非結果平等」。這句話對瞭解現實的人來說，不啻是殘酷的笑話。美國40%孩童生活在貧窮或接近貧窮中。難道你真以為這些小孩和家境富裕的小孩一樣，有同等的受教育和就業機會？

事實上，低收入家庭孩童能唸完大學的比率，遠低於一般小孩。這對由錯誤的父母所生的小孩來說不只是運氣差，還凸顯人類潛能被大大浪費--這個後果就算沒有拖累經濟成長，也絕對影響深遠。

我不想主張減緩所得不均有利所有人。加稅對超級富人造成的損失，超過他們從經濟成長獲得的利益。但很顯然，減緩所得不均是件好事，不只對窮人如此，對中產階級也是如此。

原文參照：
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/opinion/krugman-liberty-equality-efficiency.html

紐約時報中文版翻譯：
http://cn.nytimes.com/opinion/20140311/c11krugman/zh-hant/

2014-03-11．經濟日報．A7．國際焦點．編譯余曉惠