金融时报:阶级、国籍与特权

所属教程:金融时报原文阅读

浏览:

2021年12月16日

手机版

扫描二维码方便学习和分享

阶级、国籍与特权

在《傲慢与偏见》的时代，伊丽莎白小姐的财富和特权完全取决于她父亲和丈夫所处在什么阶级。而今天，阶级出身已经不是决定一切的因素了，但基于国籍的财富和权利的差距，则明显增加。作者哈福德认为，他最大的特权，不是牛剑毕业，而是英国护照。

测试中可能遇到的词汇和知识：

vantage ['vɑːntɪdʒ] 优势

establishment [ɪ'stæblɪʃm(ə)nt; e-] 权势阶层

cut-off 界限

sinister ['sɪnɪstə] 阴险的，凶兆的

A passport to privilege （847 words）

Tim Harford, Undercover Economist, November 7, 2014

I've been a lucky boy. I could start with the “boy” fact. We men enjoy all sorts of privileges, many of them quite subtle these days, but well worth having. I'm white. I'm an Oxford graduate and I am the son of Oxbridge graduates. All those are things that I have in common with my fellow columnist Simon Kuper, who recently admitted that he didn't feel he'd earned his vantage point “on the lower slopes of the establishment”.

I don't feel able to comment objectively on that, although we could ask another colleague, Gillian Tett. She's female and – in a particularly cruel twist – she wasn't educated at Oxford but at Cambridge. That's real diversity right there.

All these accidents of birth are important. But there's a more important one: citizenship. Gillian, Simon and I are all British citizens. Financially speaking, this is a greater privilege than all the others combined.

Imagine lining up everyone in the world from the poorest to the richest. The world is a very unequal place: those in the top 1% have vastly more than those in the bottom 1% – you need about $35,000 after taxes to make that cut-off to be one of the 70 million richest people in the world. If that seems low, it's $140,000 after taxes for a family of four – and it is also about 100 times more than the world's poorest people have.

What determines who is at the richer end of that curve is, mostly, living in a rich country. Branko Milanovic, a visiting presidential professor at City University New York and author of The Haves and the Have-Nots, calculates that about 80% of global inequality is the result of inequality between rich nations and poor nations. Only 20% is the result of inequality between rich and poor within nations. The Oxford thing matters, of course. But what matters much more is that I was born in England rather than Bangladesh or Uganda.

That might seem obvious but it's often ignored in the conversations we have about inequality. And things used to be very different. In 1820, the UK had about three times the per capita income of countries such as China and India, and perhaps four times that of the poorest countries. The gap between rich countries and the rest has since grown. Today the US has about five times the per capita income of China, 10 times that of India and 50 times that of the poorest countries. Being a citizen of the US, the EU or Japan is an extraordinary economic privilege, one of a dramatically different scale than in the 19th century.

Privilege back then used to be far more about class than nationality. Consider the early 19th century world of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. Elizabeth Bennet's financial future depends totally on her social position and, therefore, if and whom she marries. Elizabeth's family's income is £430 per capita. She can increase that more than tenfold by marrying Mr Darcy and snagging half of his £10,000 a year (this income, by the way, put Mr Darcy in the top 0.1% of earners). But if her father dies before she marries, Elizabeth may end up with £40 a year (interest on her mother's fortune), still twice the average income in England.

Milanovic shows that when we swap in data from 2004, all the gaps shrink dramatically. Mr Darcy's income as one of the 0.1% is £400,000 today; Elizabeth Bennet's equivalent is £23,000 a year. Marriage in the early 19th century would have increased her income more than 100 times; in the early 21st century, the ratio has shrunk to 17 times.

This is a curious state of affairs. Class matters far less than it used to in the 19th century. Citizenship matters far more. Yet when we worry about inequality, it's not citizenship that obsesses us. Thomas Piketty's famous book, Capital in the 21st Century, consciously echoes Karl Marx. Click over to the “Top Incomes Database”, a wonderful resource produced by Piketty, Tony Atkinson and others, and you'll need to specify which country you'd like to analyse. The entire project accepts the nation state as the unit of analysis.

Meanwhile, many people want to limit migration – the single easiest way for poor people to improve their life chances – and view growth in India and China not as dramatic progress in reducing both poverty and global inequality, but as a sinister development.

It would be unfair to say that Simon Kuper and Thomas Piketty have missed the point. Domestic inequality does matter. It matters because we have political institutions capable of addressing it. It matters because it's obvious from day to day. And it matters because over the past few decades domestic inequality has started to grow again, just as global inequality has started to shrink.

But as I check off my list of privileges, I won't forget the biggest of them all: my passport.

请根据你所读到的文章内容，完成以下自测题目：

1.What was the major reason for inequality two centuries ago?

A.Gender.

B.Education.

C.Nationality.

D.Social class.

答案(1)

2.An annual income of ____ would make you the 1% richest in the world.

A.$70 million.

B.$35,000.

C.￥140,000.