不能简单看待印度的不平等问题

In his best-selling book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, the French economist Thomas Piketty argued that capitalist economies have a natural tendency to incubate highly unequal distributions of income and wealth. Now Mr Piketty has, with Lucas Chancel, written a new paper entitled “Indian Income Inequality, 1922-2014: From British Raj to Billionaire Raj?”.

法国经济学家托马斯•皮凯蒂(Thomas Piketty)在其畅销书《21世纪资本论》(Capital in the Twenty-First Century)中辩称，资本主义经济有着孵化高度不平等的收入和财富分配的自然倾向。现在皮凯蒂与卢卡斯•钱斯尔(Lucas Chancel)一起撰写了一篇新的论文，题目是《1922-2014年印度的收入不平等现象：从英国统治到富豪统治?》(Indian Income Inequality, 1922-2014: From British Raj to Billionaire Raj?)。

Using a complex mix of data on income tax, national accounts and household surveys, Messrs Piketty and Chancel conclude that the top 1 per cent of earners in 2014 earned 22 per cent of Indian national income, the highest share since 1922, when income tax was introduced. The share of the top 1 per cent fell sharply between 1951 and 1980, and then rose again in the period 1980-2014, particularly after the beginning of economic liberalisation in 1991.

根据复杂的个人所得税、国民账户和家庭调查数据，皮凯蒂和钱斯尔得出结论称，2014年印度前1%高收入人群获得了22%的国民收入，是1922年开征个人所得税以来最大的份额。这个人群的收入份额在1951年到1980年间大幅下降，随后在1980年到2014年间再次上升，尤其是在1991年经济自由化启动之后。

There are two problems with their argument. One is statistical. The other is their failure to distinguish between different kinds of inequality. Absent such caveats, the paper implies that the era of socialist planning in India was fair, distributionally speaking, and the era of “pro-business, market deregulation policies” that followed unfair. That is a half-truth at best.

他们的论证有两个问题。一个是统计问题，另一个是他们未能区分不同种类的不平等。除了此类问题以外，该文还暗示称，从分配的角度说，印度的社会主义计划时代是公平的，随后的“亲商业的市场去监管化政策”时代是不公平的。这充其量说对了一半。

The authors admit that their mish-mash of survey, tax and national accounts data are “fraught with methodological and conceptual difficulties”. So they attempt to buttress this with a series of alternative assumptions. Nevertheless, the problem of “rubbish in, rubbish out” applies to all such modelling.

两位作者承认，他们混合了调查、税收和国民账户的数据“充斥着方法和概念上的困难”。因此他们试图用一系列替代假设来佐证。然而，“垃圾进、垃圾出”(rubbish in, rubbish out)的问题适用于所有此类模型。

In 1922, over 40 per cent of India was ruled by 500-odd princes, not the British. The princes and their nobility were enormously wealthy, but not subject to British taxes. Inequality in that era was surely much higher than today.

1922年，逾40%的印度地区被500多位王公而非英国人统治着。这些王公和他们的贵族非常富有，但不用缴纳英国税收。那个时代的不平等程度当然远比现在严重。

Messrs Piketty and Chancel’s use of tax data to judge income is problematic. The tax authorities count capital gains as income. But capital gains do not constitute value addition, and so are excluded from gross domestic product. So, their income/GDP ratio should not include capital gains.

皮凯蒂和钱斯尔使用税收数据来评估收入是有问题的。税收当局将资本收益视为收入。但资本收益不构成增值，因此不算在国内生产总值(GDP)之内。因此，他们计算的收入与GDP比率不应包括资本收益。

The authors show that inequality shrank significantly in the era of high taxes and nationalisation and into the 1980s. Did ordinary Indians benefit? Alas, no. The poverty ratio remained virtually unchanged for three decades after independence in 1947, while the population almost doubled. Hence the absolute number of poor people almost doubled in this period.

两位作者表示，在高税收和国有化时代以及进入上世纪80年代不平等程度大幅减轻。普通印度人受益了吗?唉，他们并没有受益。在1947年独立以后的30年里，贫困率依然基本上没有变化，而人口几乎增长了一倍。因此穷人绝对数量在这个期间几乎增长了一倍。

By contrast, while inequality certainly rose in the booming 2000s, 138m people were lifted above the poverty line between 2004 and 2012, an Indian record. Inegalitarian liberalisation accomplished what egalitarian socialism could not.

相比之下，尽管在本世纪蓬勃发展的头十年不平等程度当然有所上升，但1.38亿人在2004年到2012年间脱贫，这是印度历史上的最高纪录。不平等的自由化做到了主张平等的社会主义都做不到的事情。

This should come as no surprise. Rapid growth provides opportunities, which can be more important than socialist levelling. The Economic Survey 2010-11 provided consumption Gini coefficients — a measure of equality in which 0 is complete equality and 1 complete inequality — for Indian states. In every state, urban Gini numbers were far higher than rural ones, yet all migration was from relatively egalitarian villages to inegalitarian cities. People voted with their feet for opportunity over equality. The rural Gini (0.17) was lowest in Bihar and Assam, but these were sloughs of despond and stagnation, not egalitarian paradises. Biharis migrated in their millions to richer but more unequal states for work.

人们不应感到意外。快速增长提供了机遇，这可能比社会主义平等更重要。《2010年至2011年经济调查》(Economic Survey 2010-11)提供了印度各邦的消费基尼系数(Gini coefficient)——基尼系数是一种衡量平等状况的指标，0是完全平等，1是完全不平等。在每个邦，城市的基尼系数都远高于乡村的基尼系数。然而，所有的移民都是从相对平等的村庄来到不平等的城市的。人们用脚投票，支持机遇而非平等。比哈尔邦和阿萨姆邦的乡村基尼系数为0.17，是最低的，但这两个邦是令人失望和经济停滞的泥沼，并非是人人平等的天堂。比哈尔邦有数百万人去了更富裕但也更为不平等的邦工作。

The second-highest rural inequality (0.29) was found in Kerala. This is India’s most socially advanced state, with the lowest rates of infant mortality and illiteracy. It also has the highest wage rate and best pupil-teacher ratio. Kerala has gained hugely through globalisation — it sends the most migrant workers to the Gulf and benefits from their remittances. This creates inequality, but its living conditions are far better than in more egalitarian Bihar or Assam.

第二高的乡村基尼系数(0.29)出自喀拉拉邦。这是印度社会发展程度最为先进的邦，拥有最低的婴儿死亡率和文盲率。它还有最高的薪资水平和最佳的学生与教师比率。喀拉拉邦因全球化受益匪浅——该邦前往海湾地区打工的人数在印度各邦中是最多的，它从这些工人的汇款中受益。这导致了不平等，但其生活水平远高于更为平等的比哈尔邦和阿萨姆邦。

Dalits, once called “untouchables”, are at the very bottom of India’s caste system. Economic liberalisation has generated new business opportunities, creating 3,000 Dalit millionaires. This will show in Messrs Piketty and Chancel’s data as contributing to inequality. But it is the sort of inequality that should be celebrated. India needs more social mobility and rags-to-riches stories.

曾被称为“贱民”的达利特(Dalit)处于印度种姓体系的底层。经济自由化创造了新的商业机遇，产生了3000个达利特百万富翁。在皮凯蒂和钱斯尔的数据当中，这会被证明为导致了不平等。但这是某种应该赞扬的不平等。印度需要更多的社会流动性和白手起家的故事。

Leaving aside the technical flaws of the Piketty-Chancel analysis, it is true that liberalisation has increased inequality. But it is also true that as liberalisation gathered momentum after 1991, businesses were able to expand at an unprecedented rate. People with skills and access to global markets benefited hugely, while those in rural areas without skills or connectivity lagged far behind.

如果不考虑皮凯蒂和钱斯尔的分析在技术上的瑕疵，自由化确实加剧了不平等。但以下情况同样是事实，随着1991年以后自由化势头加剧，企业能够以前所未有的速度扩张。拥有技能和能够进入全球市场的人受益巨大，而农村地区缺乏技能或门路的人落在了后面。

This massive inequality of opportunity is something Messrs Piketty and Chancel do not address. Soaking the rich is not the answer — we learnt that from the socialist era. India needs a decent school, health centre, road, electricity supply and internet connection in every village. It needs uncorrupt, accountable and skilled government staff. Economic liberalisation has achieved much, but it should now be supplemented by high-quality public goods.

这种机遇上的巨大不平等，皮凯蒂和钱斯尔并没有探讨。向富人课以重税不是办法——我们从社会主义时代就知道这一点。印度需要在每个村庄建设像样的学校、卫生中心、道路、电力供应和互联网连接。它需要廉洁、负责和有能力的政府职员。经济自由化取得了很大成就，但现在应该由优质的公共产品来补充。

The writer is a research fellow at the Cato Institute

本文作者是加图研究所(Cato Institute)的研究员