外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯——拉丁美洲的財(cái)政再分配和收入不平等

1、<p>　　本 科 生 畢 業(yè) 論 文（設(shè)計(jì)）</p><p>　　外 文 文 獻(xiàn) 翻 譯　</p><p>　　拉丁美洲的財(cái)政再分配和收入不平等</p><p>　　學(xué)生姓名 丁超</p><p>　　學(xué) 號(hào) 0802100112</p><p>　　指導(dǎo)教師 葉

2、寧</p><p>　　二級(jí)學(xué)院 財(cái)政與公共管理學(xué)院</p><p>　　專業(yè)名稱 財(cái)政學(xué)</p><p>　　班 級(jí) 08財(cái)政</p><p><b>　　2012年03月</b></p><p>　　拉丁美洲的財(cái)政再分配和收入不平等</p>&

3、lt;p>　　我們分析的對(duì)象是長期的南美財(cái)政分配體系績效評(píng)估。為了這個(gè)目的,我們記錄了有關(guān)拉丁美洲在實(shí)施各種財(cái)政干預(yù)收入不平等政策前后發(fā)生的事例。我們用一個(gè)比較的角度，把來自拉丁美洲和西歐的兩組國家的經(jīng)驗(yàn)進(jìn)行了對(duì)比。</p><p>　　我們根據(jù)是否有合適的可用的收入分配的數(shù)據(jù)來確定選取哪些國家作為對(duì)比樣本。它包含了拉丁美洲前六大經(jīng)濟(jì)體,它們一共占拉丁美洲75%的人口和2008年80%的國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值,相當(dāng)于

4、15個(gè)西歐國家。不過,并不是所有的排名靠后的國家都擁有完整的信息,因此,下面介紹的一些排名靠后的拉美國家與一些較小的歐洲經(jīng)濟(jì)體相比呈現(xiàn)出落后的局面。但是附錄數(shù)據(jù)源進(jìn)行了較詳細(xì)的論述。</p><p>　　在進(jìn)行下一步之前,對(duì)一些術(shù)語進(jìn)行定義會(huì)非常有用。我們把“市場(chǎng)收入”這個(gè)術(shù)語定義為稅前和政府轉(zhuǎn)移支付前的收入——因此，稅前收入分配在很大程度上取決于市場(chǎng)對(duì)個(gè)人資產(chǎn)和努力工作的回報(bào)以及那些私人資產(chǎn)的潛在分配。然而,從

5、福利的角度看則取決于相應(yīng)的更多的可支配收入改善措施。換言之，取決于家庭收入是否已經(jīng)收到政府的現(xiàn)金救濟(jì)(例如,養(yǎng)老、失業(yè)保險(xiǎn)、社會(huì)救助轉(zhuǎn)讓)和直接稅款返還。可支配收入，而不是市場(chǎng)收入,更能測(cè)量不同家庭的消費(fèi)能力。此外,我們還對(duì)家庭收入有以下其他兩種不同的定義。第一個(gè)是總收入,等于市場(chǎng)收入加上政府現(xiàn)金收益，或者等于稅前的全部家庭收入。第二個(gè)我們不得不提的,由于目前沒有一個(gè)更恰當(dāng)?shù)脑~語來形容,我們暫且稱之為稅后收入,它是指扣除稅收后（包括直接

6、稅和間接稅）的收入總額, 從而提供了一個(gè)衡量家庭消費(fèi)能力的替代指標(biāo)。</p><p>　　通過比較多種收入分配不平等的定義，我們可以得到一個(gè)簡易的測(cè)量方法來分辨三種財(cái)政干預(yù)措施——直接稅、間接稅和財(cái)政轉(zhuǎn)移支付隊(duì)收入分配的影響。如表1，它記錄了四個(gè)替代措施的基尼系數(shù)值。</p><p>　　收入不平等經(jīng)常被用于測(cè)量可支配收入的分配情況。相對(duì)應(yīng)的基尼系數(shù)出現(xiàn)在表中第3列,這反映了,根據(jù)這個(gè)收入

7、的定義,拉丁美洲比歐洲收入更加不平等。拉丁美洲國家的平均可支配收入的基尼系數(shù)為0.50，相較而言，歐洲國家只有0.31。事實(shí)上,本例中拉美國家中基尼系數(shù)最低的國家(智利)仍然高于歐洲國家中基尼系數(shù)最高的國家(葡萄牙)。可支配收入的分配是市場(chǎng)收入的分配和國家通過直接稅和現(xiàn)金轉(zhuǎn)移支付的再分配行動(dòng)的綜合作用的結(jié)果。表1中第1列和第2列幫助我們了解每個(gè)因素所起的作用。第1列中顯示的市場(chǎng)收入的基尼系數(shù)與第3列中新興地區(qū)的市場(chǎng)收入的基尼系數(shù)形成了鮮

8、明對(duì)比,事實(shí)上,拉丁美洲國家的市場(chǎng)收入的平均基尼系數(shù)——0.52,只高于可支配收入的平均基尼系數(shù)的2%，而歐洲國家的市場(chǎng)收入的基尼系數(shù)遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)高于可支配收入的基尼系數(shù):案例中前15個(gè)國家的市場(chǎng)收入的平均基尼系數(shù)——0.46，遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)高出可支配收入的平均基尼系數(shù)15%。</p><p>　　因此,一個(gè)重要的訊息是:在兩組國家間，市場(chǎng)收入的差距比從可支配收入的差距小。換句話說,大部分的不同層次的可支配收入不平等在這兩個(gè)地區(qū)的

9、不同影響是由于稅收和轉(zhuǎn)移支付引起的：在歐洲，稅收和轉(zhuǎn)移支付大大減少了收入不平等，而在拉丁美洲作用很小。事實(shí)上，不考慮直接稅和轉(zhuǎn)移支付時(shí)，很多歐洲國家擁有的基尼系數(shù)通常跟拉丁美洲相似。這種情況下，舉例來說，愛爾蘭和英國，其市場(chǎng)收入的基尼系數(shù)分別為0.53和0.52。即使在北歐國家，他們的權(quán)益水平普遍稱贊，表現(xiàn)出相對(duì)較高的市場(chǎng)收入的不平等。即便是北歐國家,通常被人們以公平水平所稱道,也顯示出較高的市場(chǎng)收入不平等。丹麥，芬蘭和瑞典的基尼指數(shù)分

10、別為0.49，0.49和0.45。在市場(chǎng)收入方面，樣本中的最平等的國家是奧地利和荷蘭，他們的基尼系數(shù)分別為0.38和0.39。</p><p>　　這些數(shù)值與相同組的歐洲國家可支配收入的基尼系數(shù)形成了鮮明的對(duì)比，所不同的是在丹麥和愛爾蘭，稅收和轉(zhuǎn)移支付把基尼系數(shù)分別拉低了20個(gè)百分點(diǎn)和19個(gè)百分點(diǎn)。甚至某些歐洲國家（意大利、希臘、葡萄牙）仍設(shè)法通過稅收福利制度來重新分配以拉低10個(gè)百分點(diǎn)以上的基尼指數(shù)。</

11、p><p>　　自然而然的問題是稅收和轉(zhuǎn)移支付對(duì)拉丁美洲和歐洲的稅收福利制度的再分配影響是否顯著不同，主要受稅收影響還是主要受轉(zhuǎn)移支付的影響，或者兩者兼而有之。通過比較列（2）中總收入的基尼系數(shù)和市場(chǎng)收入的基尼系數(shù)，我們可以推斷公共轉(zhuǎn)移支付的再分配效應(yīng)。這再次揭示了這兩個(gè)地區(qū)之間巨大的差異。公共轉(zhuǎn)移支付僅略微降低了拉丁美洲的收入不平等——總收入的基尼系數(shù)是最多比市場(chǎng)收入低一到兩個(gè)百分點(diǎn)，而在一些國家（阿根廷、哥倫比亞

12、、秘魯）前者和后者之間幾乎沒有差異。然而，在歐洲國家轉(zhuǎn)移支付發(fā)揮了很大的作用，總收入的基尼系數(shù)平均比市場(chǎng)收入的基尼系數(shù)低10個(gè)百分點(diǎn)。這隱藏了在不同國家間的高度差異：丹麥、芬蘭、愛爾蘭、英國和瑞典的公共轉(zhuǎn)移支付使總收入的基尼系數(shù)比市場(chǎng)收入的基尼系數(shù)低12-14％。在比利時(shí)、德國、盧森堡，大約也有10-11％的影響。而另一個(gè)極端是，在葡萄牙公共轉(zhuǎn)移支付使總收入的基尼系數(shù)比市場(chǎng)收入的基尼系數(shù)僅低6%。</p><p>

13、;　　至于直接稅的影響,地區(qū)之間的差距不是很明顯。表1中列（2）、列（3）可以顯示直接稅對(duì)總收入和可分配收入的再分配影響程度。在本案例中，我們得出的結(jié)論是，直接稅對(duì)減少收入不平等的作用，歐洲國家比拉丁美洲更明顯。例如，在奧地利、比利時(shí)、丹麥、盧森堡直接稅把家庭收入的基尼系數(shù)降低了6-7％，而15個(gè)歐洲國家的平均降低了5%。反過來，在拉美國家，雖然直接稅也發(fā)揮了作用——除巴西以外，但他們對(duì)縮小收入差距的影響是非常微弱的：平均起來,其作用僅

14、僅使基尼系數(shù)下降了1%。</p><p>　　因此，從前面的涉及直接稅和轉(zhuǎn)移支付對(duì)再分配作用的討論中我們得到了第二個(gè)重要的信息。在拉美國家，直接稅和轉(zhuǎn)移支付發(fā)揮的作用大致相同，但在歐洲國家轉(zhuǎn)移支付比直接稅發(fā)揮了更大的作用：在歐洲國家市場(chǎng)收入和可支配收入之間平均存在15%的差異，其中大約有三分之二（10%）是由轉(zhuǎn)移支付引起的。</p><p>　　正如我們將在下面討論的，這兩個(gè)基本信息保持不

15、變，如果我們采取非常規(guī)的，更廣泛的財(cái)政再分配措施，還應(yīng)包括間接稅以及實(shí)物轉(zhuǎn)移。</p><p>　　Fiscal Redistribution and Income Inequality</p><p>　　in Latin America</p><p>　　Edwin Gon' I, J. Humberto Lo´ Pez, Luis Serv

16、e’N</p><p><b>　　……</b></p><p>　　The centerpiece of our analysis is an assessment of the redistributive performance of Latin America’s fiscal systems. For this purpose, we document th

17、e facts concerning income inequality across Latin America before and after various fiscal interventions. We use a comparative perspective putting side by side the experience of two groups of countries from Latin America

18、and Western Europe.</p><p>　　The country sample we use for this analysis is determined by the availability of suitable income distribution data. It comprises the six largest Latin American economies, 11 whic

19、h together account for 75% of the region’s population and over 80% of its 2008 GDP, and up to 15 countries from Western Europe. However, not all of the latter countries possess complete information, and, therefore, some

20、of the cross regional comparisons presented below cover a smaller group of European economies. The App</p><p>　　Before proceeding, it will be useful to define some terms. We use the term market income to ref

21、er to income before taxes and government transfers—thus its distribution is largely determined by market rewards to the private assets and efforts of individuals, and by the underlying distribution of those private asset

22、s. However, from a welfare perspective a more relevant measure is disposable income—that is, household income after government cash benefits (e.g., pensions, unemployment insurance, soc</p><p>　　Comparing th

23、e degree of inequity of the distribution of the various income definitions we can get a summary measure of the distributional effects of the three fiscal interventions that distinguish them—direct taxes, indirect taxes,

24、and transfers.</p><p>　　This is done in Table 1, which reports the value of the Gini coefficients for the four alternative measures of income. </p><p>　　Income inequality is commonly measured in

25、 terms of the distribution of disposable income. The corresponding Gini coefficients appear in column 3 of the table, and they confirm that, by this definition of income, Latin America is much more unequal than Europe. T

26、he Gini coefficients of disposable income average .50 for the Latin American countries considered, against just .31 for the European countries. In fact, the Latin American country with the lowest Gini coefficient in this

27、 sample (Chile) has</p><p>　　The distribution of disposable income is the combined result of the distribution of market income and the redistributive action of the state through direct taxes and cash transfe

28、rs. Columns (1) and (2) in Table 1 help identify the role of each of these ingredients. The Gini coefficients of market income, shown in column 1, reveal a much less marked contrast across regions than that emerging from

29、 column (3). In fact, whereas the average Gini coefficient of market income for the Latin American cou</p><p>　　Thus, one important message from this analysis is that the equity gap between the two groups of

30、 countries is much narrower in terms of market income than in terms of disposable income. In other words, most of the difference between the levels of disposable income inequality in the two regions is due to the differe

31、nt impact of taxes and transfers: they reduce market income inequality considerably in Europe, and very little in Latin America. Indeed, before direct taxes and transfers are considered</p><p>　　coefficients

32、 of market income are estimated at .53 and .52, respectively. Even the Nordic countries, commonly praised for their levels of equity, show relatively high inequality of market incomes. The Gini indices of Denmark, Finlan

33、d, and Sweden are .49, .49 and .45, respectively. The most egalitarian countries in the sample in terms of market incomes are Austria and the Netherlands, with Gini coefficients of .38 and .39, respectively.</p>&

34、lt;p>　　These values are in sharp contrast with the Gini coefficients of disposable income of the same set of European countries, which are much lower. The difference is especially marked in the cases of Denmark or Ire

35、land, where taxes and transfers lower the Gini coefficient by 20% and 19% points, respectively.Even the European countries that redistribute the least through the tax-benefit system (Italy, Greece and Portugal) still man

36、age to lower their Gini indices by more than 10% points.</p><p>　　The natural question is whether the dramatically different redistributive impact of the tax-benefit system in Latin America and Europe reflec

37、ts mostly the action of transfers, taxes, or both. The redistributive effect of public transfers can be inferred comparing the Gini coefficients of gross income in column (2) of the table with those of market income. Thi

38、s again reveals a sharp contrast between the two regions. Public transfers contribute only slightly to lower inequality in Latin America—th</p><p>　　As for the effect of direct taxes, the contrast between re

39、gions is less dramatic. The redistributive impact of direct taxes can be inferred by comparing the Gini coefficients of gross and disposable income shown in columns (2) and (3) of Table 1. Like in the case of transfers,

40、the conclusion is that direct taxes reduce the levels of income inequality much more in European countries than in Latin America. For example, direct taxation lowers the Gini coefficient of household income by 6–7%</p

41、><p>　　points in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, and Luxembourg, and by an average 5% points for the fifteen European countries considered. In turn, in the Latin American countries direct taxes are also progressive—

42、with the exception of Brazil—but their impact on inequality is very weak: on average, the Gini coefficients decline by just 1% point, with very little variation across countries.</p><p>　　Thus, the second im

43、portant message that emerges from the previous discussion concerns the relative redistributive roles of direct taxes and transfer benefits. Among the Latin American countries considered, both are of roughly similar (and

44、modest) magnitude, but in the European countries transfers play a much bigger role than taxes: of the 15%-point difference between the average Gini coefficients of market and disposable income across European countries,

45、about two-thirds (10% points) are due to </p><p>　　As we shall discuss below, these two basic messages remain unchanged if we take a less-conventional, broader view of fiscal redistribution that encompasses