有的时候，美国总统大选听上去像是一场想要证明谁最鄙视贸易的论战。有关被中国人抢走饭碗以及沃尔玛(Wal-Mart)对当地商业破坏性影响的媒体报道比比皆是。近几周，劳伦斯•萨默斯(Lawrence Summers)和马丁•沃尔夫(Martin Wolf)都在英国《金融时报》上发表文章，强调高收入国家转而反对全球化的危险。这场公开辩论理所当然的认为，这些国家贫富差距扩大是由全球化造成的。
但是不是真的如此呢？我在最近发表的一篇论文*中认为并非如此。论文的合著者是芝加哥大学(University of Chicago)的约翰•劳马里斯(John Romalis)。原因很简单。你的富裕程度取决于两个因素：一是你有多少钱，一是你购买物品的价格是多少。如果你的收入翻番，但所消费商品的价格也翻番，你就没有变得更富裕。不幸的是，对美国贫富差距的传统认识是建立在官方量度基础上的，它只关注前一个因素，即收入差异。全国统计数据忽略了这样一个事实：即通货膨胀对不同收入群体的影响不均衡，因为富人和穷人消费的商品组合不同。
富人和穷人之间的通胀差异，明显改变了我们对于美国贫富差距演变的看法。1994年至2005年间，美国最富有的10%家庭的通胀率比最贫穷的10%家庭高出6%。这意味着，如果计算准确的话，美国的实际贫富差距基本上没有变化。
其原因与结果同样惊人。为什么穷人的通胀率比富人低？很大程度上，这是由于中国和沃尔玛。
在美国，与富裕家庭相比，贫穷家庭更大一部分收入花在价格直接受到贸易影响的商品上，例如衣物和食品。相比之下，一个人的收入越高，他在服务上的花销就越大，而服务面临的国外竞争比较小。1994年以来，美国商品价格的涨幅远低于服务价格的涨幅——而且，不错，这已经考虑到了近期食品价格的飙升。把眼光集中在最近几个季度相对较高的食品价格，会忽略一个事实：数十年来我们所观察到的大趋势恰恰与此相反。
这一趋势的部分原因在于中国。在美国商店出售的消费品中，那些中国供应量增幅最大的门类，价格下降得最厉害。例如，2000年以来中国向全球其他地区出口的罐装海产品和棉衬衫大幅增加，这两类商品的价格一直在下降。相反，在中国没有涉足的领域，价格涨幅达20%以上。此外，由于中国产品的质量相对较差，中国制造所占比例较高的商品，往往更多是穷人在消费。
沃尔玛和Target等大型超市的扩张，也是导致贫富间通胀差异的一个重要因素。大型超市出售的商品与传统商店一样，但价格要低得多。如今，穷人在这种商店中购买的非耐用品数量大致是富人的两倍。因此，沃尔玛在一个城填上开业，最大的受益者是较为贫穷的消费者。
真正令人担忧的是，尽管存在上述种种事实，我们却对中国和沃尔玛存在抵触情绪。贸易怀疑论者提出，如果你连工作都丢了，能否买到更廉价的商品就没有什么意义。他们应该再去看一看美国的失业率。目前美国失业率约为5%，接近历史最低水平。
我们必须提醒政客和公众，贸易的益处是广泛分享的。每当谈到贸易，话题总偏向特定生产者——从法国农民到美国的纺织工人——所面临的问题时，核心的要点就被忽略了。贸易使得每个人——尤其是穷人——能够买到本来可能买不起的商品。
如果民众不能更好地理解这些事实，不仅政府将会继续维持针对中国和沃尔玛的政策，许多不了解情况的消费者也会支持政府采取此类政策，而他们实际上是贸易的受益者。
*《贫富差距与价格：中国是否使拉丁美洲的穷人收益？》(Inequality and Prices: Does China benefit the Poor in America?)，（油印）芝加哥大学(University of Chicago)，克里斯蒂安•布洛达(Christian Broda)和约翰•劳马里斯(John Romalis)
TheUS presidential campaign has sometimes sounded like a contest to prove who despises trade the most. Media reports of job losses to China and the destructive effect of Wal-Mart on local businesses are ubiquitous. In recent weeks, Lawrence Summers and Martin Wolf have in the Financial Times both highlighted the dangers of having high- income countries turn against globalisation. This public debate has taken for granted that inequality in these countries has risen as a result of globalisation. But has it really? In a recent paper*, co-authored with John Romalis from the University of Chicago, I argue that it has not. The reason is simple. How rich you are depends on two things: how much money you have, and how much the goods you buy cost. If your income doubles but the prices of the goods you consume also doubles, you are no better off. Unfortunately the conventional wisdom on US inequality is based on official measures that look only at the first half, the income differential. National statistics ignore the fact that inflation affects people in different income groups unevenly because the rich and poor consume different baskets of goods.
Inflation differentials between the rich and poor dramatically change our view of the evolution of inequality in the US. Inflation of the richest 10 per cent of US households has been 6 percentage points higher than that of the poorest 10 per cent in the period 1994-2005. This means that real inequality in the US, if measured correctly, has been roughly unchanged.
The reason is just as dramatic as the result. Why has inflation for the poor been lower than that for the rich? In large part it is because of China and Wal-Mart.
Poor families in America spend a larger share of their income on goods whose prices are directly affected by trade – such as clothing and food – than wealthier families. By contrast, the higher a person's income, the more they spend on services, which are less subject to competition from abroad. Since 1994 the price of goods in the US has risen much less than the price of services – and, yes, this includes the recent surge in food prices. Focusing on the past few quarters of high relative food prices misses the fact that the main trend we have observed for decades is exactly the opposite.
This trend can partly be explained by China. Prices of consumer goods in US stores have fallen most heavily in sectors where the Chinese presence has increased most. In canned seafood or cotton shirts, for example, where China's exports to the rest of the world have increased dramatically this decade, inflation has been negative. In sectorswhere there is no Chinese presence, inflation has been more than 20 per cent. Moreover, as China produces goods of relatively low quality, sectors that have a strong Chinese presence are disproportionately consumed by the poor.
The expansion of superstores – such as Wal-Mart and Target – has also played an important role in accounting for the inflation differentials between rich and poor. Superstores sell the same products as traditional shops but at much lower prices. Today the poor buy roughly twice as much of their non-durable goods in these stores as the rich do. Poor consumers have therefore been the biggest beneficiaries of Wal-Mart's coming to a town.
What is really worrying is that, in spite of these facts, we have had a backlash against China and Wal-Mart in the US. Trade sceptics who suggest that there is no point in buying cheaper goods if you have lost your job should check America's unemployment rate again. It is about 5 per cent, close to its record low.
We need to remind politicians and the public that the gains from trade are broadly shared. Every time the discussion of trade is diverted towards problems facing specific producers – from farmers in France to textile workers in the US – the central point is missed. Trading allows everyone, and especially the poor, to buy things that they could not otherwise afford.
Without better public understanding of these facts governments will not only keep supporting policies that are aimed against China and Wal-Mart but may receive the uninformed support of many consumers who are benefiting from trade.
But has it really? In a recent paper*, co-authored with John Romalis from the University of Chicago, I argue that it has not. The reason is simple. How rich you are depends on two things: how much money you have, and how much the goods you buy cost. If your income doubles but the prices of the goods you consume also doubles, you are no better off. Unfortunately the conventional wisdom on US inequality is based on official measures that look only at the first half, the income differential. National statistics ignore the fact that inflation affects people in different income groups unevenly because the rich and poor consume different baskets of goods.
Inflation differentials between the rich and poor dramatically change our view of the evolution of inequality in the US. Inflation of the richest 10 per cent of US households has been 6 percentage points higher than that of the poorest 10 per cent in the period 1994-2005. This means that real inequality in the US, if measured correctly, has been roughly unchanged.
The reason is just as dramatic as the result. Why has inflation for the poor been lower than that for the rich? In large part it is because of China and Wal-Mart.
Poor families in America spend a larger share of their income on goods whose prices are directly affected by trade – such as clothing and food – than wealthier families. By contrast, the higher a person's income, the more they spend on services, which are less subject to competition from abroad. Since 1994 the price of goods in the US has risen much less than the price of services – and, yes, this includes the recent surge in food prices. Focusing on the past few quarters of high relative food prices misses the fact that the main trend we have observed for decades is exactly the opposite.
This trend can partly be explained by China. Prices of consumer goods in US stores have fallen most heavily in sectors where the Chinese presence has increased most. In canned seafood or cotton shirts, for example, where China's exports to the rest of the world have increased dramatically this decade, inflation has been negative. In sectorswhere there is no Chinese presence, inflation has been more than 20 per cent. Moreover, as China produces goods of relatively low quality, sectors that have a strong Chinese presence are disproportionately consumed by the poor.
The expansion of superstores – such as Wal-Mart and Target – has also played an important role in accounting for the inflation differentials between rich and poor. Superstores sell the same products as traditional shops but at much lower prices. Today the poor buy roughly twice as much of their non-durable goods in these stores as the rich do. Poor consumers have therefore been the biggest beneficiaries of Wal-Mart's coming to a town.
What is really worrying is that, in spite of these facts, we have had a backlash against China and Wal-Mart in the US. Trade sceptics who suggest that there is no point in buying cheaper goods if you have lost your job should check America's unemployment rate again. It is about 5 per cent, close to its record low.
We need to remind politicians and the public that the gains from trade are broadly shared. Every time the discussion of trade is diverted towards problems facing specific producers – from farmers in France to textile workers in the US – the central point is missed. Trading allows everyone, and especially the poor, to buy things that they could not otherwise afford.
Without better public understanding of these facts governments will not only keep supporting policies that are aimed against China and Wal-Mart but may receive the uninformed support of many consumers who are benefiting from trade.
收藏
分享
有用
无用