Links Between East and West 56 Targeting Inequality 东西方的连接56 - 缩小收入不平等的宏观政策

Societies have always attempted to realize economic growth. Growth can bring greater wealth and opportunities to a nation’s citizens. However, with this growth, complex issues regarding social equity and government efficiency emerge. These may be spread over a broad spectrum, creating a need for governments to address them with two groups of policies: Redistribution of wealth and investment in human capital. Today, both groups serve indispensable functions to ensure that governments run properly. They also put guardrails so that an economy’s balance is not tipped overly towards specific populations.

In history, the concept of a “tax,” the most common form of a redistribution policy today, predates that of an investment in human capital. Historians agree that the ancient Egyptians systematically experimented with a tax as early as five millennia ago. After Egypt became unified, the kingdom required an increasingly complicated government to carry out its duties of supervising agricultural yield and warfare. The taxes back then differed significantly in their form from their modern versions. Papyrus scrolls inform historians that taxes were paid with livestock, gold, silver, and linens. These taxes served a much simpler purpose than any kind of wealth redistribution – they existed to ensure that the government under the pharaoh could operate and protect the kingdom from foreign foes.

The birth of educational institutions, the central pillar behind investment in human capital, occurred one millennium later. Around 2000 B.C.E., Mesopotamian civilizations created schools to train individuals for certain essential government positions, such as the scribe. These schools, though rudimentary, planted one cornerstone for any educational institution – the idea to invest in human capital to increase work efficiency and effectiveness.

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the instruments of tax and the initiative of human capital investment became linked with the values of social equality and equity. At the time, as the effects of the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution set in on European nations, governments discovered the urgency to use these tools to tackle the emerging social issues of inequality. In the Netherlands, for example, the government created a new kind of tax on wealth. The idea of a wealth tax was pioneering. It marked an early systematic attempt by a government to redistribute wealth through tax. The Dutch also implemented educational reforms to expand access to education and improve the quality of schooling. They realized that investment in human capital might be a powerful tool to boost long-term economic and social development in that tumultuous era.

Today, the policy directions of redistribution of wealth and nurturing the intellectual capacities of the individual are still the guiding principles to achieve a society where economic growth is more broadly shared. Governments have more tools in their toolboxes for both directions. For instance, aside from taxes, minimum wages, which act as a binding price floor in the labor market, have been discussed as another redistribution policy. Additionally, a government can pursue a plethora of human capital investment projects. The question is: Which group of policies is more cost-effective for the government?

This question pokes at a crucial metric to determine whether any policy would be worth implementing: The cost to the government. The common perception is that human capital investment is more costly than a redistribution policy such as a tax. Most government programs to build schools and improve college education require immense funds. On the contrary, a government can earn revenue by employing any tax. However, while such a consideration might possess some merit in the short run, other factors come into play in the long run. Namely, when a government considers what policy to enact in the long run, it must also consider any potential benefits it might receive due to implementing that policy.

Many kinds of investment in human capital catalyze behavioral responses. People’s behaviors create impacts. Some of these might be implicitly positive fiscal externalities. Suppose the government invests a sum into a project aiming to lower the tuition of public universities. One of the immediate consequences might be that more students can receive higher education. Then, due to an increase in college students, the government can expect increased income tax revenue as these students are likely to earn higher incomes. There is a positive fiscal result at the end of this chain reaction.

In 2020, Nathaniel Hendren and Ben Sprung-Keyser, two economics scholars, published a paper comparing the net costs of 133 government programs in the U.S., mainly focusing on policies in social insurance, taxes, and education. The definition of the “net cost” of a program is the initial cost of implementing the program minus the final fiscal earnings of the program. Such a calculation factors in the behavioral responses of individuals affected by these policies. The two scholars conclude that human capital development programs have lower or negative net costs, meaning that the U.S. government earned more than it initially spent. In comparison, redistributive policies such as cash transfers, unemployment insurance, or various taxes have much higher net costs. The researchers explain that investments in human capital eventually generate tax income that covers short-run costs. On the other hand, many plans to redistribute wealth, such as unemployment insurance, might disincentivize people to find an occupation that would lead to more income.

However, while human capital investments have a much greater utility in the long run, it is dangerous to reject policies to redistribute wealth for a reason of lower utility. Today, they are more necessary than ever for people in need. Without progressive taxes or minimum wages, there would be no safety net, and income disparities would be bound to widen dramatically. Furthermore, the claim that redistributive policies are always costly is somewhat arbitrary. For instance, when there is a period of macroeconomic prosperity and job opportunities abound, unemployment programs’ net costs might be lower as people are more incentivized to find a job.

Both redistributive and human capital developmental programs aim to reduce income inequality and build a socioeconomic scenario where the boons of development can be shared more equitably. In the past, one glaring factor that led to widening inequality gaps was the inability of education to follow the advancement of technology. Data shows that from the 1950s to the 1980s, the average years of schooling for a person aged 30 in America grew much slower. Meanwhile, technological progress accelerated exponentially. As a result, in factories and other workplaces, many workers who did not acquire the necessary skills to keep up with the progress of technology gradually lost to machines in efficiency. As workers were paid less, income became more unequally distributed as the few people who gained the skills to compete with technology monopolized wage earnings.

Today, artificial intelligence marks another technological revolution. To ensure that income gaps do not gradually widen, governments must rely on both redistributive policies and investment in human capital. For one, governments should strengthen social safety nets with minimum wage policies. For another, more importantly, governments must divert more energy and funds to invest in primary and secondary education. As argued in another essay, the students of today and tomorrow must be exposed to AI at an earlier age and be equipped with the skill sets to navigate the digital world. From the age of the ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians, taxes and efforts to improve education have helped human societies transition from one era to another. The world should be confident that these ideas will continue to be effective in a future that might yield unprecedented boons for humankind.

实现经济增长一直是人类社会的宏观目标之一。经济增长可以为国民带来更多的财富与机会。然而，随着经济增长，社会公平与政府效率方面的复杂问题也随之出现。这些问题可能带来的负面影响极其具有破坏力，因此政府需要通过两类政策来解决： 财富再分配与人力资本投资。如今，这两类政策在确保政府正常运转方面发挥着不可或缺的作用，它们更为防止经济福利的天平不过度向某些人群倾斜而设置了防护栏。

在历史上，"税收 "这一当今最常见的再分配政策形式的概念早于人力资本投资。历史学家一致认为，古埃及人早在公元前三千年就系统地尝试过利用税收这个工具。上下埃及统一后，王国需要一个日益复杂的政府结构来履行监督农业生产和战争的职责。当时的税收在形式上与现代税收有很大不同。纸莎草卷一手资料告诉历史学家，当时的税收是用牲畜、金银与亚麻布来支付的。这些税收的目的要比任何形式的财富再分配简单得多--它们的存在是为了确保法老领导下的政府能够运作，并保护王国不受外敌侵扰。

一千年后，作为人力资本投资主要支柱的教育机构诞生了。大约在公元前 2000 年，美索不达米亚文明创建了学校，为某些重要的政府职位（如文士）培养人才。这些学校虽然简陋，却为任何教育机构奠定了基石--投资人力资本以提高工作效率与效益的理念。

直到十八及十九世纪，税收手段和人力资本投资的举措才与社会平等和公平的价值观联系在一起。当时，随着启蒙运动和工业革命对欧洲各国产生影响，各国政府发现迫切需要利用这些工具来解决新出现的社会不平等问题。例如，荷兰政府设立了一种新的财富税。财富税的想法是开创性的，它标志着政府通过税收重新分配财富的早期系统性尝试。荷兰还实施了教育改革，以扩大受教育的机会并提高学校教育的质量。他们开始意识到，在那个动荡的时代，人力资本投资可能是促进经济和社会长期发展的有力工具。

今天，财富再分配与人力资本投资形成两类政策方向，这两类政策仍然是实现更广泛分享经济增长的社会的指导原则。在这两个方向上，政府的工具箱中有更多的工具。例如，除税收外，最低工资作为劳动力市场中具有约束力的价格下限，已作为另一种再分配政策得到讨论。此外，政府还可以实施大量人力资本投资项目。问题是：哪一类政策对政府来说更具成本效益？

这个问题触及了决定任何政策是否值得实施的一个关键指标： 政府的成本。人们普遍认为，人力资本投资肯定比税收等再分配政策成本更高。政府的大多数学校建设和大学教育改善计划都需要大量资金。相反，政府可以通过征收任何税种来获得收入。然而，虽然这种考虑在短期内可能有一定的正确性，但从长远来看，其他因素会逐渐发挥作用，使这个观点的有效性减弱。从长远来看，政府在考虑制定何种政策时，还必须考虑实施该政策可能带来的任何潜在利益。

许多类型的人力资本投资都会催化行为反应。人们的行为会产生长远影响，其中一些可能是隐性的积极财政外部效应。假设政府向一个旨在降低公立大学学费的项目投入了一笔资金。其直接后果之一可能是更多的学生可以接受高等教育。然后，由于大学生数量的增加，政府可以预期所得税收入会增加，因为这些学生可能会赚取更高的收入。这种连锁反应的最终结果会带来积极的财政效应。

2020 年，两位经济学学者 Nathaniel Hendren 和 Ben Sprung-Keyser 发表了一篇论文，比较了美国 133 个政府项目的净成本，主要集中在社会保险、税收与教育政策上。一项计划的 "净成本 "的定义是实施该计划的初始成本减去该计划的最终财政收益。这种计算方法考虑了受这些政策影响的个人的行为反应。两位学者的结论是，人力资本投资项目的净成本较低，甚至为负，这意味着美国政府赚取的收益超过了最初的支出。相比之下，现金转移、失业保险或各种税收等再分配政策的净成本要高得多。研究人员的解释是，人力资本投资最终产生的税收收入可以弥补短期成本。另一方面，许多重新分配财富的计划，如失业保险，可能会抑制人们寻找能带来更多收入的职业的积极性。

不过，虽然从长远来看，人力资本投资似乎具有更大的效用，但以效用较低为由拒绝财富再分配政策是危险的。今天，对于有需要的人来说，尤其是社会底层群众，这些政策比以往任何时候都更有必要。没有累进税或最低工资，就没有社会安全网，收入差距必然会急剧扩大。此外，再分配政策总是代价高昂的说法在一定程度上是武断的。例如，在宏观经济繁荣时期，就业机会大量存在，失业计划的净成本可能会降低，因为人们更有动力去找工作。

再分配计划与人力资本投资计划的目的都是为了减少收入不平等，建立一个可以更公平地分享发展成果的社会经济环境。过去，导致不平等差距扩大的一个突出因素是教育无法跟上技术的进步。数据显示，从 20 世纪 50 年代到 20 世纪 80 年代，美国 30 岁人口的平均受教育年限增长趋势慢了很多。与此同时，技术进步却呈指数级加速。因此，在工厂和其他工作场所，许多没有掌握必要技能的工人在效率上逐渐输给了机器。由于工人的工资减少，收入分配更加不均，少数掌握了与技术竞争的技能的人垄断了工资市场。

今天，人工智能标志着另一场技术革命。要确保收入差距不会逐渐扩大，政府必须同时依靠再分配政策与人力资本投资政策。首先，政府应通过最低工资加强社会安全网。另一方面，更重要的是，政府必须将更多的精力和资金投入到中小学教育中。正如另一篇文章所论述的，今天与未来的学生必须更早地接触人工智能，并掌握驾驭数字世界的技能。从古埃及及美索不达米亚时代开始，税收和改善教育的努力就帮助人类社会从一个时代过渡到另一个时代。世界应该相信，在可能为人类带来前所未有的福祉的未来，这些理念将继续有效。