關注社會:你符合窮人的標準碼?

In Britain a poor household is officially defined as one with an income less than 60 per cent of the median. A law passed by the last government declares an unattainable target of reducing the proportion of children who live in poor households to below 10 per cent by 2020.

在英國，貧困家庭的官方標準是，家庭收入低於英國家庭收入中值的60%。上一屆政府通過了一部法案，宣佈了一個不可能實現的目標：將貧困家庭兒童的比例在2020年底之前降至10%以下。

No surprise, therefore, that in today's austere circumstances Iain Duncan Smith, the UK's work and pensions secretary, has attempted to start a debate about the definition of poverty. But his motives are not entirely cynical: Mr Duncan Smith has a record of real social concern.

因此，在如今提倡節儉的大環境下，英國就業與養老金大臣伊恩•鄧肯•史密斯(Iain Duncan Smith)提議重新討論貧困家庭的標準，也就不足爲奇了。但鄧肯•史密斯作此提議並非完全出於懷疑一切的動機：從此人過去的所作所爲來看，他是真正關心社會問題的。

People who struggle to find enough food to eat are poor. The World Bank's poverty line is an income of less than $1.25 a day. Financial Times readers, who spend more than that amount on their morning newspaper, are in no position to dispute that judgment. In the past two decades, economic growth in China and India has reduced global poverty by an unprecedented amount. That achievement is not diminished because some individuals in both these countries have become very rich. Fundamentally, poverty is about absolute deprivation.

如果一個人拼命賺錢，卻只能勉強填飽肚子，這個人就是窮人。世界銀行(World Bank)對於貧困的標準是：日收入低於1.25美元。買一份晨報都不止花這麼多錢的英國《金融時報》的讀者們，是沒有資格對這個標準提出異議的。過去20年裏，隨着中國和印度經濟的增長，全球貧困人口數量出現了前所未有的減少。這一成就不會因爲這兩個國家出現了一些超級富豪而被貶低。從本質上來說，貧困就是一無所有。

That is clearly not the end of the story, however. On the World Bank standard no one in North America or western Europe is poor. And very few people in these continents do not have enough to eat. We might observe that obesity is a disease not of the rich but of the poor. In making such a statement, we endorse the notion that poverty is relative not absolute. That principle is enshrined in the UK definition, which rises with the general standard of living.

然而，這個事情顯然還沒討論完。按照世界銀行的標準，北美和西歐沒有一個窮人，也很少有人吃不飽飯。我們可能會注意到，在這兩個地方，肥胖病屬於窮人而非富人。說出這句話，就是在支持這樣一個觀點：貧困是相對的，而非絕對的。英國官方的貧困標準就體現了這個原則：貧困的標準隨社會整體生活水平的提高而提高。

The median income is the level that equal numbers of people are above and below, so that a rise in Sir Martin Sorrell's bonus does not lead anyone into poverty – that would confuse poverty and inequality. But the choice of median income as a reference level has a wider significance. It encapsulates the idea that in a rich society, poverty is an enforced inability to participate in the everyday activities of that society. You might therefore be poor if you lack access to antibiotics or Facebook, even though in this respect you are no worse off than the Sun King or John D. Rockefeller, and in other respects considerably better off than most people in the world.

收入中值的含義是，社會上收入高於和低於這個數值的人的數量相等。因此，蘇銘天爵士(Sir Martin Sorrell)多拿了些獎金並不會增加貧困人口的數量——貧困和社會不公是不可混淆的兩個問題。但選擇收入中值作爲參考值，則具有更廣泛的影響。這個標準蘊含了一種思想：在富裕社會，貧困意味着被剝奪了參與社會日常活動的能力。按照這個標準，如果你用不起抗生素、上不了Facebook，可能就算得上貧困，即便在這個方面，你的處境並不比"太陽王"(Sun King)路易十四和約翰•D•洛克菲勒(John D. Rockefeller)差，而在其他方面，你的處境已經比世界上大多數人都要強得多。

However, to define poverty as social exclusion takes the definition far away from the assessment of income. It is not hard to imagine places in which few, if any, people experience a sense of exclusion. These might include both sophisticated societies with high incomes per head – towns in Scandinavia – and simple cultures without access to modern essentials – rural villages in the developing world. Poverty becomes a cultural and political phenomenon rather than an economic one.

然而，按照是否被剝奪參與社會活動的能力來定義貧困，這使得貧困的定義在很大程度上變得與收入的衡量無關。不難想象，在某些地方，幾乎沒有人會感到自己無法參與社會活動，即便有的話，這類人的數量也會十分有限。一些人均收入較高的複雜社會（比如斯堪的納維亞半島上的城鎮），以及一些無法接觸到現代社會必需品的簡單社會（比如發展中國家的鄉村），都可能屬於這種情況。貧困成爲了一種文化和政治現象，而非單純的經濟現象。

Mr Duncan Smith and the Centre for Social Justice, the think-tank he founded, wish to encourage this perspective. The poverty of a household trapped by drug addiction will probably not be eliminated by extra income. Poverty as exclusion from ordinary life may be caused by weak parenting skills, debt from financial incompetence or mental health problems. On the positive side, employment and family life are the most powerful forces of social inclusion.

鄧肯•史密斯和他創立的智囊機構社會公平中心(Centre for Social Justice)希望鼓勵這種看法。因吸毒而陷入貧困的家庭，即便收入增加可能也無法擺脫貧困。被隔絕在社會正常生活之外的那種貧困，原因可能包括父母管教無方，生活拮据導致欠債，或是精神問題。從積極的方面來看，工作和家庭是推動人們融入社會的最佳方式。

These arguments lead too quickly to the view of poverty traditionally espoused by the well-to-do: poverty is the result of the moral failings of the poor and to assist them will only aggravate their plight. Sadly, policies to alleviate poverty cost money, but understanding the multiple facets of poverty is a necessary guide to how that money is best spent.

這些論斷很容易讓人得出這樣的結論：貧困是窮人道德淪喪引起的，幫助窮人只會加劇他們的厄運。這也是傳統上富人所秉持的觀點。不幸的是，扶貧政策需要錢，但要合理地支配扶貧資金，必須對貧困有一個全面的理解。

The statutory adoption of a particular statistical definition of poverty is the product of Gordon Brown's era of target setting. The emphasis on supposedly objective measures led to expenditures on schemes – notably the child tax credit – designed to be closely related to the target itself. That kind of distortion arises whenever a single metric is used to describe a multifaceted complex phenomenon such as the incidence of poverty.

戈登•布朗(Gordon Brown)喜歡設立目標，爲貧困賦予某種統計學上的定義、並賦予這種定義法律地位，這正是布朗時代的產物。出於對這些據稱十分客觀的衡量標準的重視，制定計劃、進而大筆支出便成爲在所難免之事（尤其是像爲兒童免稅這樣的計劃），而之所以制定這些計劃，則往往與目標本身緊密相關。當人們用單一的標準來評判一種複雜多面的現象（比如貧困）時，就會產生這種扭曲。

You need advisers who understand the numbers, but also advisers who understand the poor.

我們需要的顧問不僅要懂得數字，還要了解窮人。