普通美國(guó)人生活質(zhì)量落于人后

Enjoying the Low Life?

普通美國(guó)人生活質(zhì)量落于人后

The United States is the most powerful colossus in the history of the world: Our nuclear warheads could wipe out the globe, our enemies tweet on iPhones, and kids worldwide bop to Beyoncé.

美國(guó)是有史以來最具影響力的大國(guó)：我們的核彈頭能把整個(gè)地球夷為平地，我們的敵人用iPhone上Twitter，全世界的孩子都跟隨碧昂斯(Beyoncé)的音樂舞動(dòng)身體。

Yet let’s get real. All this hasn’t benefited all Americans. A newly released global index finds that America falls short, along with other powerful countries, on what matters most: assuring a high quality of life for ordinary citizens.

不過還是認(rèn)清現(xiàn)實(shí)吧。這一切并不能讓每一個(gè)美國(guó)人都受益。最新發(fā)布的一項(xiàng)全球指數(shù)表明，美國(guó)和其他大國(guó)一樣，在最重要的事情上做得還不夠好，即：讓普通人過上高品質(zhì)的生活。

The Social Progress Index for 2015 ranks the United States 16th in the world. We may thump our chests and boast that we’re No. 1, and in some ways we are. But, in important ways, we lag.

美國(guó)在2015年社會(huì)進(jìn)步指數(shù)(Social Progress Index for 2015)排行榜上名列世界第16位。我們可能會(huì)拍著胸脯打包票，說我們是世界第一;在某種方面也的確如此。但在一些重要的方面，我們落后了。

The index ranks the United States 30th in life expectancy, 38th in saving children’s lives, and a humiliating 55th in women surviving childbirth. O.K., we know that we have a high homicide rate, but we’re at risk in other ways as well. We have higher traffic fatality rates than 37 other countries, and higher suicide rates than 80.

該排行榜顯示，美國(guó)在人均壽命方面名列第30位，在避免兒童死亡方面名列第38位，在避免女性死于分娩方面則相當(dāng)丟人地名列第55位。美國(guó)的謀殺率非常高，這我們都知道，但我們?cè)谄渌矫嫱瑯用媾R著危險(xiǎn)。我們的交通肇事死亡率排在37個(gè)國(guó)家前面，自殺率排在80個(gè)國(guó)家前面。

We also rank 32nd in preventing early marriage, 38th in the equality of our education system, 49th in high school enrollment rates and 87th in cellphone use.

此外，我們?cè)诜乐乖缁榉矫婷械?2位，我們的教育體系公平度名列第38位，高中入學(xué)率名列第49位，手機(jī)使用率名列第87位。

Ouch. “We’re No. 87!” doesn’t have much of a ring to it, does it?

哎喲!“我們是第87名!”這話并不怎么有趣，對(duì)吧?

Michael E. Porter, the Harvard Business School professor who helped devise the Social Progress Index, says that it’s important to have conventional economic measures such as G.D.P. growth. But social progress is also a critical measure, he notes, of how a country is serving its people.

幫助設(shè)計(jì)了社會(huì)進(jìn)步指數(shù)的哈佛商學(xué)院教授邁克爾·E·波特(Michael E. Porter)說，GDP等傳統(tǒng)的經(jīng)濟(jì)指標(biāo)很重要，但社會(huì)進(jìn)步指數(shù)也是衡量一個(gè)國(guó)家在為人民服務(wù)方面做得怎么樣的重要標(biāo)尺。

“We’re not now No. 1 in a lot of stuff that traditionally we have been,” said Professor Porter, an expert on international competitiveness. “What we’re learning is that the fact that we’re not No. 1 on this stuff also means that we’re facing long-term economic stresses.”

“我們?cè)诤芏嗍虑樯隙疾辉傧褚酝粯邮堑谝幻耍?rdquo;身為國(guó)際競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力專家的波特教授說。“我們所學(xué)到的是，在個(gè)排行榜上并非第一名的事實(shí)，還意味著我們正面臨長(zhǎng)期的經(jīng)濟(jì)壓力。”

“We’re starting to understand that we can’t put economic development and social progress in two separate buckets,” Porter added. “There’s a dialectic here.”

“我們開始明白，不能把經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展和社會(huì)發(fā)展分割開來，”波特補(bǔ)充說。“兩者之間存在辯證關(guān)系。”

The top countries in the 2015 Social Progress Index are Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Iceland, New Zealand and Canada. Of the 133 countries rated, Central African Republic is last, just after Chad and Afghanistan.

在2015年社會(huì)進(jìn)步指數(shù)排行榜上名列前茅的國(guó)家包括挪威、瑞典、瑞士、冰島、新西蘭和加拿大。中非共和國(guó)在133個(gè)被納入榜單的國(guó)家中排名墊底，阿富汗和乍得分別排在倒數(shù)第二位和倒數(shù)第三位

Sri Lanka does better than India. Bangladesh outperforms Pakistan. Both the Philippines and South Africa do better than Russia. Mongolia comes in ahead of China. And Canada wallops the United States.

斯里蘭卡排在印度前面。孟加拉排在巴基斯坦前面。菲律賓和南非都排在俄羅斯前面。蒙古排在中國(guó)前面。加拿大排在美國(guó)前面。

One way of looking at the index is to learn from countries that outperform by having social indicators better than their income levels. By that standard, the biggest stars are Costa Rica and Uruguay, with New Zealand and Rwanda also outperforming.

我們可以仔細(xì)研究這個(gè)排行榜，并向社會(huì)進(jìn)步指數(shù)排名高于收入水平排名的國(guó)家學(xué)習(xí)。以這一標(biāo)準(zhǔn)論，哥斯達(dá)黎加和烏拉圭是最耀眼的明星，新西蘭和盧旺達(dá)的表現(xiàn)也很不錯(cuò)。

“This takes time,” said Michael Green, executive director of the Social Progress Imperative, which produces the index. “Costa Rica is an overperformer because of its history.”

“這需要時(shí)間，”社會(huì)進(jìn)步促進(jìn)會(huì)( Social Progress Imperative)總裁邁克爾·格林(Michael Green)說。“哥斯達(dá)黎加表現(xiàn)出色是有歷史原因的。”社會(huì)進(jìn)步促進(jìn)會(huì)是社會(huì)進(jìn)步指數(shù)的編制機(jī)構(gòu)。

Green notes that Costa Rica offered free, universal primary education in the 19th century. In the 20th century, it disbanded its military forces and invested some of the savings in education. One payoff: Some surveys have found Costa Ricans among the happiest people in the world.

格林指出，哥斯達(dá)黎加在19世紀(jì)普及了免費(fèi)初等教育，在20世紀(jì)解散了軍隊(duì)，并把部分節(jié)省下來的開支投進(jìn)了教育領(lǐng)域?；貓?bào)之一是：一些調(diào)查顯示，哥斯達(dá)黎加人的幸福感排在世界前列。

Then there are the underperformers that do worse than would be expected from their income level. Saudi Arabia leads that list.

也有一些表現(xiàn)不如預(yù)期的國(guó)家，其社會(huì)進(jìn)步指數(shù)排名與收入水平完全不匹配。頭一個(gè)就是沙特阿拉伯。

The Social Progress Index, now in its second year, might seem a clarion call for greater equality, but that’s not quite right. Professor Porter and his number-crunchers found only a mild correlation between economic equality (measured by Gini coefficient) and social progress. What mattered much more was poverty.

去年剛剛誕生的社會(huì)進(jìn)步指數(shù)，或許看似在強(qiáng)烈呼吁更大的平等，但事實(shí)并非完全如此。波特教授和他的數(shù)據(jù)分析師們發(fā)現(xiàn)，經(jīng)濟(jì)平等(以基尼系數(shù)衡量)和社會(huì)進(jìn)步之間關(guān)聯(lián)度并不太高。貧窮與社會(huì)進(jìn)步的關(guān)聯(lián)要密切得多。

Of course, wealthy countries with high poverty tend to be unequal as well. But inequality at the top seems to matter less for well-being than inequality at the bottom. Perhaps we should worry less about reining in the top 1 percent and more about helping the bottom 20 percent?

當(dāng)然了，貧困率高的富裕國(guó)家往往是不平等的。但對(duì)社會(huì)福祉而言，最高層的不平等帶來的影響似乎小于最底層的不平等的影響?；蛟S我們應(yīng)當(dāng)少去琢磨如何遏制居于前1%的富人，多去幫助居于后20%的窮人?

On the other hand, one way to finance empowerment programs is to raise taxes on tycoons. And when there is tremendous inequality, the wealthy create private alternatives to public goods — private schools, private security forces, gated communities — that lead to disinvestment in public goods vital to the needy.

另一方面，為賦權(quán)項(xiàng)目提供資金的一個(gè)辦法是對(duì)富豪增稅。當(dāng)社會(huì)存在極大不平等的時(shí)候，富人會(huì)創(chuàng)造出用以替代公共產(chǎn)品的私人產(chǎn)品，譬如私立學(xué)校、私人安全部隊(duì)和封閉式社區(qū)，從而導(dǎo)致資金撤出對(duì)窮人至關(guān)重要的公共產(chǎn)品領(lǐng)域。

In any case, the 2015 Social Progress Index should serve notice to Americans — and to people around the globe. We obsess on the wrong measures, so we often have the wrong priorities.

不論如何，2015年社會(huì)發(fā)展指數(shù)給美國(guó)人以及全世界的人提了個(gè)醒。我們過于依賴錯(cuò)誤的指標(biāo)，因此常常分不清主次。

As an American, what saddens me is also that our political system seems unable to rise to the challenges.

作為一個(gè)美國(guó)人，我還為另一件事感到難過：我們的政治體系似乎無法迎接這些挑戰(zhàn)。

As Porter notes, Americans generally understand that we face economic impediments such as declining infrastructure, yet we’re frozen. We appreciate that our education system is a mess, yet we’re passive.

正如波特所言，美國(guó)人都知道，我們面對(duì)著基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施走下坡路等種種經(jīng)濟(jì)障礙，但我們一動(dòng)不動(dòng)。我們意識(shí)到我們的教育體系一團(tuán)糟，但我們消極以對(duì)。