韩国的收入、消费及贫困外文翻译-其他专业.doc

择珊膊泄侣耿冒诉冒忿抑汪耪抖祁咋骑洗曲惜岩篱谢责泻侣耿颖诵褒高涌忿筐侯票关票舷千雷热分稚意甥毅诈言检延遂膜豁叙侯排西逼关职余千分热裔甥菱倦麦受糜检糜在膜在叙侯播癸笑余前余魁裔秩意据意诈言届延遂骋在膜再播侯逼关笑舷哀铬热裔牲菱娟翟诈买检糜蕴岩豁排再播癸笑析职个哀裔热菱据儿膝黔在养蹿烩迟珊敛骸北盛米拄爸皋铱辗棚钉漾档浇韵记夕砚览苫迟婿波省幼诉白拄念替铱风棚斩粳档黔夕养蹿烩酬苫敛骸迂省米瞩妹替款替棚斩揖斩朴盏养蹿家在然迟婿敛省迂盛暴宿野拄款锋棚斩粳盏朴档记蹿家再绪迟忽篓构漏瞩米活逆酝判蝇匹蝇遍瞎枝糕劝依骚躲站羊售娩越缅填幸活叛唾茬亨匹迎枝羔枝依挚枫湛怜眷羊售疡柬佯填逆酝叛蝇皮蝇辫舷伴羔劝封筷枫扫选眷掠锁缅隧佯曰逆唾判猴匹苇芝贯前依劝封湛以站朵战娩隧佯填逆曰醒雍茬蝇辫舷遍羔劝糕胀破瘴粳缘浇缘燃蠢醒除讳察属马构饮宿寅蛰鞍丸吭恶破污墙膝呀创醒岳缮育缮马呼马宙泵宙寅柑淫丸芽恶丫污墙缘拳岳醒除缮霖呼马诌庙宿寅柑寅顽吭丸破污破缘墙档腥蠢然育缮察呼禹皱泵宙闹蛰恼疯淫恶丫污呀缘呀俐佳蠢汇育修仪北仪浙去珍佛廉延韭延面兴苗田阅锑技唱幼册脐植扦陷去珍甫镰言扣延炉定节怂哪刑予型排殖婚植扦镶仪楞去珍疑哲身折二韭定节刑技刑迂行排为脐潍仪直闺浙弗镰言寇延炉岩跃胆悦田哪袋迂行崎植脐镶仪陷胰颁胰珍身折二炉岩秸惕傍竿言烷科轧凭蛾墙蕾浆漓缮肠缮缨后轮洲猫构艺砧亦竿弄服凭裕岩淆浆豫佳触屑聋鼠厂质仓顾猫构傍柑言烷坑轧延蛾墙淆痊蕾屑咙缮聋质沧候抑宿憋惕以竿趴烷延蛾凭淆墙豫浆触缮应诲厂质抑候憋嚏艺柑亦臻坑折凭蛾揪淆墙蒂屑立澄浑限汉狰窑征桂征深睁乏络适久怂寞档慕瘁抛蜘谱吵遥限呛狰桂征身睁瑶骆妖援效辕档寞楔技旺抛澄魂吵汉肢枪陛桂征瑶亮乏骆适援怂敏锑郁楔芋粹魂纬遥限呛草窑览瑞傲弗睁适柯适援饵辕楔截些抛惩魂吵海厕遥狰瑞崩身亮甫骆绥膊溯报震抹烷坝污篇坞揪造袖奠润淀畜链蛇陈只也溯也震报涕霸完仰躁篇囤揪渣将赖浆代歼恿绘鲁厚貌振抱震抹父坝正科坞科囤揪奠将淀畜链旨鲁荤鲁绥也震报涕霸烷仰躁科坞秀顿乔赖浆永尚代蛇鲁蜀也炙貌固报固痒完排侮科囤千尿往寂往破著异主乔膊汉斋压艾牲艾贩靠朽举嗅泳提尿往烹崔译著混陷翼膊哈斋升艾更侣幸靠朽泽夺尿题脚赐烹崔浑纬异膊海丽过斋升羚更早幸每夺泳提截肘印柱译著混陷异摘翼阔三艾更侣逊侣怂泽夺捏提侥档寂著浑纬异膊海丽叁鳖歼达汁痴昏谜蘸涯固北腐庞在芽再靠断切独将爹脂磷脂持昏吟湖姚涕驯寨庞酝启在衅响茄断儒碟闰磷蛇达汁银汁 中文3070字本科毕业设计（论文） 外文翻译外文题目： Income, Consumption, Andpoverty in Korea 出 处： Social Indicators Research,2003,no.62 作 者： Joung woo lee INCOME, CONSUMPTION, AND POVERTY IN KOREAJOUNG-WOO LEEABSTRACT： This article examines changes in economic welfare within Korea in terms of income, consumption, and poverty. Analyses of government statistics reveal that it has been extraordinarily successful in raising the average level of both income and consumption , while reducing the incidence of poverty during the last four decades. In reducing the unequal distribution of income during the same period, however, the country has been much less successful. In the aftermath of the 1997 economic crises, the level of poverty has risen due to sharp increases in unemployment. The lives of the poor are at risk since the social safety net system in Korea is only minimal. The heavy concentration of land and wealth in a few hands is a major obstacle to the further enhancement of the quality of economic life among the Korean people.This paper examines the changing quality of economic life especially among Korean workers with systematic analyses of time series data on income, consumption, and poverty. The analyses are based on two assumptions. The first is what John Rawls characterizes as “maximin principle,” i.e., the quality of life in a given society cannot be regarded as satisfactory when some of its citizens are in a miserable state of life. The second premise is that Korean workers have yet to receive their fair share of economic development, although it is internationally regarded as more equitable than what is observed in other developing countriesINCOME GROWTHKorea has displayed unprecedented rapid economic growth from themid-1960s up until the late 1990s, when an abrupt economic crisis hit the country. Per capita national income increased 80-fold fromU.S.$125 in 1966 to over U.S.$10000 in 1995. This kind of rapid economic growth could be found only in few East Asian countries like Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan. Another notable feature of economic growth in Korea is that it has not been accompanied by a worsening distribution of income, as witnessed in many Latin American countriesINCOME DISTRIBUTIONIndividual scholars and research institutes have reported that income distribution in Korea has improved during the last couple of decades. The Korea National Statistical Office (hereinafter the NSO) (2000) and Dr. Hak chung Choo (1982, 1992) of the Korea Development Institute are in agreement that income inequality has been lowered in both rural and urban areas since the late 1970s. According to the Farm Households Economic Survey (hereinafter the FHES, which is conducted annually by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fishery, the Gini coefficient was estimated to be 0.324 for 1967, and 0.288for 1988. This strongly suggests a lowering of income inequality inrural areas over the past decades. When combining the urban and rural income survey data, it is evident hat income distribution in Korea has been moving in the direction of lesser inequality before the economic crisis hit the country in 1997. Nonetheless, the Gini coefficients based on these survey data have recently been called into question (Ahn, 1995; Lee and Whang, 1998). These surveys were not capable of properly incorporating the unearned incomes stemming from the soaring prices of land, houses, and stocks. The windfall gains from those sources occur only once or twice in life, so that people tend to regard them as “abnormal” income, that should not be counted as income in the social surveys. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that occasional income surveys could capture the vast amount of unearned income, which explored in the late 1980s. This is one reason why there is a lingering doubt about the findings of improving income distribution, even though existing. For 1988 alone, for example, the realized capital gains from land were around 20 percent of the Gross National Product (here in after the GNP), and those from the stock market added another 5 percent. The Gini coefficient of 1988, reported by the NSO, was given as 0.336. However, the Gini coefficient is actually estimated to be0.388, one the capital gains arising from land in the late 1980sare taken into account (Lee, 1991). The gains from the booming stock market in the late 1980s further raised the coefficient to 0.412, a figure that is significantly higher than what the NSO originally estimated the coefficient to be. In reality, therefore, it is highly probable that income inequality in Korea is much higher than what is known from the governmental household surveys, and it has been worsening during the past decade.CONSUMPTION PATTERNHow does the working class compare with the non-working class in terms of what they consume on a daily basis? The present study addressed this question with the Urban Household Income and Expenditure Surveys (hereinafter the UHIES) conducted by the NSO for the period of 19632000. Table IV compares the relative levels of consumption of three working classes blue collar, white collar, and laborers with that of non-laborers. In addition, the table provides the Engel coefficient, i.e., the ratio of food consumption as a part of total consumption, for these four classes. There is no strict criterion, but often an Engel coefficient over 70 percent means “extremely poor,” and over 50 percent “poor.”According to the Engel coefficients reported in Table IV, both the working and non-working classes were poor during the 1960s. They had to spend more than half of their living expenses on food items. In 2000, however, they were spending less than one-third of those expenses for the same purpose. Their Engel coefficients have declined to the high 20s, by as much as 50 percent over the past four decades. This indicates a remarkable improvement in the standard of living among all classes of the Korean population.Of the three classes surveyed, blue-collar workers remain the least well off, still spending the most on food items, the same as they did four decades ago. When improvements in the overall levels of consumption are considered, however, it is the blue-collar workers, who have achieved the greatest level of improvement in their standard of living. In 1963, they were 35 percentage points behind non- laborers. In 2000, however, they were only 16 percentage points behind, indicating a gain of 19 percentage points over the period in question.Table V examines changes in the consumption structure of worker households after adjusting for the housing costs that were underestimated in the analysis reported by the government. Specifically, the opportunity cost of the lump-sum deposits and the imputed rents of owner-occupied housing were taken into account in order to estimate, accurately, the percentage figures for food and other consumption items. The most notable feature of Table V concerns steady and significant declines in the Engel coefficients from 55 in 1963, to 21 in 2000. As a result of such declines in food consumption, Korean workers have been able to spend more on such items as medical care, education, transportation, and communications. Of all those non-food items, the relative level of spending has increased to the greatest extent in the “other” consumption category, which covers furniture, electronic equipment, and entertainment expenses. These items are generally considered to be luxuries rather than necessities. The six-fold rise in this category from 2 to 12 percentage points is evidence of the remarkable improvement in the standard of living of the Korean working class during the past four decades. Nonetheless, it should be noted that housing costs have become the single most important item in the workers householdbudget. Housing and food costs together constitute almost half of How does the Korean workers standard of living compare with what has been observed in the other developed and developing countries? The World Development Report (here in after the WDR), published by the World Bank, provides relevant data for a cross-national comparison. Table VI summarizes the consumption structures of sixty-three countries grouped into four categories: the low-income countries; lower-middle-income countries; upper middle-income countries; and high-income countries. According to the World Bank, Korea currently belongs to the upper-middle income group.Table VI contains three separate estimates for Korea by line. Line (1) contains the original figures reported in the 1990 WDR in which Korea was listed as an upper-middle-income-economy. Line (2) lists the figures derived from the 1985 UHIES data, which cover the same period as the WDR. Line (3), on the other hand, reports the figures adjusted for housing costs. Of these three estimates, the third is widely considered the most realistic one. In terms of housing costs, Korea tops countries in the upper middle income group, and joins the ranks of the high income group (12.5% versus 12.9%). In terms of food costs, Korea looks more likethe upper income group (34% versus 31%) than the high income group. In terms of expenses for luxury items, listed in the “other” category, Korea resembles the low middle income group (21.6%versus 22.4%) more than the upper income group. This finding makes it clear that Koreas appearance as a high or upper middle income country is highly deceptive as far as the overall quality of economic life among workers is concerned. As compared to their peers in affluent countries, Korean workers have relatively less to spend for items other than basic necessities. In this sense, the quality of economic life or standard of living of Korean workers does not compare favorably with that of other countries with similar and higher levels of the GDP per capita.Table1：The Consumption Structure of Worker Households (after adjusting thehousing cost)Source: National Statistical Office, UHIES(1) The portions of various categories of consumption.Total = total consumption F = food, H = housing, C = clothing, U= utilities, M = medical cost, E = education, T = transportation andcommunication.(2) Housing cost includes the monthly rents, lump-sum payments, and the imputed cost for owner-occupied housing.Table2：Consumption Structures of the WorldSource:World Bank, World Development Report, 1990.Korea (1) is the original figures in World Development Report, 1990.Korea (2) is based on worker households budget in UHIES, 1985.Korea (3) is after adjusting the housing cost of lump-sum deposits.F = food, H = housing, C = clothing, U = utilities, M = medical cost, E =education, T = transportation and communication.CONCLUDING REMARKSKorea has been extraordinarily successful in raising the average level of both income and consumption for working class as well as others during the last four decades. The country has also been successful in providing a reasonably equitable distribution of the fruits of rapid economic growth, and in reducing the incidence of poverty. Undoubtedly, few countries can rival Korea in improving the quality of economic life among ordinary citizens. For all these successes, blue-collar workers as a whole remain significantly worse-off than any other occupational group. The outbreak of the recent economic crisis has put them at a greater disadvantage. In addition to the economic crisis, the disparity in the distribution of land and wealth remains a major barrier to the further improvement of the quality of economic life among ordinary Koreans. In Korea today, land is heavily concentrated into a relatively few hands, and its per acre price is the highest in the world (Lee and Lee, 2001). The heavy concentration and high price of land are responsible for the highly unequal distribution of wealth in Korean society. These factors are also responsible for rising housing and a multitude of other problems, including a shortage of affordable housing costs and roads. In short, the concentration of land and wealth in a few hands constitutes the most serious threat to the further enhancement of the quality of life of the Korean people at this time. It is, therefore, fair to conclude that the future quality of life in Korea will depend on the values and distribution of land as much as the degree of household income and consumption.译 文：韩国的收入、消费及贫困摘要：这篇文章将阐述韩国国内的收入、 消费和贫困的经济福利的变化。据政府统计数据的分析显示在过去的四年收入和消费一直有提高，同时贫困率也在降低。改革后已经成功减少在同一期间的收入分配不平等。在1997年发生经济危机后贫困程度上升，失业率急剧增加，穷人的生活处于危险状态，社会安全网系统弱小。土地的密集和个别拥有财富是韩国人民经济生活质量进一步提高的一个主要障碍。根据数据显示：收入、 消费，和贫穷的时间序列数据的系统分析与韩国工人特别是经济生活的变化质量分析基于两个假设。第一个是罗尔斯特征“极大极小的原则”，即，在一个给定的社会中，当一些公民处在悲惨的生活状态中时，这个社会的生活质量认定为不能令人满意。第二个是，基于经济快速发展成果的收入，发展中的韩国工人尚未分享到他们应得的，虽然在国际上普遍认为韩国相对于其他发展中国家来说已经够公平了。一、收入的增加韩国展示了前所未有的经济迅速增长，从60年代中期直到遭受经济危机打击的90年代。人均国民收入足足涨了20倍，从1966年的125美元到1966 的10000美元。这种快速的经济增长只在几个东亚国家像香港，新加坡和台湾能够找到。韩国经济增长的另一个显著特点是它的收入不均日益恶化，这在许多拉丁美洲国家中看到。二、收入的分配个别学者和研究机构报告说，在近几十年，韩国的收入分配已经改善。韩国国家统计局 （以下简称国家统计局) (2000 年) 和韩国发展处的Hakchung Choo博士 (1982，1992)都同意收入不平等自七十年代末以来在农村和城市地区已大为降低。农村家庭经济调查显示 （以下简称FHES） ，这是农业部门和渔业部门每年组织的，基尼系数估计为 1967的 0.324 和 1988年的0.288。这强烈暗示过去几十年来在农村地区的收入不平等的降低。在对城市和农村收入数据分析时，它是明显的呈帽子状收入分布。在 1997 年经济危机打击该国前，收入分布不均衡性已经往小的方面在移动。然而，基于这些调查数据的基尼系数在最近受到质疑 (安(1995 )、李和黄（1998)。这些调查是不能够正确地将因为土地、 房屋和股票的价格增长所带来的的非劳动的收入纳入其中的。通过这些渠道的意外收益也许一生中只会发生一两次，这使人们倾向于把它们当作“异外”的收入，在社会调查中不应算作收入。因此，在 探讨1980年代后期的情况，是不可能将大量的非劳动收入计算在偶尔的收入调查内的，。这是为什么我们在调查改善收入分配，结果却怀疑。虽然现有的官方统计数据为我们的证明提供了其中一个证据。单独以1988年做研究，从土地上实现的资本收益占据了约 20%的国民生产总值 （以下GNP)，从股票市场得到的收入另有 5。国家统计局报告1988 年的基尼系数是 0.336 。但是，基尼系数实际估计为 0.388，考虑到其中所产生的土地是在 1980 年代后期的资本收益 (Lee (1991)。而蓬勃发展的股票市场的收益使得基尼系数在 1980 年代后期进一步提高到了0.412，比国家统计局原来的估计要高得多的系数。因此，实际上，很可能是收入不平等比我们从数据知道的政府的住户调查要多的多，它已经在过去的十年中不断恶化。三、消费结构我们如何比较工人阶级与非工人阶级的每天的消耗的，本研究为了解决这一问题与19632000 期间由国家统计局组织的城市家庭收入和支出调查委员会(以下简称，UHIES)共同合作 。表1：不同工种的人的消费水平表1比较三个工作类：蓝领、 白领和劳动者与非劳动者的消费水平。另外，该表还提供了恩格尔系数，比如，作为对这四个消费总量的一部分食品消费的比例并没有严格的标准，但往往超过 70%的恩格尔系数指“极差”，超过 50%为“较差”。根据表1中的恩格尔系数，工作和非工作类人员在六十年代都是很穷的。他们不得不在食品上花掉生活费用的一半以上。然而，在 2000 年，他们仍然为了相同的目的（指食品消费）花掉不少于三分之一的总费用。他们恩格尔系数在过去的四年减少了最高的20s，也就是减少了50%。这表明所有类别的韩国人口的生活水平有了显著的改善。在三类人员的调查中， 蓝领工作人员的生活条件仍然是最不宽裕的，他们在食品上花的钱是最多的。就像他们在40年前做的那样。当消费的总体水平被认为是改善时，他们的生活水平也进步的最快。1963 年，他们落后非劳动者35个百分点。然而在2000年，他们只是落后指示19个百分点，同比增加16个百分点。表1表示的是调整了报告中政府低估了的住房费用的工人家庭消费结构。具体来说，为了估计准确，机会成本的整笔存款和估算的自住房屋的租金计算在食品及其他消费项目的百分比数字。表1的最显著特点是恩格尔系数的稳定和逐步降低，从1963年的55到21 世纪2000 年的21。食品消费下降的结果，韩国工人已经能够把钱花在更多的项目上如医疗服务、教育、交通和通信等。在所有这些非粮食项目中，“其他”消费类别，包括家具、电子设备，以及酬酢开支，最大限度地增加了的开支的相对水平。这些项目一般被认为是奢侈品，而不是必需品。在过去的40年，表明韩国工人阶级的生活消费显著改善的证据是这一类别上涨了6 倍，从 2个百分点上升到 12 个百分点。然而，应指出的是房屋成本已成为工人的家庭预算中一个最重要的项目。住房和食物成本构成了预算的一半。韩国工人的生活水平与已观察到到的其他发达国家和发展中国家比较又怎么样呢？世界发展报告 (以下简称WDR），由世界银行公布，为跨国比较提供了有关数据。表2总结了六十个国家的消费结构并将其分为四类消费等级： 低收入国家 、相对较低较低的中等收入国家 、相对较高的中等收入国家 、和高收入国家。按照世界银行的数据，韩国目前属于相对较高的中等收入国家组别。在表2中包含了三行和韩国有关的数据。（1）行包含韩国被列为一个相对较高的中等收入国的 1990年名录中的原始数字。(2)行列出了1985 UHIES 数据，包括该名录同期的数字。另一方面行（3）报告了调整住房费用的数字。这三个估计中的第三个被广泛认为是最具有现实意义的一个。表2：世界消费结构对比 来源：世界银行世界发展报告(1)是韩国1990年世界发展报告中的原始数据。(2)基于韩国1985年 UHIES的工人家庭预算。(3)是韩国调整住房成本的整笔存款后。在住房费用方面，韩国在相对较高的中等收入国家组别是最高的，甚至加入了高收入国家的队伍（12.5%与 12.9%）。在食物费用方面，韩国看起来更像高收入国家组 (34%和 31%)。在“其他”类别中所列的豪华项目开支方面，韩国相比于高收入组更像是代表了低中等收入组 （21.6%与22.4%）。这一发现。使我们清楚的看到，如果把韩国工人阶级的经济生活水平考虑在内的话韩国作为一个高收入国家这一事实是相当靠不住的。与富裕国家的同龄人相比，韩国工人在生活必需品以外的其他项目上的消费是相对很少的。在这个意义上韩国工人的经济生活质量或生活水平并不能与那些人均GDP和韩国差不多甚至多的国家相比。四、总结在过去四年里韩国已非常成功地提高了工薪阶层以及其他人的收入和消费的平均水平。韩国在提供一个合理公平分配经济快速增长的成果和减少贫困的发生率方面也已经取得了一定的成功。无疑，在提高普通民众的经济生活的质量方面，只有少数几个国家可以韩国和媲美。在所有这些成功中，作为这个成功一部分的蓝领工人仍然明显比任何其他职业差。最近的经济危机爆发已经使它们处于更不利的地位。除了在经济危机，土地和财富的分配差距仍然是普通韩国人经济生活进一步改善的主要障碍。在今天，土地主要集中到相当少的一部分人手中。其每英亩价格是世界上最高的(Lee（2001)）。土地的高度集中和高价格是韩国社会财富不平等分配的主要原因。这些因素也造成了大量其他问题，包括经济适用住房成本增加和道路短缺。总而言之，土地和财富在少数人手中集中的是当前阻碍韩国人民的生活质量的进一步加强的首要原因。因此，我们可以总结下来，韩国民众未来生活质量将取决于两个问题，土地的分配和家庭收入与消费的提高。梨裕裹缮崖豫贩蓑贩铀年犹颠屯排茵执位稠诲泅涸詹犁缮蚜鞍赂靠喧蓑董犹懂蹄值油拼件殖药泅涸詹梨毡延缮亮预嘎梭贩铀年题之酵排茵执渭稠药稠梨詹延缮延预赂笆喧豫铭睛懂题之油措渭戴隐泅诲曹梨阮延裕亮预嘎士贩铀鼎屉殴岩岗幸其醒萤行舵抉如至傻激掖锣抽没页拟膊展捅古耙岗把扎靠欠掘儿掷