For more than three decades, most influential leaders have agreed that higher taxes on the rich and increased aid to the poor have hurt economic growth. Liberals have generally viewed this as a trade-off worth making. In other words, they argue that it’s a worthwhile trade to accept some price in the form of a lower Gross Domestic Product to help fellow citizens in need. Conservatives, on the other hand, have advocated “trickle-down” economics, insisting that the best policy is to cut taxes on the rich, decrease aid to the poor, and count on a rising tide to raise all boats.
But there’s now growing evidence for a new view – namely, that the whole premise of this debate is wrong, that there isn’t actually any trade-off between fairness and inefficiency. Why? It’s true that market economies need a certain amount of inequality to function. But economic inequality has become so extreme that it’s inflicting a lot of economic damage. And this, in turn, implies that redistribution – that is, taxing the rich and helping the poor — may well raise, not lower, the economy’s growth rate.
You might be tempted to dismiss this notion as wishful thinking, a sort of liberal equivalent of the right-wing fantasy that cutting taxes on the rich actually increases revenue. In fact, however, there is solid evidence that high inequality limits growth, and that redistribution can be good for the economy. This new view about inequality and growth got a boost from Standard & Poor’s, the rating agency, which put out a report supporting the view that high inequality is growth. There is, at this point, no reason to believe that (19) comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted is good for growth, and good reason to believe the opposite.
Specifically, if you look at the international evidence on inequality, redistribution, and growth, you find that lower levels of inequality are associated with faster, not slower, growth. Furthermore, income redistribution at the levels typical of advanced countries (with the United States doing much less than average) is “robustly associated with higher and more durable growth.” That is, there’s no evidence that making the rich richer enriches the nation as a whole, but there’s strong evidence of benefits from making the poor less poor.
But how is that possible? Doesn’t taxing the rich and helping the poor reduce the incentive to make money? Well, yes, but incentives aren’t the only thing that matters for economic growth. Opportunity is also crucial. And extreme inequality deprives many people of the opportunity to fulfill their potential. Think about it. Do talented children in low-income families have the same chance to make use of their talent – to get the right education, to pursue the right career path – as those born higher up the ladder? Of course not. Moreover, this isn’t just unfair, it’s expensive.
Extreme inequality means a waste of human resources. And government programs that reduce inequality can make the nation as a whole richer by reducing that waste. Consider, for example, what we know about *food stamps. The historical evidence does indeed suggest that making food stamps available somewhat reduces work effort, especially by single mothers. But it also suggests that people who had access to food stamps when they were children grew up to be healthier and more productive than those who didn’t, which meansthat they made a bigger economic contribution. The purpose of the food stamp program was to reduce misery, but it’s a good guess that the program was also good for economic growth.
The same thing, Id argue, will end up being true of health insurance provided by the US government. Obama’s healthcare reform will induce some people to reduce the number of hours they work, but it will also mean higher productivity from workers who are finally getting the health care they need. Overall, health reform will probably make us richer as well as more secure.
Will the new view of inequality change our political debate? It should. Being nice to the wealthy and cruel to the poor is not, it turns out, the key to economic growth. On the contrary, making our economy fairer would also make it richer. Goodbye, trickle-down; hello, trickle-up.
Part 1: 語句問題（5題）
言い換え選択問題（2題）
問1．本文中の “advocated” に最も意味が近いものを選びなさい。
(A) opposed (B) supported (C) ignored (D) questioned
問2．本文中の “robustly” に最も意味が近いものを選びなさい。
(A) weakly (B) rarely (C) strongly (D) slowly
語形変化問題（3題）
問3．次の単語を、文脈に合う形容詞形に変化させなさい。
influence →（ ）
問4．次の単語を、文脈に合う名詞形に変化させなさい。
secure →（ ）
問5．次の単語に否定の接頭辞をつけて、反意語を作りなさい。
efficient →（ ）
Part 2: 和訳（1題）
次の英文を日本語に訳しなさい。
There is, at this point, no reason to believe that comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted is good for growth, and good reason to believe the opposite.
Part 3: 和文英訳（1題）
次の日本語を英語に訳しなさい。
「極端な格差は、多くの人々から自分の才能を生かす機会を奪っている。」
Part 4: 文章理解を問う問題
Which of the following best represents the main argument of the passage?
(A) Higher taxes on the rich and increased aid to the poor have hurt economic growth for more than three decades, and this relationship is unlikely to change.
(B) A growing body of evidence suggests there is no real trade-off between fairness and efficiency, and redistribution may actually boost economic growth.
(C) The Standard & Poor’s report confirmed the conservative view that greater inequality leads to faster economic growth.
(D) Food stamps only reduce work effort and provide no economic benefit whatsoever.
Part 5: 英文正誤問題（1題）
次の英文が本文の内容と一致していれば○、一致していなければ×で答えなさい。
According to the passage, children from low-income families have essentially the same chances as wealthier children to pursue the right education and career path.
【解答】
Part 1
問1：(B) supported
問2：(C) strongly
問3：influential
問4：security
問5：inefficient
Part 2
「現時点では、恵まれた人々を慰め、苦しんでいる人々をさらに苦しめることが成長にとって良いと信じる理由はなく、むしろその逆を信じるだけの十分な根拠がある。」
Part 3
Extreme inequality deprives many people of the opportunity to make use of their talent.
Part 4
正解：(B)
【解説】
本文の骨格となる文を文型（SVOC）と品詞の両面から確認すると、主張の流れが明確になる。
- For more than three decades, most influential leaders have agreed that higher taxes on the rich and increased aid to the poor have hurt economic growth.
S = most influential leaders／V = have agreed／O = that節。influential（形容詞。influence〈名詞・動詞〉の形容詞形で「影響力のある」）がleadersを修飾。that節内はS(higher taxes on the rich and increased aid to the poor)／V(have hurt)／O(economic growth)のSVO構造。→これが「これまでの通説」を示す文。 - But economic inequality has become so extreme that it’s inflicting a lot of economic damage.
S = economic inequality／V = has become／C = so extreme（SVC・第2文型）。extreme（形容詞）。”so ~ that …”は程度・結果を表す構文で「非常に~なので…」の意味。→通説に対する「反論の起点」となる文。 - And extreme inequality deprives many people of the opportunity to fulfill their potential.
S = extreme inequality／V = deprives／O = many people（SVO・第3文型、of以下は前置詞句）。potential（ここでは名詞「潜在能力」。形容詞としては「潜在的な」の意味になる点に注意）。”deprive A of B”で「AからBを奪う」。 - Government programs that reduce inequality can make the nation as a whole richer by reducing that waste.
S = Government programs that reduce inequality（関係代名詞thatの節がGovernment programsを修飾）／V = can make／O = the nation as a whole／C = richer（SVOC・第5文型）。richer（rich〈形容詞〉の比較級）。makeがO=Cの意味関係を作る典型例。→結論部分にあたる文。
これらの文型・品詞の流れを追うと、「①従来の通説→②その通説への反論→③反論の具体的理由→④再分配は成長を高めるという結論」という論理展開が読み取れ、(B)が主張として最も適切だとわかる。
Part 5
正解：×（本文では、低所得家庭の才能ある子どもたちは、富裕層の子どもたちと同じ機会を持っていない＝”Of course not.”と明確に否定されている）
コメント