[已解决问题] 请高手帮忙!
提问者:hsj33 - Q籽一级  [收藏]
悬赏沪元:80 浏览 208 次
Where government help is really needed Three-quarters of the world's poor live in rural areas. The depressed world prices created by farm policies over the past few decades have had a devastating effect. There has been a long-term fall in investment in farming and the things that sustain it, such as irrigation. The share of public spending going to agriculture in developing countries has fallen by half since 1980. Poor countries that used to export food now import it. Reducing subsidies in the West would help reverse this. The World Bank reckons that if you free up agricultural trade, the prices of things poor countries specialize in (like cotton) would rise and developing countries would capture the gains by increasing exports. And because farming accounts for two-thirds of jobs in the poorest countries, it is the most important contributor to the early stages of economic growth. According to the World Bank, the really poor get three times as much extra income from an increase in farm productivity as from the same gain in industry or services. In the long term, thriving farms and open markets provide a secure food supply.However, there is an obvious catch—and one that justifies government help. High prices have a mixed impact on poverty: they hurt anyone who loses more from dear food than he gains from a higher income. And that means over a billion urban consumers (and some landless laborers), many of whom are politically influential in poor countries. Given the speed of this year's food-price rises, governments in emerging markets have no alternative but to try to soften the blow.

问题补充:Where they can, these governments should subsidize the incomes of the poor, rather than food itself, because that minimizes price distortions. Where food subsidies are unavoidable, they should be temporary and targeted on the poor. So far, most government interventions in the poor world have failed these tests: politicians who seem to think cheap food part of the natural order of things have slapped on price controls and export restraints, which hurt farmers and will almost certainly fail. Over the past few years, a sense has grown that the rich are hogging the world's wealth. In poor countries, widening income inequality takes the form of a gap between city and country: incomes have been rising faster for urban dwellers than for rural ones. If handled properly, dearer food is a once-in-a-generation chance to narrow income disparities and to wean rich farmers from subsidies and help poor ones. The ultimate reward, though, is not merely theirs: it is to make the world richer and fairer.
补充部分也请帮忙翻译下

最佳答案
真正需要政府帮助的地方
世界上3/4的贫困人口生活在农村地区。因过去几十年的农业政策而受到压抑的世界价格已经产生了毁灭性的效果。已经有很长一段时间在农业以及维持农业的事物上的投资下降,比如灌溉工程。发展中国家的人民花在农业上的投入自1980年以来已经下降一半。曾经出口食品的穷国现在也在进口粮食。
西方世界减少补助将有助于逆转这种趋势。世界银行认为,如果你放开农业贸易,贫穷国家专门种植的农作物价格就会上涨(比如棉花),而发展中国家将通过增加出口获得利益。而且因为务农占到这些最贫穷国家工作的2/3,这将是对经济增长初期阶段的最重要贡献。根据世界银行的统计,真正的贫困人口从增加农产品产量中获得的额外收入是其从工业、服务业中获得的三倍。长期来看,繁荣农业和开放市场将产生一个安全的食品供应。
然而,这儿有一个明显的对手-正是它使得政府的帮助正确化。高价格对贫穷有着混合影响:它伤害任何一个因更贵的食品受到的损失比他因更高的收入而获得的收益更大的人。而这意味着超过十亿的城市消费者(一些是无地劳动者),他们中的很多人从贫穷国家的政治上来说是有影响力的。面对今年食品价格的上涨速度,新兴市场中的政府除了设法缓冲这个打击之外没有别的办法了。
只要可能,这些政府应对穷人的收入进行补贴,而不是食品本身,因为这样才能将价格扭曲最小化。在食品补贴不可避免的情况下,它应该是临时的而且应该将目标对准穷人。迄今为止,大多数贫穷世界的政府干预都失败了:那些将廉价食品看做事物自然秩序的一部分的政治家们已经在加强价格控制和出口限制,这些将伤害到农民而且几乎肯定会失败。
过去几年来,有一种意识在形成:富人在霸占世界的财富。在贫穷国家,不断加大的收入不公平以城乡鸿沟的方式出现:城市居民的收入增长得比农村居民快。如果处理得当,更贵的食品将是“一代人只有一次”的缩小收入差距、使富裕农民从补贴中摆脱出来以及帮助穷困农民的机会。然而,最终的回报不仅仅是他们的:它将使世界更加富裕,更加公平。
2008-5-25 15:33:00 回答者:mtf237


提问者对于答案的评价:至为感激!!
评论
   您需要登录以后才能回答!
我的问题    我要提问


相关链接

快到期问题


有不合适内容,建议去除