2023考研英語閱讀法律與窮人
The lawand the poor
法律與窮人
Courts in emerging markets are better for thepoor than many assume;
新興市場(chǎng)國家的法院對(duì)待窮人時(shí)并不是許多人所想的那樣糟糕;
In December India s cabinet approved a right tofood bill that would give two-thirds of thepopulation a rightsupposedly enforceable inlawto cheap food. Parliament must still give itsapproval, but the idea is part of a trend. Indian law already promises the right to education,health and paid work. And India is one of many countries that incorporate social andeconomic rights into their constitutions, and use the courts to enforce those rights.Indonesia s Constitutional Court issued rulings in 2004-06 requiring the government to boosteducation spending. South Africa s highest court obliged a reluctant president, Thabo Mbeki,to launch various anti-HIV/AIDS programmes.
印度內(nèi)閣去年 12月通過了一項(xiàng)名為食品權(quán)的議案，將賦予該國三分之二的人口以獲取廉價(jià)食品的權(quán)利。盡管該議案的最終實(shí)施還需要經(jīng)過議會(huì)批準(zhǔn)，但是其想法體現(xiàn)了印度國內(nèi)的政策趨勢(shì)。目前，印度已經(jīng)通過相關(guān)法律保障人們接受教育、享有健康和參加工作的權(quán)利。另外，印度也是將社會(huì)權(quán)利和經(jīng)濟(jì)權(quán)利寫入憲法的國家之一，并通過法院保障權(quán)利的行使。另一亞洲新興市場(chǎng)國家印度尼西亞的立憲法院曾于2004年6月作出裁定，要求政府加大對(duì)教育的支持力度。而在南非，最高法院曾經(jīng)迫使總統(tǒng)姆貝基接受他曾不情愿開展的多個(gè)對(duì)抗艾滋病的項(xiàng)目。
Using the law as an instrument of social policy might seem perverse. Until now the balanceof academic opinion has been that the courts do little to help the poor. In theory, the law isnot supposed to discriminate in anyone s favour. In practice, the rich tend to do well in thecourts because the poor cannot afford to go to law themselves ; because the law is said to favour property owners; and because, as Anatole France,a French novelist, sardonically put it, The majestic equality of the laws prohibits the rich andthe poor alike from sleeping under bridges, begging in the streets and stealing bread.
將法律作為一種社會(huì)政策手段聽起來似乎有些荒謬。到目前為止，學(xué)術(shù)界的主流看法是法院在幫助窮人方面幾乎毫無建樹。理論上，法律不應(yīng)該區(qū)別對(duì)待不同的個(gè)人或者群體，但實(shí)際上，富人通常能在法庭上獲得更有利的結(jié)果。究其原因，首先是窮人常常因?yàn)闊o力承擔(dān)相關(guān)訴訟費(fèi)用而不能主動(dòng)地利用法律;其次，法律也被認(rèn)為更有利于財(cái)產(chǎn)擁有者。法國小說家Anatole France不無諷刺地說道：崇高的法律公平地禁止富人和窮人在橋下留宿、上街乞討和偷竊面包。
But a new study, by Daniel Brinks of the University of Texas at Austin and Varun Gauri of theWorld Bank, takes issue with this view. The law s record, they argue, is mixed: pro-poor insome countries, regressive in others. But on balance it is much better for the poor thanconventional wisdom suggests.
但是，最近發(fā)表的一份研究報(bào)告提出了與主流看法不同的意見。報(bào)告的作者分別是來自德克薩斯大學(xué)奧斯汀分校的 Daniel Brinks和世界銀行的Varun Gauri。他們認(rèn)為，窮人的法律境況因國而異，某些國家的法律更有利于窮人，另一些則不然。但就整體而言，窮人的法律境遇要比傳統(tǒng)觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為的好許多。
The authors argue there are three kinds of legal case. Some involve regulation, someobligation, some provision. Regulation cases force a government to change the rules toimprove access to a basic right. Obligation cases change the behaviour of those obliged togive a rights-based service . Provision cases demand some new good or service.Regulation cases offer most hope for the poor, the authors reckon, because the benefits areuniversal. Obligation cases are least likely to help, because rulings usually affect only thosewho already receive a service. With provision cases, it depends on how broad a ruling sapplication may be.
Daniel Brinks和Varun Gauri將現(xiàn)實(shí)中的案件分為三種類型，分別涉及法規(guī)regulation、義務(wù)obligation和條款provision。法院通過審理涉及法規(guī)的案件，迫使政府改變規(guī)定，使之更有利于基本權(quán)利的行使。涉及義務(wù)的案件則可以要求義務(wù)人提供基于權(quán)利的服務(wù)。涉及條款的案件則是關(guān)于提供新的商品或者服務(wù)。研究人員認(rèn)為，涉及法規(guī)的案件對(duì)窮人幫助最大，因?yàn)檫@類案件的受益群體最為廣泛。涉及義務(wù)的案件對(duì)窮人的幫助最小，因?yàn)檫@類案件的裁定通常只涉及已享有服務(wù)的群體。而涉及條款的案件對(duì)窮人的幫助則取決于裁定適用的范圍。
The authors then look at five countries, all emerging markets but with different levels ofincome, different legal traditions and differenthistories of using the law for social policy. They calculate what proportion of the benefitsresulting from legal judgments under rights-based laws go to the poorest 40% of thepopulation in each country.
Daniel Brinks和Varun Gauri研究時(shí)將目光集中在五個(gè)有著不同收入水平和法律體系的新興市場(chǎng)國家，這些國家利用法律為社會(huì)政策服務(wù)的歷史也各有千秋。他們對(duì)各個(gè)國家基于權(quán)利相關(guān)法律的裁定進(jìn)行利益分析，計(jì)算其中屬于最窮的40%人口的比例。
India, they find, has been most successful by this measure. Its courts are the most likely totake up regulation cases which raise broad policy issues. The authors reckon Indian rulingshave pushed up first-grade enrolment of girls by 10% a year, bringing 7m children intoschool-feeding programmes. Despite serious problems with enforcement, 84% of the benefitsof relevant rulings, they think, have gone to the poorest twofifths. South Africa also usesregulation cases extensively. Here, the poor received three-quarters of the benefits oflegal rulings on health and 100% of the gains from education rulings.
研究人員發(fā)現(xiàn)，印度在這項(xiàng)統(tǒng)計(jì)中的表現(xiàn)最為優(yōu)異。印度法院最易于接受涉及法規(guī)的案件，這類案件通常都包含有影響廣泛的社會(huì)議題。Daniel Brinks和Varun Gauri認(rèn)為，印度通過制訂法規(guī)將700萬兒童納入學(xué)校午餐計(jì)劃，將該國女孩的基礎(chǔ)教育入學(xué)率在一年內(nèi)提高了10%。盡管實(shí)施過程依然包含著許多嚴(yán)重的問題，但他們認(rèn)為84%的利益都分配給了最窮的40%人口。南非法院同樣易于接受涉及法規(guī)的案件，根據(jù)統(tǒng)計(jì)，該國涉及健康政策的法律裁定使窮人獲得了四分之三的利益，而與教育政策相關(guān)的裁定則為100%。
Brazilian courts, unlike their Indian and South African peers, rarely consider suits with broadimplications. Instead, they take on individual provision cases. But they hear so many40,000 claims a year about providing medicines, for examplethat their rulings havesweeping implications. Experts have long assumed that such rulings seldom help the poor,because the benefits are restricted to the plaintiffs, who are likely to be well-off. But theauthors point out that after a string of losses in court, the government bodies that deliversubsidised medicine changed their behaviour, making the stuff more easily available. By theauthors calculations, 36% of the benefits from medical cases in Brazil go to the poorest 40%ie, they are marginally regressive.
巴西的法院和印度及南非不同，它很少關(guān)心那些有著廣泛含義的案件，而是對(duì)涉及特定條款的案件更感興趣。不過，由于巴西法院一年要處理大約4萬件類似關(guān)于提供藥品的涉及特定條款的案件，大量涉及特定條款的案件綜合在一起，還是為該國的社會(huì)政策提供了廣泛的指引。長期以來，專家們都認(rèn)為這類案件幫不上窮人什么忙，因?yàn)槔娑紝儆谠妫嫱ǔ１容^富裕。但是研究報(bào)告指出，提供補(bǔ)助藥品的政府相關(guān)機(jī)構(gòu)在遭受了一系列敗訴后，會(huì)改變自己的行為，為窮人獲得補(bǔ)助藥品提供更多便利。DanielBrinks和Varun Gauri估計(jì)，巴西的醫(yī)療案件判決中36%的利益由最窮的40%人口獲得，略微不利于窮人。
Compared with India, Brazil and South Africa, Indonesia has had few court cases on broadsocial matters. Among those few are the rulings which pushed education spending updramatically. But since state education in Indonesia tends to help the middle class most, theeffect was still mildly regressive: 36% of the benefits went to the two poorest quintiles. Eventhat was better than in Nigeria where, the authors reckon, three-quarters of the benefitswere captured by the rich. This was partly because many Nigerian cases concerneduniversities .
同印度、巴西和南非相比，印度尼西亞法院幾乎不參與涉及廣泛社會(huì)問題的案件，少有的例子中包括一項(xiàng)推動(dòng)教育支出大幅度提高的判決。但是，由于中產(chǎn)階級(jí)在該國教育體系中受益最大，因此印度尼西亞的法律環(huán)境對(duì)窮人不太有利：36%的相關(guān)利益由最窮的40%人口獲得。即便如此，印度尼西亞窮人的法律境況還是要比尼日利亞窮人好很多。在那里，富人獲得了法律利益的四分之三。究其原因，部分是由于許多案例涉及大學(xué)教育。
Majestic results
崇高的結(jié)論
So the empirical evidence is mixed. But it does not support the view that the law is an elitegame, fixed to serve the interests of the rich and educated. When the authors aggregatetheir national studies, they conclude that 55% of the benefits that flow from the variouslegal decisions accrue to the poorest 40%. Such calculations are, inevitably, rough andready. Ideally, one should compare the costs and benefits of going to law with those ofpursuing the same policy objectives in parliamentwhich is hard to measure. It is also anopen question whether a right to foodie, an obligation for someone else to provide itisthe best way to help the poor. A targeted cash-transfer programme, which makes welfarepayments conditional on recipients actions, may work better. More broadly, it is far fromclear that society as whole benefits when unelected judges mandate potentially costlysocial spending. That said, the study is still a revelation: courts are more majestic thandecades of received wisdom have suggested.
實(shí)際的研究結(jié)果喜憂參半，但是足以反駁這樣一種傳統(tǒng)觀點(diǎn)：法律是精英們掌控的游戲，服務(wù)于富人和接受過良好教育的人的利益。Daniel Brinks和Varun Gauri將各國的研究結(jié)果進(jìn)行綜合后發(fā)現(xiàn)，新興市場(chǎng)國家中55%的法律利益由最窮的40%人口獲得。當(dāng)然，這樣的計(jì)算方式不可避免地有些粗糙，更為理想的辦法是對(duì)比訴諸法律和通過議會(huì)達(dá)成同樣政策目標(biāo)的成本、收益。然而，后者的相關(guān)成本收益很難進(jìn)行衡量。另外，像食物權(quán)這類對(duì)其他人規(guī)定提供商品或服務(wù)義務(wù)的法案，是否是幫助窮人的最好辦法?這也值得深入思考的問題。或許，根據(jù)接受者行為進(jìn)行有條件福利支付的定向現(xiàn)金轉(zhuǎn)移支付計(jì)劃效果會(huì)更好。從更廣泛的意義上講，讓并非通過選舉產(chǎn)生的法官強(qiáng)制要求政府采用成本高昂的社會(huì)支出對(duì)社會(huì)整體來說是否有益，這一問題也沒有明確的答案。即便如此，這項(xiàng)研究還是很好地說明了現(xiàn)實(shí)中法院的形象比長期以來人們傳統(tǒng)思維中的更為崇高。
The lawand the poor
法律與窮人
Courts in emerging markets are better for thepoor than many assume;
新興市場(chǎng)國家的法院對(duì)待窮人時(shí)并不是許多人所想的那樣糟糕;
In December India s cabinet approved a right tofood bill that would give two-thirds of thepopulation a rightsupposedly enforceable inlawto cheap food. Parliament must still give itsapproval, but the idea is part of a trend. Indian law already promises the right to education,health and paid work. And India is one of many countries that incorporate social andeconomic rights into their constitutions, and use the courts to enforce those rights.Indonesia s Constitutional Court issued rulings in 2004-06 requiring the government to boosteducation spending. South Africa s highest court obliged a reluctant president, Thabo Mbeki,to launch various anti-HIV/AIDS programmes.
印度內(nèi)閣去年 12月通過了一項(xiàng)名為食品權(quán)的議案，將賦予該國三分之二的人口以獲取廉價(jià)食品的權(quán)利。盡管該議案的最終實(shí)施還需要經(jīng)過議會(huì)批準(zhǔn)，但是其想法體現(xiàn)了印度國內(nèi)的政策趨勢(shì)。目前，印度已經(jīng)通過相關(guān)法律保障人們接受教育、享有健康和參加工作的權(quán)利。另外，印度也是將社會(huì)權(quán)利和經(jīng)濟(jì)權(quán)利寫入憲法的國家之一，并通過法院保障權(quán)利的行使。另一亞洲新興市場(chǎng)國家印度尼西亞的立憲法院曾于2004年6月作出裁定，要求政府加大對(duì)教育的支持力度。而在南非，最高法院曾經(jīng)迫使總統(tǒng)姆貝基接受他曾不情愿開展的多個(gè)對(duì)抗艾滋病的項(xiàng)目。
Using the law as an instrument of social policy might seem perverse. Until now the balanceof academic opinion has been that the courts do little to help the poor. In theory, the law isnot supposed to discriminate in anyone s favour. In practice, the rich tend to do well in thecourts because the poor cannot afford to go to law themselves ; because the law is said to favour property owners; and because, as Anatole France,a French novelist, sardonically put it, The majestic equality of the laws prohibits the rich andthe poor alike from sleeping under bridges, begging in the streets and stealing bread.
將法律作為一種社會(huì)政策手段聽起來似乎有些荒謬。到目前為止，學(xué)術(shù)界的主流看法是法院在幫助窮人方面幾乎毫無建樹。理論上，法律不應(yīng)該區(qū)別對(duì)待不同的個(gè)人或者群體，但實(shí)際上，富人通常能在法庭上獲得更有利的結(jié)果。究其原因，首先是窮人常常因?yàn)闊o力承擔(dān)相關(guān)訴訟費(fèi)用而不能主動(dòng)地利用法律;其次，法律也被認(rèn)為更有利于財(cái)產(chǎn)擁有者。法國小說家Anatole France不無諷刺地說道：崇高的法律公平地禁止富人和窮人在橋下留宿、上街乞討和偷竊面包。
But a new study, by Daniel Brinks of the University of Texas at Austin and Varun Gauri of theWorld Bank, takes issue with this view. The law s record, they argue, is mixed: pro-poor insome countries, regressive in others. But on balance it is much better for the poor thanconventional wisdom suggests.
但是，最近發(fā)表的一份研究報(bào)告提出了與主流看法不同的意見。報(bào)告的作者分別是來自德克薩斯大學(xué)奧斯汀分校的 Daniel Brinks和世界銀行的Varun Gauri。他們認(rèn)為，窮人的法律境況因國而異，某些國家的法律更有利于窮人，另一些則不然。但就整體而言，窮人的法律境遇要比傳統(tǒng)觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為的好許多。
The authors argue there are three kinds of legal case. Some involve regulation, someobligation, some provision. Regulation cases force a government to change the rules toimprove access to a basic right. Obligation cases change the behaviour of those obliged togive a rights-based service . Provision cases demand some new good or service.Regulation cases offer most hope for the poor, the authors reckon, because the benefits areuniversal. Obligation cases are least likely to help, because rulings usually affect only thosewho already receive a service. With provision cases, it depends on how broad a ruling sapplication may be.
Daniel Brinks和Varun Gauri將現(xiàn)實(shí)中的案件分為三種類型，分別涉及法規(guī)regulation、義務(wù)obligation和條款provision。法院通過審理涉及法規(guī)的案件，迫使政府改變規(guī)定，使之更有利于基本權(quán)利的行使。涉及義務(wù)的案件則可以要求義務(wù)人提供基于權(quán)利的服務(wù)。涉及條款的案件則是關(guān)于提供新的商品或者服務(wù)。研究人員認(rèn)為，涉及法規(guī)的案件對(duì)窮人幫助最大，因?yàn)檫@類案件的受益群體最為廣泛。涉及義務(wù)的案件對(duì)窮人的幫助最小，因?yàn)檫@類案件的裁定通常只涉及已享有服務(wù)的群體。而涉及條款的案件對(duì)窮人的幫助則取決于裁定適用的范圍。
The authors then look at five countries, all emerging markets but with different levels ofincome, different legal traditions and differenthistories of using the law for social policy. They calculate what proportion of the benefitsresulting from legal judgments under rights-based laws go to the poorest 40% of thepopulation in each country.
Daniel Brinks和Varun Gauri研究時(shí)將目光集中在五個(gè)有著不同收入水平和法律體系的新興市場(chǎng)國家，這些國家利用法律為社會(huì)政策服務(wù)的歷史也各有千秋。他們對(duì)各個(gè)國家基于權(quán)利相關(guān)法律的裁定進(jìn)行利益分析，計(jì)算其中屬于最窮的40%人口的比例。
India, they find, has been most successful by this measure. Its courts are the most likely totake up regulation cases which raise broad policy issues. The authors reckon Indian rulingshave pushed up first-grade enrolment of girls by 10% a year, bringing 7m children intoschool-feeding programmes. Despite serious problems with enforcement, 84% of the benefitsof relevant rulings, they think, have gone to the poorest twofifths. South Africa also usesregulation cases extensively. Here, the poor received three-quarters of the benefits oflegal rulings on health and 100% of the gains from education rulings.
研究人員發(fā)現(xiàn)，印度在這項(xiàng)統(tǒng)計(jì)中的表現(xiàn)最為優(yōu)異。印度法院最易于接受涉及法規(guī)的案件，這類案件通常都包含有影響廣泛的社會(huì)議題。Daniel Brinks和Varun Gauri認(rèn)為，印度通過制訂法規(guī)將700萬兒童納入學(xué)校午餐計(jì)劃，將該國女孩的基礎(chǔ)教育入學(xué)率在一年內(nèi)提高了10%。盡管實(shí)施過程依然包含著許多嚴(yán)重的問題，但他們認(rèn)為84%的利益都分配給了最窮的40%人口。南非法院同樣易于接受涉及法規(guī)的案件，根據(jù)統(tǒng)計(jì)，該國涉及健康政策的法律裁定使窮人獲得了四分之三的利益，而與教育政策相關(guān)的裁定則為100%。
Brazilian courts, unlike their Indian and South African peers, rarely consider suits with broadimplications. Instead, they take on individual provision cases. But they hear so many40,000 claims a year about providing medicines, for examplethat their rulings havesweeping implications. Experts have long assumed that such rulings seldom help the poor,because the benefits are restricted to the plaintiffs, who are likely to be well-off. But theauthors point out that after a string of losses in court, the government bodies that deliversubsidised medicine changed their behaviour, making the stuff more easily available. By theauthors calculations, 36% of the benefits from medical cases in Brazil go to the poorest 40%ie, they are marginally regressive.
巴西的法院和印度及南非不同，它很少關(guān)心那些有著廣泛含義的案件，而是對(duì)涉及特定條款的案件更感興趣。不過，由于巴西法院一年要處理大約4萬件類似關(guān)于提供藥品的涉及特定條款的案件，大量涉及特定條款的案件綜合在一起，還是為該國的社會(huì)政策提供了廣泛的指引。長期以來，專家們都認(rèn)為這類案件幫不上窮人什么忙，因?yàn)槔娑紝儆谠妫嫱ǔ１容^富裕。但是研究報(bào)告指出，提供補(bǔ)助藥品的政府相關(guān)機(jī)構(gòu)在遭受了一系列敗訴后，會(huì)改變自己的行為，為窮人獲得補(bǔ)助藥品提供更多便利。DanielBrinks和Varun Gauri估計(jì)，巴西的醫(yī)療案件判決中36%的利益由最窮的40%人口獲得，略微不利于窮人。
Compared with India, Brazil and South Africa, Indonesia has had few court cases on broadsocial matters. Among those few are the rulings which pushed education spending updramatically. But since state education in Indonesia tends to help the middle class most, theeffect was still mildly regressive: 36% of the benefits went to the two poorest quintiles. Eventhat was better than in Nigeria where, the authors reckon, three-quarters of the benefitswere captured by the rich. This was partly because many Nigerian cases concerneduniversities .
同印度、巴西和南非相比，印度尼西亞法院幾乎不參與涉及廣泛社會(huì)問題的案件，少有的例子中包括一項(xiàng)推動(dòng)教育支出大幅度提高的判決。但是，由于中產(chǎn)階級(jí)在該國教育體系中受益最大，因此印度尼西亞的法律環(huán)境對(duì)窮人不太有利：36%的相關(guān)利益由最窮的40%人口獲得。即便如此，印度尼西亞窮人的法律境況還是要比尼日利亞窮人好很多。在那里，富人獲得了法律利益的四分之三。究其原因，部分是由于許多案例涉及大學(xué)教育。
Majestic results
崇高的結(jié)論
So the empirical evidence is mixed. But it does not support the view that the law is an elitegame, fixed to serve the interests of the rich and educated. When the authors aggregatetheir national studies, they conclude that 55% of the benefits that flow from the variouslegal decisions accrue to the poorest 40%. Such calculations are, inevitably, rough andready. Ideally, one should compare the costs and benefits of going to law with those ofpursuing the same policy objectives in parliamentwhich is hard to measure. It is also anopen question whether a right to foodie, an obligation for someone else to provide itisthe best way to help the poor. A targeted cash-transfer programme, which makes welfarepayments conditional on recipients actions, may work better. More broadly, it is far fromclear that society as whole benefits when unelected judges mandate potentially costlysocial spending. That said, the study is still a revelation: courts are more majestic thandecades of received wisdom have suggested.
實(shí)際的研究結(jié)果喜憂參半，但是足以反駁這樣一種傳統(tǒng)觀點(diǎn)：法律是精英們掌控的游戲，服務(wù)于富人和接受過良好教育的人的利益。Daniel Brinks和Varun Gauri將各國的研究結(jié)果進(jìn)行綜合后發(fā)現(xiàn)，新興市場(chǎng)國家中55%的法律利益由最窮的40%人口獲得。當(dāng)然，這樣的計(jì)算方式不可避免地有些粗糙，更為理想的辦法是對(duì)比訴諸法律和通過議會(huì)達(dá)成同樣政策目標(biāo)的成本、收益。然而，后者的相關(guān)成本收益很難進(jìn)行衡量。另外，像食物權(quán)這類對(duì)其他人規(guī)定提供商品或服務(wù)義務(wù)的法案，是否是幫助窮人的最好辦法?這也值得深入思考的問題。或許，根據(jù)接受者行為進(jìn)行有條件福利支付的定向現(xiàn)金轉(zhuǎn)移支付計(jì)劃效果會(huì)更好。從更廣泛的意義上講，讓并非通過選舉產(chǎn)生的法官強(qiáng)制要求政府采用成本高昂的社會(huì)支出對(duì)社會(huì)整體來說是否有益，這一問題也沒有明確的答案。即便如此，這項(xiàng)研究還是很好地說明了現(xiàn)實(shí)中法院的形象比長期以來人們傳統(tǒng)思維中的更為崇高。
