外文翻译考察城乡收入差距.docx

1、外文翻译考察城乡收入差距2200单词，11900英文字符，3468汉字出处：Christofides C A, Neelakantan P, Behr T. Examining the Rural-Urban Income GapJ. 本科毕业论文外文翻译考察城乡收入差距院（系、部）名 称 ： 财经学院 专 业 名 称： 财务会计教育 学 生 姓 名： 学 生 学 号： 指 导 教 师： 2010年 11 月 10 日 Examining the Rural-Urban Income GapC.A. Christofides, Pats Neelakantan, Todd BehrThere

2、is an income gap between rural and urban Pennsylvania, and, since the 1980s, this gap has been growing. These are just some of the findings from research, completed in 2005, which looked at 30 years of data from the U. S. Census Bureau, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the Pennsylvania Depa

3、rtments of Revenue, Labor and Industry, Education, Health, Welfare, and Community and Economic Development.To learn if there is a measurable income gap between and within Pennsylvanias rural and urban counties and to identify the causes of the gap, if it in fact existed, the researchers set out to i

4、dentify and analyze factors affecting income growth in rural Pennsylvania and to compare rural income growth with urban income growth.The researchers found that, in 2001, the per capita income in rural Pennsylvania was $23,941, while the per capita income in urban Pennsylvania was $32,578: this $8,6

5、37 per capita income gap between rural and urban Pennsylvania had increased since the 1980s. The researchers also found that certain factors, such as educational attainment, workforce participation, and national economic trends, tended to affect income growth in rural Pennsylvania. Other research fi

6、ndings were that: the income gap between upper and lower income households had increased within every Pennsylvania county from 1980 to 1998; variables affecting urban income growth were similar to variables affecting rural income growth; and taxes assessed at the local and county levels had no signi

7、ficant effect on personal income within Pennsylvania counties.To close the rural urban income gap, the researchers recommended focusing efforts to increase educational attainment and rural labor force participation.In 1991, the Center for Rural Pennsylvania published a report entitled “The Widening

8、Rural-Urban Income Gap: Past Trend or Forecast for the 1990s.” This report noted a $4,700 income gap between rural and urban areas and the steady increase in the gap during the 1980s.This research, which was completed in 2005, revisited the earlier study and found that the income gap between rural a

9、nd urban Pennsylvania is still present and continues to increase. The research also looked at the causes of the income gap and factors that have caused the gap to increase.FINDINGSIncome gap exists between Pennsylvanias rural and urban countiesWithin Pennsylvania, incomes were not evenly distributed

10、. In 2001, 17 percent of the total personal income within the state was found in rural counties and 83 percent was in urban counties. Nearly one half of the income in the state was found in six counties: Allegheny, Philadelphia, Montgomery, Chester, Delaware, and Bucks.Even on a per capita basis, in

11、comes were not evenly distributed. In 2001, the per capita income in Pennsylvania rural counties was $23,941, while in urban counties the per capita income was $32,578, or $8,637 higher. Within Pennsylvania, the highest per capita incomes were in Montgomery, Chester, and Bucks counties, each with in

12、comes in excess of $38,900. The lowest per capita incomes were found in Tioga, Greene, and Huntingdon counties, where the per capita income was less than $20,500.Nationally, there was a similar pattern in income disparity. In 2001, 16 percent of total personal income was in rural counties and 84 per

13、cent was in urban counties. The disparity in incomes is further illustrated by the fact that 50 percent of the total income in the U.S. can be found in only 100 of the more than 3,000 counties nationwide.Income gap has grown between Pennsylvanias rural and urban countiesPer capita incomes in rural a

14、nd urban counties increased between 1969 and 2001. Meanwhile, there has been a persistent gap in per capita income between Pennsylvanias rural and urban counties. In 1969, there was a 19 percent gap between rural and urban per capita incomes, and over the next 32 years, that gap widened to 25 percen

15、t. Total personal income initially grew faster in rural counties relative to urban counties between 1969 and 2001, decreasing the gap early on. However, most of the rural growth occurred between 1969 and 1979, after which rural income growth slowed while urban income growth accelerated. In addition,

16、 urban counties have been losing population while rural counties have been gaining population. This increase in the rural population, along with the slower personal income growth rates, has depressed rural per capita income relative to urban per capita income.Shift in sources of incomeAccording to t

17、he U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, personal income comes from three different sources: wages and salary; interest, dividends and rent (investments); and transfer payments. Wages and salary are referred to as “earned income,” while dividends, interest, and rent, and transfer payments, such as unemp

18、loyment compensation, pensions, and Social Security, are considered unearned income. As Figure 3 shows, about 62 percent of rural income comes from earned sources and 38 percent come from unearned sources.Over time, the percentage of income from earned sources has declined while income from unearned

19、 sources has increased., In 1969, nearly 78 percent of all rural income came from earned sources; however, by 2001, this percentage dropped to less than 62 percent. Urban areas, and the nation as a whole, have also experienced a similar income shift. This shift does not mean that wages have declined

20、. Instead, it suggests that unearned sources of income have become more prominent. For example, between 1969 and 2001, 40 percent of the increase in income was attributed to growth in unearned income.Per capita income changesBetween 1969 and 2001, per capita income in Pennsylvanias rural counties in

21、creased 645 percent, not adjusted for inflation. Among the states urban counties there was a 710 percent increase. The counties with the highest increase were Bucks, Centre, Chester, and Montour, each with an increase of more than 800 percent. Income distribution within countiesTo estimate the distr

22、ibution of income within each county, the researchers used the Gini coefficient, which is widely used to measure the degree of household income inequality by using a value that ranges between 0 and 1. A value of 0 means that incomes within a group are distributed equally, while a value of 1 means th

23、at incomes are distributed unequally.Factors influencing the rural-urban income gapNational economy The size of the income gap is sensitive to national economic trends. Before the 1981-1982 recession, the gap between rural and urban per capita incomes was, on average, 17 percent. After this recessio

24、n, the gap increased to an average of 23 percent. The change in rural Pennsylvanias per capita income closely follows changes in the national gross domestic produce (or GDP). The GDP represents the dollar value of all final goods and services produced in the U.S. in a year. During prosperous years,

25、rural income increased and during less prosperous years, rural income decreased. This suggests that incomes in rural Pennsylvania are not separate from national economic trends.The econometric model used in the research suggests that every $1 billion increase in GDP contributes to an 86-cent increas

26、e in the income gap between rural and urban Pennsylvania. Between 1969 and 2001, the nations GDP increased by $9.2 trillion while the gap between rural and urban per capita incomes increased by nearly $7,900.Population changeTotal personal income in rural Pennsylvania grew at a faster rate than the

27、population. Between 1969 and 2001, the population in rural Pennsylvania increased 17 percent, while total personal income increased nearly 770 percent. During the same period, the population in urban Pennsylvania increased only 2 percent while total personal income increased 725 percent. Although th

28、e rural population grew more rapidly, the growth of rural total personal income did not keep pace, and this helped to depress rural per capita income relative to urban per capita income.Shift in employment and wagesBoth rural and urban counties in Pennsylvania have seen significant declines in manuf

29、acturing employment between 1969 and 2000 and a large increase in service employment. This pattern also occurred nationally. The shift in employment was mirrored by a shift in earnings. In 1969, 36 percent of all earnings came from manufacturing jobs, and only 12 percent came from service jobs. Thir

30、ty-one years later, manufacturing earnings accounted for 24 percent of all earnings and service earnings accounted for 22 percent. There was a similar shift in the states urban counties.Despite its decline, manufacturing is still the largest income source for residents in rural counties. However, it

31、 is important to note that, unlike personal income data, which is recorded by place of residence, employment and earnings data are recorded by place of work.The effect of the employment and earning shift from manufacturing to service on the rural-urban income gap was very small. The employment and e

32、arning shift affected both rural and urban Pennsylvania at roughly the same time. As a result, this shift was not primarily responsible for the widening income gap between rural and urban areas. In addition, though many believe that manufacturing jobs pay more than service jobs, many manufacturing jobs, such as those in the textile industry, pay relatively low wages, while service jobs, such as those in the education and health care sectors, pay relatively high wages. In addition, the degree of unionization, the age and education of workers, and numerous other facto