【经济学人】性别预算—经济上的两性平等|2017.2.23|总第821期

IT IS easy to be cynical about government—and rarely does such cynicism go unrewarded. Take, for instance, policy towards women. Some politicians declare that they value women’s unique role, which can be shorthand for keeping married women at home looking after the kids. Others create whole ministries devoted to policies for women, which can be a device for parking women’s issues on the periphery of policy where they cannot do any harm. Still others, who may actually mean what they say, pass laws giving women equal opportunities to men. Yet decreeing an end to discrimination is very different from bringing it about.

我们很容易就会对政府横加指责——同时这样的指责往往都会有所成效。对女性的政策就是个好例子。一些政客宣称他们对妇女承担着独一无二的角色十分看重，这或许是在简单地说已婚女性应该待在家里看孩子。另一些政客创建了一整套致力于妇女政策的政府部门，这或许是一个小工具，目的是把女性的提议摆在政府政策的边缘位置，这些政策不会产生任何伤害。还有一些人言行一致，他们通过法案使女性拥有与男性同等的权利。然而，结束性别歧视的法令与颁布此种法令完全不同。

• go unrewarded 得不到回报

• shorthand 速记，简写

Amid this tangle of evasion, half-promises and wishful thinking, some policymakers have embraced a technique called gender budgeting. It not only promises to do a lot of good for women, but carries a lesson for advocates of any cause: the way to a government’s heart is through its pocket.

对问题的逃避、一半的许诺与充满希望地思索，在这纠缠不清地三者中，一些政策制定者采用了一种叫做“性别预算”的做法。这不仅承诺会给女性带来许多福祉，还给所有事业的拥护者们上了一课：要想得到政府的心，就要通过政府的钱袋。

• Wishful thinking： 一厢情愿的算盘，单方面主观的想法
  

What counts is what’s counted

涉及到钱的问题都是大问题

At its simplest, gender budgeting sets out to quantify how policies affect women and men differently (see article). That seemingly trivial step converts exhortation about treating women fairly into the coin of government: costs and benefits, and investments and returns. You don’t have to be a feminist to recognise, as Austria did, that the numbers show how lowering income tax on second earners will encourage women to join the labour force, boosting growth and tax revenues.(读者试译句)Or that cuts to programmes designed to reduce domestic violence would be a false economy, because they would cost so much in medical treatment and lost workdays.

简单来说，进行性别预算就是量化研究政策如何对男女性产生不同影响（见文章）。这看似不起眼的一小步将敦促男女平等的社会问题转变为政府的财政问题：成本与收益，以及投资与回报。（期待您的翻译，明天会有针对这句话的长难句解析哟~）否则，直接实施旨在减少家庭暴力的方案并不值得，因为妇女们会在医疗上花费不少，还损失了工作日。

• False economy ：假实惠

As well as identifying opportunities and errors, gender budgeting brings women’s issues right to the heart of government, the ministry of finance. Governments routinely bat away sensible policies that lack a champion when the money is handed out. But if judgments about what makes sense for women (and the general good) are being formed within the finance ministry itself, then the battle is half-won.

除了识别出机会与错误，性别预算将女性问题直接带进了政府的核心：财政部门。当预算吃紧的时候，政府通常对缺少捍卫者的敏感政策踢皮球。但是，如果这些对女性事关重大（通常是好事）的判断是在财政体制的框架内形成的，那么这场战斗便胜利了一半。

Gender budgeting is not new. Feminist economists have argued for it since the 1980s. A few countries, such as Australia and South Africa, took it up, though efforts waxed and waned with shifts in political leadership—it is seen as left-wing and anti-austerity. The Nordic countries were pioneers in the West; Sweden, with its self-declared “feminist government”, may be the gold standard. Now, egged on by the World Bank, the UN and the IMF, more governments are taking an interest. They should sign on as the results are worth having.

性别预算并不是什么新概念。女权经济学家们从二十世纪80年代起就提出了这个问题。一些国家，如澳大利亚和南非，曾采用过这种方法，即使这些做出的努力随着政府领导的更迭而潮起潮落——这被视作左翼反紧缩党派的主张。在这个问题上，北欧国家是西方世界的先锋；自称“女权政府”的瑞典可被成为黄金标准。如今，性别预算因为受到世界银行、联合国及国际货币基金组织的鼓动，各国政府对此都表现出兴趣。如果效果有价值，那么各国都应该参与。

Partly because South Korea invested little in social care, women had to choose between having children, which lowers labour-force participation, or remaining childless, which reduces the country’s fertility rate. Gender budgeting showed how, with an ageing population, the country gained from spending on care. Rwanda found that investment in clean water not only curbed disease but also freed up girls, who used to fetch the stuff, to go to school. Ample research confirms that leaving half a country’s people behind is bad for growth. Violence against women; failing to educate girls properly; unequal pay and access to jobs: all take an economic toll.

部分是由于缺少社会护理的投入，韩国的女性不得不在生育小孩或者坚持不要小孩中做出抉择，前者会降低国家的参工率而后者会降低国家的生育率。性别预算展现的是，随着人口老龄化，韩国如何从社会护理的投资中获得回报。卢旺达政府发现，在水源清洁方面的投入不仅可以遏制疾病，还可以将女孩从取物品的劳动中解放出来，从而有学可上。大量研究表明，将国家半数的人口抛在后面是对经济不利的。女性常常面对暴力行径；女孩没能接受规范的教育；女员工在薪酬与就业的不平等：这些都将对经济造成损害。

Inevitably there are difficulties. Dividing a policy’s costs and benefits between men and women can be hard. Sometimes, as with lost hours of school, the costs have to be estimated. Redesigning the budgeting process upends decades of practice. If every group pressing for change took the same approach, it would become unmanageable. In a way, though, that is the point. Governments find it easy to pay lip-service to women’s rights. Doing something demands tough choices.

这不可避免地存在一些困难。将政策的成本与收益在男女性之间进行划分或许不太容易。有时候，正如在受教育要付出时间一样，政策的成本也要估计在内。重新设计预算流程会推翻几十年的预算实践。如果每个要求改革的团体都采取同样的手段，这就无法操作了。虽然在某种程度上那是重点问题。各国政府发现给女权运动打空头支票要容易。想要有所作为就要做出艰难选择。

翻译 ▍E-J-1

审核 ▍竞风之翼

编辑 ▍毛毛