作为翻译文章的参考，转贴一篇《穷人的经济学》，可以看到，有比没有强。

Theodore W. Schultz – Prize Lecture Lecture to the memory of Alfred Nobel, December 8, 1979

The Economics of Being Poor* Most of the people in the world are poor, so if we knew the economics of being poor, we would know much of the economics that really matters. Most of the world's poor people earn their living from agriculture, so if we knew the economics of agriculture, we would know much of the economics of being poor. People who are rich find it hard to understand the behaviour of poor people. Economists are no exception, for they too find it difficult to comprehend the preferences and scarcity constraints that determine the choices that poor people make. We all know that most of the world's people are poor, that they earn a pittance for their labor, that half and more of their meager income is spent on food, that they reside predominantly in low income countries and that most of them are earning their livelihood in agriculture. What many economists fail to understand is that poor people are no less concerned about improving their lot and that of their children than rich people are. What we have learned in recent decades about the economics of agriculture will appear to most reasonably well informed people to be paradoxical. We have learned that agriculture in many low income countries has the potential economic capacity to produce enough food for the still growing population and in so doing can improve significantly the income and welfare of poor people. The decisive factors of production in improving the welfare of poor people are not space, energy and cropland; the decisive factor is the improvement in population quality. In discussing these propositions, I shall first identify two intellectual mistakes that have marred the work of many economists. I shall then point out that most observers overrate the economic importance of land and greatly underrate the importance of the quality of human agents. Lastly I shall present measurements of the increases in population quality that low income countries are currently achieving. Much of what I have learned about these propositions I owe to the research of predoctoral and postdoctoral students, to subsequent studies during their professional careers, and to my academic colleagues. In recent decades their work has produced a veritable explosion in the understanding of the economics of human capital, with special reference to the economics of research, the responses of farmers to new profitable production techniques, the connection between production and welfare, and the economics of the family.

Mistakes by economists This branch of economics has suffered from several intellectual mistakes. The major mistake has been the presumption that standard economic theory is inadequate for understanding low income countries and that a separate economic theory is needed. Models developed for this purpose were widely acclaimed until it became evident that they were at best intellectual curiosities. The reaction of some economists was to turn to cultural and social explanations for the alleged poor economic performance of low income countries. Quite understandably, cultural and behavioral scholars are uneasy about this use of their studies. Fortunately, the intellectual tide has begun to turn. Increasing numbers of economists have come to realize that standard economic theory is just as applicable to the scarcity problems that confront low income countries as to the corresponding problems of high income countries. A second mistake is the neglect of economic history. Classical economics was developed when most people in Western Europe were very poor, barely scratching out subsistence from the poor soils they tilled and they were condemned to a short life span. As a result, early economists dealt with conditions that were similar to those that prevail in low income countries today. In Ricardo's day about half of the family income of laborers in England went for food. So it is today in many low income countries. Marshall (1920) tells us that "...English labourers' weekly wages were often less than the price of a half bushel of good wheat", at the time that Ricardo published his classic work. The weekly wage of the ploughman in India is currently somewhat less than the price of two bushels of wheat (Schultz, 1977a, 1977b). In India many people live under the Ricardian shadow. Understanding the experience and achievements of poor people over the ages can contribute much to understanding the problems and possibilities of low income countries today. That kind of understanding is far more important than the most detailed and exact knowledge about the surface of the earth, or of ecology, or of tomorrow's technology. Historical perception is also lacking with respect to population. We extrapolate global statistics and are horrified by our interpretation of them, mainly that poor people breed like lemmings headed toward their own destruction. Yet that is not what happened looking back at our own social and economic history when people were poor. It is equally false with respect to population growth in today's poor countries. Land is overrated

A widely held view - the natural earth view - is that there is a virtually fixed land area suitable for growing food, and a supply of energy for tilling the land that is being depleted. According to this view, it is impossible to continue to produce enough food for the growing world population. An alternative view - the social-economic view - is that man has the ability and intelligence to lessen his dependence on cropland, on traditional agriculture and on depleting sources of energy and can reduce the real costs of producing food for the growing world population. By means of research we discover substitutes for cropland, which Ricardo could not have anticipated, and as incomes rise parents reveal a preference for fewer children, substituting quality for quantity of children, which Malthus could not have foreseen. It is ironic that economics, long labelled the dismal science, is capable of showing that the bleak natural earth view for food is not compatible with economic history; that history demonstrates that we can augment resources by advances in knowledge. I agree with Margaret Mead: "The future of mankind is open ended." Mankind's future is not foreordained by space, energy and cropland. It will be determined by the intelligent evolution of humanity. Differences in the productivity of the soils is not a useful variable to explain why people are poor in long-settled parts of the world. People in India have been poor for ages both on the Deccan Plateau where the productivity of the rain-fed soils is low, and on the highly productive soils of South India. In Africa, people on the unproductive soils of the southern fringes of the Sahara, on the somewhat more productive soils on the steep slopes of the Rift landform, and on the highly productive alluvial lands along and at the mouth of the Nile, all have one thing in common: they are very poor. Similarly, the much publicized differences in land-population ratio throughout the low income countries do not produce comparable differences in poorness. What matters most in the case of farmland are the incentives and associated opportunities that farm people have to augment the effective supply of land by means of investments that include the contributions of agricultural research and the improvements of human skills. A fundamental proposition documented by much recent research is that an integral part of the modernization of the economists of low income countries is the decline in the economic importance of farmland and a rise in that of human capital - skills and knowledge.

Despite economic history, scratch an economist and you will find that his ideas about land are still, as a rule, those of Ricardo. But Ricardo's concept of land, "the original and indestructible powers of the soil", is no longer adequate, if ever it was. The share of national income that accrues as land rent and the associated social and political importance of landlords have declined markedly over time in high income countries and they are also declining in low income countries. Why is Ricardian Rent losing its economic sting? There are two primary reasons: first, the modernization of agriculture has over time transformed raw land into a vastly more productive resource than it was in its natural state, and second, agricultural research has provided substitutes for cropland. With some local exceptions, the original soils of Europe were poor in quality. They are today highly productive. The original soils of Finland were less productive that the nearby western parts of the Soviet Union, yet today the croplands of Finland are superior. Japanese croplands were originally much inferior to those in Northern India; they are greatly superior today. Some part of these changes, both in high and in low income countries, is the consequence of agricultural research including the research embodied in purchased agricultural inputs. There are new substitutes for cropland (call it land augmentation if you so prefer). The substitution process is well illustrated by corn. The corn acreage harvested in the United States in 1970 was 33 million acres less than in 1932. Yet the 7.59 billion bushels produced in 1979 was three times the amount produced in 1932. The quality of human agents is underrated While land per se is not a critical factor in being poor, the human agent is: investment in improving population quality can significantly enhance the economic prospects and the welfare of poor people. Child care, home and work experience, the acquisition of information and skills through schooling and in other ways consisting primarily of investment in health and schooling, can improve population quality. Such investments in low income countries have, as I shall show, been successful in improving the economic prospects wherever they have not been dissipated by political instability. Poor people in low income countries are not prisoners of an ironclad poverty equilibrium that economics is unable to break. There are no overwhelming forces that nullify all economic improvements causing poor people to abandon the economic struggle. It is now well documented that in agriculture poor people do respond to better opportunities.

The expectations of human agents in agriculture - farm laborers and farm entrepreneurs who both work and allocate resources - are shaped by new opportunities and by the incentives to which they respond. These incentives are explicit in the prices that farmers receive for their products and in the prices they pay for producer and consumer goods and services that they purchase. These incentives are greatly distorted in many low income countries (Schultz, 1978b). The effect of these government induced distortions is to reduce the economic contribution that agriculture is capable of making. The "reason" why governments tend to introduce distortions that discriminate against agriculture is that internal politics generally favor the urban population at the expense of rural people, despite the much greater size of the rural population.1 1 The political influence of urban consumers and industry enables them to exact cheap food at the expense of the vast number of poor rural people. This discrimination against agriculture is rationalized on the grounds that agriculture is inherently backward and that its economic contribution is of little importance despite the occasional "green revolution". The lowly cultivator is viewed as indifferent to economic incentives because it is presumed that he is strongly committed to his traditional ways of cultivation. Rapid industrialization is viewed as the key to economic progress. Policy is designed to give top priority to industry, which includes keeping food grains cheap. It is regrettable but true that this doctrine is still supported by some donor agencies and rationalized by some economists in high income countries. Entrepreneurs Farmers the world over, in dealing with costs, returns and risks, are calculating economic agents. Within their small, individual, allocative domain they are fine-tuning entrepreneurs, tuning so subtly that many experts fail to recognize how efficient they are. I first presented an analysis of this entrepreneurial behaviour in Transforming Traditional Agriculture (Schultz, 1964). Although farmers differ for reasons of schooling, health and experience in their ability to perceive, to interpret and to take appropriate action in responding to new information, they provide an essential human resource which is entrepreneurship (Welch, 1970, 1978; Evenson, 1978). On most farms there is a second enterprise, the household. Women are also entrepreneurs in allocating their own time and in using farm products and purchased goods in household production (Schultz, 1974). This allocative ability is supplied by millions of men and women on smallscale producing units; agriculture is in general a highly decentralized sector of the economy. Where governments have taken over this function in farming, they have prevented this entrepreneurial talent from being used and these governments have been unsuccessful in providing an effective allocative substitute, capable of modernizing agriculture. The allocative roles of farmers and of farm women are important and their economic opportunities really matter (Schultz, 1978b).

Entrepreneurship is also essential in research. All research is a venturesome business. It entails allocating scarce resources. It requires organization. Someone must decide how to allocate the limited resources available for research given the existing state of knowledge. The very essence of research is that it is a dynamic venture into the unknown or partially known. Funds, organizations and competent scientists are necessary. They are not sufficient. Research entrepreneurship is required, be it by scientists or by others engaged in the research sector of the economy (Schultz, 1979c). Inevitability of disequilibria The transformation of agriculture into an increasingly more productive state, a process that is commonly referred to as "modernization", entails all manner of adjustments in farming as better opportunities become available. I have shown that the value of the ability to deal with disequilibria is high in a dynamic economy (Schultz, 1975). Such disequilibria are inevitable. They cannot be eliminated by law, by public policy, and surely not by rhetoric. Governments cannot perform efficiently the function of farm entrepreneurs. Future historians will no doubt be puzzled by the extent to which economic incentives were impaired during recent decades. The dominant intellectual view is antagonistic to agricultural incentives and the prevailing economic policies deprecate the function of producer incentives. For lack of incentives the unrealized economic potential of agriculture in many low income countries is large (D. Gale Johnson, 1977, 1978). Technical possibilities have become increasingly more favorable, but the economic incentives that are required for farmers in these countries to realize this potential are in disarray, either because the relevant information is lacking or because the prices and costs they face have been distorted. For want of profitable incentives, farmers have not made the necessary investments, including the purchase of superior inputs. Interventions by governments are currently the major cause of the lack of optimum economic incentives. Achievements in population quality

I now turn to measurable gains in the quality of both farm and nonfarm people (Schultz, 1979a, 1979b). Quality in this context consists of various forms of human capital. I have argued elsewhere (Schultz, 1974) that while a strong case can be made for using a rigorous definition of human capital, it will be subject to the same ambiguities that continue to plague capital theory in general and the capital concept in economic growth models in particular. Capital is two-faced, and what these two faces tell us about economic growth, which is a dynamic process, are, as a rule, inconsistent stories. It must be so because the cost story is a tale about sunk investments, and the other story pertains to the discounted value of the stream of services that such capital renders, which changes with the shifting sands of growth. But worse still is the capital homogeneity assumption underlying capital theory and the aggregation of capital in growth models. As Hicks (1965) has taught us, the capital homogeneity assumption is the disaster of capital theory. This assumption is demonstrably inappropriate in analyzing the dynamics of economic growth that is afloat on capital inequalities because of the differences in the rates of return, whether the capital aggregation is in terms of factor costs or in terms of the discounted value of the lifetime services of its many parts. Nor would a catalogue of all existing growth models prove that these inequalities are equals. But why try to square the circle? If we were unable to observe these inequalities, we would have to invent them because they are the mainspring of economic growth. They are the mainspring because they are the compelling economic signals of growth. Thus, one of the essential parts of economic growth is concealed by such capital aggregation. The value of additional human capital depends on the additional wellbeing that human beings derive from it. Human capital contributes to labor productivity and to entrepreneurial ability. This allocative ability is valuable in farm and nonfarm production, in household production, and in the time and other resources that students allocate to their education. It is also valuable in migration to better job opportunities and to better locations in which to live. It contributes importantly to satisfactions that are an integral part of current and future consumption. My approach to population quality is to treat quality as a scarce resource, which implies that it has an economic value and that its acquisition entails a cost. In analyzing human behavior that determines the type and amount of quality that is acquired over time, the key to the analysis is the relation between the returns from additional quality and the costs of acquiring it. When the returns exceed costs, the stock of population quality will be enhanced. This means that increases in the supply of any quality component is a response to a demand for it. It is a supply-demand approach to investment behavior because all quality components are here treated as durable scarce resources that are useful over some period of time.

My hypothesis is that the returns to various quality components are increasing over time in many low income countries; the rents that entrepreneurs derive from their allocative ability rise, so do the returns to child care, schooling, and improvements in health. Furthermore, the rates of return are enhanced by the reductions in the costs of acquiring most of these quality components. Over time the increases in the demand for quality, in children and on the part of adults in enhancing their own quality, reduces the demand for quantity; that is, quality and quantity are substitutes and the reduction in demand for quantity favors having and rearing fewer children (Becker and Tomes, 1976; Rosenzweig and Wolpin, 1978). The movement toward quality contributes to the solution of the population "problem". Investment in health Human capital theory treats everyone's state of health as a stock, i.e., as health capital, and its contribution as health services. Part of the quality of the initial stock is inherited and part is acquired. The stock depreciates over time and at an increasing rate in later life. Gross investment in human capital entails acquisition and maintenance costs. These investments include child care, nutrition, clothing, housing, medical services, and the use of one's own time. The flow of services that health capital renders consists of "healthy time", or "sicknes-free time", which are inputs into work, consumption and leisure activities (Williams, 1977; Grossman, 1972). The improvements in health revealed by the longer life span of people in many low income countries has undoubtedly been the most important advance in population quality. Since about 1950, life expectancy at birth has increased 40 percent or more in many of these countries. People of Western Europe and North America never attained so large an increase in life expectancy in so short a period. The decline in mortality of infants and very young children is only a part of this achievement. The mortality of older children, youths and adults is also down. Ram and Schultz (1979) deal with the economics of these demographic developments in India. The results correspond to those in other low income countries. In India from 1951 to 1971, life expectancy at birth of males increased by 43 percent, and that of females by 41 percent. Life spans over the life cycle after age 10, 20 and on to age 60, for both males and females in 1971, were also decidedly longer than in 1951.

The favorable economic implications of these increases in life span are pervasive. Foremost are the satisfactions that people derive from longer life. While they are hard to measure, there is little room for doubt that the value of life expectancy is enhanced. Measurement, however, is not impossible. Usher (1978) devised an ingenious extension of theory to determine the utility that people derive from increases in life expectancy. His empirical analysis indicates that the additional utility increases substantially the value of personal income. Longer life spans provide additional incentives to acquire more education, as investments in future earnings. Parents invest more in their children. More on-the-job training becomes worthwhile. The additional health capital and the other forms of human capital tend to increase the productivity of workers. Longer life spans result in more years participation in the labor force, and bring about a reduction in "sick time". Better health and vitality of workers in turn lead to more productivity per manhour at work. The Ram-Schultz study provides evidence on the gains in the productivity of agricultural labor in India, realized as a consequence of improvements in health. The most telling part of that evidence is the productivity effect of the cycle that has characterized the malaria program. Investment in education Education accounts for much of the improvements in population quality. But reckoning the cost of schooling, the value of the work that young children do for their parents must be included. Even for the very young children during their first years of school, most parents forego (sacrifice) the value of the work that children perform (Makhija, 1977; Shortlidge, 1976; Rosenzweig and Evenson, 1977). Another distinctive attribute of schooling is the vintage effect by age over time. Starting from widespread illiteracy, as more schooling per child is achieved, the older adults continue through life with little or no schooling, whereas the children on entering into adulthood are the beneficiaries. The population of India grew about 50 percent between 1950-51 and 1970-71. School enrollment of children ages 6 to 14 rose over 200 percent. The rate of increase in secondary schools and universities was much higher (Government of India, 1978). Since schooling is primarily an investment, it is a serious error to treat all schooling outlays as current consumption. This error arises from the assumption that schooling is solely a consumer good. It is misleading to treat public expenditures on schooling as "welfare" expenditures, and as a use of resources that has the effect of reducing "savings". The same error occurs in the case of expenditures on health, both on public and private account.

The expenditures on schooling including higher education are a substantial fraction of national income in many low income countries. These expenditures are large relative to the conventional national accounting measures (concepts) of savings and investment. In India the proportion that the costs of schooling bear to national income, savings and investment is not only large but it has tended to increase substantially over time (Ram and Schultz, 1979, pp. 410-12 and Table 2). The highly skilled In assessing population quality, it is important not to overlook the increases in the stock of physicians, other medical personnel, engineers, administrators, accountants, and various classes of research scientists and technicians (Schultz, 1979d). The research capacity of a considerable number of low income countries is impressive. There are specialized research institutes, research units within governmental departments, industrial sector research, and on-going university research. The scientists and technicians engaged in these various research activities are university trained, some of them in universities abroad. The research areas include, among others, medicine, public health (control of communicable diseases and the delivery of health services), nutrition, industry, agriculture, and even some atomic energy research. I shall touch briefly on agricultural research, because I know it best and because it is well documented. The founding and financing of the International Agricultural Research Centers is an institutional innovation of a high order. The entrepreneurship of the Rockefeller Foundation in cooperation with the government of Mexico first launched this type of venture. But these centers, good as they are, are not a substitute for national agricultural research enterprises. Suffice it to give the flavor of the remarkable increases in the number of agricultural scientists between 1959 and 1974 in 22 selected low income countries. All told the number of scientist man years devoted to agricultural research in these 22 countries increased more than three times during this period. By 1974 there was a corps of over 13,000 scientists, ranging from 110 in the Ivory Coast to over 2,000 in India (Boyce and Evenson, 1975). Indian agricultural research expenditures between 1950 and 1968 also more than tripled in real terms.

We come to the bottom line. In India this investment in agricultural research has produced excellent results. An analysis by states within India shows the rate of return has been approximately 40 percent, which is indeed high compared to the returns from most other investments to increase agricultural production (Evenson and Kislev, 1975). Concluding remark While there remains much that we do not know about the economics of being poor, our knowledge of the economic dynamics of low income countries has advanced substantially in recent decades. We have learned that poor people are no less concerned about improving their lot and that of their children than those of us who have incomparably greater advantages. Nor are they any less competent in obtaining the maximum benefit from their limited resources. The central thrust of this lecture is that population quality and knowledge matter. A goodly number of low income countries have a positive record in improving population quality and in acquiring useful knowledge. These achievements imply favorable economic prospects, provided they are not dissipated by politics and governmental policies that discriminate against agriculture. Even so, most of the people throughout the world continue to earn a pittance from their labor. Half or even more of their meager income is spent on food. Their life is harsh. Farmers in low income countries do all they can to augment production. What happens to these farmers is of no concern to the sun, or to the earth, or to the behavior of the monsoons and the winds that sweep the face of the earth. Farmers' crops are in constant danger of being devoured by insects and pests. Nature is host to thousands of species that are hostile to the endeavors of farmers, especially so in low income countries. We in the high income countries have forgotten the wisdom of Alfred Marshall, when he wrote, "Knowledge is the most powerful engine of production; it enables us to subdue Nature and satisfy our wants."

* I am indebted to Gary S. Becker, A. C. Harberger, D. Gale Johnson and T. Paul Schultz for helpful suggestions on the first draft of this paper. My debt to Milton Friedman is especially large for his painstaking expositional comments. I am also indebted to my wife, Esther Schultz, for her insistence that what I thought was stated clearly was not clear enough. 1. For a fuller discussion, see my "On Economics and Politics of Agriculture", in Theodore W. Schultz, ed., Distortions of Agricultural Incentives, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1978, pp. 3-23. From Nobel Lectures, Economics 1969-1980, Editor Assar Lindbeck, World Scientific Publishing Co., Singapore, 1992

华建多语言翻译引擎翻译结果:

原文: Theodore W. Schultz – Prize Lecture Lecture to the memory of Alfred Nobel, December 8, 1979 The Economics of Being Poor* Most of the people in the world are poor, so if we knew the economics of being poor, we would know much of the economics that really matters. Most of the world's poor people earn their living from agriculture, so if we knew the economics of agriculture, we would know much of the economics of being poor. People who are rich find it hard to understand the behaviour of poor people. Economists are no exception, for they too find it difficult to comprehend the preferences and scarcity constraints that determine the choices that poor people make. We all know that most of the world's people are poor, that they earn a pittance for their labor, that half and more of their meager income is spent on food, that they reside predominantly in low income countries and that most of them are earning their livelihood in agriculture. What many economists fail to understand is that poor people are no less concerned about improving their lot and that of their children than rich people are. What we have learned in recent decades about the economics of agriculture will appear to most reasonably well informed people to be paradoxical. We have learned that agriculture in many low income countries has the potential economic capacity to produce enough food for the still growing population and in so doing can improve significantly the income and welfare of poor people. The decisive factors of production in improving the welfare of poor people are not space, energy and cropland; the decisive factor is the improvement in population quality. In discussing these propositions, I shall first identify two intellectual mistakes that have marred the work of many economists. I shall then point out that most observers overrate the economic importance of land and greatly underrate the importance of the quality of human agents. Lastly I shall present measurements of the increases in population quality that low income countries are currently achieving. Much of what I have learned about these propositions I owe to the research of predoctoral and postdoctoral students, to subsequent studies during their professional careers, and to my academic colleagues. In recent decades their work has produced a veritable explosion in the understanding of the economics of human capital, with special reference to the economics of research, the responses of farmers to new profitable production techniques, the connection between production and welfare, and the economics of the family. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 译文: 西奥多·W.舒尔茨 - 奖演讲 为了纪念阿尔弗雷德·诺贝尔的演讲，1979年12月8日 作为贫穷的*的经济学 大多数人们在世界上贫穷， 因此如果我们知道贫穷的经济学，我们将知道真的重要的大部分经济学。 大多数世界的穷人从农业谋生， 因此如果我们知道农业经济学，我们将知道大部分贫穷的经济学。 富有的人们觉得很难理解穷人的行为。 经济学家不是例外，因为他们也发现理解确定穷人做的选择的偏爱和缺乏限制条件是困难的。 我们全部知道大多数世界的人们贫穷， 他们为他们的劳动挣微薄的工资， 那一半和更多他们的瘦的收入被在食品上花费， 他们在低的收入国家方面主要居住，大多数他们正在农业方面谋生。 很多经济学家不能理解的是穷人不少担心比富人改进他们的运气和他们的孩子的。 我们在新近几十年大约农业经济学内学习将看起来最合理好通知人自相矛盾。 我们获悉农业在很多低收入国家内有潜在经济能力生产食品安静增长人口的足够， 在如此做时能改进相当收入和穷人的福利。 在改进穷人的福利方面的决定性的生产要素不是空间，能量和农田； 决定性的因素是在人口素质方面的改进。 在讨论这些建议的过程中，我将首先鉴定已经损伤很多经济学家的工作的两个理智的错误。 我然后将指出大多数观察者对土地的经济重要性评价过高并且非常低估人代理人的品质的重要性。 最后我将提出低的收入国家目前正取得的人口素质的增加的尺寸。 其中大部分我所了解我对predoctoral和博士后的研究欠的这些建议， 对随后的研究在他们的专业职业期间，和对我的学术同事。 在新近的几十年他们的工作已经产生在理解人力资本经济学过程中的一次真实的爆炸， 由于特别的提到研究的经济学， 农场主与新赚钱生产技术，连接在生产和福利，和家庭的经济学之间的反应。

原文: Mistakes by economists This branch of economics has suffered from several intellectual mistakes. The major mistake has been the presumption that standard economic theory is inadequate for understanding low income countries and that a separate economic theory is needed. Models developed for this purpose were widely acclaimed until it became evident that they were at best intellectual curiosities. The reaction of some economists was to turn to cultural and social explanations for the alleged poor economic performance of low income countries. Quite understandably, cultural and behavioral scholars are uneasy about this use of their studies. Fortunately, the intellectual tide has begun to turn. Increasing numbers of economists have come to realize that standard economic theory is just as applicable to the scarcity problems that confront low income countries as to the corresponding problems of high income countries. A second mistake is the neglect of economic history. Classical economics was developed when most people in Western Europe were very poor, barely scratching out subsistence from the poor soils they tilled and they were condemned to a short life span. As a result, early economists dealt with conditions that were similar to those that prevail in low income countries today. In Ricardo's day about half of the family income of laborers in England went for food. So it is today in many low income countries. Marshall (1920) tells us that "...English labourers' weekly wages were often less than the price of a half bushel of good wheat", at the time that Ricardo published his classic work. The weekly wage of the ploughman in India is currently somewhat less than the price of two bushels of wheat (Schultz, 1977a, 1977b). In India many people live under the Ricardian shadow. Understanding the experience and achievements of poor people over the ages can contribute much to understanding the problems and possibilities of low income countries today. That kind of understanding is far more important than the most detailed and exact knowledge about the surface of the earth, or of ecology, or of tomorrow's technology. Historical perception is also lacking with respect to population. We extrapolate global statistics and are horrified by our interpretation of them, mainly that poor people breed like lemmings headed toward their own destruction. Yet that is not what happened looking back at our own social and economic history when people were poor. It is equally false with respect to population growth in today's poor countries. Land is overrated -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 译文: 经济学家的错误 经济学的这个分支已经受几个理智的错误之苦。 主要的错误是推测即标准经济理论对理解低的收入国家不适当，一个单独的经济理论被需要。 为这目的发展的模型被广泛地欢呼，直到充其量，他们是，这变得明显理智的好奇。 一些经济学家的反应将转向文化和社会对低的收入国家的所谓的贫穷的经济成效的解释。 十分可理解，文化和行为学者关于这次对他们的研究的使用不安。 幸好，理智的潮已经开始转动。 日益增多的经济学家已经开始意识到 那个标准经济理论对关于高收入国家的相应问题面对低的收入国家的缺乏问题一样适用。 第2个错误是疏忽经济史。 当在西欧的大多数人非常贫穷时，古典经济学被发展， 勉强从贫穷的土地挖出生存，他们耕和他们被迫使陷于到一个短的寿命。 因此，早期的经济学家处理类似于今天在低的收入国家方面流行的那些的条件。 在李嘉图的日子大约在英国的劳动者的家庭收入的一半去买食品。 因此它今天用很多低的收入国家。 马歇尔(1920)告诉我们"英国劳动者的周薪经常不到好小麦的半蒲式耳的价格"， 在那时李嘉图出版他的最优秀工作。 在印度的庄稼人的周薪目前有点不到两蒲式耳小麦(舒尔茨，1977a，1977 b)的价格。 在印度很多人住在Ricardian 阴影下。 理解超过年龄的穷人的经验和成就可能非常有助于今天理解低的收入国家的那些问题和可能性。 那种理解比比大多数详述和精确的知识大约地球的表面重要， 或者生态学，明天的技术。 历史知觉也正关于人口缺乏。 我们推断全球统计并且被我们的他们的解释吓坏，主要穷人象lemmings朝他们自己的损坏前进的一样生育。 然而，那不发生回顾我们自己的社会和人糟糕什么时候的经济史。 它关于在今天的穷国的人口增长同样错误。 土地被评价过高

原文: A widely held view - the natural earth view - is that there is a virtually fixed land area suitable for growing food, and a supply of energy for tilling the land that is being depleted. According to this view, it is impossible to continue to produce enough food for the growing world population. An alternative view - the social-economic view - is that man has the ability and intelligence to lessen his dependence on cropland, on traditional agriculture and on depleting sources of energy and can reduce the real costs of producing food for the growing world population. By means of research we discover substitutes for cropland, which Ricardo could not have anticipated, and as incomes rise parents reveal a preference for fewer children, substituting quality for quantity of children, which Malthus could not have foreseen. It is ironic that economics, long labelled the dismal science, is capable of showing that the bleak natural earth view for food is not compatible with economic history; that history demonstrates that we can augment resources by advances in knowledge. I agree with Margaret Mead: "The future of mankind is open ended." Mankind's future is not foreordained by space, energy and cropland. It will be determined by the intelligent evolution of humanity. Differences in the productivity of the soils is not a useful variable to explain why people are poor in long-settled parts of the world. People in India have been poor for ages both on the Deccan Plateau where the productivity of the rain-fed soils is low, and on the highly productive soils of South India. In Africa, people on the unproductive soils of the southern fringes of the Sahara, on the somewhat more productive soils on the steep slopes of the Rift landform, and on the highly productive alluvial lands along and at the mouth of the Nile, all have one thing in common: they are very poor. Similarly, the much publicized differences in land-population ratio throughout the low income countries do not produce comparable differences in poorness. What matters most in the case of farmland are the incentives and associated opportunities that farm people have to augment the effective supply of land by means of investments that include the contributions of agricultural research and the improvements of human skills. A fundamental proposition documented by much recent research is that an integral part of the modernization of the economists of low income countries is the decline in the economic importance of farmland and a rise in that of human capital - skills and knowledge. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 译文: 广泛拿的意见 - 自然的地球意见 - 是有一个实际上确定的适于种食品的陆地区域，以及耕正被耗尽的土地的一部分热量。 根据这意见，继续适合长的世界人口生产足够的食品是不可能的。 另一种见解-社会经济意见 - 作那人有那些才能和智力减少对农田的依靠， 关于传统的农业和在耗尽能源之后并且能降低为日益增多的世界人口生产食品的实际成本。 通过我们发现的研究代替李嘉图本不会预期的农田， 收入上升当时父母揭示适合更少孩子，用质量代替孩子的数量的一偏爱，马尔萨斯本不会预见。 它是讽刺的那经济学， 长时间给灰暗的科学贴标签，能显示食品的荒凉的自然的地球意见不与经济史相容； 那历史证明我们能通过在知识方面的发展增大资源。 我同意玛格丽特蜂蜜酒： "人类的将来易受到结束。 "人类的将来没被空间，能量和农田预先注定。 它将因为人类的智能化的演化被确定。 土地的生产力的差别不是一个有用的变量解释人们为什么在长时间解决的世界的部分贫穷。 人在印度多年两个都关于雨供给国土的生产力是低的的Deccan 高原糟糕， 并且在印度南部的非常多产的土地上。 在非洲， 人关于撒哈拉的南穗的不生产国土， 在在裂缝地形的陡坡上的有点更多产的土地上， 并且在非常多产的alluvial 土地上沿着尼罗河的嘴和在尼罗河的嘴，全部共同拥有一件事情： 他们非常贫穷。 与此类似，很多宣布的土地人口比率的差别在整个低的收入国家不生产可比较的贫乏的差别。 什么事情大多数是在农田情况下 奖励和相关机会， 农场人们必须通过包括农业研究的捐款和人技能的改进的投资增大土地的有效的供应。 因为非常新近的研究被用文献证明的一项基本的建议是低的收入国家的经济学家的现代化的组成部分是 在在人力资本的方面的农田和一次升高的经济重要性方面的下降 - 技能和知识。

原文: Despite economic history, scratch an economist and you will find that his ideas about land are still, as a rule, those of Ricardo. But Ricardo's concept of land, "the original and indestructible powers of the soil", is no longer adequate, if ever it was. The share of national income that accrues as land rent and the associated social and political importance of landlords have declined markedly over time in high income countries and they are also declining in low income countries. Why is Ricardian Rent losing its economic sting? There are two primary reasons: first, the modernization of agriculture has over time transformed raw land into a vastly more productive resource than it was in its natural state, and second, agricultural research has provided substitutes for cropland. With some local exceptions, the original soils of Europe were poor in quality. They are today highly productive. The original soils of Finland were less productive that the nearby western parts of the Soviet Union, yet today the croplands of Finland are superior. Japanese croplands were originally much inferior to those in Northern India; they are greatly superior today. Some part of these changes, both in high and in low income countries, is the consequence of agricultural research including the research embodied in purchased agricultural inputs. There are new substitutes for cropland (call it land augmentation if you so prefer). The substitution process is well illustrated by corn. The corn acreage harvested in the United States in 1970 was 33 million acres less than in 1932. Yet the 7.59 billion bushels produced in 1979 was three times the amount produced in 1932. The quality of human agents is underrated While land per se is not a critical factor in being poor, the human agent is: investment in improving population quality can significantly enhance the economic prospects and the welfare of poor people. Child care, home and work experience, the acquisition of information and skills through schooling and in other ways consisting primarily of investment in health and schooling, can improve population quality. Such investments in low income countries have, as I shall show, been successful in improving the economic prospects wherever they have not been dissipated by political instability. Poor people in low income countries are not prisoners of an ironclad poverty equilibrium that economics is unable to break. There are no overwhelming forces that nullify all economic improvements causing poor people to abandon the economic struggle. It is now well documented that in agriculture poor people do respond to better opportunities. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 译文: 尽管经济史，抓一个经济学家，你将发现关于土地的他的想法按照惯例仍然是李嘉图的。 如果它是，但是李嘉图的土地的概念，"土壤的原先和牢不可破的能量"，不再足够。 国家收入的部分， 那作为土地租金增长，房东的相关社会和政治重要性超时在高收入国家已经显著下降，他们也正下降， 低的收入国家。 Ricardian租金为什么丢失它的经济刺痛？ 有两个主要原因： 首先， 农业的现代化超时已经把未加工的土地转变成一种大大更多产的资源， 在它自然状态内，其次，农业研究有代替农田。 由于一些本地例外，欧洲的原先的土地质量糟糕。 他们今天非常多产。 原先土地的芬兰不那么富有成效附近西部的苏联，今天然而，农田的芬兰优良。 日本农田在北印度最初非常不如那些； 他们今天非常优良。 这些变化的一些部分， 不仅在高里而且在低收入国家内，包括研究体现于购买的农业输入的农业研究的结果是。 有(叫它土地扩张你如此更喜欢如果)的新的代用品农田。 谷物很好地说明代替过程。 在1970年在美国收获的谷物面积是3300万英亩少于在1932年。 然而在1979年生产的75.9亿蒲式耳是数量在1932年生产的3 次。 人代理人的品质被低估 当土地本来在贫穷里不是一个关键的因素时，人代理人： 在改进的人口素质方面的投资能相当提高经济前景和穷人的福利。 儿童保育，家和劳动实习， 获得信息和技能通过学校教育和用主要由对健康和学校教育的投资组成的其他方式，能改进人口素质。 这样的对低的收入国家的投资， 当我将显示时，成功地在他们没被政治动荡驱散的任何地方改进经济前景。 在低的收入国家方面的穷人不是经济学不能毁坏的装甲贫困均衡的囚犯。 没有压倒一切的力量使引起穷人放弃经济斗争的全部经济改进无效。 现在很好地用文献证明在农业方面穷人确实对更好的机会作出反应。

华建多语言翻译引擎翻译结果:

原文: The expectations of human agents in agriculture - farm laborers and farm entrepreneurs who both work and allocate resources - are shaped by new opportunities and by the incentives to which they respond. These incentives are explicit in the prices that farmers receive for their products and in the prices they pay for producer and consumer goods and services that they purchase. These incentives are greatly distorted in many low income countries (Schultz, 1978b). The effect of these government induced distortions is to reduce the economic contribution that agriculture is capable of making. The "reason" why governments tend to introduce distortions that discriminate against agriculture is that internal politics generally favor the urban population at the expense of rural people, despite the much greater size of the rural population.1 1 The political influence of urban consumers and industry enables them to exact cheap food at the expense of the vast number of poor rural people. This discrimination against agriculture is rationalized on the grounds that agriculture is inherently backward and that its economic contribution is of little importance despite the occasional "green revolution". The lowly cultivator is viewed as indifferent to economic incentives because it is presumed that he is strongly committed to his traditional ways of cultivation. Rapid industrialization is viewed as the key to economic progress. Policy is designed to give top priority to industry, which includes keeping food grains cheap. It is regrettable but true that this doctrine is still supported by some donor agencies and rationalized by some economists in high income countries. Entrepreneurs Farmers the world over, in dealing with costs, returns and risks, are calculating economic agents. Within their small, individual, allocative domain they are fine-tuning entrepreneurs, tuning so subtly that many experts fail to recognize how efficient they are. I first presented an analysis of this entrepreneurial behaviour in Transforming Traditional Agriculture (Schultz, 1964). Although farmers differ for reasons of schooling, health and experience in their ability to perceive, to interpret and to take appropriate action in responding to new information, they provide an essential human resource which is entrepreneurship (Welch, 1970, 1978; Evenson, 1978). On most farms there is a second enterprise, the household. Women are also entrepreneurs in allocating their own time and in using farm products and purchased goods in household production (Schultz, 1974). This allocative ability is supplied by millions of men and women on smallscale producing units; agriculture is in general a highly decentralized sector of the economy. Where governments have taken over this function in farming, they have prevented this entrepreneurial talent from being used and these governments have been unsuccessful in providing an effective allocative substitute, capable of modernizing agriculture. The allocative roles of farmers and of farm women are important and their economic opportunities really matter (Schultz, 1978b). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 译文: 在农业方面的人代理人的预期 - 农场劳动者和既工作又分配资源的农场企业家 - 被新机会形成，和通过他们回答的奖励。 这些奖励农场主为他们的产品得到的价格明确， 在价格方面他们为他们购买的生产者和消费品和服务支付。 这些奖励非常用很多低的收入国家(舒尔茨，1978 b)歪曲。 引起变形的这些政府的影响是降低农业能挣的经济贡献。 政府为什么倾向于介绍变形的"原因"， 歧视农业在那一般的内部政治支持城市人口花费乡村人，尽管巨大得多的尺寸的这乡村人口。 11 都市消费者和勤奋的政治影响使他们能够花费巨大的糟糕的乡村的人的数量强制便宜的食品。 这歧视农业在理由上合理化， 农业天生落后，尽管偶然的"绿色革命"，它的经济贡献具有很少的重要性。 谦逊耕种者观看对经济漠不关心奖励因为他强烈保证他的耕作的传统方法，这推测当时。 迅速的工业化被视为经济发展的关键。 政策被用于给工业最优先权，这包括保持食品谷类便宜。 这个教条仍然被一些捐赠人代理支持并且被在高收入国家由一些经济学家使合理是令人遗憾但是真实的。 企业家 在经营费用，全世界的农场主，返回和危险，计算经济代理人。 在他们的小，个别，分配的领土内他们正调整企业家，协调如此稀薄以致于很多专家不能认出他们多么有效率。 我在改变传统的农业(舒尔茨，1964)方面首先提出一个这企业家的行为的分析。 虽然农场主出于对用察觉的他们的能力的学校教育，健康和经验的考虑不同， 为了解释并且在对新信息作出反应过程中采取适当措施，他们提供是企业家的必要的人力资源(韦尔奇，1970，1978； 埃文森，1978)。 在大多数农场有第2个企业，家庭。 妇女在分配他们自己的时间方面和在使用农场产品过程中也是企业家并且用家庭生产(舒尔茨，1974)购买货物。 在小比例尺的生产的单位上数百万个男人和妇女提供这个分配的能力； 通常农业一个非常分权的经济的部门。 这里政府已经在耕作过程中接管这个功能， 他们已经防止这种企业家的才能被使用，这些政府在提供一个有效的分配的能现代化农业的代替者方面不成功。 妇女重要的分配角色的农场主和农场和他们的经济机会真的重要(舒尔茨，1978 b)。

原文: Entrepreneurship is also essential in research. All research is a venturesome business. It entails allocating scarce resources. It requires organization. Someone must decide how to allocate the limited resources available for research given the existing state of knowledge. The very essence of research is that it is a dynamic venture into the unknown or partially known. Funds, organizations and competent scientists are necessary. They are not sufficient. Research entrepreneurship is required, be it by scientists or by others engaged in the research sector of the economy (Schultz, 1979c). Inevitability of disequilibria The transformation of agriculture into an increasingly more productive state, a process that is commonly referred to as "modernization", entails all manner of adjustments in farming as better opportunities become available. I have shown that the value of the ability to deal with disequilibria is high in a dynamic economy (Schultz, 1975). Such disequilibria are inevitable. They cannot be eliminated by law, by public policy, and surely not by rhetoric. Governments cannot perform efficiently the function of farm entrepreneurs. Future historians will no doubt be puzzled by the extent to which economic incentives were impaired during recent decades. The dominant intellectual view is antagonistic to agricultural incentives and the prevailing economic policies deprecate the function of producer incentives. For lack of incentives the unrealized economic potential of agriculture in many low income countries is large (D. Gale Johnson, 1977, 1978). Technical possibilities have become increasingly more favorable, but the economic incentives that are required for farmers in these countries to realize this potential are in disarray, either because the relevant information is lacking or because the prices and costs they face have been distorted. For want of profitable incentives, farmers have not made the necessary investments, including the purchase of superior inputs. Interventions by governments are currently the major cause of the lack of optimum economic incentives. Achievements in population quality -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 译文: 企业家也在研究过程中必要。 全部研究都是一个冒险的生意。 它需要分配稀有资源。 它需要组织。 有人必须决定怎样分配提供给给知识的现有的状态的研究的有限的资源。 研究的本质是它是一次动态的冒险到未知或者被部分知道。 资金，组织和有资格的科学家必要。 他们不足够。 研究企业家被要求，在科学家旁边或者由从事经济(舒尔茨，1979 c)的研究部门的其它人是它。 不平衡的不可避免 农业的转变到一个越来越更多产的国家， 通常被称为"现代化"的一个过程，在耕作过程中需要各种各样调整当更好的机会变得可提供时。 我已经显示处理不平衡的能力的价值在动态的经济(舒尔茨，1975)里是高的。 这样的不平衡是不可避免的。 他们不能被法律消除，通过国家政策，和肯定不通过修辞。 政府不能有效地执行农场企业家的功能。 经济奖励在新近的几十年被削弱的程度将无疑使未来的史学家迷惑。 有势力的理智的意见对农业奖励敌对，流行的经济政策反对生产者奖励的功能。 因缺乏奖励用很多低的收入国家的农业的未实现的经济潜能是大的(D.大风约翰逊，1977，1978)。 技术可能性已经变得越来越更有利， 但是需要农场主的经济奖励在意识到这种潜能的这些国家在混乱里， 相关信息缺乏或者因为价格并且花费是他们面向已经变形。 因缺少赚钱的奖励，农场主没做必要投资，包括优良的输入的购买。 政府干预目前是缺乏最佳经济奖励的主要的原因。 在人口素质里的成就

华建多语言翻译引擎翻译结果:

原文: I now turn to measurable gains in the quality of both farm and nonfarm people (Schultz, 1979a, 1979b). Quality in this context consists of various forms of human capital. I have argued elsewhere (Schultz, 1974) that while a strong case can be made for using a rigorous definition of human capital, it will be subject to the same ambiguities that continue to plague capital theory in general and the capital concept in economic growth models in particular. Capital is two-faced, and what these two faces tell us about economic growth, which is a dynamic process, are, as a rule, inconsistent stories. It must be so because the cost story is a tale about sunk investments, and the other story pertains to the discounted value of the stream of services that such capital renders, which changes with the shifting sands of growth. But worse still is the capital homogeneity assumption underlying capital theory and the aggregation of capital in growth models. As Hicks (1965) has taught us, the capital homogeneity assumption is the disaster of capital theory. This assumption is demonstrably inappropriate in analyzing the dynamics of economic growth that is afloat on capital inequalities because of the differences in the rates of return, whether the capital aggregation is in terms of factor costs or in terms of the discounted value of the lifetime services of its many parts. Nor would a catalogue of all existing growth models prove that these inequalities are equals. But why try to square the circle? If we were unable to observe these inequalities, we would have to invent them because they are the mainspring of economic growth. They are the mainspring because they are the compelling economic signals of growth. Thus, one of the essential parts of economic growth is concealed by such capital aggregation. The value of additional human capital depends on the additional wellbeing that human beings derive from it. Human capital contributes to labor productivity and to entrepreneurial ability. This allocative ability is valuable in farm and nonfarm production, in household production, and in the time and other resources that students allocate to their education. It is also valuable in migration to better job opportunities and to better locations in which to live. It contributes importantly to satisfactions that are an integral part of current and future consumption. My approach to population quality is to treat quality as a scarce resource, which implies that it has an economic value and that its acquisition entails a cost. In analyzing human behavior that determines the type and amount of quality that is acquired over time, the key to the analysis is the relation between the returns from additional quality and the costs of acquiring it. When the returns exceed costs, the stock of population quality will be enhanced. This means that increases in the supply of any quality component is a response to a demand for it. It is a supply-demand approach to investment behavior because all quality components are here treated as durable scarce resources that are useful over some period of time. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 译文: 我现在转向在两个农场两个非农场人(舒尔茨，1979a，1979 b)的质量内的可测量收获。 用这上下文的质量由人力资本的各种各样的形式组成。 当强壮的身体可能完全适合使用一个人力资本的严格的定义时，我已经在别处辩论(舒尔茨，1974)， 这将在经济增长模型过程中详细受延伸通常困扰首都理论的相同的含糊的话和首都概念影响。 首都两面对， 这两面把经济增长告诉我们，这是一个动态的过程，按照惯例是不一致的故事。 这必须如此因为费用故事是关于下沉的投资的一个故事， 其它故事属于这样首都提交的服务的溪的贴现价值，哪个随移动的发展的沙地而变。 严重，首都同种假定仍然被为首都理论和资本积累在发展模式的基础。 因为希斯克(1965)已经教我们，首都同种假定是首都理论的灾难。 这假定可证明在分析是在首都不平等上因为收益率的差别漂浮着的经济增长的力学不适当， 首都集中用因素费用或者用一生它很多部分的服务的贴现价值方式方式。 一份全部现有的发展模型的目录也不将证明这些不平等是同等的人。 但是为什么努力使圈成方形？ 如果我们不能观察这些不平等，我们必须发明他们，因为他们是经济增长的主要动机。 他们是主要动机，因为他们是发展的强迫的经济信号。 因此，经济增长的必要的部分之一因为这样的首都集中被隐藏。 附加人力资本的价值取决于人从它得到的附加幸福。 人力资本有助于劳动生产率，和对企业家的能力。 这个分配的能力在农场和非农产品的产品有价值，在家庭生产内，和在时间和其他资源学生分配到他们的教育。 这也在对更好的就业机会和到在那里可以住的更好的位置迁移过程中有价值。 它重要有助于是当今和将来的消耗的组成部分的满意。 我的人口素质的方法 把质量当作稀有资源，这暗示它有经济价值，它的获得需要费用。 在分析人类行为方面确定超时被获得的质量的类型和数量， 分析的关键是来自另外的质量和获得它的费用的在返回之间的关系。 什么时候返回超越花费，人口素质的股票将被提高。 这表明在任何质量零部件的供应内增加适合一反应在一需求。 一供应需求接近投资行为全部质量零部件在这里作为越过一些时期有用的耐用的稀有资源治疗。

华建多语言翻译引擎翻译结果:

原文: My hypothesis is that the returns to various quality components are increasing over time in many low income countries; the rents that entrepreneurs derive from their allocative ability rise, so do the returns to child care, schooling, and improvements in health. Furthermore, the rates of return are enhanced by the reductions in the costs of acquiring most of these quality components. Over time the increases in the demand for quality, in children and on the part of adults in enhancing their own quality, reduces the demand for quantity; that is, quality and quantity are substitutes and the reduction in demand for quantity favors having and rearing fewer children (Becker and Tomes, 1976; Rosenzweig and Wolpin, 1978). The movement toward quality contributes to the solution of the population "problem". Investment in health Human capital theory treats everyone's state of health as a stock, i.e., as health capital, and its contribution as health services. Part of the quality of the initial stock is inherited and part is acquired. The stock depreciates over time and at an increasing rate in later life. Gross investment in human capital entails acquisition and maintenance costs. These investments include child care, nutrition, clothing, housing, medical services, and the use of one's own time. The flow of services that health capital renders consists of "healthy time", or "sicknes-free time", which are inputs into work, consumption and leisure activities (Williams, 1977; Grossman, 1972). The improvements in health revealed by the longer life span of people in many low income countries has undoubtedly been the most important advance in population quality. Since about 1950, life expectancy at birth has increased 40 percent or more in many of these countries. People of Western Europe and North America never attained so large an increase in life expectancy in so short a period. The decline in mortality of infants and very young children is only a part of this achievement. The mortality of older children, youths and adults is also down. Ram and Schultz (1979) deal with the economics of these demographic developments in India. The results correspond to those in other low income countries. In India from 1951 to 1971, life expectancy at birth of males increased by 43 percent, and that of females by 41 percent. Life spans over the life cycle after age 10, 20 and on to age 60, for both males and females in 1971, were also decidedly longer than in 1951. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 译文: 我的假说是各种各样的质量组成部分的返回超时用很多低的收入国家增加； 企业家从他们的分配的能力得到的租金提高，儿童保育，学校教育和在健康方面的改进的返回也是。 而且，收益率因为在获得大多数这些高品质组成部分的费用方面的削减被提高。 超时质量的需求的增加， 在和大人在提高他们自己质量方面的孩子，降低适合数量的需求； 即，数量和质量代替者和削减在需求适合有并且养育更少孩子(贝克尔和大部头的书，1976的数量支持； 罗森茨韦格和Wolpin，1978)。 对于质量的运动有助于人口"问题"的解决办法。 对健康的投资 人力资本理论把每人的健康的状态当作一份股票， 即，作为健康首都和作为医疗卫生服务的它的贡献。 最初股票的质量的部分被继承，部分被获得。 股票超时和在一个增加的比率在更晚的生命里贬值。 总人力资本投资需要获得和维修费。 这些投资包括儿童保育，营养，衣服，住房，医疗服务和使用一个人的自己的时间。 健康首都给予的服务的流动由"健康的时间"组成， 或者"无sicknes的时间"，这是输入到工作，消耗和空闲活动(威廉斯，1977； 格罗斯曼，1972)。 在用很多低的收入国家的人的更长时间的寿命显示的健康方面的改进无疑是在人口素质方面的最重要的发展。 从大约1950起，预期寿命出生时已经在大多数这些国家增加百分之40或更多。 西欧和北美洲的人从未在一个如此短的时期在预期寿命取得一个如此大的增加。 在婴儿的死亡率和非常幼小的孩子方面的下降是这项成就的仅仅一部分。 更大的孩子的死亡率，年青人和大人也向下。 拉姆和舒尔茨(1979)涉及在印度的这些人口统计的发展的经济学。 结果用其他低的收入国家符合那些。 在印度从1951到1971，雄性的预期寿命出生时增加百分之43，以及以百分之41的雌性的。 在在年龄10，20点之后生命周期期间的寿命和到年龄60上， 对于男性和女性来说在1971年，也比在1951年明确长。

华建多语言翻译引擎翻译结果:

原文: The favorable economic implications of these increases in life span are pervasive. Foremost are the satisfactions that people derive from longer life. While they are hard to measure, there is little room for doubt that the value of life expectancy is enhanced. Measurement, however, is not impossible. Usher (1978) devised an ingenious extension of theory to determine the utility that people derive from increases in life expectancy. His empirical analysis indicates that the additional utility increases substantially the value of personal income. Longer life spans provide additional incentives to acquire more education, as investments in future earnings. Parents invest more in their children. More on-the-job training becomes worthwhile. The additional health capital and the other forms of human capital tend to increase the productivity of workers. Longer life spans result in more years participation in the labor force, and bring about a reduction in "sick time". Better health and vitality of workers in turn lead to more productivity per manhour at work. The Ram-Schultz study provides evidence on the gains in the productivity of agricultural labor in India, realized as a consequence of improvements in health. The most telling part of that evidence is the productivity effect of the cycle that has characterized the malaria program. Investment in education Education accounts for much of the improvements in population quality. But reckoning the cost of schooling, the value of the work that young children do for their parents must be included. Even for the very young children during their first years of school, most parents forego (sacrifice) the value of the work that children perform (Makhija, 1977; Shortlidge, 1976; Rosenzweig and Evenson, 1977). Another distinctive attribute of schooling is the vintage effect by age over time. Starting from widespread illiteracy, as more schooling per child is achieved, the older adults continue through life with little or no schooling, whereas the children on entering into adulthood are the beneficiaries. The population of India grew about 50 percent between 1950-51 and 1970-71. School enrollment of children ages 6 to 14 rose over 200 percent. The rate of increase in secondary schools and universities was much higher (Government of India, 1978). Since schooling is primarily an investment, it is a serious error to treat all schooling outlays as current consumption. This error arises from the assumption that schooling is solely a consumer good. It is misleading to treat public expenditures on schooling as "welfare" expenditures, and as a use of resources that has the effect of reducing "savings". The same error occurs in the case of expenditures on health, both on public and private account. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 译文: 这些的有利的经济暗示在寿命增加是遍布的。 人们从更长的生命得到的满意最著名。 当他们难测量时，几乎没有预期寿命的价值被提高的怀疑的余地。 测量，不过，并非不可能。 招待员(1978)想出一理论的机敏扩展确定人从派生来在预期寿命内的增加的效用。 他的经验分析表明另外的效用大量增加个人收入的价值。 更长时间的寿命提供附加奖励获得更多的教育，作为对将来的收入的投资。 父母把更多投入他们的孩子。 更多的在职训练变得值得。 附加健康资本和人力资本的其它形式倾向于增加工人的生产力。 更长时间的寿命在劳动力里导致更多的年参与，和在"生病的时间"引起削减。 工人的身体健康和生机起作用依次每工时导致更多的生产力。 公羊舒尔茨学习提供证据在在在印度的农业劳动的生产力方面的增加上，由于在健康方面的改进意识到。 那个证据的最告诉的部分是已经表现疟疾计划的特性的循环的生产效率。 教育投资 教育解释在人口素质方面的大部分改进。 但是计算学校教育的费用，幼小的孩子为他们的父母做的工作的价值必须被包括。 即使为非常幼小的孩子在他们的第一个教育年限， 大多数父母发生在(牺牲)孩子执行(Makhija，1977的工作的价值之前； 肖特利奇，1976； 罗森茨韦格和埃文森，1977)。 学校教育的另一个特别的属性超时在时代以前是葡萄收获影响。 从广泛的文盲开始， 每孩子教育的同样多被取得， 老年人用几乎没有学校教育通过生命继续，在成年参加的而那些孩子是那些受益人。 印度的人口在1950-51 和1970-71之间增长大约百分之50。 孩子年龄6比14的学校登记上升越过百分之200。 在中学和大学方面的增加的比率是高得多的(印度，1978政府)。 因为学校教育主要是投资，把全部学校教育开支当作当今的消耗是一个严重错误。 这错误起因于学校教育一好的消费者的仅仅的假定。 它正使人误解关于学校教育对待公开支出作为"福利"支出， 并且作为使用有降低"储蓄"的影响的资源。 相同的错误健康在支出情况下出现，两个关于公众并且私人账。

原文: The expenditures on schooling including higher education are a substantial fraction of national income in many low income countries. These expenditures are large relative to the conventional national accounting measures (concepts) of savings and investment. In India the proportion that the costs of schooling bear to national income, savings and investment is not only large but it has tended to increase substantially over time (Ram and Schultz, 1979, pp. 410-12 and Table 2). The highly skilled In assessing population quality, it is important not to overlook the increases in the stock of physicians, other medical personnel, engineers, administrators, accountants, and various classes of research scientists and technicians (Schultz, 1979d). The research capacity of a considerable number of low income countries is impressive. There are specialized research institutes, research units within governmental departments, industrial sector research, and on-going university research. The scientists and technicians engaged in these various research activities are university trained, some of them in universities abroad. The research areas include, among others, medicine, public health (control of communicable diseases and the delivery of health services), nutrition, industry, agriculture, and even some atomic energy research. I shall touch briefly on agricultural research, because I know it best and because it is well documented. The founding and financing of the International Agricultural Research Centers is an institutional innovation of a high order. The entrepreneurship of the Rockefeller Foundation in cooperation with the government of Mexico first launched this type of venture. But these centers, good as they are, are not a substitute for national agricultural research enterprises. Suffice it to give the flavor of the remarkable increases in the number of agricultural scientists between 1959 and 1974 in 22 selected low income countries. All told the number of scientist man years devoted to agricultural research in these 22 countries increased more than three times during this period. By 1974 there was a corps of over 13,000 scientists, ranging from 110 in the Ivory Coast to over 2,000 in India (Boyce and Evenson, 1975). Indian agricultural research expenditures between 1950 and 1968 also more than tripled in real terms. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 译文: 关于包括高等教育的学校教育的支出是一个用很多低的收入国家的国家收入的实际的小部分。 这些支出大相对于传统国家说明测量储蓄和投资的(概念)。 在印度学校教育的费用对国家收入忍受的比例， 储蓄和投资是大而且倾向于增加大量额外 拉姆和舒尔茨，1979，第410-12页和表格2)。 非常熟练 在评价人口素质过程中， 不忽略内科医生的股票的增加是重要的， 其他医学人员，工程师，管理者，会计师和各种研究科学家和技师(舒尔茨，1979d)。 相当数量低的收入国家的研究能力是给人深刻印象的。 有专业化的研究院，研究在政府的部门，工业部门研究和继续的大学研究内的单位。 从事这些各种各样的研究活动的科学家和技师是训练的大学，在国外的在大学的他们中的一些。 研究地区包括， 及其他， 药， 公共卫生(可传播的疾病的控制和医疗卫生服务的交付)，营养，工业，农业和甚至一些原子能研究。 我将在农业研究上短暂接触，因为我非常了解它，因为它被用文献证明得好。 建立和投资国际农业研究中心是一项高的命令的惯例的革新。 洛克菲勒基金会的企业家和墨西哥政府合作首先创办这类企业。 但是这几次中心，好象他们的那样，并非正国家农业研究企业的代用品。 使它满足在在22个选择的低的收入国家的1959 和1974之间给惊人的农业科学家的数量的增加的味道。 总共致力于在这22个国家的农业研究的科学家人的数量岁在这个时期增加超过3 倍。 到1974年有 一个超过13，000位科学家的小组，在印度(博伊斯和埃文森，1975)从在象牙海岸的110到超过2，000。 在1950 和1968之间的印度农业研究支出也多于实际上增加到三倍。

华建多语言翻译引擎翻译结果:

原文: We come to the bottom line. In India this investment in agricultural research has produced excellent results. An analysis by states within India shows the rate of return has been approximately 40 percent, which is indeed high compared to the returns from most other investments to increase agricultural production (Evenson and Kislev, 1975). Concluding remark While there remains much that we do not know about the economics of being poor, our knowledge of the economic dynamics of low income countries has advanced substantially in recent decades. We have learned that poor people are no less concerned about improving their lot and that of their children than those of us who have incomparably greater advantages. Nor are they any less competent in obtaining the maximum benefit from their limited resources. The central thrust of this lecture is that population quality and knowledge matter. A goodly number of low income countries have a positive record in improving population quality and in acquiring useful knowledge. These achievements imply favorable economic prospects, provided they are not dissipated by politics and governmental policies that discriminate against agriculture. Even so, most of the people throughout the world continue to earn a pittance from their labor. Half or even more of their meager income is spent on food. Their life is harsh. Farmers in low income countries do all they can to augment production. What happens to these farmers is of no concern to the sun, or to the earth, or to the behavior of the monsoons and the winds that sweep the face of the earth. Farmers' crops are in constant danger of being devoured by insects and pests. Nature is host to thousands of species that are hostile to the endeavors of farmers, especially so in low income countries. We in the high income countries have forgotten the wisdom of Alfred Marshall, when he wrote, "Knowledge is the most powerful engine of production; it enables us to subdue Nature and satisfy our wants." * I am indebted to Gary S. Becker, A. C. Harberger, D. Gale Johnson and T. Paul Schultz for helpful suggestions on the first draft of this paper. My debt to Milton Friedman is especially large for his painstaking expositional comments. I am also indebted to my wife, Esther Schultz, for her insistence that what I thought was stated clearly was not clear enough. 1. For a fuller discussion, see my "On Economics and Politics of Agriculture", in Theodore W. Schultz, ed., Distortions of Agricultural Incentives, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1978, pp. 3-23. From Nobel Lectures, Economics 1969-1980, Editor Assar Lindbeck, World Scientific Publishing Co., Singapore, 1992 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 译文: 我们来底线。 在印度这个对农业研究的投资已经产生极好的结果。 在印度内的通过国家的一个分析显示收益率是大约百分之40， 从大多数其他投资与返回相比的确是高的增加农业生产(埃文森和Kislev，1975)。 达成评论 当那里非常还有时我们不了解贫穷的经济学， 我们的低的收入国家的经济力学知识在新近的几十年已经实质上上涨。 我们获悉穷人不少担心改进他们运气和他们孩子的那比谁有无比巨大优势的我们那些。 他们也不是不那么胜任从他们的有限的资源获得最大的好处的任何。 这次演讲的中心的推是那种人口素质和知识事情。 相当大的低的收入国家的数量在改进人口素质过程中和在获得有用的知识过程中有一个积极的记录。 如果他们没被歧视农业的政治和政府的政策驱散，这些成就暗示有利的经济前景。 虽然如此， 大多数整个世界的人们继续从他们的劳动挣微薄的工资。 一半或者甚至更多他们的瘦的收入被在食品上花费。 他们的生活是严厉的。 在低的收入国家方面的农场主尽力增大生产。 在这些农场主身上发生的对太阳没有关心， 或者到地球，或者对季风和扫地球上的风的行为。 农场主的庄稼在被昆虫和害虫吞吃的恒定的危险里。 自然是敌视农场主的努力的数千个种类的主人，特别是低的收入国家。 我们在高收入国家已经忘记阿尔弗雷德·马歇尔的智慧，当他写时，"知识是生产的最大功率的发动机； 它使我们能够征服自然并且满足我们的需求。 "*我感激加里·S.贝克尔， A. C. Harberger，D.大风约翰逊和T.保罗舒尔茨适合有帮助建议关于这纸的前草稿。 弥尔顿·弗里德曼的我的欠债为他的艰苦的expositional 意见特别大。 我也感激我的妻子，埃丝特·舒尔茨，因为我思考的被清楚说明的她的坚持不够清楚。 1.对于一个更充分的讨论来说， 看见我的"关于农业的经济学和政治"，在西奥多·W.舒尔茨，版本，农业奖励，布卢明顿的变形里： 印地安纳大学出版社，1978，第3-23页。 从诺贝尔演讲，经济学1969-1980，编辑Assar林德贝克，世界科学发表公司，新加坡，1992中

（网上在线翻译，纯机械式的计算机翻译，有比没有强）

西奥多·W.舒尔茨-为了纪念阿尔弗雷德·诺贝尔的演讲，1979年12月8日

穷人的经济学

大多数人们在世界上贫穷，因此如果我们知道贫穷的经济学，我们将知道真的重要的大部分经济学。大多数世界的穷人从农业谋生，因此如果我们知道农业经济学，我们将知道大部分贫穷的经济学。富有的人们觉得很难理解穷人的行为。经济学家不是例外，因为他们也发现理解确定穷人做的选择的偏爱和缺乏限制条件是困难的。我们全部知道大多数世界的人们贫穷，他们为他们的劳动挣微薄的工资，那一半和更多他们的瘦的收入被在食品上花费，他们在低的收入国家方面主要居住，大多数他们正在农业方面谋生。很多经济学家不能理解的是穷人不少担心比富人改进他们的运气和他们的孩子的。我们在新近几十年大约农业经济学内学习将看起来最合理好通知人自相矛盾。我们获悉农业在很多低收入国家内有潜在经济能力生产食品安静增长人口的足够，在如此做时能改进相当收入和穷人的福利。在改进穷人的福利方面的决定性的生产要素不是空间，能量和农田；决定性的因素是在人口素质方面的改进。

在讨论这些建议的过程中，我将首先鉴定已经损伤很多经济学家的工作的两个理智的错误。我然后将指出大多数观察者对土地的经济重要性评价过高并且非常低估人代理人的品质的重要性。最后我将提出低的收入国家目前正取得的人口素质的增加的尺寸。其中大部分我所了解我对predoctoral和博士后的研究欠的这些建议，对随后的研究在他们的专业职业期间，和对我的学术同事。在新近的几十年他们的工作已经产生在理解人力资本经济学过程中的一次真实的爆炸，由于特别的提到研究的经济学，农场主与新赚钱生产技术，连接在生产和福利，和家庭的经济学之间的反应。

经济学家的错误

经济学的这个分支已经受几个理智的错误之苦。主要的错误是推测即标准经济理论对理解低的收入国家不适当，一个单独的经济理论被需要。为这目的发展的模型被广泛地欢呼，直到充其量，他们是，这变得明显理智的好奇。一些经济学家的反应将转向文化和社会对低的收入国家的所谓的贫穷的经济成效的解释。十分可理解，文化和行为学者关于这次对他们的研究的使用不安。幸好，理智的潮已经开始转动。日益增多的经济学家已经开始意识到那个标准经济理论对关于高收入国家的相应问题面对低的收入国家的缺乏问题一样适用。

第2个错误是疏忽经济史。当在西欧的大多数人非常贫穷时，古典经济学被发展，勉强从贫穷的土地挖出生存，他们耕和他们被迫使陷于到一个短的寿命。因此，早期的经济学家处理类似于今天在低的收入国家方面流行的那些的条件。在李嘉图的日子大约在英国的劳动者的家庭收入的一半去买食品。因此它今天用很多低的收入国家。马歇尔(1920)告诉我们"英国劳动者的周薪经常不到好小麦的半蒲式耳的价格"，在那时李嘉图出版他的最优秀工作。在印度的庄稼人的周薪目前有点不到两蒲式耳小麦(舒尔茨，1977a，1977b)的价格。在印度很多人住在Ricardian阴影下。理解超过年龄的穷人的经验和成就可能非常有助于今天理解低的收入国家的那些问题和可能性。那种理解比比大多数详述和精确的知识大约地球的表面重要，或者生态学，明天的技术。历史知觉也正关于人口缺乏。我们推断全球统计并且被我们的他们的解释吓坏，主要穷人象lemmings朝他们自己的损坏前进的一样生育。然而，那不发生回顾我们自己的社会和人糟糕什么时候的经济史。它关于在今天的穷国的人口增长同样错误。

土地被评价过高

广泛拿的意见-自然的地球意见-是有一个实际上确定的适于种食品的陆地区域，以及耕正被耗尽的土地的一部分热量。根据这意见，继续适合长的世界人口生产足够的食品是不可能的。另一种见解-社会经济意见-作那人有那些才能和智力减少对农田的依靠，关于传统的农业和在耗尽能源之后并且能降低为日益增多的世界人口生产食品的实际成本。通过我们发现的研究代替李嘉图本不会预期的农田，收入上升当时父母揭示适合更少孩子，用质量代替孩子的数量的一偏爱，马尔萨斯本不会预见。它是讽刺的那经济学，长时间给灰暗的科学贴标签，能显示食品的荒凉的自然的地球意见不与经济史相容；那历史证明我们能通过在知识方面的发展增大资源。我同意玛格丽特蜂蜜酒："人类的将来易受到结束。"人类的将来没被空间，能量和农田预先注定。它将因为人类的智能化的演化被确定。土地的生产力的差别不是一个有用的变量解释人们为什么在长时间解决的世界的部分贫穷。人在印度多年两个都关于雨供给国土的生产力是低的的Deccan高原糟糕，并且在印度南部的非常多产的土地上。在非洲，人关于撒哈拉的南穗的不生产国土，在在裂缝地形的陡坡上的有点更多产的土地上，并且在非常多产的alluvial土地上沿着尼罗河的嘴和在尼罗河的嘴，全部共同拥有一件事情：他们非常贫穷。与此类似，很多宣布的土地人口比率的差别在整个低的收入国家不生产可比较的贫乏的差别。什么事情大多数是在农田情况下奖励和相关机会，农场人们必须通过包括农业研究的捐款和人技能的改进的投资增大土地的有效的供应。因为非常新近的研究被用文献证明的一项基本的建议是低的收入国家的经济学家的现代化的组成部分是在在人力资本的方面的农田和一次升高的经济重要性方面的下降-技能和知识。

尽管经济史，抓一个经济学家，你将发现关于土地的他的想法按照惯例仍然是李嘉图的。如果它是，但是李嘉图的土地的概念，"土壤的原先和牢不可破的能量"，不再足够。国家收入的部分，那作为土地租金增长，房东的相关社会和政治重要性超时在高收入国家已经显著下降，他们也正下降，低的收入国家。Ricardian租金为什么丢失它的经济刺痛？有两个主要原因：首先，农业的现代化超时已经把未加工的土地转变成一种大大更多产的资源，在它自然状态内，其次，农业研究有代替农田。由于一些本地例外，欧洲的原先的土地质量糟糕。他们今天非常多产。原先土地的芬兰不那么富有成效附近西部的苏联，今天然而，农田的芬兰优良。日本农田在北印度最初非常不如那些；他们今天非常优良。这些变化的一些部分，不仅在高里而且在低收入国家内，包括研究体现于购买的农业输入的农业研究的结果是。有(叫它土地扩张你如此更喜欢如果)的新的代用品农田。谷物很好地说明代替过程。在1970年在美国收获的谷物面积是3300万英亩少于在1932年。然而在1979年生产的75.9亿蒲式耳是数量在1932年生产的3次。人代理人的品质被低估当土地本来在贫穷里不是一个关键的因素时，人代理人：在改进的人口素质方面的投资能相当提高经济前景和穷人的福利。儿童保育，家和劳动实习，获得信息和技能通过学校教育和用主要由对健康和学校教育的投资组成的其他方式，能改进人口素质。这样的对低的收入国家的投资，当我将显示时，成功地在他们没被政治动荡驱散的任何地方改进经济前景。在低的收入国家方面的穷人不是经济学不能毁坏的装甲贫困均衡的囚犯。没有压倒一切的力量使引起穷人放弃经济斗争的全部经济改进无效。现在很好地用文献证明在农业方面穷人确实对更好的机会作出反应。

在农业方面的人代理人的预期-农场劳动者和既工作又分配资源的农场企业家-被新机会形成，和通过他们回答的奖励。这些奖励农场主为他们的产品得到的价格明确，在价格方面他们为他们购买的生产者和消费品和服务支付。这些奖励非常用很多低的收入国家(舒尔茨，1978b)歪曲。引起变形的这些政府的影响是降低农业能挣的经济贡献。政府为什么倾向于介绍变形的"原因"，歧视农业在那一般的内部政治支持城市人口花费乡村人，尽管巨大得多的尺寸的这乡村人口。11都市消费者和勤奋的政治影响使他们能够花费巨大的糟糕的乡村的人的数量强制便宜的食品。这歧视农业在理由上合理化，农业天生落后，尽管偶然的"绿色革命"，它的经济贡献具有很少的重要性。谦逊耕种者观看对经济漠不关心奖励因为他强烈保证他的耕作的传统方法，这推测当时。迅速的工业化被视为经济发展的关键。政策被用于给工业最优先权，这包括保持食品谷类便宜。这个教条仍然被一些捐赠人代理支持并且被在高收入国家由一些经济学家使合理是令人遗憾但是真实的。企业家在经营费用，全世界的农场主，返回和危险，计算经济代理人。在他们的小，个别，分配的领土内他们正调整企业家，协调如此稀薄以致于很多专家不能认出他们多么有效率。我在改变传统的农业(舒尔茨，1964)方面首先提出一个这企业家的行为的分析。虽然农场主出于对用察觉的他们的能力的学校教育，健康和经验的考虑不同，为了解释并且在对新信息作出反应过程中采取适当措施，他们提供是企业家的必要的人力资源(韦尔奇，1970，1978；埃文森，1978)。在大多数农场有第2个企业，家庭。妇女在分配他们自己的时间方面和在使用农场产品过程中也是企业家并且用家庭生产(舒尔茨，1974)购买货物。在小比例尺的生产的单位上数百万个男人和妇女提供这个分配的能力；通常农业一个非常分权的经济的部门。这里政府已经在耕作过程中接管这个功能，他们已经防止这种企业家的才能被使用，这些政府在提供一个有效的分配的能现代化农业的代替者方面不成功。妇女重要的分配角色的农场主和农场和他们的经济机会真的重要(舒尔茨，1978b)。

企业家也在研究过程中必要。全部研究都是一个冒险的生意。它需要分配稀有资源。它需要组织。有人必须决定怎样分配提供给给知识的现有的状态的研究的有限的资源。研究的本质是它是一次动态的冒险到未知或者被部分知道。资金，组织和有资格的科学家必要。他们不足够。研究企业家被要求，在科学家旁边或者由从事经济(舒尔茨，1979c)的研究部门的其它人是它。不平衡的不可避免农业的转变到一个越来越更多产的国家，通常被称为"现代化"的一个过程，在耕作过程中需要各种各样调整当更好的机会变得可提供时。我已经显示处理不平衡的能力的价值在动态的经济(舒尔茨，1975)里是高的。这样的不平衡是不可避免的。他们不能被法律消除，通过国家政策，和肯定不通过修辞。政府不能有效地执行农场企业家的功能。经济奖励在新近的几十年被削弱的程度将无疑使未来的史学家迷惑。有势力的理智的意见对农业奖励敌对，流行的经济政策反对生产者奖励的功能。因缺乏奖励用很多低的收入国家的农业的未实现的经济潜能是大的(D.大风约翰逊，1977，1978)。技术可能性已经变得越来越更有利，但是需要农场主的经济奖励在意识到这种潜能的这些国家在混乱里，相关信息缺乏或者因为价格并且花费是他们面向已经变形。因缺少赚钱的奖励，农场主没做必要投资，包括优良的输入的购买。政府干预目前是缺乏最佳经济奖励的主要的原因。

人口素质里的成就

我现在转向在两个农场两个非农场人(舒尔茨，1979a，1979b)的质量内的可测量收获。用这上下文的质量由人力资本的各种各样的形式组成。当强壮的身体可能完全适合使用一个人力资本的严格的定义时，我已经在别处辩论(舒尔茨，1974)，这将在经济增长模型过程中详细受延伸通常困扰首都理论的相同的含糊的话和首都概念影响。首都两面对，这两面把经济增长告诉我们，这是一个动态的过程，按照惯例是不一致的故事。这必须如此因为费用故事是关于下沉的投资的一个故事，其它故事属于这样首都提交的服务的溪的贴现价值，哪个随移动的发展的沙地而变。严重，首都同种假定仍然被为首都理论和资本积累在发展模式的基础。因为希斯克(1965)已经教我们，首都同种假定是首都理论的灾难。这假定可证明在分析是在首都不平等上因为收益率的差别漂浮着的经济增长的力学不适当，首都集中用因素费用或者用一生它很多部分的服务的贴现价值方式方式。一份全部现有的发展模型的目录也不将证明这些不平等是同等的人。但是为什么努力使圈成方形？如果我们不能观察这些不平等，我们必须发明他们，因为他们是经济增长的主要动机。他们是主要动机，因为他们是发展的强迫的经济信号。

因此，经济增长的必要的部分之一因为这样的首都集中被隐藏。附加人力资本的价值取决于人从它得到的附加幸福。人力资本有助于劳动生产率，和对企业家的能力。这个分配的能力在农场和非农产品的产品有价值，在家庭生产内，和在时间和其他资源学生分配到他们的教育。这也在对更好的就业机会和到在那里可以住的更好的位置迁移过程中有价值。它重要有助于是当今和将来的消耗的组成部分的满意。

我的人口素质的方法把质量当作稀有资源，这暗示它有经济价值，它的获得需要费用。在分析人类行为方面确定超时被获得的质量的类型和数量，分析的关键是来自另外的质量和获得它的费用的在返回之间的关系。什么时候返回超越花费，人口素质的股票将被提高。这表明在任何质量零部件的供应内增加适合一反应在一需求。一供应需求接近投资行为全部质量零部件在这里作为越过一些时期有用的耐用的稀有资源治疗。

我的假说是各种各样的质量组成部分的返回超时用很多低的收入国家增加；企业家从他们的分配的能力得到的租金提高，儿童保育，学校教育和在健康方面的改进的返回也是。而且，收益率因为在获得大多数这些高品质组成部分的费用方面的削减被提高。超时质量的需求的增加，在和大人在提高他们自己质量方面的孩子，降低适合数量的需求；即，数量和质量代替者和削减在需求适合有并且养育更少孩子(贝克尔和大部头的书，1976的数量支持；罗森茨韦格和Wolpin，1978)。对于质量的运动有助于人口"问题"的解决办法。对健康的投资人力资本理论把每人的健康的状态当作一份股票，即，作为健康首都和作为医疗卫生服务的它的贡献。最初股票的质量的部分被继承，部分被获得。股票超时和在一个增加的比率在更晚的生命里贬值。总人力资本投资需要获得和维修费。这些投资包括儿童保育，营养，衣服，住房，医疗服务和使用一个人的自己的时间。健康首都给予的服务的流动由"健康的时间"组成，或者"无sicknes的时间"，这是输入到工作，消耗和空闲活动(威廉斯，1977；格罗斯曼，1972)。在用很多低的收入国家的人的更长时间的寿命显示的健康方面的改进无疑是在人口素质方面的最重要的发展。从大约1950起，预期寿命出生时已经在大多数这些国家增加百分之40或更多。西欧和北美洲的人从未在一个如此短的时期在预期寿命取得一个如此大的增加。在婴儿的死亡率和非常幼小的孩子方面的下降是这项成就的仅仅一部分。更大的孩子的死亡率，年青人和大人也向下。拉姆和舒尔茨(1979)涉及在印度的这些人口统计的发展的经济学。结果用其他低的收入国家符合那些。在印度从1951到1971，雄性的预期寿命出生时增加百分之43，以及以百分之41的雌性的。在在年龄10，20点之后生命周期期间的寿命和到年龄60上，对于男性和女性来说在1971年，也比在1951年明确长。

这些的有利的经济暗示在寿命增加是遍布的。人们从更长的生命得到的满意最著名。当他们难测量时，几乎没有预期寿命的价值被提高的怀疑的余地。测量，不过，并非不可能。招待员(1978)想出一理论的机敏扩展确定人从派生来在预期寿命内的增加的效用。他的经验分析表明另外的效用大量增加个人收入的价值。更长时间的寿命提供附加奖励获得更多的教育，作为对将来的收入的投资。父母把更多投入他们的孩子。更多的在职训练变得值得。附加健康资本和人力资本的其它形式倾向于增加工人的生产力。更长时间的寿命在劳动力里导致更多的年参与，和在"生病的时间"引起削减。工人的身体健康和生机起作用依次每工时导致更多的生产力。公羊舒尔茨学习提供证据在在在印度的农业劳动的生产力方面的增加上，由于在健康方面的改进意识到。那个证据的最告诉的部分是已经表现疟疾计划的特性的循环的生产效率。教育投资教育解释在人口素质方面的大部分改进。但是计算学校教育的费用，幼小的孩子为他们的父母做的工作的价值必须被包括。即使为非常幼小的孩子在他们的第一个教育年限，大多数父母发生在(牺牲)孩子执行(Makhija，1977的工作的价值之前；肖特利奇，1976；罗森茨韦格和埃文森，1977)。学校教育的另一个特别的属性超时在时代以前是葡萄收获影响。从广泛的文盲开始，每孩子教育的同样多被取得，老年人用几乎没有学校教育通过生命继续，在成年参加的而那些孩子是那些受益人。印度的人口在1950-51和1970-71之间增长大约百分之50。孩子年龄6比14的学校登记上升越过百分之200。在中学和大学方面的增加的比率是高得多的(印度，1978政府)。因为学校教育主要是投资，把全部学校教育开支当作当今的消耗是一个严重错误。这错误起因于学校教育一好的消费者的仅仅的假定。它正使人误解关于学校教育对待公开支出作为"福利"支出，并且作为使用有降低"储蓄"的影响的资源。两个相同的错误健康在支出情况下出现，关于公众并且私人账。

关于包括高等教育的学校教育的支出是一个用很多低的收入国家的国家收入的实际的小部分。这些支出大相对于传统国家说明测量储蓄和投资的(概念)。在印度学校教育的费用对国家收入忍受的比例，储蓄和投资是大而且倾向于增加大量额外拉姆和舒尔茨，1979，第410-12页和表格2)。非常熟练在评价人口素质过程中，不忽略内科医生的股票的增加是重要的，其他医学人员，工程师，管理者，会计师和各种研究科学家和技师(舒尔茨，1979d)。相当数量低的收入国家的研究能力是给人深刻印象的。有专业化的研究院，研究在政府的部门，工业部门研究和继续的大学研究内的单位。从事这些各种各样的研究活动的科学家和技师是训练的大学，在国外的在大学的他们中的一些。研究地区包括，及其他，药，公共卫生(可传播的疾病的控制和医疗卫生服务的交付)，营养，工业，农业和甚至一些原子能研究。我将在农业研究上短暂接触，因为我非常了解它，因为它被用文献证明得好。建立和投资国际农业研究中心是一项高的命令的惯例的革新。洛克菲勒基金会的企业家和墨西哥政府合作首先创办这类企业。但是这几次中心，好象他们的那样，并非正国家农业研究企业的代用品。使它满足在在22个选择的低的收入国家的1959和1974之间给惊人的农业科学家的数量的增加的味道。总共致力于在这22个国家的农业研究的科学家人的数量岁在这个时期增加超过3倍。到1974年有一个超过13，000位科学家的小组，在印度(博伊斯和埃文森，1975)从在象牙海岸的110到超过2，000。在1950和1968之间的印度农业研究支出也多于实际上增加到三倍。

我们来底线。在印度这个对农业研究的投资已经产生极好的结果。在印度内的通过国家的一个分析显示收益率是大约百分之40，从大多数其他投资与返回相比的确是高的增加农业生产(埃文森和Kislev，1975)。达成评论当那里非常还有时我们不了解贫穷的经济学，我们的低的收入国家的经济力学知识在新近的几十年已经实质上上涨。我们获悉穷人不少担心改进他们运气和他们孩子的那比谁有无比巨大优势的我们那些。他们也不是不那么胜任从他们的有限的资源获得最大的好处的任何。这次演讲的中心的推是那种人口素质和知识事情。

相当大的低的收入国家的数量在改进人口素质过程中和在获得有用的知识过程中有一个积极的记录。如果他们没被歧视农业的政治和政府的政策驱散，这些成就暗示有利的经济前景。虽然如此，大多数整个世界的人们继续从他们的劳动挣微薄的工资。一半或者甚至更多他们的瘦的收入被在食品上花费。他们的生活是严厉的。在低的收入国家方面的农场主尽力增大生产。在这些农场主身上发生的对太阳没有关心，或者到地球，或者对季风和扫地球上的风的行为。农场主的庄稼在被昆虫和害虫吞吃的恒定的危险里。自然是敌视农场主的努力的数千个种类的主人，特别是低的收入国家。我们在高收入国家已经忘记阿尔弗雷德·马歇尔的智慧，当他写时，"知识是生产的最大功率的发动机；它使我们能够征服自然并且满足我们的需求。"

*我感激加里·S.贝克尔，A.C.Harberger，D.大风约翰逊和T.保罗舒尔茨适合有帮助建议关于这纸的前草稿。弥尔顿·弗里德曼的我的欠债为他的艰苦的expositional意见特别大。我也感激我的妻子，埃丝特·舒尔茨，因为我思考的被清楚说明的她的坚持不够清楚。1.对于一个更充分的讨论来说，看见我的"关于农业的经济学和政治"，在西奥多·W.舒尔茨，版本，农业奖励，布卢明顿的变形里：印地安纳大学出版社，1978，第3-23页。从诺贝尔演讲，经济学1969-1980，编辑Assar林德贝克，世界科学发表公司，新加坡，1992.

太棒了太棒了太棒了太棒了太棒了太棒了太棒了太棒了太棒了

原文: AbstractWe consider a political economy with two partisan parties; each party represents a givenconstituency of voters. If one party (Labour) represents poor voters and the other (ChristianDemocrats) rich voters, if a redistributive tax policy is the only issue, and if there are noincentive considerations, then in equilibrium the party representing the poor will propose atax rate of unity. If, however, there are two issues – tax policy and religion, for instance –then this is not generally the case. The analysis shows that, if a simple condition on thedistribution of voter preferences holds, then, as the salience of the non-economic issueincreases, the tax rate proposed by Labour in equilibrium will fall – possibly even to zero –even though a majority of the population may have an ideal tax rate of unity. ? 1998Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved.Keywords: Political economy; Ideological parties; Political equilibriumJEL classi?cation: D72

---

译文: AbstractWe与两个同党者聚会考虑一门政治经济学； 双方代表投票者的givenconstituency。 如果一个党(劳动)描述贫穷的表决电路和另一个(ChristianDemocrats)为丰富的表决电路， 一张重新分配的税收政策是唯一的问题，有noincentive 考虑， 描述穷人将提议atax 团结的比率的聚会的然后平衡。 如果，不过，有两个问题 - 例如，税收政策和宗教 - 然后这不一般是情况。 如果在投票者偏爱的thedistribution上的简单条件举行，分析显示那， 然后，作为非经济issueincreases的salience，平衡劳动提出的税率将下降 - 也许甚至对零 - 即使超过人口一半可能有一个团结的理想的税率。 ? 1998Elsevier 科学S.A. 全部权利reserved.Keywords： 政治经济学； 思想上聚会； 政治equilibriumJEL classi吗？ 阳离子： D72

－－－－－

只有几个词，大致上能说明在讨论什么：贫穷、税率、权利

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-5-16 22:32:42编辑过]

不错的翻译,以为多加努力会更好!

抱歉，是“华建多语言翻译引擎翻译结果”。本人的英文当年就没学好，又早已还给老师了。

J.Roemer的论文太专业，电脑译不出来。找几个关键字，能知道大致的讨论范围，已经知足了。否则，没有机器翻译，恐怕连关键字都很难找。

我也谢谢楼上各位