Men play dice at a market in Naypyidaw, Myanmar, in February. Myanmar has one of the world's fastest-growing economies. (Taylor Weidman/Bloomberg)

Everyone wants economic growth, right? It's part of every politician's package of promises. Expanding economies make people richer, and study after study shows that the wealthier lead happier, healthier lives.

Yet in recent years, accumulating evidence suggests that rising incomes and personal well-being are linked in the opposite way. It seems that economic growth actually kills people.

每个人都希望经济增长，对吗？这是每一个政客的承诺包的一部分。扩大经济使人们更富裕，研究后的研究表明，富裕的导致更快乐，更健康的生活。

然而，近年来，越来越多的证据表明，收入上升和个人幸福是以相反的方式联系在一起的。似乎经济增长实际上是在扼杀人们。

Christopher Ruhm, an economics professor at the University of Virginia, was one of the first to notice this paradox. In a 2000 paper, he showed that when the American economy is on an upswing, people suffer more medical problems and die faster; when the economy falters, people tend to live longer.

Christopher Ruhm，弗吉尼亚大学经济学教授，是第一个注意到这个悖论的学者。在2000年的论文中，他指出，当美国经济在不断上升，人们遭受更多的医疗问题，并死的更快；当经济衰退，人们往往活得更长。

“It’s very puzzling,” says Adriana Lleras-Muney, an economics professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. “We know that people in rich countries live longer than people in poor countries. There’s a strong relationship between GDP and life expectancy, suggesting that more money is better. And yet, when the economy is doing well, when it’s growing faster than average, we find that more people are dying.”

“这是非常令人费解，”Adriana Lleras Muney说，（加利福尼亚大学洛杉矶分校经济学教授）。“我们知道，富裕国家的人民比贫穷国家的人活得更久。GDP和预期寿命之间有很强的关系，这表明更多的钱是更好的。然而，当经济运行良好时，当它的增长速度比平均水平快，我们发现，更多的人死亡。”

In other words, there are great benefits to being wealthy. But the process of becoming wealthy — well, that seems to be dangerous.

换言之，富裕是有很大的好处，但成为富有的过程，这似乎是危险的。

Lleras-Muney and her colleagues, David Cutler of Harvard and Wei Huang of the National Bureau of Economic Research, believe they can explain why. They have conducted one of the most comprehensiveinvestigations yet of this phenomenon, analyzing over 200 years of data from 32 countries. In a draft of their research, released last week, they lay out something of a grand unified theory of life, death and economic growth.

Lleras Muney和她的同事大卫·卡特勒魏皇，哈佛和美国国家经济研究局，相信他们可以解释为什么。他们进行了一项最综合的调查，针对这个现象，分析了超过200年的来自32个国家的数据。在上周发表的一个研究草案中，他们展示了一个大的统一的生命、死亡和经济增长理论。

To start, the economists confirm that when a country's economic output — its GDP — is higher than expected, mortality rates are also higher than expected.

开始，经济学家证实，当一个国家的经济产出-GDP高于预期时，死亡率也高于预期。

The relationship is clear, but the size of the effect is modest. In a year when the GDP is about 5 percent above trend — which is a respectable boom (think dot-com, not post-WWII) — adults are about 1 percent more likely to die.

关系很清楚，但效果的大小不是很显著。在一年内，GDP增长高于百分之5以上的趋势-可以认为是一个受人尊敬的繁荣（想想.com时代，非二战后时代）-成年人是约1%更可能死亡。

Rising fortunes haven't always been linked to increasing mortality. Data from less-developed nations show that in places where farming is still the main economic activity, growth is associated with better, not worse health. The same is true when you look backward in history, before many countries fully industrialized. For instance, economists José Granados and Edward Ionides have shown that in the Sweden of the 1800s, economic growth was associated with longer lives — but in the 1900s, the relationship reversed, and growth became associated with death.

上升的命运并不总是与增加死亡率。来自欠发达国家的数据显示，在农业仍然是主要的经济活动的地方，增长与更好，而不是更糟糕的健康。同样是真实的，当你回顾历史时，在许多国家完全工业化之前。例如，经济学家乔斯é格拉纳多斯和Edward Ionides已经表明，在19世纪的瑞典，经济增长与长寿相关的，但在1900后，关系开始逆转，并生长成为与死亡。

The turning point, Lleras-Muney and her colleagues say, comes when the wealth of societies increasingly starts to depend on factory output. They believe that pollution is a major culprit in increased mortality rates. To show this, they used data on carbon dioxide emissions, which are correlated with industrial activity and air pollution.  

Lleras Muney和她的同事们说，当社会财富越来越开始依赖工厂输出，转折点随之而来。他们认为污染是增加死亡率的一个主要原因。为了显示这一点，他们使用的二氧化碳排放量的数据，这是与工业活动和空气污染。

There's a common misperception, Lleras-Muney says, that pollution is a problem of the past in advanced industrialized countries such as the United States. But around the world, these relationships largely hold today.

有一个普遍的误解，Lleras Muney说，污染是在先进的工业化国家如美国过去的问题。但在世界各地，这些关系在很大程度上保持今天。

The data show that when economies are growing particularly fast, emissions and pollution are also on the rise. After controlling for changes in air quality, the economists find that economic growth doesn’t seem to impact death rates as much. “As much as two-thirds of the adverse effect of booms may be the result of increased pollution,” they write.

数据显示，当经济增长特别快，排放量和污染也在上升。在控制了空气质量的变化后，经济学家发现，经济增长似乎并没有影响死亡率一样多。“由于繁荣的三分之二的不利影响可能是增加污染的结果，”他们写道。

This helps to explain why children seem to be particularly harmed by economic expansions — or benefit from recessions. The first years of life are precarious. Studies have shown that the very young are highly sensitive to pollution. Economists Kenneth Chay and Michael Greenstoneestimate that the 1981-1982 oil shock recession may have saved as many as 2,500 infant lives in the United States, just through the slight reductions in air pollution caused by the reduced economic activity.

这有助于解释为什么儿童似乎特别受到经济扩张的伤害-或从经济衰退中受益。生命的最初几年是不稳定的。有研究表明，非常年轻的人对污染非常敏感。经济学家Kenneth Chay和Michael Greenstoneestimate，1982年石油危机经济衰退可能已经在美国保存多达2500个婴儿的生命，只是通过轻微的减少经济活动造成的空气污染减少。

A booming economy spurs death in other ways too. People start to spend more time at their jobs, exposing them to occupational hazards, as well as the stress of overwork. People drive more, leading to an increase in traffic-related fatalities. People also drink more, causing health problems and accidents. In particular, the economists’ data suggest that alcohol-related mortality is the second-most important explanation, after pollution, for the connection between economic growth and death rates.

蓬勃发展的经济也以其他方式刺激着死亡。人们开始花更多的时间在他们的工作，使他们暴露于职业危害，以及过度工作的压力。人们开车越来越多，导致交通事故死亡人数增加。人们也喝多了，造成健康问题和事故。特别是，经济学家的数据表明，与酒精相关的死亡率是第二个最重要的解释，污染后，经济增长率和死亡率之间的关系。

This is consistent with other studies finding that people are more likely to die right after they receive their tax rebates. More income makes it easier for people to pay for health care and other basic necessities, but it also makes it easier for people to engage in risky activities and hurt themselves.

这是与其他研究相一致的发现，人们更可能死的权利后，他们收到他们的退税。更多的收入使人们更容易支付医疗保健和其他基本必需品，但它也使人们更容易从事危险的活动，并伤害自己。

Does all this evidence mean that we should celebrate recessions and fear economic expansions? Well, no.

所有这些证据都意味着我们应该庆祝经济衰退和经济扩张吗？当然不！！！

In the short term, or when the economic fluctuations are small, the harmful effects of growth dominate. But in the long term, or when the economic fluctuations are big, those harms are counterbalanced by the positive effects of having more income.Cutler, Huang and Lleras-Muney find that particularly large recessions (think the Great Depression) are still bad for people’s health, and particularly large booms (think the 1950s in America) lead to longer lives. It’s best to think about economic growth as a double-edged sword. On one hand, it leads to more pollution and risky behavior; on the other hand, the additional income allows people to invest in education and health, which yields tremendous payouts, just not always right away.

在短期内，或当经济波动小，增长的有害影响占主导地位。但从长期来看，当经济波动大，这些危害都被有更多的收入产生积极的影响。Cutler，黄和Lleras Muney发现，尤其是大萧条（认为大萧条）仍然对人们的健康是有害的，特别是大繁荣（认为美国50）导致更长的生命。最好把经济增长作为一把双刃剑。一方面，它会导致更多的污染和危险的行为；另一方面，额外的收入让人们投资教育和健康，从而产生巨大的支出，只是不一定马上。

“If the pollution doesn’t kill you in the short run, then in the long run the increased income will help you live longer,” Lleras-Muney says.

“如果污染不杀了你，在短期内，那么从长远来看，收入的增加将帮助你活得更长，”Lleras Muney说。

The lesson here is not to be wary of growth, but to manage the downsides. The economists find that countries with better social safety nets are particularly good at buffering their residents from the health consequences of booms and recessions. It may also be that these kinds of countries are stricter about managing pollution levels.

All of this research should have us thinking about inequality. If growth is not wholly good, we should pay attention to who secures its blessings and who suffers the health consequences. In the United States, the financial rewards of economic expansion have mostly accrued to those at the very top, while average Americans have faced decades of stagnant wages. The question is: Have the health consequences accrued to the bottom?

这里的教训不是要大家警惕增长，而是要管理经济增长带来的反面效应。经济学家们发现，有更好的社会安全网的国家特别擅长于缓冲由于经济繁荣和衰退对居民的健康状况带来的不利后果。也有可能是，这些国家对污染水平的管理更为严格。

所有这一切的研究都应该让我们思考不平等。如果成长不完全是好事，我们应该关注哪些人获得福利和哪些人遭受不利的健康后果。在美国，经济扩张的红利往往被上层人士独占，而平均美国人则面临着几十年的停滞的工资。问题是：底层人民就应该理所当然地承担由于经济增长带来的不利健康后果吗？

（为节省时间，基本是百度翻译，读者们凑活看吧，挺吓人的！王毅翔教授公布的曲线http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=2649160&do=blog&id=1008826可能与此有关，文革前进入成年的人可能健康更好，因为经济不发达，虽医疗不发达，但环境污染小，身体底子打的好，后面的人基本上是吃激素、农药和化工品长大的。）