Early-life adversities and support for income redistribution: An American paradox

This piece summarizes findings from a working paper by a research team including the authors.

本文总结了包括作者在内的研究团队的工作论文的发现。

I’ve always been a dreamer and dreams are special things.

我一直是一个梦想家，梦想是很特别的东西。

But dreams are of no value if they’re not equipped with wings.

但梦想如果没有翅膀就毫无价值。

So secure yourself for climbing, make ready for the flight.

因此，请确保攀爬安全，并为飞行做好准备。

Don’t let your chance go by, you’ll make it if you try.

不要让机会溜走，只要你努力，你就会成功。

Dolly Parton’s lyrics “You’ll make it if you try” capture the essence of the American Dream.

多莉·帕顿的歌词“You'll make it if you try”抓住了美国梦的精髓。

The conviction that hard work guarantees upward mobility has long defined American identity and helps explain why Americans typically support redistribution less than Europeans .

长期以来，人们坚信努力工作可以保证向上流动，这一信念定义了美国人的身份，并有助于解释为什么美国人通常比欧洲人更不支持再分配。

Yet today, the promise of the American Dream may be fraying.

然而今天，美国梦的承诺可能正在破灭。

Younger generations have fewer opportunities to get ahead than their parents did.

与父辈相比，年轻一代获得成功的机会更少。

Disillusionment has set in, and belief in the American Dream is plummeting not only among immigrants but also native-born Americans, especially the young .

幻灭已经开始，对美国梦的信心不仅在移民中急剧下降，而且在土生土长的美国人中，尤其是年轻人中，都在急剧下降。

While the rising economic prosperity of China and India has reduced global inequality , income and wealth inequality have risen sharply within many wealthy nations .

尽管中国和印度经济的日益繁荣减少了全球不平等，但许多富裕国家的收入和财富不平等却急剧加剧。

In the United States, the top 10% of the population’s share of total income grew from about 35% in 1980 to nearly 50% today .

在美国，最富有的 10% 人口占总收入的比例从 1980 年的约 35% 增长到如今的近 50%。

Meanwhile, the bottom 50% watched their share drop from 20% to less than 15%.

与此同时，底层 50% 的人的份额从 20% 下降到不到 15%。

Looking ahead, the rise of AI threatens to widen these income gaps even further.

展望未来，人工智能的兴起可能会进一步扩大这些收入差距。

Given these trends, over 80% of individuals in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a group of mostly rich countries, agree that income disparities are currently too large .

鉴于这些趋势，经济合作与发展组织（OECD）（主要由富裕国家组成）中超过 80% 的人认为目前收入差距过大。

Our own data analysis of surveys from 22 countries shows that views on government redistribution differ across the globe.

我们对 22 个国家的调查进行的数据分析显示，全球各地对政府再分配的看法存在差异。

Generally, people in low- and middle-income countries demand more redistribution than those in high-income countries, where redistribution is already higher.

一般来说，低收入和中等收入国家的人民比高收入国家的人民要求更多的再分配，而高收入国家的再分配已经较高。

Yet among wealthy nations, the U.S. stands out for significantly lower support for government redistribution than peers like Japan, the United Kingdom, and Germany (Figure 1).

然而，在富裕国家中，美国对政府再分配的支持明显低于日本、英国和德国等国家（图 1）。

In 2022–2023, just over 50% of Americans supported redistribution, and more than 30% explicitly opposed the idea that the government should reduce income differences.

2022-2023年，略高于50%的美国人支持再分配，超过30%的人明确反对政府应缩小收入差距的想法。

In other rich countries, opposition rarely exceeds 20% and often falls below 10%, while active support frequently reaches up to 80%.

在其他富裕国家，反对率很少超过20%，常常低于10%，而积极支持率往往高达80%。

Factors like national economic conditions, cultural norms, and institutional settings help explain these differences.

国家经济条件、文化规范和制度设置等因素有助于解释这些差异。

Individual circumstances and attitudes also matter: income, education, employment status, political ideology, and beliefs about social fairness and opportunities to move ahead (i.e., the American Dream) strongly shape redistributive preferences.

个人情况和态度也很重要：收入、教育、就业状况、政治意识形态以及对社会公平和前进机会（即美国梦）的信念强烈影响着再分配偏好。

In a recent working paper , we study a completely new factor: childhood circumstances.

在最近的一篇工作论文中，我们研究了一个全新的因素：童年环境。

We ask: Do people who experience adversities in childhood have lower or higher preferences for redistribution in adulthood?

我们要问：童年经历过逆境的人在成年后对重新分配的偏好是较低还是较高？

The World Health Organization estimates that up to 1 billion children between the ages of 2 and 17 experienced physical, sexual, or emotional violence or neglect in 2025.

世界卫生组织估计，到 2025 年，将有多达 10 亿 2 岁至 17 岁的儿童遭受身体、性或情感暴力或忽视。

Beyond the immediate trauma, these early adversities cast a long shadow over a person’s entire life.

除了眼前的创伤之外，这些早期的逆境还会给一个人的一生投下长长的阴影。

In the short term, they can severely impair cognitive development and trigger depression.

在短期内，它们会严重损害认知发展并引发抑郁症。

Over the long term, these experiences make survivors significantly more likely to drop out of school, struggle with unemployment, and face chronic health issues.

从长远来看，这些经历使幸存者更有可能辍学、失业并面临慢性健康问题。

But how are these adverse childhood circumstances related to preferences for redistribution?

但这些不利的童年环境与再分配偏好有何关系呢？

On one hand, several factors suggest early-life hardship should increase support for redistribution.

一方面，有几个因素表明，早年的困难应该会增加对再分配的支持。

First, adversity often leads to less economic security later in life.

首先，逆境往往会导致晚年的经济安全感下降。

Because people facing economic insecurity can directly benefit from public support, their material self-interest may naturally push them to demand stronger government safety nets.

由于面临经济不安全的人们可以直接从公共支持中受益，他们的物质自身利益自然会促使他们要求更强大的政府安全网。

Second, early misfortune can make people realize that luck and external circumstances often play a bigger role in success than pure effort.

其次，早期的不幸可以让人们意识到，运气和外部环境往往比纯粹的努力对成功发挥更大的作用。

Simply put, if people believe the system does not fairly reward hard work, they may be more likely to support redistribution.

简而言之，如果人们认为该制度没有公平地奖励辛勤工作，他们可能更有可能支持再分配。

Third, childhood disadvantage can lower a person’s expectations for future upward mobility.

第三，童年的不利条件会降低一个人对未来向上流动的期望。

If people do not expect to climb the income ladder, they are more likely to view redistribution as necessary.

如果人们不期望攀登收入阶梯，他们就更有可能认为重新分配是必要的。

Finally, a difficult upbringing can also foster strong community solidarity, which further increases support for redistribution.

最后，艰难的成长过程也可以促进强大的社区团结，从而进一步增加对再分配的支持。

On the other hand, childhood trauma can severely damage a person’s trust in both society and institutions.

另一方面，童年创伤会严重损害一个人对社会和机构的信任。

If people do not trust the government to distribute resources fairly, their support for state intervention plummets.

如果人们不信任政府公平分配资源，他们对国家干预的支持就会直线下降。

Furthermore, early hardship can sometimes make people more competitive over scarce resources rather than cooperative.

此外，早期的困难有时会使人们对稀缺资源更具竞争性，而不是合作性。

To empirically test this, we rely on a tried-and-true measure of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) that sums self-reported exposure to seven difficulties experienced while growing up.

为了实证检验这一点，我们依靠一种经过验证的不良童年经历 (ACE) 衡量标准，该衡量标准总结了自我报告的成长过程中经历的七种困难。

We use data from the first wave (2022–2024) of the Global Flourishing Study (GFS), a large-scale, multi-country longitudinal survey focusing on well-being.

我们使用全球繁荣研究 (GFS) 第一波（2022-2024 年）的数据，这是一项关注福祉的大规模多国纵向调查。

It covers 22 countries worldwide, including the U.S., and provides a sample representing over 60% of the global adult population.

它涵盖了包括美国在内的全球 22 个国家，并提供了代表全球成年人口 60% 以上的样本。

The GFS includes questions on abuse, feeling like an outsider, strained relationships with mother and father, parental separation, health issues, and household financial insecurity in childhood.

GFS 包括有关虐待、感觉自己像个局外人、与父母关系紧张、父母分居、健康问题以及童年时期家庭经济不安全等问题。

The resulting index scores individuals based on how many of these adversities they faced while growing up.

由此产生的指数根据个人在成长过程中面临的逆境数量对其进行评分。

The primary advantage of our dataset is its standardized design, which enables direct cross-country comparisons.

我们数据集的主要优点是其标准化设计，可以进行直接的跨国比较。

However, cultural norms around reporting such experiences, translation nuances, and the varying relevance of specific adversities across contexts could drive some of these cross-country differences.

然而，报告此类经历的文化规范、翻译的细微差别以及不同背景下特定逆境的不同相关性可能会导致一些跨国差异。

The U.S. emerges as an outlier once again, displaying higher childhood adversity scores than other high-income countries (Figure 2).

美国再次成为例外，其童年逆境得分高于其他高收入国家（图 2）。

The average American reports experiencing just over one childhood adversity, whereas averages in peer nations all remain below one.

美国人平均经历过一种以上的童年逆境，而同龄国家的平均水平仍然低于一种。

More than half of U.S. respondents report at least one adverse childhood experience (Figure 3).

超过一半的美国受访者表示至少有过一次不良的童年经历（图 3）。

Strikingly, almost 10% of Americans reported experiencing four or more adversities, nearly double the rate in the next-highest countries (Australia, Sweden, and Hong Kong).

引人注目的是，近 10% 的美国人表示经历过四种或更多逆境，几乎是排名第二的国家（澳大利亚、瑞典和香港）的两倍。

Across nearly every dimension of hardship, the U.S. reports the highest or near-highest rates of childhood adversity among wealthy nations.

在几乎所有的困难方面，美国的儿童不幸经历率都是富裕国家中最高或接近最高的。

The only exception is self-reported childhood health issues, where American rates remain comparable to peer countries.

唯一的例外是自我报告的儿童健康问题，美国的比率与其他国家相当。

Our country-level estimates align with previous findings.

我们的国家级估计与之前的发现一致。

While a simple look at these national averages might suggest that high rates of childhood hardship and low overall demand for redistribution go hand in hand, our individual-level analysis reveals the exact opposite (Figure 4).

虽然简单地看一下这些全国平均水平可能会表明，童年困难率高和重新分配的总体需求低是齐头并进的，但我们的个人层面分析却揭示了完全相反的情况（图 4）。

Exposure to early-life adversity is associated with stronger support for income redistribution in adulthood, and this association is stronger in the United States than in other high-income countries.

早年经历逆境与对成年后收入再分配的更强支持有关，这种关联在美国比其他高收入国家更强烈。

Experiencing one additional childhood adversity correlates with a 0.07 standard deviation increase in support for redistribution.

经历一次额外的童年逆境与对再分配的支持增加 0.07 个标准差相关。

Clearly, going from zero adversities to one is very different from going from six to seven.

显然，从零个逆境到一个逆境与从六个逆境到七个逆境有很大不同。

To account for this, we also compared anyone who faced one or more childhood adversities against those who faced none.

为了解释这一点，我们还将那些经历过一种或多种童年逆境的人与那些没有经历过逆境的人进行了比较。

We found that people who experienced at least one hardship show 0.19 standard deviations higher support for redistribution.

我们发现，经历过至少一种困难的人对再分配的支持率高出 0.19 个标准差。

This gap grows even larger for individuals who endured four or more adversities (0.23 standard deviations).

对于经历过四次或更多逆境的人来说，这种差距会更大（0.23 个标准差）。

When we group other wealthy nations and compare them to the U.S. results, the association remains positive but shrinks in magnitude.

当我们将其他富裕国家分组并将其与美国的结果进行比较时，这种关联仍然是积极的，但幅度有所缩小。

In these other high-income countries, people exposed to at least one adversity show only a 0.06 standard deviation higher preference for redistribution.

在这些其他高收入国家中，遭受至少一种逆境的人们对再分配的偏好仅高出 0.06 个标准差。

The pattern looks completely different in low- and middle-income countries (not shown), where our pooled estimates show no statistically significant association between childhood trauma and adult support for redistribution, with the relationship even turning negative in a few countries.

在低收入和中等收入国家（未显示），这种模式看起来完全不同，我们的汇总估计显示，童年创伤与成人对再分配的支持之间没有统计学上的显着关联，在一些国家，这种关系甚至变成了负值。

But why do these findings matter?

但为什么这些发现很重要呢？

Public preferences for redistribution shape policies that tackle inequality, and our research shows that childhood experiences are ultimately associated with those adult preferences.

公众对再分配的偏好决定了解决不平等问题的政策，我们的研究表明，童年经历最终与成人的偏好相关。

In five out of nine high-income countries, this pattern raises the possibility of a potential self-correcting mechanism.

在九个高收入国家中有五个国家，这种模式提出了潜在自我纠正机制的可能性。

Exposure to hardship seems to generate broader public support for state intervention.

陷入困境似乎会为国家干预带来更广泛的公众支持。

If this support encourages governments to expand welfare, education, and health programs, those policies could reduce childhood adversity in the next generation.

如果这种支持鼓励政府扩大福利、教育和卫生计划，这些政策就可以减少下一代的童年逆境。

In low- and middle-income countries, which typically struggle with higher baseline inequality , this mechanism does not seem to work.

在通常面临较高基线不平等的低收入和中等收入国家，这种机制似乎不起作用。

Because individuals exposed to trauma do not express higher preferences for government redistribution, potentially relying on informal family networks instead, politicians may not receive a clear electoral signal to strengthen formal safety nets.

由于遭受创伤的个人不会对政府的再分配表现出更高的偏好，而是可能依赖非正式的家庭网络，政治家可能不会收到明确的选举信号来加强正式的安全网。

The United States is a category of its own.

美国是一个独立的类别。

U.S. respondents report the highest incidence of childhood adversity among the wealthy nations polled in the GFS.

美国受访者表示，在 GFS 调查的富裕国家中，美国受访者童年不幸经历的发生率最高。

Yet, U.S. respondents also have the lowest overall demand for redistribution in our sample.

然而，在我们的样本中，美国受访者对再分配的总体需求也最低。

Ultimately, even as faith in the promise of the American Dream may be dwindling, the push for stronger government action to reduce income differences for those who experienced early-life hardship seems insufficient to overcome the country’s deep-rooted resistance to redistribution.

最终，尽管人们对美国梦承诺的信心可能正在减弱，但推动政府采取更强有力的行动来减少那些经历过早年生活困难的人的收入差距似乎不足以克服该国对再分配的根深蒂固的抵制。

Dolly Parton’s lyrics have a crucial line: “dreams are of no value if they’re not equipped with wings.” For any child, a stable, secure upbringing is crucial to strengthen those wings.

多莉·帕顿（Dolly Parton）的歌词中有一句至关重要的台词：“梦想如果没有翅膀，就没有价值。”对于任何孩子来说，稳定、安全的成长对于强化他们的翅膀至关重要。

Government investment in disadvantaged children and stronger social safety nets could help alleviate the long-term impacts of early adversity.

政府对弱势儿童的投资和更强大的社会安全网有助于减轻早期逆境的长期影响。

This raises a difficult question: How can a country historically skeptical of state intervention build public support for greater investment in disadvantaged children?

这就提出了一个难题：一个历来对国家干预持怀疑态度的国家如何才能赢得公众支持，加大对弱势儿童的投资？

The answer may lie in clearly communicating the scope of programs designed to support disadvantaged households, especially children.

答案可能在于明确传达旨在支持弱势家庭，特别是儿童的计划的范围。

Rather than framing redistribution solely as a way to reduce income gaps, reforms might build broader consensus if presented as social insurance against life’s hardships.

改革不应仅仅将再分配视为缩小收入差距的一种方式，如果将改革作为应对生活困难的社会保险，可能会建立更广泛的共识。

To put this into practice, policymakers could explicitly link tax-and-transfer schemes to preventing childhood adversity, or prioritize direct support that protects vulnerable households and ensures the next generation is truly equipped to escape poverty.

为了将其付诸实践，政策制定者可以明确地将税收和转移计划与防止儿童不幸联系起来，或者优先考虑直接支持，以保护弱势家庭并确保下一代真正有能力摆脱贫困。

The Brookings Institution is committed to quality, independence, and impact.

布鲁金斯学会致力于质量、独立性和影响力。

We are supported by a diverse array of funders .

我们得到了众多资助者的支持。

In line with our values and policies , each Brookings publication represents the sole views of its author(s).

根据我们的价值观和政策，布鲁金斯学会的每份出版物均代表其作者的唯一观点。

Caren Grown, Jerome De Henau, Laura Martinez, Ipek Ilkkaracan

卡伦·格朗、杰罗姆·德·哈诺、劳拉·马丁内斯、伊佩克·伊尔卡拉坎