外文翻譯--考察城鄉(xiāng)收入差距

1、<p>　　2200單詞，11900英文字符，3468漢字</p><p>　　出處：Christofides C A, Neelakantan P, Behr T. Examining the Rural-Urban Income Gap[J].</p><p>　　本科畢業(yè)論文外文翻譯</p><p><b>　　考察城鄉(xiāng)收入差距</b

2、></p><p>　　院（系、部）名 稱 ： 財經(jīng)學(xué)院 </p><p>　　專 業(yè) 名 稱： 財務(wù)會計教育 </p><p>　　學(xué) 生 姓 名： </p><p>

3、;　　學(xué) 生 學(xué) 號： </p><p>　　指 導(dǎo) 教 師： </p><p>　　2010年 11 月 10 日</p><p>　　Examining the Rural-Urban Income Gap</p><p>　　C.

4、A. Christofides, Pats Neelakantan, Todd Behr</p><p>　　There is an income gap between rural and urban Pennsylvania, and, since the 1980s, this gap has been growing. These are just some of the findings from re

5、search, completed in 2005, which looked at 30 years of data from the U. S. Census Bureau, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the Pennsylvania Departments of Revenue, Labor and Industry, Education, Health, Welfare,

6、 and Community and Economic Development.</p><p>　　To learn if there is a measurable income gap between and within Pennsylvania’s rural and urban counties and to identify the causes of the gap, if it in fact

7、existed, the researchers set out to identify and analyze factors affecting income growth in rural Pennsylvania and to compare rural income growth with urban income growth.</p><p>　　The researchers found that

8、, in 2001, the per capita income in rural Pennsylvania was $23,941, while the per capita income in urban Pennsylvania was $32,578: this $8,637 per capita income gap between rural and urban Pennsylvania had increased sinc

9、e the 1980s. The researchers also found that certain factors, such as educational attainment, workforce participation, and national economic trends, tended to affect income growth in rural Pennsylvania. Other research fi

10、ndings were that: the income gap b</p><p>　　To close the rural urban income gap, the researchers recommended focusing efforts to increase educational attainment and rural labor force participation.</p>

11、<p>　　In 1991, the Center for Rural Pennsylvania published a report entitled “The Widening Rural-Urban Income Gap: Past Trend or Forecast for the 1990s.” This report noted a $4,700 income gap between rural and ur

12、ban areas and the steady increase in the gap during the 1980s.</p><p>　　This research, which was completed in 2005, revisited the earlier study and found that the income gap between rural and urban Pennsylva

13、nia is still present and continues to increase. The research also looked at the causes of the income gap and factors that have caused the gap to increase.</p><p><b>　　FINDINGS</b></p><

14、p>　　Income gap exists between Pennsylvania’s rural and urban counties</p><p>　　Within Pennsylvania, incomes were not evenly distributed. In 2001, 17 percent of the total personal income within the state w

15、as found in rural counties and 83 percent was in urban counties. Nearly one half of the income in the state was found in six counties: Allegheny, Philadelphia, Montgomery, Chester, Delaware, and Bucks.</p><p&g

16、t;　　Even on a per capita basis, incomes were not evenly distributed. In 2001, the per capita income in Pennsylvania rural counties was $23,941, while in urban counties the per capita income was $32,578, or $8,637 higher.

17、 Within Pennsylvania, the highest per capita incomes were in Montgomery, Chester, and Bucks counties, each with incomes in excess of $38,900. The lowest per capita incomes were found in Tioga, Greene, and Huntingdon coun

18、ties, where the per capita income was less than $20,500.</p><p>　　Nationally, there was a similar pattern in income disparity. In 2001, 16 percent of total personal income was in rural counties and 84 percen

19、t was in urban counties. The disparity in incomes is further illustrated by the fact that 50 percent of the total income in the U.S. can be found in only 100 of the more than 3,000 counties nationwide.</p><p&g

20、t;　　Income gap has grown between Pennsylvania’s rural and urban counties</p><p>　　Per capita incomes in rural and urban counties increased between 1969 and 2001. Meanwhile, there has been a persistent gap in

21、 per capita income between Pennsylvania’s rural and urban counties. In 1969, there was a 19 percent gap between rural and urban per capita incomes, and over the next 32 years, that gap widened to 25 percent. </p>

22、<p>　　Total personal income initially grew faster in rural counties relative to urban counties between 1969 and 2001, decreasing the gap early on. However, most of the rural growth occurred between 1969 and 1979, af

23、ter which rural income growth slowed while urban income growth accelerated. In addition, urban counties have been losing population while rural counties have been gaining population. This increase in the rural population

24、, along with the slower personal income growth rates, has depressed rur</p><p>　　Shift in sources of income</p><p>　　According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, personal income comes from

25、 three different sources: wages and salary; interest, dividends and rent (investments); and transfer payments. Wages and salary are referred to as “earned income,” while dividends, interest, and rent, and transfer paymen

26、ts, such as unemployment compensation, pensions, and Social Security, are considered unearned income. As Figure 3 shows, about 62 percent of rural income comes from earned sources and 38 percent come fro</p><p

27、>　　Over time, the percentage of income from earned sources has declined while income from unearned sources has increased., In 1969, nearly 78 percent of all rural income came from earned sources; however, by 2001, thi

28、s percentage dropped to less than 62 percent. Urban areas, and the nation as a whole, have also experienced a similar income shift.</p><p>　　This shift does not mean that wages have declined. Instead, it sug

29、gests that unearned sources of income have become more prominent. For example, between 1969 and 2001, 40 percent of the increase in income was attributed to growth in unearned income.</p><p>　　Per capita inc

30、ome changes</p><p>　　Between 1969 and 2001, per capita income in Pennsylvania’s rural counties increased 645 percent, not adjusted for inflation. Among the state’s urban counties there was a 710 percent incr

31、ease. The counties with the highest increase were Bucks, Centre, Chester, and Montour, each with an increase of more than 800 percent. </p><p>　　Income distribution within counties</p><p>　　To e

32、stimate the distribution of income within each county, the researchers used the Gini coefficient, which is widely used to measure the degree of household income inequality by using a value that ranges between 0 and 1. A

33、value of 0 means that incomes within a group are distributed equally, while a value of 1 means that incomes are distributed unequally.</p><p>　　Factors influencing the rural-urban income gap</p><p

34、>　　National economy </p><p>　　The size of the income gap is sensitive to national economic trends. Before the 1981-1982 recession, the gap between rural and urban per capita incomes was, on average, 17 pe

35、rcent. After this recession, the gap increased to an average of 23 percent. The change in rural Pennsylvania’s per capita income closely follows changes in the national gross domestic produce (or GDP). The GDP represen

36、ts the dollar value of all final goods and services produced in the U.S. in a year. During prosperous year</p><p>　　The econometric model used in the research suggests that every $1 billion increase in GDP c

37、ontributes to an 86-cent increase in the income gap between rural and urban Pennsylvania. Between 1969 and 2001, the nation’s GDP increased by $9.2 trillion while the gap between rural and urban per capita incomes increa

38、sed by nearly $7,900.</p><p>　　Population change</p><p>　　Total personal income in rural Pennsylvania grew at a faster rate than the population. Between 1969 and 2001, the population in rural Pe

39、nnsylvania increased 17 percent, while total personal income increased nearly 770 percent. During the same period, the population in urban Pennsylvania increased only 2 percent while total personal income increased 725 p

40、ercent. Although the rural population grew more rapidly, the growth of rural total personal income did not keep pace, and this helped to depress</p><p>　　Shift in employment and wages</p><p>　　B

41、oth rural and urban counties in Pennsylvania have seen significant declines in manufacturing employment between 1969 and 2000 and a large increase in service employment. This pattern also occurred nationally. The shift i

42、n employment was mirrored by a shift in earnings. In 1969, 36 percent of all earnings came from manufacturing jobs, and only 12 percent came from service jobs. Thirty-one years later, manufacturing earnings accounted for

43、 24 percent of all earnings and service earnings accounted </p><p>　　Despite its decline, manufacturing is still the largest income source for residents in rural counties. However, it is important to note th

44、at, unlike personal income data, which is recorded by place of residence, employment and earnings data are recorded by place of work.</p><p>　　The effect of the employment and earning shift from manufacturin

45、g to service on the rural-urban income gap was very small. The employment and earning shift affected both rural and urban Pennsylvania at roughly the same time. As a result, this shift was not primarily responsible for t

46、he widening income gap between rural and urban areas. In addition, though many believe that manufacturing jobs pay more than service jobs, many manufacturing jobs, such as those in the textile industry, pay relativel<

47、/p><p>　　Questions may arise as to whether the differences in the cost of living or local taxes affect the income gap.</p><p>　　The cost-of-living index measures the amount of money needed to buy s

48、pecific goods and services. According to 1993 and 2000 Center for Rural Pennsylvania reports, the difference in the cost of living between rural and urban Pennsylvania is less than 10 percent. That means that only 19 per

49、cent of the income gap is mitigated by cost-of-living differences.</p><p>　　Finally, the study analyzed if local county taxes, including real estate taxes, per capita or occupation taxes, hotel and sales tax

50、es, and personal property taxes had any impact on net earnings per capita and investment income per capita. The results showed that local taxes have no significant effect on either type of income. Since local taxes are o

51、nly a minor part of an individual’s total taxes, it is not surprising that such taxes are somewhat insignificant.</p><p>　　Conclusions and Considerations</p><p>　　Statistical measurements of the

52、 per capita income gap between rural and urban counties in Pennsylvania show that the gap is real and has grown.</p><p>　　Specifically, the gaps growth over the last two decades reflects the high-paced total

53、 income growth in urban counties and the population growth in rural counties.</p><p>　　All three sources of income--net earnings, investment income and transfer payments-- have grown faster in urban counties

54、 than in rural counties.</p><p>　　National economic trends have contributed to the growth in the income gap. As the nation’s economic expanded, it caused greater rates of growth for urban counties than for r

55、ural counties. In addition, national cost-of-living increases widened the already existing rural-urban income gap even further. This trend showed signs of diminishing when Census 2000 data were added.</p><p>

56、;　　Income inequality has increased within every Pennsylvania county, but it is interesting to note that income inequality is greater within urban counties. Statistics indicate that income inequality has also increased at

57、 the national level over the same period.</p><p>　　Education has been the most important variable affecting county per capita income, specifically earned income. In particular, the number of persons with a

58、college education proved to be one of the most significant contributors to county income growth.</p><p>　　Counties whose residents have a higher median age appear to enjoy higher per capita income. This is c

59、onsistent with the idea that older people have acquired more advanced skills and experiences, which lead to higher productivity and income. Counties with higher unemployment and larger percentages of the

60、population living in poverty have lagged behind other counties in earned income growth, but have experienced a faster growth in transfer payments.</p><p>　　Local taxes have no significant effect on county in

61、come.</p><p>　　Counties with a higher labor force participation rate also have higher per capita income. This labor force participation gender, and marital status, as well as the migration of an educated rur

62、al workforce to urban areas. This factor became less significant when the Census 2000 data were added.</p><p>　　Counties with an older population, greater population density and greater amounts of financial

63、capital enjoyed greater amounts of investment income.</p><p>　　The variables that affected urban income growth were not significantly different from the variables that affected rural county income growth. Na

64、tional trends, education, age, labor force participation, income inequality, and population density all contributed to both urban and rural income growth.</p><p>　　To close the rural urban income gap, the re

65、searchers made two suggestions. First, there should be more focus on closing the educational gap between rural and urban counties. This could be accomplished by making higher education more accessible to those in rural c

66、ounties and by giving more attention to developing strategies that will add college graduates to the rural workforce. Second, efforts should be made to increase rural labor force participation. This study has shown that

67、the labor force p</p><p><b>　　考察城鄉(xiāng)收入差距</b></p><p><b>　　摘 要</b></p><p>　　在賓夕法尼亞州存在城鄉(xiāng)收入差距，并且自從20世紀(jì)80年代，這個差距一直在增長，這只是一些來自完成于2005年的研究結(jié)果。其中，有來自美國人口普查局，經(jīng)濟(jì)分析局，賓夕法尼亞

68、州稅收部門，勞動局，教育局、衛(wèi)生局、福利局、社區(qū)和經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展部門30年的數(shù)據(jù)。要了解在賓夕法尼亞州城鄉(xiāng)之間是否有收入差距，想要明白引起這個差距的原因，并且證明這是個確實(shí)存在的問題，研究人員開始著手分析研究影響賓夕法尼亞州收入增長和城鄉(xiāng)收入差距的因素。研究人員發(fā)現(xiàn)，在2001年，賓夕法尼亞州的農(nóng)村年均收入為23941美元，而城市年均收入為32578美元，這8637美元的城鄉(xiāng)收入差距自1980年就開始增長了。研究人員還發(fā)現(xiàn)，某些因素，例如教育

69、程度、勞動力因素、國家經(jīng)濟(jì)趨勢，往往都是影響賓夕法尼亞州收入增長的因素。其他的研究結(jié)果如下：上層和下層居民的收入差距出現(xiàn)在每個賓夕法尼亞州家庭。影響城市收入增長的變量也同樣影響著農(nóng)村，稅收在某種意義上影響著賓夕法尼亞州的個人收入。為了減小城鄉(xiāng)收入差距，研究人員建議重點(diǎn)努力提高人民教育程度和農(nóng)村勞動力。</p><p>　　關(guān)鍵詞：城鄉(xiāng)收入差距；教育程度；勞動力</p><p>　　1991

70、年，賓夕法尼亞州農(nóng)村公布的“拓寬的城鄉(xiāng)收入差距：對于20世紀(jì)90年代的預(yù)測”，這份報告指出了城鄉(xiāng)之間4700美元的收入差距并且這個差距在20世紀(jì)80年代就開始穩(wěn)步上升。</p><p>　　這項研究是在2005年完成的，重新審議了早先的研究，收入差距在賓夕法尼亞州的城鄉(xiāng)之間依然存在著并且呈增加趨勢，這項研究還發(fā)現(xiàn)了引起收入差距增大的因素。</p><p><b>　　一 調(diào)查結(jié)果

71、</b></p><p>　　賓夕法尼亞州的城鄉(xiāng)之間確實(shí)存在著收入差距。</p><p>　　在賓夕法尼亞州，收入并不均勻。2001年，經(jīng)調(diào)查國家內(nèi)部個人收入總額中農(nóng)村占17%，而城市占83%，國家將近一半的收入在六個城市：阿勒格尼，費(fèi)城，蒙哥馬利，切斯特，特拉華州和雄鹿。</p><p>　　即使在一個層次上，人均收入分布也不均勻。2001年，賓夕法尼

72、亞州的鄉(xiāng)村人均收入是23941美元，而城市人均收入是32578美元，平均高出8637美元。賓夕法尼亞州人均收入最高的城市是蒙哥馬利，切斯特和雄鹿，他們的人均收入超過38900美元；泰奧加、格林和亨廷頓的人均收入最低為20500美元。</p><p>　　在全國范圍內(nèi)，有一個類似的城鄉(xiāng)收入差距。2001年，總收入的16%在農(nóng)村而84%在城市地區(qū)。收入的差距被美國總收入的50%僅僅在100個而不是全國范圍內(nèi)的3000

73、個城市的事實(shí)得到進(jìn)一步的證明。</p><p>　?。ㄒ唬┵e夕法尼亞州的城鄉(xiāng)收入差距在增大</p><p>　　城鄉(xiāng)人均收入在1969年到2001年間增加，與此同時，賓夕法尼亞州的城鄉(xiāng)之間收入差距已經(jīng)持續(xù)增加。1969年，城鄉(xiāng)之間的人均收入差距為19%，在未來的32年中，這一差距擴(kuò)大到25%。</p><p>　　在1969年和2001年，鄉(xiāng)村的個人總收入相對于城市

74、增長的速度快，早期這個差距是呈降低趨勢。然而，大多數(shù)農(nóng)村收入的增長發(fā)生在1969年到1979年。從那以后，農(nóng)村收入的增長在放慢，而城市收入的增長卻在加速。另外，城市人口在減少，而農(nóng)村人口在增加，農(nóng)村人口的增加伴隨著緩慢的收入增長，使得農(nóng)村的人均收入相對于城市來說降低了。</p><p>　　（二）收入來源的改變</p><p>　　根據(jù)美國分析局的統(tǒng)計，個人收入有三個不同的來源：工資和薪金

75、，利息，股息和租金（投資）和轉(zhuǎn)移支付。工資薪金被稱為“勞動收入”，而股息、利息、租金、轉(zhuǎn)移支付，如失業(yè)救濟(jì)金，退休金和社會保險被認(rèn)為是不勞而獲的收入。</p><p>　　隨著時間的推移，勞動收入百分比已經(jīng)下降，而非勞動收入的百分比來源已經(jīng)增加。在1969年，將近78%的農(nóng)村收入來自于勞動收入，但是在2001年這種比例下降到了不足62%。城市地區(qū)同樣的也經(jīng)歷了同樣的收入來源的轉(zhuǎn)移。</p><

76、p>　　這種轉(zhuǎn)變并不意味著工資的下降。相反的，它表明非勞動收入更加明顯。例如，在1969年到2001年，40%的收入的增長來自于非勞動收入的增長。</p><p>　?。ㄈ┤司杖氲淖兓?lt;/p><p>　　在1969年到2001年，在不考慮通貨膨脹因素的情況下，賓夕法尼亞州的鄉(xiāng)村人均收入增加了645%。本州的城市地區(qū)人民收入的增長率為710%，增幅最高的縣是雄鹿，中心，切斯特以及

77、蒙圖爾，每個城市都增加了800%多。</p><p>　　（四）城市收入的分配</p><p>　　為了估計每個縣城的收入分配，研究者使用了基尼基數(shù)，被廣泛的用來0和1之間的范圍來衡量家庭收入的不平等程度。0值表明收入分配是平等的，而1值表明收入分配不公平。</p><p>　　二 城鄉(xiāng)收入差距的影響因素</p><p><b>　

78、?。ㄒ唬﹪窠?jīng)濟(jì)</b></p><p>　　城鄉(xiāng)收入差距大小對于國家經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展趨勢是敏感的，1981—1982年經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退前，城鄉(xiāng)收入差距是均衡的為17%，在此之后的經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退期，平均差距增長到23%。賓夕法尼亞州的農(nóng)村人均收入變化緊隨著全國國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值的變化而變化。國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值代表了美國一年的最后商品以及服務(wù)產(chǎn)業(yè)總價值。在繁榮期，農(nóng)村收入增加，在不景氣期，農(nóng)村收入下降。這表明，賓夕法尼亞州農(nóng)村收入與國家

79、經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展趨勢有關(guān)。</p><p>　　計量經(jīng)濟(jì)模型研究中建議，國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值每增加1億美元就會導(dǎo)致86沒分的城鄉(xiāng)收入差距。在1969年至2001年，國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值增加將近九萬二千億美元，而城鄉(xiāng)人均收入差距增加了將近7900美元。</p><p><b>　?。ǘ┤丝谧兓?lt;/b></p><p>　　賓夕法尼亞州農(nóng)村個人收入總額增長速度超過人口增

80、長的速度。從1969年到2001年，賓夕法尼亞的農(nóng)村人口增加將近770%，而同一期間，美國賓夕法尼亞州的城市人口增加只有2%，而個人總收入增加了725%。雖然農(nóng)村人口增長速度很快，但是他們的個人收入總額并沒有跟上步伐，這有助于降低農(nóng)村相對于城市的人均收入。</p><p>　　（三）轉(zhuǎn)移的就業(yè)和工資</p><p>　　在1969到2000年間，賓夕法尼亞州的城鄉(xiāng)制造業(yè)都有明顯的下降趨勢，

81、而服務(wù)業(yè)大規(guī)模的增長起來，并且全國都發(fā)生這樣的情況。</p><p>　　就業(yè)的轉(zhuǎn)變映射到了轉(zhuǎn)變的收入。1969年，36%的收入來自于制造業(yè)，只有12%來自于服務(wù)業(yè)。31年以后，制造業(yè)僅占全部收入的24%，而服務(wù)業(yè)占到了22%。在城市里也有相同的轉(zhuǎn)變。盡管制造業(yè)在下降，但是對于農(nóng)村而言仍然是最大的收入來源。然而，值得注意的是，不像個人所得稅一樣，這是由居住地的居民記錄的就業(yè)率和盈利數(shù)據(jù)。</p>&

82、lt;p>　　就業(yè)和收入效應(yīng)的轉(zhuǎn)變，從制造業(yè)向服務(wù)業(yè)的轉(zhuǎn)變對于城鄉(xiāng)收入差距影響是很小的。在同一時間，就業(yè)和收入轉(zhuǎn)移影響了城鄉(xiāng)收入，因此，這種轉(zhuǎn)變并非是造成城鄉(xiāng)日益增加的差距的主要原因。此外，雖然很多人認(rèn)為制造業(yè)的工作薪酬比服務(wù)業(yè)多，但是很多制造業(yè)，例如梧桐那些紡織工業(yè)，支付的工資相對比較低；而服務(wù)性工作，例如那些在教育和衛(wèi)生保健部門，工資相對較高。此外，職位、工齡和教育程度等其他一些因素都會影響工資結(jié)構(gòu)。因此，制造業(yè)向服務(wù)業(yè)的轉(zhuǎn)變

83、并不意味著收入會受到影響。</p><p>　　（四）生活費(fèi)用和地稅是出現(xiàn)問題并且引起收入差距的因素</p><p>　　生活費(fèi)用指數(shù)能夠衡量購買必需品和享受服務(wù)所需要的金錢數(shù)量。根據(jù)1993年到2000年賓夕法尼亞農(nóng)村的報道，城鄉(xiāng)之間的消費(fèi)差距小于10%，這就意味著僅僅有19%的收入差距是由于生活費(fèi)用的差距造成的。</p><p>　　最后，研究分析，如果當(dāng)?shù)氐牡?/p>

84、稅，包括房地產(chǎn)稅，個人所得稅，消費(fèi)稅，個人財產(chǎn)稅對于人均凈投資收益和人均收入沒有影響。結(jié)果顯示，地稅無論在哪方面對于收入都沒有影響，因為地稅僅僅是個人總稅收的一小部分，其實(shí)這并不奇怪，這種稅收是很微不足道的。</p><p><b>　　三 結(jié)論與思考</b></p><p>　　在賓夕法尼亞州統(tǒng)計測量的城鄉(xiāng)之間的人均收入差距表明，差距是真是的、不斷增大的。</

85、p><p>　　具體來說，城鄉(xiāng)收入差距的不斷增長反映了城市收入的高速增長和鄉(xiāng)村人口的增長。</p><p>　　收入的三來源：凈盈利，投資收益和轉(zhuǎn)移支付—在城市比鄉(xiāng)村增長的快。</p><p>　　國家經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展趨勢助長了城鄉(xiāng)收入差距。隨著國家經(jīng)濟(jì)的增長，也引起了城市的收入速度高于農(nóng)村。另外，生活費(fèi)的增加也使城鄉(xiāng)收入差距進(jìn)一步加劇，這一現(xiàn)象在2000年人口普查時得到下降趨

86、勢的數(shù)據(jù)。</p><p>　　收入不平等出現(xiàn)在每一個賓夕法尼亞州的鄉(xiāng)村。但有趣的是，城市之間的收入不平等現(xiàn)象更嚴(yán)峻，統(tǒng)計資料顯示，收入不平等現(xiàn)象上升到國家級別。</p><p>　　教育一直是影響城市人均收入的重要變量，更重要的是，受到良好教育的一部分人是鄉(xiāng)村收入增長的重要貢獻(xiàn)者。</p><p>　　在農(nóng)村，中年人擁有較高的個人收入。相同的，年長者擁有先進(jìn)的技術(shù)

87、和經(jīng)驗，這導(dǎo)致很好的生產(chǎn)效率和收入。</p><p>　　農(nóng)村擁有較高的失業(yè)率，有相當(dāng)數(shù)量的人們落后于其他人處于貧窮中，并且經(jīng)歷了一個較快的轉(zhuǎn)移收入。</p><p>　　地方稅對于農(nóng)村的收入并沒有重要影響。</p><p>　　農(nóng)村勞動力多也就會使農(nóng)村有較高的收入，在農(nóng)村這種勞動力人口參與率是受人口特征影響的，例如：性別、婚姻以及遷移狀況。</p>

88、<p>　　在鄉(xiāng)村，有經(jīng)驗的、大的人口密度以及大量的金融資金就伴隨更多的投資收益。</p><p>　　影響城市收入的變量與影響鄉(xiāng)村的變量不同。國家趨勢，教育，年齡，勞動力參與率，收入不平等，以及人口密度等等都會影響城鄉(xiāng)收入差距。</p><p>　　為了減小城鄉(xiāng)差距，研究人員提出兩個建議。首先，應(yīng)該把重點(diǎn)放在減小城鄉(xiāng)之間的教育差距，這應(yīng)該需要通過鄉(xiāng)村居民比城市居民更要注重高等教