长期以来,收入分配不公一直是困扰一些拉美国家的重要问题。由收入分配不公引起的政治分化和社会矛盾激化,成为影响拉美地区社会和谐和经济可持续发展的重大挑战。拉美地区如此严重的收入分配不公问题由来已久。在导致收入分配不公的诸多制度因素中,最根本的因素当属生产要素占有制度。拉美地区收入分配不公问题的最初产生,即与该地区历史上由大地产制造成的土地占有高度不平等存在密切关系。对生产要素占有的不平等决定了不同阶层政治地位的差异。拉美的工业化和城市化对生产要素在不同产业和地区间的分布产生了巨大影响,这也是导致如今拉美收入分配不公问题的重要原因。集聚性的工业化和城市化的确使主要拉美国家的经济得到较快增长,但地区间和城乡间的发展失衡却明显加剧。第一,工业集聚在形成现代化都市的同时,农村地区却被进一步边缘化。第二,即使在城市,工业化和城市化也同样带来严重的收入分配不公问题。第三,没有收入再分配的工业化。在经历80年代“失去的10年”之后,尚未摆脱债务危机阴影的拉美国家开始进入全面的新自由主义改革时期,由此也引起了新的收入分配不公问题。新自由主义改革带有强烈的反民族主义、反民众主义倾向。继大地产制之后,新自由主义改革开始了拉美历史上第二次对生产要素的大规模重新分配。新自由主义改革不仅改变了生产要素的分配,也彻底改变了经济的运行方式。经济运行方式的改变不可避免地对与收入分配密切相关的就业、税收、公共服务、社会保障、资产价格等产生影响。新自由主义改革使拉美国家收入分配不公的问题更加严重。中国与拉美国家都处于深刻全面的经济、政治和社会变革之中,尽管历史和文化背景不同,但中国和拉美国家在收入分配方面存在的客观因素并无差异,在建设和谐社会的过程中,中国可从拉美国家在处理收入分配问题的教训中得到一些启示:一是必须高度重视生产要素占有的公平;二是发展和改革模式至关重要;三是政府必须干预收入分配。 For a long time, the unfair distribution of income has always been an important issue that plagues some Latin American countries. The political polarization and the intensification of social conflicts caused by the unfair distribution of income have become major challenges that affect the social harmony and sustainable economic development in Latin America. Such a serious problem of unfair income distribution in Latin America lasted for a long time. Among the many institutional factors that cause unfair income distribution, the most fundamental factor is the ownership of production factors. The initial birth of the problem of inequitable income distribution in Latin America is closely linked to the high degree of inequality in land ownership in the region historically caused by large-scale real estate. The inequities in the possession of factors of production determine the differences in the political status of different classes. Latin America’s industrialization and urbanization have a huge impact on the distribution of factors of production in different industries and regions, which is also an important reason for the unfair distribution of income in Latin America. Agglomeration of industrialization and urbanization have indeed led to a rapid economic growth in the major Latin American countries, but there has been a marked increase in imbalances in development among regions and between urban and rural areas. First, while industrial agglomeration is forming a modern metropolis, rural areas are further marginalized. Second, even in urban areas, industrialization and urbanization have also brought about serious problems of income inequality. Third, there is no industrialization of redistribution of income. After experiencing the “lost 10 years” of the 1980s, the Latin American countries that have not emerged from the shadow of the debt crisis have begun to enter a period of full reform of neoliberalism, which has also caused new problems of injustice in income distribution. Neoliberal reform with a strong anti-nationalism, anti-populist tendencies. Following the great property system, the neoliberal reform started the second large-scale redistribution of factors of production in Latin America’s history. Neoliberal reform not only changed the distribution of factors of production, but also completely changed the mode of operation of the economy. Changes in the mode of economic operation inevitably have an impact on employment, taxation, public services, social security and asset prices that are closely related to income distribution. The neoliberal reforms have exacerbated the problem of unfair income distribution in Latin American countries. Both China and Latin American countries are in profound and comprehensive economic, political and social changes. Although historical and cultural backgrounds are different, there are no objective differences in income distribution between China and Latin American countries. In the process of building a harmonious society, China can get some enlightenment from Latin American countries in handling the problem of income distribution. First, we must attach great importance to the fairness of the ownership of production factors. Second, the development and reform model are of the utmost importance. Third, the government must intervene in the distribution of income.