en.m.wikipedia.org
Gender Inequality Index
The Gender Inequality Index (GII) is an index for measurement of gender disparity that was introduced in the 2010 Human Development Report 20th anniversary edition by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). According to the UNDP, this index is a composite measure to quantify the loss of achievement within a country due to gender inequality. It uses three dimensions to measure opportunity cost: reproductive health, empowerment, and labor market participation. The new index was introduced as an experimental measure to remedy the shortcomings of the previous indicators, the Gender Development Index (GDI) and the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM), both of which were introduced in the 1995 Human Development Report.
Countries by Gender Inequality Index (Data from 2019, published in 2020). Red denotes more gender inequality, and green more equality.[1]
Origins
As international recognition of the importance of eliminating gender inequality was growing, the Gender Development Index (GDI) and the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) were introduced in the 1995 Human Development Report. The GDI and GEM became the primary indices for measuring global gender inequality for the United Nations Human Development Reports. The GDI and GEM faced much criticism for their methodological and conceptual limitations.[2][3]
Beneria and Permanyer have explained that the GDI and GEM are not measurements of gender inequality in and of themselves. The GDI is a composite index which measures development within a country then negatively corrects for gender inequality; and the GEM measures the access women have to attaining means of power in economics, politics, and making decisions. Both of which Beneria and Permanyer claim are inaccurate in clearly capturing gender inequality.[4] According to the UNDP, the GDI was criticized for its inability to accurately measure gender inequality for its components being too closely related to the Human Development Index (HDI), a composite measure of human development used by the UNDP.[5]
Thus, the differences between the HDI and GDI were small leading to the implication that gender disparities were irrelevant to human development. The UNDP also claims that both the GDI and GEM were criticized because income levels had a tendency to dominate the earned income component, which resulted in countries with low income levels not being able to get high scores, even in cases where their levels of gender inequality may have been low. The GEM indicators proved to be more relevant to developed countries than less-developed countries. With international growing concern for gender equality, the participants of the World Economic Forum in 2007, among others, recognized that the advancement of women was a significant issue that impacted the growth of nations.[6]
As of 2006, the World Economic Forum has been using the Gender Gap Index (GGI) in its Global Gender Gap Reports, which ranks countries according to their gender gaps, in an attempt to better capture gender disparities.[7] Beneria and Permanyer criticize the GGI for only capturing inequality in certain aspects of women's lives therefore making it an incomplete measure of gender inequality.[4]
Given the amount of criticism the GDI and GEM were facing, the UNDP felt that these indices did not fully capture the disparities women faced. In an attempt to reform the GDI and GEM, the UNDP introduced the Gender Inequality Index (GII) in the 2010 Human Development Report.[5] The new index is a composite measure which, according to the UNDP, captures the loss of achievement due to gender inequality using three dimensions: reproductive health, empowerment, and labor market participation. The GII does not include income levels as a component, which was one of the most controversial components of the GDI and GEM. It also does not allow for high achievements in one dimension to compensate for low achievement in another.[5]
Dimensions
There are three critical dimensions to the GII: reproductive health, empowerment, and labor market participation. The dimensions are captured in one synthetic index, as to account for joint significance. According to the UNDP, none of the measures in the dimensions pertain to the country's development and therefore a less-developed country can perform well if gender inequality is low. The UNDP considers the dimensions complementary in that inequality in one dimension tends to affect inequality in another. Therefore, the GII captures association across dimensions, making the index association-sensitive, and ensuring that high achievement in one dimension does not compensate for low achievement in another dimension.[8]
Reproductive health
Permanyer notes that the GII is a pioneering index, in that it is the first index to include reproductive health indicators as a measurement for gender inequality.[3] The GII's dimension of reproductive health have two indicators: the Maternal Mortality Ratio (MMR), the data for which come UNICEF's State of the World's Children, and the adolescent fertility rate (AFR), the data for which is obtained through the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, respectively. With a low MMR, it is implied that pregnant women have access to adequate health needs, therefore the MMR is a good measure of women's access to health care. The UNDP expresses that women's health during pregnancy and childbearing is a clear sign of women's status in society.[8]
A high AFR, which measures early childbearing, results in health risks for mothers and infants as well as a lack of higher education attainment. According to the UNDP data, reproductive health accounts for the largest loss due to gender inequality, among all regions.[8]
Empowerment
The empowerment dimension is measured by two indicators: the share of parliamentary seats held by each sex, which is obtained from the International Parliamentary Union, and higher education attainment levels, which is obtained through United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and Barro-Lee data sets.[9] The GII index of higher education evaluates women's attainment to secondary education and above. Access to higher education expands women's freedom by increasing their ability to question and increases their access to information which expands their public involvement.[8]
There is much literature that finds women's access to education may reduce the AFR and child mortality rates within a country.[6][10] Due to data limitations the parliament representation indicator is limited to national parliament and excludes local government or other community involvement. Although women's representation in parliament has been increasing women have been disadvantaged in representation of parliament with a global average of only 16%.[8]
Labor market participation
The labor market dimension is measured by women's participation in the workforce. This dimension accounts for paid work, unpaid work, and actively looking for work. The data for this dimension is obtained through the International Labour Organization databases. Due to data limitations women's income and unpaid work are not represented in the labor market dimension of GII.[9] In the absence of reliable earned income data across countries, the UNDP considers labor market participation a suitable substitute for economic aspects of gender inequality.[2]
Calculations
The metrics of the GII are similar in calculations to the Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI), which was also introduced in the 2010 Human Development Report, and can be interpreted as a percentage loss of human development due to shortcomings in the included dimensions. The value of GII range between 0 and 1, with 0 being 0% inequality, indicating women fare equally in comparison to men and 1 being 100% inequality, indicating women fare poorly in comparison to men. There is a correlation between GII ranks and human development distribution, according to the UNDP countries that exhibit high gender inequality also show inequality in distribution of development, and vice versa.[8]
The GII is an association-sensitive, responsive to distributional changes across dimension,[3] composite index used to rank the loss of development through gender inequality within a country.[8] The GII measures inequalities by addressing the shortcomings of other measures through aggregate strategy using multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) in order to avoid aggregation problems.[6] There are five steps to computing the gender inequality Index.[8]
Step 1: Treating zeros and extreme values: The maternal mortality rate is truncated systematically at minimum of 10 and maximum of 1,000. The maximum and minimum is based on the normative assumption that all countries with maternal mortality ratios above 1,000 do not differ in their ability to support for maternal health as well as the assumption that all countries below 10 do not differ in their abilities. Countries with parliamentary representation reporting at 0 are counted as 0.1 because of the assumption that women have some level of political influence and that the geometric mean can not have a 0 value.
Step 2: Aggregating across dimensions within each gender group, using geometric means: Aggregating across dimensions for each gender group by the geometric mean makes the GII association-sensitive.​[8] The maternal mortality rate and the adolescent fertility rate are only relevant for females the males are only aggregated with the other two dimensions.
Step 3: Aggregating across gender groups, using a harmonic mean: To compute the equally distributed gender index the female and male indices are aggregated by the harmonic mean of the geometric means to capture the inequality between females and males and adjust for association between dimensions.
Step 4: Calculating the geometric mean of the arithmetic means for each indicator: Obtain the reference standard by aggregating female and male indices with equal weight, and then aggregating indices across dimensions.
Reproductive health is not an average of female and male indices but half the distance from the norms established
Step 5: Calculating the Gender Inequality Index: To compute the GII compare the equally distributed gender index from Step 3 to the reference standard from Step 4.
Changes in 2011 calculations
According to the UNDP there was a minor calculation change to the 2011 Gender Inequality Index from the 2010 index used. The maternal mortality ratio was calculated in the Gender Inequality Index at 10 even though the range of GII values should be between 0 and 1. To correct this the maternal mortality ratio is normalized by 10, which generally reduced the values of the GII. A trend for the GII has been calculated and can be found on the Human Development Reports website.
Rankings and loss due to gender inequality
As there is no country with perfect gender equality, all countries suffer some loss of human development due to gender inequality. The difference in dimensions used in the GII and HDI means that the GII is not interpreted as a loss of HDI, but has its own rank and value separate from the HDI.[5] The GII is interpreted as a percentage and indicates the percentage of potential human development lost due to gender inequality. The world average GII score in 2011 was 0.492, which indicates a 49.2% loss in potential human development due to gender inequality.[9] Due to the limitations of data and data quality, the 2010 Human Development Report calculated GII rankings of 138 countries for the year 2008. The 2011 Human Development Report was able to calculate the GII rankings of 146 countries for the reporting year 2011.[11]
Rankings
The 2019 rankings for all scored countries based on UNDP GII data are:
GII RankHDI RankCountryGII Value
12Switzerland0.025
210Denmark0.038
37Sweden0.039
48Netherlands0.043
414Belgium0.043
61Norway0.045
623Taiwan0.045
711Finland0.047
826France0.049
94Iceland0.058
1022Slovenia0.063
1123South Korea0.064
1223Luxembourg0.065
1211Singapore0.065
1418Austria0.069
1429Italy0.069
1625Spain0.070
1738Portugal0.075
1831United Arab Emirates0.079
1916Canada0.080
206Germany0.084
2133Cyprus0.086
2129Estonia0.086
232Ireland0.093
2419Japan0.094
258Australia0.097
2619Israel0.109
2648Montenegro0.109
2835Poland0.115
2932Greece0.116
2943Croatia0.116
3113United Kingdom0.118
3153Belarus0.118
3314New Zealand0.123
3434Lithuania0.124
3564Serbia0.132
3627Czechia0.136
3782Macedonia0.143
3873Bosnia and Herzegovina0.149
3985China0.168
4028Malta0.175
4137Latvia0.176
4269Albania0.181
4345Qatar0.185
4451Kazakhstan0.190
4539Slovakia0.191
4617United States0.204
4690Moldova0.204
4856Bulgaria0.206
4942Bahrain0.212
5052Russian Federation0.225
5140Hungary0.233
5274Ukraine0.234
5364Kuwait0.242
5481Armenia0.245
5543Chile0.247
56105Libya0.252
5640Saudi Arabia0.252
5658Barbados0.252
5962Malaysia0.253
6047Brunei0.255
6149Romania0.276
6255Uruguay0.288
62106Uzbekistan0.288
6262Costa Rica0.288
6595Tunisia0.296
65117Viet Nam0.296
6770Cuba0.304
6860Oman0.306
6854Turkey0.306
70125Tajikistan0.314
7199Mongolia0.322
7174Mexico0.322
7388Azerbaijan0.323
7367Trinidad and Tobago0.323
7546Argentina0.328
7661Georgia0.331
7758Bahamas0.341
7866Mauritius0.347
79104Tonga0.354
8079Thailand0.359
81111Samoa0.360
8295Maldives0.369
82120Kyrgyzstan0.369
8493Fiji0.370
85124El Salvador0.383
8686Ecuador0.384
8779Peru0.395
88101Jamaica0.396
89126Cape Verde0.397
9086Saint Lucia0.401
9072Sri Lanka0.401
92160Rwanda0.402
93114South Africa0.406
9457Panama0.407
9584Brazil0.408
9692Lebanon0.411
97110Belize0.415
98107Bolivia0.417
99129Bhutan0.421
100132Honduras0.423
10183Colombia0.428
101128Nicaragua0.428
10391Algeria0.429
104107Philippines0.430
10597Suriname0.436
106130Namibia0.440
107103Paraguay0.446
108116Egypt0.449
109102Jordan0.450
110142Nepal0.452
111121Morocco0.454
11288Dominican Republic0.455
113137Laos0.459
11370Iran0.459
115122Guyana0.462
116100Botswana0.465
117144Cambodia0.474
118147Myanmar0.478
119113Venezuela0.479
119127Guatemala0.479
121107Indonesia0.480
122151Syrian Arab Republic0.482
123131India0.488
124185Burundi0.504
125173Ethiopia0.517
126143Kenya0.518
127181Mozambique0.523
128119Gabon0.525
129150Zimbabwe0.527
130168Senegal0.533
131159Uganda0.535
132148Angola0.536
133135Sao Tome and Principe0.537
133133Bangladesh0.537
135138Ghana0.538
135154Pakistan0.538
137146Zambia0.539
138170Sudan0.545
139165Lesotho0.553
140163Tanzania0.556
141153Cameroon0.560
142174Malawi0.565
143138Eswatini0.567
144149Republic of the Congo0.570
145167Togo0.573
146123Iraq0.577
147182Burkina Faso0.594
148158Benin0.612
148172Gambia0.612
150175Democratic Republic of the Congo0.617
151157Mauritania0.634
152170Haiti0.636
153162Côte d'Ivoire0.638
154189Niger0.642
155182Sierra Leone0.644
156175Liberia0.650
157169Afghanistan0.655
158184Mali0.671
159188Central African Republic0.680
160187Chad0.710
161155Papua New Guinea0.725
162179Yemen0.795
Top ten countries
The ten highest-ranked countries in terms of gender equality according to the GII for 2008,[8] 2011,[11] and 2012.[12]
2018 rank and value, source: http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/table-5-gender-inequality-index-gii​.
2018: 9th is Iceland, 10th is Republic of Korea.
Ranking of other countries worth noting: Canada is no. 18, Australia is no. 25, China is no. 39 and United States is no. 42.
CountryGII Rank
(GII value) 2018
GII Rank 2012GII Value 2012HDI Rank 2012GII Rank 2011GII Value 2011GII Rank 2008GII Value 2008
Netherlands4 (0.041)10.045420.05210.174
Sweden2 (0.040)20.055710.04930.212
Denmark2 (0.040)30.0571530.06020.209
Switzerland1 (0.037)40.057940.06740.228
Norway5 (0.044)50.065160.07550.234
Finland7 (0.050)60.0752150.07580.248
Germany19 (0.084)70.075570.08570.240
Bulgaria48 (0.218)80.0821****
France8 (0.051)100.08320100.106110.260
Belgium6 (0.045)90.068****GHS
Countries not included[13][14]
CountryGII Rank 2012GII Value 2012HDI Rank 2012GII Rank 2011GII Value 2011GII Rank 2008GII Value 2008
Republic of China(Taiwan)20.0532340.06140.223
Bottom ten countries
The ten lowest ranked countries in terms of gender equality according to the GII for 2008,[8] 2011,[11] and 2012.[12]
2018 rank and value, source: http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/table-5-gender-inequality-index-gii​.
CountryGII Rank
(GII value) 2018
GII Value 2012HDI Rank 2012GII Rank 2011GII Value 2011GII Rank 2008GII Value 2008
Yemen162 (0.834)0.747160--------
Afghanistan143 (0.575)0.7121751410.7171340.797
Niger154 (0.647)0.7071861440.7241360.807
Congo156 (0.655)0.6811861420.7101690.814
Liberia155 (0.651)0.6581741390.6711310.766
Central African Republic159 (0.682)0.6541801380.6691320.768
Mali158 (0.676)0.6491821430.7121350.799
Sierra Leone153 (0.644)0.6431771370.6621250.756
Mauritania150 (0.620)0.643155--------
Criticisms
Although the GII is a relatively new index that has only been in use since 2010, there are some criticisms of the GII as a global measurement of gender inequality. The GII may inadequately capture gender inequality and leave out important aspects or include unnecessary dimensions. The GII is a complex indicator with many components that are difficult for some to interpret or calculate.
Complexity
Klasen and Schüler as well as Permanyer argue that the complexity of the GII will make it difficult to interpret or understand for the professionals who would likely want to make use of it because so many non-linear procedures are applied to the data.[3][15] Permanyer believes that simplicity is required in order for analysts, policy-makers, or practitioners to convey a clear message to the general public.[3]
Klasen and Schüler claim that the GII is meant to represent a loss of human development, but the standard against which the losses are measured is not stated anywhere, unlike the GDI where the losses were measured against the HDI, making the HDI represent perfect equality.[15] The UNDP explains that the complexity of the calculations are needed in order to maintain an association-sensitive measure, but Permanyer argues that alternative indices that are much less complex have also shown to be association sensitive.[3]
Mix of indices
Both Klasen and Schüler as well as Permanyer argue that the GII mixes indices in a few ways which furthers the complexity and poses other issues. The measurement combines well-being and empowerment which becomes problematic in that it increases the complexity, lacks transparency, and suffers from the problem of using an arithmetic means of ratios.[3][15] Permanyer argues that it also combines two different, absolute and relative, indicators within the same formula. For example, if the MMR is higher than 10 per 100,000 it is considered inequality. Yet, parliamentary representation is only considered inequality if there is a deviation from 50 percent. Therefore, if women and men fare equally in all dimensions the GII would not equal a zero value as it should. Permanyer gives an example for this problem:
Consider a hypothetical country with PRf = PRm, SEf = SEm, LFPRf = LFPRm and with the lowest MMR and AFR observed in the sample of countries for which data is available (MMR = 10, AFR = 3.8). In that case, that hypothetical country would have a GII value well above 0 (GII approximately 0.15).[3]
Regional relevance
Permanyer also criticizes the GII for whether or not its assessment of gender inequality, and uses of the same set of indicators, are equally relevant or meaningful across all regions of the Globe. For less-developed countries the use of the MMR and AFR in the dimension of reproductive health may be penalizing although the loss may not be entirely explained by gender inequality.[3] Less-developed countries performance in the reproductive health dimension may differ regionally or locally. Access to or use of health services can be influenced by socio-economic levels, public health policies, or social and cultural practices. In developed countries, specifically European countries, gender inequality levels are not very "robust to alternative specifications of gender-related indicators" and analysts and policy makers may choose specific methods to yield desired results.[3]
Choice of variables
Klasen and Schüler briefly criticize the GII for its failure to capture the informal work and unpaid domestic or care work where women are primarily over-represented. In many underdeveloped societies women and girls spend the majority of their time in domestic work whereas men and boys spend far less, if any.[10] Therefore, the if the GII lacks the capturing of the time women spend in unpaid labor, it is insufficient in capturing the true global disparities of women.[15]
See also
References
  1. ^ "Human Development Report 2020 - Table 5: Gender Inequality Index". United Nations Development Programme. 2020. Retrieved 2021-01-22.
  2. ^ a b Bardhan, K., and Klasen, S.(1999).UNDP's Gender-Related Indices: A Critical Review, World Development, 27:6, pp.985-1010
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Permanyer, I.,(2011). Are UNDP Indices Appropriate to Capture Gender Inequalities in Europe?, Social Indicators Research, pp. 1-24
  4. ^ a b Beneria, L., Permanyer, I.,(2010).The Measurement of Socio-economic Gender Inequality Revisited, Development and Change, 41:3, pp.375-399
  5. ^ a b c d United Nations Development Programme,(2011).​Gender Inequality Index FAQ
  6. ^ a b c Ferrant, G., (2010). The Gender Inequalities Index (GII) as a New Way to Measure Gender Inequalities in Developing Countries, SciencesNew York, pp.106-112
  7. ^ Hausmann, R., Tyson, L.D., Zahidi, S., (2006). "The Global Gender Gap Report 2006", World Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland
  8. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 2010; The Real Wealth of Nations, 2010
  9. ^ a b c United Nations Development Programme, Gender Inequality Index FAQ's, 2011
  10. ^ a b Hill and King, Women's Education and Economic Well-Being, Feminist Economics, 1995
  11. ^ a b c United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 2011; Sustainability and Equity, 2011
  12. ^ a b "Table 4 Gender Inequality Index 2012". United Nations Development Programme. Archived from the original on 3 January 2014. Retrieved 16 January 2014.
  13. ^ "我國HDI、GII分別排名全球第23位及第2位"​(PDF) (in Chinese). Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics. Retrieved 2013-12-26.
  14. ^ 台灣性別平等 2012排名全球第2, Liberty Times, 2014-09-23
  15. ^ a b c d Klasen and Schüler,Reforming the Gender-Related Development Index and the Gender Empowerment Measure: Implementing Some Specific Proposals Archived 2013-12-02 at the Wayback Machine, Feminist Economics, 17:1, 2011.
Last edited on 5 May 2021, at 06:37
Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted.
Privacy policy
Terms of Use
Desktop
HomeRandomNearbyLog inSettingsDonateAbout WikipediaDisclaimers
LanguageWatchEdit