1 / 20

Current Situation

UNDP‘s Gender- Related Human Development Measures : Problems, Issues , and a Constructive Proposal Stephan Klasen Universität Göttingen Amie Gaye, HDRO HDRO Workshop March 4, 2013. 1. Current Situation. UNDP‘s GDI and GEM never very successful :

manton
Download Presentation

Current Situation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. UNDP‘s Gender-Related Human Development Measures: Problems, Issues, and a ConstructiveProposalStephan KlasenUniversität GöttingenAmie Gaye, HDROHDRO WorkshopMarch 4, 2013 1

  2. Current Situation • UNDP‘s GDI and GEM neververysuccessful: • GDI oftenmisinterpreted, problematicearnedincomecomponent; cumulationofgaps in oppositedirections; • GEM drivenbyincomelevels (not gendershares) andpenaltyforinequalitycomplicatedand intransparent (plus toofew countries); • Alternative gendergapmeasures: • WEF, Social Watch, OECD‘s SIGI; • All rathercomplicatedand intransparent; • Still roomfor a good Gender-relatedindicator; • 2010 abandons GDI/GEM andcreates GII; • Switches concepttowelfarelossofgenderinequality;

  3. UNDP‘s Gender Inequality Index • Measureswelfarepenalty due togenderinequality • 5 components: laborforceparticipation, secondaryeducation, teenagepregnancymaternalmortality, parliamentaryseats; • Someseriousproblems: • Verycomplicated; • Intransparent (welfarepenaltywithrespectto ‚equalityindex‘ whichis not reported); impliedethicaljudgementsofwelfarepenalty not transparent; • Hardto understand andinterpretdriversof GII; • Mixes well-beingandempowerment (well-being versus agencyconcerns); • Mixesachievements (in maternalmortalityandteenagepregnancy) withgaps (in othercomponents); Poor countries cannot do well on GII regardlessofgendergaps! • No link to HDI;

  4. Proposal • Replace GII byreformed GDI and GEM; • Keep well-beingandempowermentconcerns separate; • GDI (called GGM): Geometricmeanof f/m ratiosofachievements in lifeexpectancy, education (yearsandschoollifeexpect.), andlaborforceparticipation; • Option tocap GGM at 1 (tofocus on gapsaffectingwomennegativelyandreduce ‚compensation‘); • Classic gendergapmeasure; • Clear link to HDI; • Easy tomeasureandinterpret; • Labor forceparticipationproblematic but betterthanearnedincomes (oremploymentorunemployment); • Substantial change in rankingscomparedto GII (esp. Transition countries andAfrica versus OECD andMiddle East);

  5. Gender EmpowermentMeasure • Measuresinequality in economicandpoliticalparticipationand power; • Some Problems: • Data availability; • Focus on elites? • Compensationissue? • Seriousproblemwithincomecomponent: gender-inequalityadjustedlevelsofincomes; levels, ratherthangapsdriveresults! • Last problemcanbecorrected (usingincomesharesratherthanrates).

  6. GEM • Same proposalasmade in Klasen and Schüler (2011); • Useindicatorsof GEM (parliamentaryrepresentation, gaps in skilledemployment, andearnedincomes); • Useincomesharesinsteadofharmonicmeanofincomelevels; • Straight-forwardgeometricmeanofratios; • Againonecouldcapat 1; • Rankings fundamentally different; • Issues: • Elite indicator? • Use post-secondaryeducation? • Poor countrycoverage;

  7. Conclusion • UNDP has not yetsucceeded in producing a gender-relateddevelopmentindicatorthatisclear, transparent, easy tointerpret, andlinkedto HD concept; • Alternatives are also weak, opportunityremainstopropose a soundmeasure; • GII on net not an improvementover GDI/GEM; • Reformed GDI and GEM mightbebetterwaytogo; • Woulddrasticallychangecountryrankings (in interestingways);

  8. Fixing the Gender Inequality Index: Strengths and weaknesses of new proposals Second Conference on Measuring Human Progress New York

  9. The GII unique-- incorporates indicators of reproductive health which are a result of entrenched gender discrimination: • Females have no autonomy over their body • Reproductive health services not sensitive to adolescent needs At the same time the GII suffers some conceptual and empirical limitations • Indicators measuring the reproductive health dimension—maternal mortality ratio and adolescent fertility--no male equivalents • Hard to differentiate between gender inequality and poor overall conditions (poor countries cannot score high on GII); • Equality benchmark differ by dimension; • Labour force participation rate neither accounts for gender segmentation of the labour market nor gender wage gap nor opportunity to be employed • The functional form-too complex to allow for easy policy interpretation HD Measurement Conference :: March4-5, 2013

  10. Proposed GGM and GEM Strengths • Simple, transparent and easy to interpret • Distinguishes between the concept of well-being and empowerment • Dimensions of the GGM are closer to the HDI than the GII Weaknesses GGM • issue with LFPR remains (data and conceptual issues) • Important dimensions are missing e.g. gender based violence, care economy, reproductive health issues GEM 3 • not addressing some of the limitations of GEM HD Measurement Conference :March 4-5, 2013

  11. Issues for discussion • Are there ways to improve the GII, or is a new start required? • Is the separation well-being versus empowerment useful? • How do we address the limitations of the proposed measures GGM and GEM3? • Different indicators (esp. employment and empowerment, post-secondary education?, reproductive health?); • What to do about limited country coverage (esp. a problem for GEM)? • How to improve employment data? HD Measurement Conference :March 4-5, 2013

More Related