the three gaps—— the race social watch the 2009 gender equity index … · 2010-03-03 · that...
TRANSCRIPT
We measure the gender gap in the following indicators:• Literacy rate • Enrolment rate in primary education• Enrolment rate in secondary education• Enrolment rate in tertiary education
sourcE: unesco WEbsitE databasE (WWW.uis.unEsco.org), 2009.
Education is the sphere in which the gender equity gap has narrowed the most and in which more progress has been made. Yet, no country has reached the maximum value in this dimension. some 83 (41%) of the 202 countries observed are in the better
situation and another 60 (30%) are above average. However, of the 173 countries for which it was possible to evaluate recent evolution the relative situation has worsened in 80 and there has been severe regression in 29, so overall some 63% of countries have regressed and in just over 16% the situation has remained unchanged.
When we take a broad geographical perspective we find that the most problematic regions in absolute terms are sub-saharan africa and south asia where 80% of the countries are below the average. in relative terms the least equitable region, where gender polarization is more extreme in the education area, is south asia, where there are no countries in the slightly favourable situation (i.e. somewhat above the average).
the estimation of the gender gap in economic activity is based on the gender gap in the following indicators.• rate of economic activity• Estimated perceived income
sourcE: unesco WEbsitE databasE (WWW.uis.unEsco.org), 2009.
tHE empowerment gap
tHE gap in economIc ActIVItY
tHE gap in eDucAtIon
the gender Equity index 2009 computed by social Watch shows that the gender gap is not narrowing in most countries and a majority of the countries that show progress are those that were already comparatively better. the distance between the countries and regions in the better and worse relative situations has widened in the last years. in education and economic activity the situation of women has globally improved, but when it comes to empowerment some 15% of countries have regressed over the past year, and this has been so severe that the average global value of this indicator fell from 35% in 2008 to 34.5% in 2009.
sweden and Finland still have the highest values on the gender Equity index. rwanda, which for years has figured among the most equitable countries in terms of gender, has moved up to third place, overtaking germany and norway and the bahamas has risen from sixth to fifth.
the gEi makes it very clear that differences in income between countries are not directly correlated to gender inequity. Many poor countries have reached high levels of equity, even when the absolute situation of both women and men is one where too many live in poverty. on the other hand, in many countries that have acceptable average social indicators these satisfactory figures mask the fact that there are huge gaps between men and women.
a bad gender equity situation is associated with regression whereas a good starting situation favours progress: of the countries in the worse relative situation more than half (51.6%) regressed (slightly or severely), while more than half (77.1%) of those in a comparatively better situation made progress (slight or significant). this shows a structural and dynamic polarization in which, for the most part, the countries with higher equity index tend to evolve favourably, regardless of whether they are rich or poor or in what region they are located, while countries with higher levels of gender discrimination tend to get worse in this respect. in terms of regions, the paradigm examples of this polarization are Latin america and the caribbean on the one hand and East asia and the pacific on the other.
SOCIAL WATCH GENDER EQUITY INDEX 2009no progrEss tHErE WHErE it is nEEdEd tHE Most
of the 163 countries considered, 96 (59%) regressed slightly or severely and only 63 (39%) made progress. When we consider the proportion of countries that have progressed against the far higher proportion that have regressed it is evident that a process of geographic polarization is taking place, and the region worst affected is sub-saharan africa.
in some countries women participate in the labour market less today than they did five years ago, and this is reflected in a relative decrease in women’s average income since 2004. on the other hand there are countries where women’s participation in the labour market (excluding agriculture) is growing, and this is paralleled by a relative increase in women’s income when compared to men’s. this is an equity gap that is wider or narrower in different regions.
the estimation of empowerment is based on the following indicators:• % of women in technical positions• % of women in management and government positions• % of women in parliament • % of women in ministerial level positions
sourcEs: unesco WEbsitE databasE (WWW.uis.unEsco.org), 2009.
Ipu databasE (WWW.ipu.org) , 2009.
Women continue to be under-represented in decision making. Even in the countries in the better relative situation women have still not achieved parity with men in empowerment. in the countries in the worse relative situation there are two diverg-ing trends. since 2008 there has been a slight improvement in wom-en’s participation in the professions, the legislature, and high official and management positions, but the values show that these countries are still a very long way from acceptable levels of equity. in the last two indicators on the list, the percentages of women in parliament and in ministerial positions, the average values among countries in the worse relative situation have fallen alarmingly since 2008 (from 8.3 to 5.4 and from 9.6 to 6, respectively).
010
2030
4050 60
70 80 90 100
906034
The race to gender equity
eDucAtIon. Education is tHE diMEnsion in WHicH tHE gEndEr EquitY gap Has sHrunk Most. tHE probLEMs tHat rEMain to bE ovErcoME in Education arE LEss sEvErE tHan in tHE EMpoWErMEnt and EconoMic activitY diMEnsions.
economIc ActIVItY. tHE progrEss tHat Was MadE in 2008 in gEndEr Eq-uitY in EconoMic activitY Was aLL but WipEd out in 2009.
empowerment. it is in accEss to dEcision-Making spacEs and tHE ExEr-cisE oF poWEr tHat inEquitY bEtWEEn MEn and WoMEn is Most EvidEnt. in no countrY do WoMEn HavE tHE saME opportunitiEs as MEn to par-ticipatE in EconoMic and sociaL dEcision-Making procEssEs. HoWEvEr, in tHE Last 15 YEars proMising progrEss Has bEEn MadE in EquitY oF ac-cEss to poLiticaL poWEr in tHE WidEst sEnsE oF tHE tErM.
in the world as a whole the gender gap in education is far narrower than the gaps in the other gender equity dimensions. While prog-ress has been made in empowerment – mainly in terms of women’s increased participation in politics – the overwhelming majority of countries in the world have not attained minimum acceptable levels because the starting points have been so low. as to economic par-ticipation, the overall situation has worsened since 2008 and a high percentage of countries have actually regressed.
Sub-saharan Africa
Middle East & North Africa
Latin American & Caribbean
Europe & North America
South Asia
East Asia & Pacific
Central Asia
Luxembourg
KuwaitSingapore
Bahrain
Saudi ArabiaSpain
Finland
Bahamas
RwandaPhilippines
GENDER EQUITY INDEX
GD
P PE
R C
APIT
A ($
)
Côte d’Ivoire0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
20000
40000
60000
80000
Yemen
Sweden
Qatar
Norway
United States of America
MyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMy
GeI
EquaLitY is not Just about incoMEincoME is not tHE onLY variabLE tHat dEtErMinEs gEndEr EquitY or tHE Lack oF it. countriEs tHat arE as Far apart in pEr capita incoME as sWEdEn and rWanda or tHE pHiLippinEs and spain HavE vErY siMiLar vaLuEs on tHE gEi. a HigH gdp doEs not autoMaticaLLY MakE For an accEptabLE LEvEL oF gEndEr EquitY, WHiLE it is EquaLLY truE tHat countriEs WitH LoW gdp MaY rank HigH WHEn it coMEs to gEndEr EquitY. tHis sHoWs tHat EquaLitY in tHE structurE oF opportunitiEs in a sociEtY is a goaL tHat Must and can bE pursuEd rEgardLEss oF EconoMic poWEr.
ay
social Watch developed the gender Equity index (gEi) to make the gender inequities more visible and to monitor the evolution in the different countries of the world. the gEi is based on information available that can be compared internationally, and it makes it possible to classify countries and rank them in accordance with a selection of gender inequity indicators in three dimensions, education, economic participation and empowerment.
in most societies men and women are assigned different responsibilities, rights, benefits and opportunities in the activities they perform, in access to control of resources and in decision-making processes.
in order to measure inequities we have established the proportions or ratio between the sexes in different indicators. this is used as a basis for inferring the structure of opportunities and so countries can be compared in an agile way that is direct and intuitive. What the gEi measures is the gap between women and men, not their well-being. For example, a country in which young men and women have equal access to a university education receives a value of 100 on this particular indicator, and a country in which boys and girls are equally barred from completing primary education would also be awarded a value of 100. this does not mean that the quality of education does not need to be improved; it just establishes that, in this case, girls education is not inferior than that of boys.
the way the gEi is calculated is a response to the need to reflect all situations that are unfavourable to women. When there is a situation in which women are at a proportional disadvantage with respect to men, the gEi does not reach its maximum value of 100 points. the final value on the index depends on the degree of negative inequity for women prevailing in a given country or region regardless of whether there may also be inequities that are positive for women (that is to say negative for men).
in 2009 some 156 countries were classified on the gEi using the most recent available values in the three dimensions of gender equity estimation. this is done by comparing their 2009 values with those for 2005. the number of countries considered in each of these three dimensions was not the same because of lack of available data, which is not homogenous among all countries. a country for which no data in available in one of the dimensions can be integrated into the partial analysis of the other dimensions.
Measuring inequity: the 2009 Gender Equity Index
MyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMy
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
73 73
68
534945
80
92 949999
100
6265
35
1920
47
61 5957
24
35 37
30
North America
Europe
Latin American & Caribbean
East Asia & Pacific
Central Asia
90 90
Middle East & North AfricaSouth AsiaSub-saharan AfricaWorld
(N.A.)
(E.)(L.A.&C)
(E.A.&P)(W.)
(C.A.)
(S.S.A.)
(S.A.)(M.E.&N.A.)
EDUCATION ECONOMIC ACTIVITY EMPOWERMENT
GEI regional averageby component
Better off does not mean more empowered, or the other way around
Women’s levels of empowerment do not depend on a country’s level of
wealth; a high level of economic development does not necessarily lead
to gender equity. In all the regions of the world, with the marked excep-
tion of North America, there are countries that are deficient in the em-
powerment dimension. Even in Europe there are countries in the worse
relative and below average situations. There are also some countries
that are classed by the World Bank as high income in which women
are relatively deprived in terms of access to power, such as Japan (59
points) and the Czech Republic (53 points). Also, while the proportion of
women in positions to make decisions and influence state policy may
be increasing, and thus paving the way towards gender equity, there are
still structural limitations, above all those of cultural origin, that may
hamper, impede or even reverse progress in this area.
——THE THREE GAPS——
Situation andevolution of the GEI components.
Number of countries progressing and regressing
Number of countriesaccording to situation
MyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMy
ECONOMICACTIVITY
ECONOMICACTIVITY
GEI COMPONENTS
BY LEVEL
RECENT EVOLUTION
OF THE GEI BY
COMPONENTS (2004-2009)
MyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMy
EDUCATION
Significant progress 19 41 129 Slight progress 13 16 7Without variation 25 4 4Slight regression 71 18 3Severe regression 24 70 14
89 43 3521 42 4231 39 4016 33 40
EMPOWERMENT
EDUCATION EMPOWERMENT
Better situationAbove averageBelow averageWorse situation
1009998979695949392019089888786858483828180797877767574737271706968676665646362616059585756555453525150494847464544434241403938373635343332313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210
51
61
71
68
71
66
41
55 6351
48
74
Severeregression
Significantprogress
Slightregression
Withoutvariation
Slightprogress
61
SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
MIDDLE EAST & NORTH AFRICA
LATIN AMERICAN & CARIBBEAN
EUROPE & NORTH AMERICA
SOUTH ASIA
EAST ASIA & PACIFIC
CENTRAL ASIA
NO DATA ON VARIATION
INDIA
CHINA
xabeijingprueba2.indd 1 05/02/2010 11:21:20
MAD
E POSSIB
LE THAN
KS TO TH
E FUN
DIN
G AN
D SU
PPORT
OF TH
E EURO
PEAN U
NIO
N AN
D O
XFAM N
OVIB
.
47
44CHAD
42
45
43
46
44
45
47
44
47
49
47
51
50
51
49
53
5454
54
5353
60
55
56
58
71
58
59
60
6464
64
67 75
71
84
41 IND
IA
43
51
53
58
61
30
44
45
47D
JIBO
UT
I
46
47
43
47
46
5048
54
50
53
54
73
51
52
56
61
60
61
62
63 65
66
68
6767
68
69
70
68
7070
72
70
72
69
75
76
79
55
58
61
62
65
66
65
67
65
68
69
70
65
70
71
73
72
71
72
75
73
70
73
69
7474
7575
77
76
77
78
79
78
83
84
88
66
55
53
66EAST
TIM
OR
58
62
59
63
68C
HIN
A
7070
74
75
76
75
78
46
52
57
60
70
71
39
RW
AND
A
NAM
IBIA
BO
TSW
ANA
MO
ZAMB
IQU
E
MAU
RIT
IUS
TAN
ZANIA
ZIMB
ABWE
ZAMB
IA
SENEG
AL
GAB
ON
ETH
IOPIA
BU
RK
INA FASO
CAPE V
ERD
E
MALI
SWAZILAN
D
GU
INEA-B
ISSAU
SAO T
OM
E AN
D PR
INC
IPESAM
OA
NIG
ER
EQU
ATO
RIAL G
UIN
EA
ERIT
REA
CO
NG
O, R
EP.
NIG
ERIA
CEN
TR
AL AFRIC
AN R
EP.
SUD
AN
SIERR
A LEON
E
BEN
IN
TO
GO
CÔ
TE D
'IVO
IRE
RU
SSIANFED
ERAT
ION
AZERB
AIJAN
TU
RK
EY
HO
NG
K
ON
G
TH
AILAND
SING
APOR
E
JAPAN
CAM
BO
DIA
VANU
ATU
ARM
ENIA
BO
SNIA AN
D H
ERZEG
OV
INA
KO
REA R
EP.
IND
ON
ESIA
SWED
EN
FINLAN
D
NO
RW
AY
GER
MAN
Y
DEN
MAR
K
NET
HER
LAND
S
LITH
UAN
IA
SPAIN
LATV
IAC
ANAD
A
USA
U.K
.
SLOVAK
IA
BU
LGAR
IA
UK
RAIN
E
ESTO
NIA
AUST
RIA
RO
MAN
IA
HU
NG
ARY
POLAN
D
SLOV
ENIA
CZEC
H R
EPUB
LIC
MAC
EDO
NIA
ITALY
GEO
RG
IA62
SWIT
ZERLAN
D
LUX
EMB
OU
RG
MALT
A
ALBAN
IA
BAH
AMAS
CO
LOM
BIA
UR
UG
UAY
ST LU
CIA
TR
INIT
Y AND
T
OB
AGO
BR
AZIL
CO
STA
RIC
A
CH
ILE
JAMAIC
A
GU
YANA
ST V
INC
ENT
AN
D G
REN
ADIN
ES
MEX
ICO
IRAN
ALGER
IA
SYRIA
QAT
AR
TU
NISIA
OM
AN
LEBAN
ON
SAUD
I AR
ABIA
JOR
DAN
BAH
RAIN
47SO
LOM
ON
IS.
KU
WAIT
LAOS
MO
RO
CC
O
EGYPT
YEMEN
MALD
IVES
BAN
GLAD
ESH
PAKIST
AN
74
4949 52
60 61
58
72
Severe regressionSignificant progress
Slight regressionW
ithout variationSlight progress
SOU
TH
AFR
ICA
VIET
NAM
CR
OAT
IABELG
IUM
FRAN
CE
POR
TU
GAL
ARG
ENT
INA
ECU
ADO
R
ISRAEL
KYR
GYZST
ANM
ON
GO
LIA
PANAM
A
CU
BA
PERU
IRELAN
DH
ON
DU
RAS
EL SALVADO
R
UG
AND
APAR
AGU
AY
BO
LIVIA
VEN
EZUELA
LESOT
HO
BU
RU
ND
I
CYPR
US
GR
EECE
DO
M.R
EP.
BELAR
US
BELIZE
MAU
RIT
ANIA
GU
ATEM
ALA
UN
ITED
ARAB
EMIR
ATES
NEPAL
NEW
ZEALAND
AUST
RALIA
PHILIPPIN
ES
ICELAN
D
MO
LDO
VA
BAR
BAD
OS
KEN
YA
GH
ANA
ANG
OLA
UZB
EKIST
AN
MALAYSIA
SUR
INAM
E
SRI
LANK
A
CAM
ERO
ON
GAM
BIA
TAJIK
ISTAN
NIC
ARAG
UA
Sub-saharan Africa
Middle East &
North Africa
Latin American &
Caribbean
Europe & N
orth America
South Asia
East Asia & Pacific
Central Asia
No data on variation
Significant progress
Slight progress
Slight regression
Severe regression
50,000,000 People
10,000,000 People
< 5,000,000 People
REFER
ENC
ES
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
Empow
erment
Economic Activity
Education
NETH
ERLAND
SN
EW
ZEALAND
ICELAN
DG
ERMAN
YD
ENM
ARKB
AHAM
ASN
ORW
AYRW
AND
AFIN
LAND
SWED
EN
6571
96
59
76
9799
79
55
73 68
94
61
79
98 8181
98 8282
96
8585
88
7979
99 8484
96
YEMEN
CÔ
TE D
'IVOIRE
IND
IAB
ENIN
SUD
ANPAKISTAN
CH
ADEG
YPTEQ
UATO
RIAL G
UIN
EASAU
DI
ARAB
IA
6
3449
15
38
64
3737
78
18
5554
1229
86
13191834
7675
46 98
49
74
1525
9196
The Best 10
The Worst 10
© ITEM
2009, SOC
IAL WATC
H, W
WW
.SOC
IALWATC
H.O
RG
PHO
NE: +598(2) 902 0490. FAX: +598(2) 902 0490 EXT 113
ICODEMON.COM
SOC
IAL W
ATC
H
GEN
DER
EQU
ITY
IND
EX 2009
EV
OLU
TIO
N SIN
CE
2004
Severe regressionSignificant progress
Slight regressionW
ithout variationSlight progress
EV
OLU
TIO
N SIN
CE
2004
THE IN
TERNATIO
NAL SEC
RETARIAT OF SO
CIAL W
ATCH
ALSO
RECEIVES FU
ND
ING
AND
SUPPO
RT FROM
THE FO
RD FO
UN
DATIO
N
AND
THE C
OALITIO
N O
F THE FLEM
ISH N
ORTH
SOU
TH M
OVEM
ENT - 11.11.11.
THE C
ON
TENTS O
F THIS PU
BLIC
ATION
ARE THE SO
LE RESPON
SIBILITY
OF SO
CIAL W
ATCH
AND
CAN
IN N
O W
AY BE TAKEN
TO REFLEC
T THE VIEW
SO
F THE EU
ROPEAN
UN
ION
, OXFAM
NO
VIB, TH
E FORD
FOU
ND
ATION
OR TH
E CO
ALITION
OF TH
E FLEMISH
NO
RTH SO
UTH
MO
VEMEN
T 11.11.11.
xabeijingprueba2.indd 2 05/02/2010 11:21:22