Gender Empowerment Measure

Last updated April 10, 2024

The Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) is an index designed to measure gender equality. GEM is the United Nations Development Programme's attempt to measure the extent of gender inequality across the globe's countries, based on estimates of women's relative economic income, participation in high-paying positions with economic power, and access to professional and parliamentary positions. It was introduced at the same time as the Gender-related Development Index (GDI) but measures topics like empowerment that are not covered by that index. Since it was first adopted, the GEM has been employed in several academic studies related to empowerment as a reliable metric for comparing gender empowerment across different countries. It has also faced some harsh criticisms, and many alterations and alternatives have been proposed.

History

In 1995 in the Human Development Report commissioned by the United Nations Development Program set-out to create two new measurement indices for measuring development. Their aim was to add to the Human Development Index by way of including a gender dimension in the measure. They were created in order to rival the traditional income-focused measures of development such as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and the Gross National Product (GNP). Mahbub ul Haq, the first director of the Human Development Report Office, established several principles for the newly emerging measure including provisions that it had to be simple, had to be represented as a single number, had to be easily calculated, had to yield numbers that were internationally comparable, had to use numbers available on a yearly basis and had to use numbers that were easily interpretable. The resulting measures that were created were the Gender-related Development Index (GDI) and the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM). The GEM, the more specialized of the two, is focused on indicating the relative empowerment of women in a given country.^[1]

Definition and calculation

The GEM was designed to measure "whether women and men are able to actively participate in economic and political life and take part in decision-making" (UNDP, 1995, p. 73)(Klasen 257). The GEM tends to be more agency focused (what people are actually able to do) than well-being focused (how people feel or fare in the grand scheme of things).^[1] The GEM is determined using three basic indicators: Proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments, percentage of women in economic decision making positions (incl. administrative, managerial, professional and technical occupations) and female share of income (earned incomes of males vs. females).^[2] The GEM is thought to be a valuable policy instrument because it allows certain dimensions that were previously difficult to compare between countries to come into international comparison.^[3]

Applications of calculations

One way the GEM has been employed is as a metric in academic research on comparative gender politics. For example, a study by Dr. Michael M.O. Seipel used the GEM to test the hypothesis that countries with less female representation in government will have spending rates that reflect more traditionally masculine values than do countries with more equal gender representation.^[4] Seiple took higher GEM to indicate more female representation in government. The study found that Seipel's hypothesis was correct: the higher a country's GEM score, the higher their rate of spending on domestic programs like education and health care, which are correlated with traditionally feminine values.^[4] Inversely, countries with low GEM scores had higher rates of military spending, which correlate with traditionally masculine values.

Professor Leah E. Ruppanner used the 2004 GEM in to study the relationship between women's empowerment and women's share of housework in countries around the world. "Cross-national reports of housework: An investigation of the gender empowerment measure" concludes that the GEM and the elements that comprise it are key to understanding the proportional breakdown of housework between men and women.^[5] However, the total GEM and its compositional elements, Ruppanner warns, are not to be used interchangeably.

In 2011, Professors Sara C. Hitchman and Geoffrey T. Fong used the GEM in a study they conducted at the University of Waterloo entitled "Gender empowerment and female-to-male smoking prevalence ratios".^[6] Employing the GEM as their metric for a country's level of gender empowerment, they found that, as countries increase in gender empowerment, the gap in smoking rates between men and women shrinks. While countries with low GEM ratings see far more men than women smoke, higher empowerment is correlated with higher smoking levels among women, much closer to that of the men in their country.

Debates

As time passes, and these measures (the GDI and the GEM) are applied year after year, debate has arisen over whether or not they have been as influential in promoting gender-sensitive development as was hoped when they were first created. Some of the major criticisms of both measures includes that they are highly specialized and difficult to interpret, often misinterpreted, suffer from large data gaps, do not provide accurate comparisons across countries, and try to combine too many development factors into a single measure. The concern then arises that if these indices are not well informed, then their numbers might hide more than they reveal.^[1]

In terms of the GEM in particular, it is often said to represent an elite bias.^[1] It has been accused of measuring inequality only among the most educated and economically advantaged women and to focus mainly on the higher echelons of society.^[2] Women in grassroots organizations or at the local political level are not reflected, as well as work in lower levels of employment or in the informal sector, where many women in poor and developing countries are forced to seek employment.^[1] Additionally, the GEM has been criticized for not taking into account the limitations on or differences in women's empowerment within certain religious and cultural contexts. Professor Jawad Syed calls this the GEM's "secular bias."^[7]

Furthermore, statistical information (data) is not very readily available for many of the indicators in the GEM. Not many less-developed countries collect reliable data on women's involvement in economic participation or labor involvement. As a result, the GEM is only reliable for very highly developed countries which do collect those statistics. It is also often argued that the number of women in parliament isn't an adequate indication of gender empowerment progress in a given country because many times feminists are considered political liabilities, and as such, female politicians do not always promote female interests. On the other hand, however, information regarding the number of parliamentary seats held by women is very easy to obtain, and very hard to alter, making it one of the more reliable sources of data in the measure. Another criticism of the GEM is its failure to address the issue of female control over their bodies and sexuality, which some argue is an important source of female empowerment and as such should be included in the measure.^[2] Additionally, the GEM has also been criticized for being far too dependent on the income component of the measure for determining the overall GEM score.^[3]

Suggestions for improving

Suggested alterations

Many suggestions have been made to alter the GEM. It has been suggested that the GEM be altered to include female representation in local government instead of only national government to make it less elite. Furthermore, it has been recommended that it should be revised to reflect female participation in political activities such as voting. Additionally, it has been recommended that a component regarding women's control over their own bodies and sexuality be added by measuring availability of birth control and the right to abortion. In fact, some have suggested that there is not enough consideration of women's health as a whole in the current GEM. It has been suggested that including infant mortality rate of females (IMR-F) and maternal mortality rate (MMR) be included in the calculations, as they are better suited to indicate women's health and lifecycle than is the more general life expectancy at birth (LEB) measure.^[8] It has also been suggested that the GEM could be altered to include the proportion of females who are in extreme poverty as opposed to the proportion of parliamentary positions held by females. Lastly, it has been suggested that the GEM could be altered to include female levels of unemployment.^[2] Other suggestions include coming up with different ways to deal with the earned income part so as to make it a more straightforward mode of measurement.^[9]

Applications of alterations

In some developing countries where the aforementioned shortcomings of the GEM are especially pronounced, subnational calculations are made differently in order to produce a more accurate representation of women's empowerment there. For example, while the number of women in national Indian parliament may be slim, there are more women in local level government who would be unaccounted for.^[10] Thus many Indian states use local level parliamentary numbers when calculating their GEM and overall Human Development Reports (HDR).^[11]

Another example of these local level alterations is agricultural wages and employment. Agriculture accounts for a large share of women's employment in the developing world. To account for this in the GEM, West Bengal's 2004 HDR, for example, includes rural agricultural employment in its GEM calculations, whereas typically a GEM equation would only include non-agricultural wages.^[11] This alteration allows for a more representative and accurate GEM.

Suggested alternatives

Suggestions have also been made to replace the GEM as a whole.^[2] One such suggestion is the calculation of separate Human Development Indexes for males and females^[1] which would provide a more straightforward picture of gender inequality (first suggested by Halis Akder in 1994).^[9] Another suggestion is to create a Gender-Gap Measure.^[1] In 2003 Charmes and Wieringa came up with the Women's Empowerment Matrix which considers six spheres (physical, socio-cultural, religious, political, legal and economic) as well as six levels: individual, household, community, state, regional, and global. The GEE is another suggested alternative to the GEM, this measure would include legal framework and protection of women's rights, as well as other important areas of women's empowerment that are overlooked by the GEM like women's movements, public attitudes, and equal rights.^[2] Lastly, in the 2010 Human Development Report, a new measuring mechanism was created entitled the Gender Inequality Index. This new experimental measure considers three dimensions: Reproductive health, empowerment, and labor market participation which aim to ameliorate some of the problems associated with the GEM.^[9]

Related Research Articles

Feminist economics is the critical study of economics and economies, with a focus on gender-aware and inclusive economic inquiry and policy analysis. Feminist economic researchers include academics, activists, policy theorists, and practitioners. Much feminist economic research focuses on topics that have been neglected in the field, such as care work, intimate partner violence, or on economic theories which could be improved through better incorporation of gendered effects and interactions, such as between paid and unpaid sectors of economies. Other feminist scholars have engaged in new forms of data collection and measurement such as the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM), and more gender-aware theories such as the capabilities approach. Feminist economics is oriented towards the goal of "enhancing the well-being of children, women, and men in local, national, and transnational communities."

Feminization of poverty refers to a trend of increasing inequality in living standards between men and women due to the widening gender gap in poverty. This phenomenon largely links to how women and children are disproportionately represented within the lower socioeconomic status community in comparison to men within the same socioeconomic status. Causes of the feminization of poverty include the structure of family and household, employment, sexual violence, education, climate change, "femonomics" and health. The traditional stereotypes of women remain embedded in many cultures restricting income opportunities and community involvement for many women. Matched with a low foundation income, this can manifest to a cycle of poverty and thus an inter-generational issue.

The capability approach is a normative approach to human welfare that concentrates on the actual capability of persons to achieve lives they value rather than solely having a right or freedom to do so. It was conceived in the 1980s as an alternative approach to welfare economics.

The Gender Development Index (GDI) is an index designed to measure gender equality.

Gender inequality is the social phenomenon in which people are not treated equally on the basis of gender. This inequality can be caused by gender discrimination or sexism. The treatment may arise from distinctions regarding biology, psychology, or cultural norms prevalent in the society. Some of these distinctions are empirically grounded, while others appear to be social constructs. While current policies around the world cause inequality among individuals, it is women who are most affected. Gender inequality weakens women in many areas such as health, education, and business life. Studies show the different experiences of genders across many domains including education, life expectancy, personality, interests, family life, careers, and political affiliation. Gender inequality is experienced differently across different cultures and also affects non-binary people.

Released by UNESCO, the Gender Parity Index (GPI) is a socioeconomic index usually designed to measure the relative access to education of males and females. It is used by international organizations, particularly in measuring the progress of developing countries. For example, some UNESCO documents consider gender parity in literacy.

The Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI) is an index that measures discrimination against women. It solely focuses on social institutions which are formal and informal laws, social norms and customary practices that impact the roles of women. The SIGI is a multifaceted measure that focuses on four dimensions: Discrimination in the family, Restricted physical integrity, Restricted access to productive and financial resources, and Restricted civil liberties.

The term "missing women" indicates a shortfall in the number of women relative to the expected number of women in a region or country. It is most often measured through male-to-female sex ratios, and is theorized to be caused by sex-selective abortions, female infanticide, and inadequate healthcare and nutrition for female children. It is argued that technologies that enable prenatal sex selection, which have been commercially available since the 1970s, are a large impetus for missing female children.

The OECD Gender, Institutions and Development (GID) Database, or GID-DB, contains more than 60 data indicators of gender equality. The GID-DB was introduced in 2006 by the OECD Development Centre to provide a data tool to help researchers and policy makers determine and analyze obstacles to women's social and economic development. It provides these gender-related data for up to 162 countries from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, thereby covering all regions and country-income-categories of the world.

The Gender Inequality Index (GII) is an index for the 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.

Women's education in Pakistan is a fundamental right of every female citizen, according to article thirty-seven of the Constitution of Pakistan, but gender discrepancies still exist in the educational sector. According to the 2011 Human Development Report of the United Nations Development Program, approximately twice as many males as females receive a secondary education in Pakistan, and public expenditures on education amount to only 2.7% of the GDP of the country. The unemployment rate of female graduates in Pakistan is approximately 3.8 times higher than that of their male counterparts.

The social and economic changes in Thailand in the past decades have important implications for the quality and quantity of labor. The economic and non-economic roles of women in Thailand can be traced back several hundred years in Thai history, when there were traditional discriminatory attitudes towards women in the culture of Thailand. The transformation of Thailand's social and economic structure since the 1960s led to the gender disparities in Thai society. Recently, the position of Thai women in the labor market has improved a lot in comparison to the past as a result of modernization. In 2011, Thailand ranked 69th out of 143 countries in the Gender Inequality Index. In labor economics, gender inequality is widely discussed in terms of concepts of sex segregation and employment discrimination. Thai government and non-governmental organizations have put forth many policies and programs to address gender inequalities in the last few decades.

Female participation and advancement in majority Muslim countries, or nations in which more than 50% of the population identifies as an adherent of the Islamic faith, have traditionally been areas of controversy. Several Western nations, such as the United States and Western Europe, have criticised majority Muslim nations for the lack of involvement and opportunity for women in the private sector.

The socioeconomic impact of female education constitutes a significant area of research within international development. Increases in the amount of female education in regions tends to correlate with high levels of development. Some of the effects are related to economic development. Women's education increases the income of women and leads to growth in GDP. Other effects are related to social development. Educating girls leads to a number of social benefits, including many related to women's empowerment.

Gender inequality in Mexico refers to disparate freedoms in health, education, and economic and political abilities between men and women in Mexico. It has been diminishing throughout history, but continues to persist in many forms including the disparity in women's political representation and participation, the gender pay gap, and high rates of domestic violence and femicide. As of 2022, the World Economic Forum ranks Mexico 31st in terms of gender equality out of 146 countries. Structural gender inequality is relatively homogeneous between the Mexican states as there are very few regional differences in the inequalities present.

Measures of gender equality or inequality are statistical tools employed to quantify the concept of gender equality.

Women's empowerment may be defined in several ways, including accepting women's viewpoints, making an effort to seek them and raising the status of women through education, awareness, literacy, and training. Women's empowerment equips and allows women to make life-determining decisions through the different societal problems. They may have the opportunity to re-define gender roles or other such roles, which allow them more freedom to pursue desired goals.

Gender empowerment is the empowerment of people of any gender. While conventionally, the aspect of it is mentioned for empowerment of women, the concept stresses the distinction between biological sex and gender as a role, also referring to other marginalized genders in a particular political or social context.

Even in the modern era, gender inequality remains an issue in Japan. In 2015, the country had a per-capita income of US$38,883, ranking 22nd of the 188 countries, and No. 18 in the Human Development Index. In the 2019 Gender Inequality Index report, it was ranked 17th out of the participating 162 countries, ahead of Germany, the UK and the US, performing especially well on the reproductive health and higher education attainment indices. Despite this, gender inequality still exists in Japan due to the persistence of gender norms in Japanese society rooted in traditional religious values and government reforms. Gender-based inequality manifests in various aspects from the family, or ie, to political representation, to education, playing particular roles in employment opportunities and income, and occurs largely as a result of defined roles in traditional and modern Japanese society. Inequality also lies within divorce of heterosexual couples and the marriage of same sex couples due to both a lack of protective divorce laws and the presence of restrictive marriage laws. In consequence to these traditional gender roles, self-rated health surveys show variances in reported poor health, population decline, reinforced gendered education and social expectations, and inequalities in the LGBTQ+ community.

Foreign aid for gender equality in Jordan includes programs funded by governments or non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that aim to empower women, close gender based gaps in opportunity and experience, and promote equal access to education, economic empowerment, and political representation in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

References

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Klasen S. UNDP's Gender-Related Measures: Some Conceptual Problems and Possible Solutions. Journal of Human Development [serial online]. July 2006;7(2):243-274. Available from: EconLit with Full Text, Ipswich, MA. Accessed September 26, 2011.
1 2 3 4 5 6 Betata, H. C. (2007). What is missing in measures of women's empowerment?. Journal of Human Development, 7(2), 221-241.
1 2 Charmes J, Wieringa S. Measuring Women's Empowerment: An Assessment of the Gender- Related Development Index and the Gender Empowerment Measure. Journal of Human Development [serial online]. November 2003;4(3):419-435. Available from: EconLit with Full Text, Ipswich, MA. Accessed September 26, 2011.
1 2 Seipel, Michael (October 2010). "Gender Empowerment Measure and Policy Choice". Families in Society. 91 (4): 350–355. doi:10.1606/1044-3894.4036. S2CID 153394078 – via SAGE Journals.
↑ Ruppanner, Leah E. (2010-11-01). "Cross-national reports of housework: An investigation of the gender empowerment measure". Social Science Research. 39 (6): 963–975. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.04.002. ISSN 0049-089X.
↑ Hitchman, Sara; Fong, Geoffrey (March 1, 2011). "Gender empowerment and female-to-male smoking prevalence ratios". Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 89 (3): 195–202. doi:10.2471/BLT.10.079905. PMC 3044247 . PMID 21379415 – via SciELO Public Health.
↑ Syed, Jawad (2010-05-01). "Reconstructing gender empowerment". Women's Studies International Forum. 33 (3): 283–294. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2010.03.002. ISSN 0277-5395.
↑ Hirway, Indira; Mahadevia, Darshini (October 26, 1996). "Critique of Gender Development Index: Towards an Alternative". Economic and Political Weekly. 31 (43): WS87–WS96 – via JSTOR.
1 2 3 Klasen, Stephan1; Schuler, Dana. Reforming the Gender-Related Development Index and the Gender Empowerment Measure: Implementing Some Specific Proposals. Feminist Economics. January 2011 (1) 1 - 30
↑ Charmes, Jacques; Wieringa, Saskia E.; Ruzvidzo, Thokozile; Rosalie, Gonzaque (June 1, 2023). "The African Gender and Development Index: an engendered and culturally sensitive statistical tool". Front. Sociol. 8. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2023.1114095 . PMC 10267327 . PMID 37325791.
1 2 Schüler, Dana (2006-07-01). "The Uses and Misuses of the Gender-related Development Index and Gender Empowerment Measure: A Review of the Literature". Journal of Human Development. 7 (2): 161–181. doi:10.1080/14649880600768496. ISSN 1464-9888. S2CID 347402.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[Gender-1] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Klasen S. UNDP's Gender-Related Measures: Some Conceptual Problems and Possible Solutions. Journal of Human Development [serial online]. July 2006;7(2):243-274. Available from: EconLit with Full Text, Ipswich, MA. Accessed September 26, 2011.

[What-2] 1 2 3 4 5 6 Betata, H. C. (2007). What is missing in measures of women's empowerment?. Journal of Human Development, 7(2), 221-241.

[Measuring-3] 1 2 Charmes J, Wieringa S. Measuring Women's Empowerment: An Assessment of the Gender- Related Development Index and the Gender Empowerment Measure. Journal of Human Development [serial online]. November 2003;4(3):419-435. Available from: EconLit with Full Text, Ipswich, MA. Accessed September 26, 2011.

[Seipel-2010-4] 1 2 Seipel, Michael (October 2010). "Gender Empowerment Measure and Policy Choice". Families in Society. 91 (4): 350–355. doi:10.1606/1044-3894.4036. S2CID 153394078 – via SAGE Journals.

[5] Ruppanner, Leah E. (2010-11-01). "Cross-national reports of housework: An investigation of the gender empowerment measure". Social Science Research. 39 (6): 963–975. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.04.002. ISSN 0049-089X.

[6] Hitchman, Sara; Fong, Geoffrey (March 1, 2011). "Gender empowerment and female-to-male smoking prevalence ratios". Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 89 (3): 195–202. doi:10.2471/BLT.10.079905. PMC 3044247 . PMID 21379415 – via SciELO Public Health.

[7] Syed, Jawad (2010-05-01). "Reconstructing gender empowerment". Women's Studies International Forum. 33 (3): 283–294. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2010.03.002. ISSN 0277-5395.

[8] Hirway, Indira; Mahadevia, Darshini (October 26, 1996). "Critique of Gender Development Index: Towards an Alternative". Economic and Political Weekly. 31 (43): WS87–WS96 – via JSTOR.

[Reforming-9] 1 2 3 Klasen, Stephan1; Schuler, Dana. Reforming the Gender-Related Development Index and the Gender Empowerment Measure: Implementing Some Specific Proposals. Feminist Economics. January 2011 (1) 1 - 30

[10] Charmes, Jacques; Wieringa, Saskia E.; Ruzvidzo, Thokozile; Rosalie, Gonzaque (June 1, 2023). "The African Gender and Development Index: an engendered and culturally sensitive statistical tool". Front. Sociol. 8. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2023.1114095 . PMC 10267327 . PMID 37325791.

[Schüler-2006-11] 1 2 Schüler, Dana (2006-07-01). "The Uses and Misuses of the Gender-related Development Index and Gender Empowerment Measure: A Review of the Literature". Journal of Human Development. 7 (2): 161–181. doi:10.1080/14649880600768496. ISSN 1464-9888. S2CID 347402.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]