1. 11 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

2. 2

3. Current Situation UNDP‘s GDI and GEM never very successful: –GDI often misinterpreted, problematic earned income component; cumulation of gaps in opposite directions; –GEM driven by income levels (not gender shares) and penalty for inequality complicated and intransparent (plus too few countries); Alternative gender gap measures: –WEF, Social Watch, OECD‘s SIGI; –All rather complicated and intransparent; –Still room for a good Gender-related indicator; 2010 abandons GDI/GEM and creates GII; –Switches concept to welfare loss of gender inequality; 3

4. UNDP‘s Gender Inequality Index Measures welfare penalty due to gender inequality –5 components: labor force participation, secondary education, teenage pregnancy maternal mortality, parliamentary seats; Some serious problems: –Very complicated; –Intransparent (welfare penalty with respect to ‚equality index‘ which is not reported); implied ethical judgements of welfare penalty not transparent; –Hard to understand and interpret drivers of GII; –Mixes well-being and empowerment (well-being versus agency concerns); –Mixes achievements (in maternal mortality and teenage pregnancy) with gaps (in other components); Poor countries cannot do well on GII regardless of gender gaps! –No link to HDI; 4

5. Proposal Replace GII by reformed GDI and GEM; –Keep well-being and empowerment concerns separate; GDI (called GGM): Geometric mean of f/m ratios of achievements in life expectancy, education (years and school life expect.), and labor force participation; –Option to cap GGM at 1 (to focus on gaps affecting women negatively and reduce ‚compensation‘); –Classic gender gap measure; –Clear link to HDI; –Easy to measure and interpret; –Labor force participation problematic but better than earned incomes (or employment or unemployment); –Substantial change in rankings compared to GII (esp. Transition countries and Africa versus OECD and Middle East); 5

6. 6

7. 7

8. 8

9. Gender Empowerment Measure Measures inequality in economic and political participation and power; Some Problems: –Data availability; –Focus on elites? –Compensation issue? –Serious problem with income component: gender- inequality adjusted levels of incomes; levels, rather than gaps drive results! Last problem can be corrected (using income shares rather than rates). 9

10. GEM Same proposal as made in Klasen and Schüler (2011); –Use indicators of GEM (parliamentary representation, gaps in skilled employment, and earned incomes); –Use income shares instead of harmonic mean of income levels; –Straight-forward geometric mean of ratios; Again one could cap at 1; –Rankings fundamentally different; –Issues: Elite indicator? Use post-secondary education? Poor country coverage; 10

11. 11

12. 12

13. Conclusion UNDP has not yet succeeded in producing a gender-related development indicator that is clear, transparent, easy to interpret, and linked to HD concept; Alternatives are also weak, opportunity remains to propose a sound measure; GII on net not an improvement over GDI/GEM; Reformed GDI and GEM might be better way to go; Would drastically change country rankings (in interesting ways); 13

14. 14 HD Measurement Conference: March 4-5, 2013 Fixing the Gender Inequality Index: Strengths and weaknesses of new proposals Second Conference on Measuring Human Progress New York

15. 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 15 HD Measurement Conference :: March4-5, 2013

16. 16 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

17. 17 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

18. 18

19. 19

20. 20