Gender gaps

Details

Economic inclusion

Gender inclusion gaps aim to capture the extent to which economic systems favour men over women. Seven dimensions are examined here (see Table 5.1):

• legal and social regulations, such as inheritance laws and ownership rights;
• health indicators that relate to female participation in economic life or reflect gender bias;
• labour policies regulating pay and access to certain professions;
• labour practices, such as non-discrimination and equal pay;
• educational attainment comparisons;
• female participation in employment, management and firm ownership;
• access to finance.

Two main types of indicator were collected to rate these dimensions: policy indices constructed by other organisations, such as the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the World Bank,¹and female-to-male ratios (for example, female-to-male labour force participation rates).

Data on female-to-male ratios were translated into percentage gaps and converted to the 1 to 4+ transition scale. An average score for each category was then calculated and transformed into the four-point gap scale. Gaps classified as “large”, “medium”, “small” and “negligible” correspond to percentage differences in gender indicators of more than 20 per cent, from 6 to 20 per cent, from 1 to 6 per cent and less than 1 per cent respectively (see Annex 5.2).

Table 5.2 suggests that there is considerable variation in gender gaps – not just across countries, but also across institutional dimensions. Gaps are generally “small” as regards education and legal regulations.² With the exception of some SEMED countries, laws that overtly put women at a disadvantage in terms of property and inheritance laws are rare.

Primary and secondary school participation and completion rates are similar for males and females. With a few exceptions (most notably Tajikistan), recent tertiary enrolment rates actually tend to be higher for females in most countries. Significant gaps (visible in about a dozen countries) exist only with regard to literacy rates, which are a much more backward-looking indicator.

Gaps tend to be larger in dimensions related to employment, firm ownership and management – and particularly labour practices. As regards anti-discrimination practices, access to childcare, women in senior management and gender pay differentials, there are “large” gaps in most countries, and even “medium” gaps in Western comparator countries.

Table 5.2 also confirms expectations that gender gaps are often “negligible” or “small” in CEB countries – although not in employment-related areas – while “large” and “medium” gaps tend to be most apparent in the SEMED region (although less so in Tunisia) and some Central Asian countries (such as Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan). Kazakhstan and Turkey are not far behind.

In the SEMED region decades of investment in social sectors have improved women’s access to health care and education, reduced illiteracy and brought down fertility rates. However, this has not (yet) translated into higher female labour force participation rates or female empowerment. This is partly due to persistent institutional barriers that limit women’s access to economic opportunities.³

1. For example, indices using a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 indicating full compliance with the ideal of gender equality and 1 showing a large gap. [back]
2. The former reflects the fact that the series used in the analysis of the education gap mostly represents the current state of education systems, as measured by female-to-male ratios for primary, secondary and tertiary completion rates. [back]
3. See World Bank (2012a). [back]

• Prev
• Next