UT+504+-+The+GDI+and+GEM

The GDI and GEM
The Gender-related Development index(GDI) and Gender Empowerment Measure(GEM) developed by UNDP in 1995 are acknowledged for raising the attention of gender inequality in international policy debates as well as among academics for the issue of measuring gender inequality. GDI measures relative wellbeing and utilizes the same variable as the Human Development Index (HDI): adjusted income (decent standard of living), education (literacy rates, primary, secondary and tertially enrollment ratios) and health (life expectancy at birth). GEM measures relative female economic and political power, (Dijkstra, 2011, p.302). They “represent an attempt to measure gender inequality rather than gendered poverty” (Chant, 2006, p. 208).

The GDI refers to “the costs of gender inequality for the aggregate human development (and well-being) of society (Chant, 2006, p. 208) The GEM “refers to the opportunities through which women are actually able to achieve equality with men” (Chant, 2006, p. 208) > The gap between women and men's well-being “both affect and reflect power dynamics that influence the process of resource distribution”. The GDI and GEM being “aggregate indices” consist of two dimensions: I) they are ‘composite’ in that they “bring together different variables in a single measure”, II) and “they aggregate data and general average for the relevant population as a whole” (Chant, 2006, p.209).
 * 'longevity' (female and male life expectancy at birth)
 * 'knowledge' (female and male literacy rates, and female and male combined primary, secondary and tertiary enrolment ratios)
 * 'decent standard of living' (estimated female and male earned income) (UNDP, 2002, as cited in Chant, 2006, p. 209)
 * the share of parliament seats occupied by women
 * the proportion of legislators, senior officials and managers who are women
 * the female share of professional and technical jobs
 * the ratio of estimated female to male income (UNDP, 2002, as cited in Chant, 2006, p.209)

Income
Among choice of indicators in both GDI and GEM, most criticism is advanced against the income variable. The variable measures the female share in the economically active population and on the relative female /male urban wage, (Djisktra, 2000, p.9). Chant (2006, p.210) observes that the income component in both GDI and GEM is restricted to formal sector remuneration. As a result the actual distribution of incomes at household, rural wages and informal sector wages tends to be excluded from the measurements. This implies that the measures exclude the poor women who are concentrated in unpaid household labor and subsistence farming. This is a very big oversight considering that gender inequalities are generated at household level not in the formal markets. Indeed, Chant, (2006, p.210) argues that these indices do not a measure of gender equality rather ‘gendered class privilege’. Dsijkstra (2000, p.9) argues regarding the GDI income component that it creates confusion in relation to defining what an economically active population is. It raises questions of whether work in family enterprises and in subsistence is part of the measure? As a result some places include it in the measure while others do not. This means that the component is not standardized – data collected is not uniform- thus the basis for comparing it is not valid. Also Bardhan and Klasen (1999, p. 1002) mention this as they say that even though the GEM avoids some of the flaws in the GDI, it is still “too narrowly focused on the formal economy and national political structures and thereby neglects many important facets of female empowerment at the local institutional levels”. If unreliable data are used to set the political agenda that is worrying. In most developing countries the informal sector has become a very important source of work especially for women. More women than men work in the informal sector. According to A. Geske Dijkstra & Lucia C. Hanmer (2000) these types of activities are not likely to be included in the economically active population although what they produce is generally counted as part of GDP in the national accounts. This situation can result in an underestimation of the female role in the society.

Masked inequalities
Regarding the indicator of income Chant (2006, p.206) notes that although women are often income poor, appropriate measurements should take into consideration the gender differences in inputs to household livelihoods and their outcomes for women’s lives - not just the men and women’s share of income. Efforts aimed at promoting gender equality have focused on increasing women’s access to incomes which is commendable but have ignored the outcome this has on women and on gender inequalities specifically. Gender roles hold that the women are responsible for reproductive roles while the men are responsible for productive roles. While efforts are being made for women to access productive roles through paid work, corresponding efforts to include men in the reproductive roles are inexistent. As a result, the work load of the men is being reduced while the work load of the women is being added. Many working women in Uganda, share household expenses with their husbands yet they remain fully responsible for the bulk of unpaid reproductive roles. Intensification of women’s work implies declining inputs from men (2006, p.206). Unfortunately the capacity of women to negotiate obligations and entitlements at household level is not being built. All these inequalities are masked by simply measuring the women and men’s share of income - there is a lot more to that if gender equality is to be promoted. Including”female empowerment on all levels of development-related decision-making" should therefore be a focus area for politics and policies (Bardhan and Klasen, 1999, p. 1001).

Political positions
Two of the measures used in GEM are a country’s female representation in parliamentary seats and the proportion of legislators, senior officials and managers that are women (Chant, 2006, p.209). Baradhan and Klasen (1999, p.1001) do however question this measure. It can be argue that the GEM (Gender Empowerment Measure) too heavily focuses on political representation at the national government level. Much of women’s participation and involvement- at local political and administrative levels, in NGOs and in grass-root mobilization at community levels- are not included in the GEM. Even though making fully correct measures of women’s involvement and participation is very hard in developing countries - where collecting or gaining access to reliable data might be highly challenging, this aspect is regarded a significant weakness of the GEM. As Baradhan and Klasen states: “The GEM measures important aspects of women’s agency, but does not tell the whole story” (1999, p.1001). Important aspects of women’s political roles existing outside the national politics are not encapsulated into the GEM-indices. One can argue that measures of GDI and GEM “do not adequately capture the existing gender biases and their impact on human development” (1999, p.1002). “…women in public office are generally educated and/or elite women whose class interests may well override their gender interests, and who might do little to advance the social or economic status of their poorer counterparts” (Chant, 2006, p.210). One can thus ask how useful the above discussed measures (proportion of women in formal, national political positions) really are. Dsijkstra (2000, p.9, 10) notes that it depends on the power of parliament to influence decisions, where the parliament is weak there is limited power ; women’s share may not make a difference to the women. In addition, he observes that women’s share in parliament may fluctuate depending on the electoral cycle thus the measure taken in one year may not hold after some time thus not a good basis for measuring gender equality. Bardhan and Klasen state that “In India, an important political economic process that has been gaining real strength in some areas is the institution a decade ago of 30% female share of seats in village councils known as //panchayat // through seat reservation and election” (1999, p.1001). While the quota of women in national parliamentary seats would boost India’s GEM-ranking, the increased level of female activity at village-level in local decision-making bodies, would not at all be reflected in the GEM-indices the way this indices currently is constructed (Bardhan and Klasen, 1999, p. 1001). This is also the case with other kinds of grass-root female activity that often prove to empower women and increase their human resources, but are not considered in UNDP’s GEM-indices. One can thus question the practical applicability of these indices, and measures that increasingly track the real extent of women’s socio-politically agency, not only on national level, but also on the local and grass-root level might be of much higher value, or at least of complementary value, to the measure of women in parliamentary seats.

Numeric challenges and representativeness
The aspect of varying back ground - different contexts raise the question of appropriateness of one single index to measure gender equality universally. Djikstra (2006, p.276) argues that such an index would have to cover as many dimensions of gender equality as possible, the data should be available for many countries, it should be simple to calculate and understand and it should allow comparisons between countries and also over time. Among numerical challenges with the GDI and GEM we find that “meanings are not easily transported across cultures or classes”, thus it affects the validity and quality of the data gathered, they provide a spurious interpretation of “progress” (Chant, 2006, p.210) and it is difficult for many poor countries to produce the data required (Chant, 2006, p.211). These numerical biases obstruct important dimensions of meaning and quality. This also limits measured components to those that are observable and quantifiable - a focus on numbers (Chant, 2006, p.210).

=References= Bardhan, K. and S. Klasen (1999): UNDP's Gender-Related Indices: A Critical Review. //World Development //Vol. 27, No. 6, pp. 985-1010.

Chant, S (2006): Re-thinking the ‘‘Feminization of Poverty’’ in Relation to Aggregate Gender Indices, //Journal of Human Development //, Vol. 7, No. 2, July 2006, pp. 201-220.

Dijkstra A. G. & Hanmer L. C. (2000): Measuring Socio-Economic GENDER Inequality: Toward an Alternative to the UNDP Gender-Related Development Index, Feminist Economics. Retrieved 27th February 2012 from []