Globalization and Gender Equality

Globalization and Gender Equality

Karolina Króliczek

Central European University

Draft work in progress – please do not cite without the author’s permission

Comments are warmly welcomed!

Abstract

This paper conducts the research into intrigue relationship between gender equality and

globalization. The objective of this research paper is to determine the relationship between

globalization types and their ability for supporting gender equality. Firstly the paper uses the

KOF Globalization Index (University of Zurich) and the Global Gender Gap Index (OECD) to

establish significance of relationship between those two variables. Furthermore, the paper

examines the relationship between three dimensions (subindexes) of KOF Index 2009:

economic globalization, social globalization and political globalization and gender equality

level under particular globalization type what is the main research question examined here.

The paper uses also the newly established SIGI Index 2012 (OECD) to estimate the

significant or non-significant relation between sociocultural globalization (KOF Index) and

the outcome achieved under social globalization type on gendered social contracts (SIGI

Index).

The aim of this paper is to study and evaluate which type of globalization type (as input

variable) has the highest effect on gender equality creation within indicators which are suited

to the input variable and measured as globalization type x outcome. This paper attempts to

show as the Author forecasted the high positive correlation existance within the KOF

economic globalization subindex and Global Gender Gap subindex of economic opportunities

than within the KOF political globalization subindex and GGG subindex of political

empowerment (outcome dimension). The sociocultural globalization type has been discovered

as the most influential towards achieving gender equality and changing “social contracts”

within society on more gender equal.

2

Globalization and Gender Equality

Numerous studies have attempted to explain to what extent globalization influences on

gender equality and the particular consequences of globalization which stand behind decrease

or increase of gender gaps (ex. Tseloni, 2009; Sweening, 2004). Pearson (2010) defines

globalization as “the process in which economic, financial, technical and cultural transactions

between different countries and communities throughout the world are increasingly

interconnected and embody common elements of experience, practice and understanding.”

(2010:10).

The relationship between globalization and gender “contracts” has been widely

investigated from the point of development studies which mostly focus on investigation of

gender inequality on the labor market, gender wage inequality existance or estimate

unemployment rates associated with growth (Blau, 2000; Blank, 1999). As Freeman (2001)

truly recognized gender policy is often linked to development studies not to globalization

what makes that topic intriguing to solve. Jeffrey Williamson, Peter Lindert and many others

researchers which deal with globalization issue do not consider the topic of gender inside their

prominent research influence (Camps. 2009). The globalization is often mandated as gender

neutral what furthermore establish the masculine standpoint for jointly investigation of gender

and globalization (Acker, 2004). There is no doubt that the link between globalization and

gender has to be established.

Acker (2004) defines gender as “inequalities, divisions and differences socially

constructed around assumed distinction between female and male (2004:3) Gender is an

organizing principle in social life, allocation of duties, rights, rewards and power, including

the means of violence. Women are usually disadvantaged here.” (2004:3).

It is recognized that gender plays an important role in division of labour, education

outcomes and wage incomes (Cagay, 2004). All types of globalization examined here have to

be recognized as being gender biased. Economic globalization might create gender-based

wage gaps, sociocultural globalization might establish unfavorable for “social codes” and

political globalization might in fact have little influence on the women empowerment

if the international assignments (for ex. against violence) tend to be not restricted on the

national level.

3

The globalization is often being portrayed under two schools approaches linked

to gender. One positive school states the globalization is in favour of the gender equality due

to the trade openness, opening of export-oriented industries and “feminization of labor” what

result in better life prospects for women (Tseloni, 2009). In contrast, de-industrialization and

wage gap differences between skilled and unskilled hit women disproportionately especially

in established industrial economies (Tseloni, 2009:3). Furthermore globalization is seen as

reinforcing the subordination of women to low paid, low status and part- time jobs

(Moghadam, 1999). The outcomes of the globalization differ in case of access, assets and

control over resources by women (Cagatay, 2004).

It is significantly important to assess the globalization type implications on gender gap

coverage within economic opportunities, political empowerment and sociocultural codes of

behaviours (“society contracts”). Sapkota’s research (2011) outlined significance of all three

faces of globalization on human development and human poverty outcomes, but

contemporary academic researchers keep silence about globalization types and their

connections with gender equality.

To recap, the following research questions are investigated in that paper:

The preliminary question: If there is any significant link between globalization (KOF

Index 2009) and Gender Gap Coverage (Global Gender Gap 2012).

Hypothesis 1. There is a significant link between globalization and gender equality creating.

The main research question: How different types of globalization deliver the

gender equality.

Hypothesis 2. The economic globalization is more efficient for creating equal economic

opportunities for women than political globalization.

Hypothesis 3. The cultural globalization has the highest correlation within the globalization

types for creating gender equality.

Hypothesis 4. Political globalization has the lowest impact on the political empowerment (%

of female in the Lower Chamber).

Finally, paper answers which input type of the globalization (economic globalization,

sociocultural globalization and political globalization) is estimated to be the most successful

in creating gender equality outcomes.

4

Research Methodology

The research paper widely uses the highly-ranked scientific indexes to establish the

relationship between globalization and gender equality as KOF Index of Globalization

(University of Zurich), Global Gender Gap Index 2012 (World Economic Forum, WEF) and

SIGI Index (OECD, Social Institutions and Gender Index 2012). The consistency of particular

index indicators is presented in the Table 1 below. Additionally, SPSS (Statistical Package for

the Social Sciences) has been used to estimate the statistical correlations between particular

indexes. The GGG Index estimates from 0-1 measurement scale (inequality - equality), when

the KOF Index estimates the scale of observation from 0 to 100.

The SIGI Index takes the measure of “social contract” from 0-1 (with 0 as social contract

gender-positive, to 1 - gender-negative social contracts). The study draws on collection of the

countries data cases across n-88 up to n-124 countries. SIGI Index is particularly limited to n-

88 due to the fact of being focused mostly on developing countries.

Table 1. Scientific Indexes used in the research and their indices and variables weights.

SCIENTIFIC INDEXES USED Indices and Variables Weights

A. Economic Globalization:

KOF Index (University of Zurich)

i) Actual Flows: Trade (percent of GDP), Foreign Direct Investment, stocks (percent of GDP) Portfolio Investment (percent of GDP), Income Payments to Foreign Nationals (percent of GDP)

(ii) Restrictions:

Hidden Import Barriers, Mean Tariff Rate, Taxes on International Trade (percent of current revenue) Capital Account Restrictions

B. Social Globalization : i) Data on Personal Contact, Telephone Traffic, Transfers (percent of GDP), International Tourism, Foreign Population (percent of total population), International letters (per capita)

ii) Data on Information Flows: Internet Users (per 1000 people). Television (per 1000 people) , Trade in Newspapers (% of GDP)

iii) Data on Cultural Proximity, Number of McDonald's Restaurants (per capita), Number of Ikea (per capita), Trade in books (percent of GDP)

C. Political Globalization:, Embassies in Country, Membership in International Organizations, Participation in U.N. Security Council Missions, International Treaties.

Global Gender Gap Index (World

Economic Forum)

The Global Gender Gap Index examines the gap between men and women in four fundamental categories (subindexes): economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival and political empowerment.

Economic Participation and Opportunity: Ratio: Female labour force participation over male value, Wage Equality between women and men for similar work (converted to female-over-male ratio), Ratio: Estimated female earned income over male value, Ratio: Female legislators, senior officials and managers over male value, Female professional and technical workers over male value.

Political Empowerment: Ratio: females with seats in parliament over male value, Ratio: females at ministerial level over male value, Ratio: number of years of a female head of state or government (last 50 years) over male

5

SIGI Index (OECD)

Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI) measures important inputs to such outcome inequalities in non OECD-countries. Social institutions are conceived as long-lasting codes of conduct, norms, traditions, and informal and formal laws that impact on gender equality (OECD).

Different types of globalization and different gendered outcomes?

Scatterplot 1. shows that there is no significant correlation between the level of globalization

and the inequality or equality existance within n-133 of countries investigated. Almost all

countries are equally widespreaded within four parts of the scatterplot (divided through x-

axis and y-axis lines).

Most of developing countries have rising globalization level due to high outflows and

no trade restrictions when the gender equality remains unchanged or even worse (ex. as the

result of recruiting women into ETZ (Export-Trade zone) with the lowest salary and

unhealthy work conditions). Some countries as for example South Africa or Uganda have low

level of economic globalization and achieve the high level of gender equality under

incorporating widespreaded social changes from Western societies but also due to the fact of

international organization campaigning which intensively promote gender equality by their

development programs: ex. Oxfam).

6

Hypothesis 1. There is a significant positive correlation link between globalization

(measured by KOF 2009 Index) and gender equality (measured by Global Gender Gap 2012

Index). FALSE

Scatterplot 1. The Correlation between KOF Index 2009 and GGG Index 2012.

Hence the common trend that foreign direct investment (FDI)1 and trade liberalization

lead to massive exports and beneficial investments for the country can be rejected if the

gender equality is on the horizon of FDI and trade openness observation.

Although there are also country cases which were classified in the IV squared part and

achieve high level of globalization (80.000 – 90.000) and high level of gender equality within

the country (0.7-0.9 score) as Scandinavian well-known triangle: Norway, Sweden and

1 Foreign Direct Investment: direct investment by a company in another country, either by buying a company in

the target country or by expanding operations of an existing business in that country.

7

Finland The hypothesis about positive or negative impact of globalization in overall on

covering the gender gaps and creating gender gaps inequality on the beginning has been

rejected. The one question which will be considered is the recognition of existing

correlations within KOF Index of Globalization subindexes (globalization types:

economic, sociocultural, political) as input measure and Global Gender Gap Subindexes

(economic opportunity, health, education, political empowerment) as the outcome under

particular globalization type (economic, political, sociocultural). Therefore, the results

achieved under overall KOF Index and GGG Index have to be interpreted with caution

because the scatterplot was not able to divide the role and the intensity of the particular

globalization types on gender equal outcomes, what will draws the researcher attention in the

next pages of the paper.

Types of Globalization and their relationship towards gender equality

The economic globalization is defined by actual country flows and economic

restrictions. Actual flows are recognized as sum of exports and imports of goods and services

(easily: trade), foreign direct investment (sum of inward and outward FDI stock). Income

payments to foreign nationals, mean tariff rate, international trade taxation and the level of

capital account restrictions (KOF Index). Mohan (2009) identifies the economic globalization

type as increase in the country’s economic interdependence on the hands of the world market

due to rapid increase of cross-border movements of services, goods, technologies and capitals.

The economic globalization still suffers from the question mark of gender equality creating.

From one side often helps the women to start micro-credits activities and find a job, but from

the other side - in developing countries intensive globalization often forces unskilled women

to agricultural sectors (the trend opposite to developed countries where skilled women tend to

be in non-agricultural sectors at all as public services.).

The sociocultural globalization is the global spread of ideas and trends which due to

country’s cultural identification transmits the ideas, beliefs and values and incorporates them

into the society. For example the consumism lifestyle as a side of the cultural globalization is

measured by the number of McDonald’s Restaurants (per capita) or Scandinavian Ikea shops

within the country (KOF Index). The level of social globalization is also measured through

8

telephone traffic, transfers, international tourism, internet users or trade in newspapers.

Theoretically, the high access to cultural globalization should be positively correlated with the

creation of gender-positive social contracts.

In contrast, often the poverty, illiteracy and lack of social openness is linked to low

level of cultural globalization (UNESCO). Deeper analyse will be outlined under the

sociocultural globalization paper chapter, where the link between sociocultural globalization

will be investigated with SIGI Index which is responsible for estimating the power of gender-

negative social contracts in society (as for ex. violence against women, early marriage and

reproductive integrity).

The political globalization is recognized as increase of the international agreements

and contracts within the countries, establishment of the international organizations

(governmental, NGO’s) and often due to the fact of the easy internet access the manifestation

of the citizens feelings through happenings, strikes and manifestations. The political

globalization is often used to force the collective activists actions. From the gender

perspective, the high level of political globalization should result in the high women

empowerment in the Lower Chamber of Parliament (measured by GGG subindex: Political

Empowerment). Furthermore, most of international organizations as United Nations or OECD

force gender tools and international norms that have to be respected by the signing countries.

There is a significant questions analysed here: Does embassies, international organisations,

United Nations agencies and country membership in international treaties is positively

correlated within the increase of women political empowerment?

Economic Globalization and Gender Equality

Recent evidence suggests that cross-national exchange and production of goods lead to

improvements in women equality (Kittilson, 2004). The author argues that economic

globalization changed the women work and life conditions on slightly better (Kittilson, 2004).

Furthermore, women are able to work in non-household employment, while the openness

towards FDI (foreign direct investment) benefited in women infusion into the job markets

(Standing, 1989). The FDI in low income countries often makes the jobs available for women

and paid better than domestic producers (Kittilson, 2004).

9

Drastic but positive changes which come from the intense economic globalization is the

change of gender-roles in private households. The globalized woman has more independence

and personal autonomy, especially in homes which become more equal and more dependent

on women incomes. The women from low income countries additionally learn how to gain

control around house budgeting process and even request the husband help in domestic duties

(Sassen, 1996). According to Kujawa (2011) greater access to land and micro-credits

restructure changed the gendered relation on more positive within South Asian households.

Economic globalization is responsible for increase of the female employment in developing

countries within manufacturing sector from 6% in 1987 to 7% in 2007, while the employment

in public services has grown from 17% to 24% (World Bank Development Report, 2012).

Although World Bank projects promoting gender equality (WB) has mixed impact on women

in the developing countries. WB still supports projects which give the loans to women under

the assumption that the grant is small-scaled what makes the gender negative division

between women projects (based on domestic activities) and men projects as for example

agricultural assistance or access to credit (Bystydzinski, 2002).

Under equal economic globalization not only female are the main beneficiates of equal

opportunities on the market, but also country’s economy benefits at all. The intensive

economic globalization creates global competitiveness is not able to work properly if there is

high level of gender inequality within the particular country SIGI (OECD. 2012:30).

Additionally countries which are able to implement equal opportunities for female and men at

overall achieve higher GDP per capita results than those which suffer from sex inequality.

(OECD. 2012:30).

However, there is an inconsistency with claims that economic globalization is definitely

good for women. Intensive international trade often destroys local economies and the natural

environment is to some extent degraded. The globalization is often presented as “a process out

there that has devastating impact on the locally lived realities of women lives and women are

represented as victims of evil global processes or as heroines fighting against global

processes.” (Davids, 2009:905). Unskilled female labor is mostly employed in the ETZ

(export trade zone) which pay low wages and working conditions are not restricted, unhealthy

and overwork is on the daily scheme. The dark side shows that despite the removal of trade

barriers and investment restrictions together with greater women access to jobs, economic

globalization forced women to work in exploitive conditions and increased discrimination

trends (Murray, 2013:5).

10

Furthermore in some countries the gender division of labour is extremely not equal on

the market. In Pakistan which has low level of globalization as well as economic opportunities

there is a widespread gender gap in the labour forces participation which is estimated on

49.3% of males and only 14% of females which are positioned in informal sector and low

paid menial jobs (Murray, 2013). Some researchers (ex. Greenaway, 1999; Edison, 2002)

established the positive relationship between globalization on poverty reduction, however the

globalization relationship with negative impact on income inequality rising has been

discovered also. The striking observation has been done by Sweeney (2004) who investigated

opposite globalization direction effect that high trade level and capital flows influence

women’s political rights and not significantly the women’s economic rights.

Economic globalization shapes equal opportunities for mostly of skilled women which

work in public sector, when “export zone enclaves” tend to hire poor and uneducated women

for lower wages and creates job insecurity (Bystydzinski, 2002). That uncertain relationship

between job insecurity in developing countries under intensive economic globalization remind

the uncertainty of past capitalism transformation in the CEE (Central and Eastern Europe)

what under capitalism incorporating on the market resulted in the high women

unemployment. That scenario makes developing countries even worst, in fact most of those

countries have low social spending, what drastically makes female situation critical under the

financial crisis. External debts as well as economic crises hit the women firstly with the larger

costs than hit the men (Stromquist, 2005). The liberalization of trade under intensive

globalization significantly reduce the power of trade unions at all (Stromquist, 2005) what

further forces women to work in labor industries at lower wages that men would accept ant

the union would not permit (Bacchus, 2005).

The countries as Oman, Bahrain and Jordan have high level of economic globalization

(due to trade openness and foreign investments) do not achieve high gender equality and do

not provide equal opportunities for both sexes into economic market entrance. In contrast to

it, Singapore, Luxembourg, Argentina, Norway or Canada established the gender supportive

relation between actual flows and restrictions and the equal economic opportunities and

participation on the market for both sexes (Scatterplot 4). Interestingly, all Nordic countries

were able to fight the gender gaps on the market through displaying of gender equality

starting from the primary school what in the future make women the majority of the high-

skilled workforce and it has also reflection on the Scatterplot 2 below (GGG Index 2012:19).

11

The value of KOF Economic Globalization Subindex (input indicators measure2) and

GGG Economic Participation and Opportunities (outcome indicators measure3) suggest that

there is a weak positive Pearson’s correlation (2-tailed type) between the level of economic

globalization estimated on 0.3294 (n-124) with standard deviations estimated on 16.06 for

KOF Index and 0.12 for GGG Economic subindex.5

Scatterplot 4.

2 Economic Globalization: Actual Flows: Trade (% of GDP), Foreign Direct Investment, stocks (% of GDP)

Portfolio Investment (% of GDP), Income Payments to Foreign Nationals (% of GDP). Restrictions: Hidden

Import Barriers, Mean Tariff Rate, Taxes on International Trade (percent of current revenue) Capital Account

Restrictions 3 Economic Participation and Opportunity: Ratio: Female labour force participation over male value,

Wage Equality between women and men for similar work (converted to female-over-male ratio),

Ratio: Estimated female earned income over male value, Ratio: Female legislators, senior officials and managers

over male value, Female professional and technical workers over male value. 4 Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

12

In contrast, the correlation between the KOF Political Globalization subindex and GGG

subindex of Economic participation and opportunities has been estimated as being non-

significant and negative valued on -0.39. Therefore, the economic globalization higher level

of equal economic opportunities for women than political globalization type has been

confirmed. (Hypothesis 2.)

Sociocultural globalization and gender equality

Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris argued that economic growth is only a part of the

story towards gender equality; the role of the substantial changes in the social norms, beliefs

and values is underlined in order to achieve greater equality (Inglehart&Norris, 2003).

The rapid growth through foreign direct investment in South Asia changes not only

economic opportunities, but also changes the culture (Murray, 2013). Singapore correlation

recognized on the KOF social globalization vs. SIGI Index has the highest social globalization

level from all n- 88 country cases observed (av. 91. 039) and has the lowest gap in the

“societal contracts” estimated on the average 0.46 (Scatterplot 5). Saudi Arabia, Jordan,

Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman represent countries with high social globalization index, however the

negative social contracts which result in gender inequality remain to survive in that particular

societies (Scatterplot 5.) The SIGI index examined through Saudi Arabia mentioned above

showed high social globalization level (av. 69.370) connected with high female discrimination

(av. 11.000) within the society around cultural codes as: lack of authority after divorce, no

law against rape and domestic violence and restricted access to public spaces for women

(SIGI, 2012). The female equal access to credit remains the one worth of underlining in that

case.

Further, discrimination of cultural codes within the family result in women inability to

get negotiate paid job with caring responsibilities. The cultural Arabian restrictions about

women access to the public space also tend to favour firstly the husband to choose the women

workplace what reduces women employment opportunities (OECD SIGI Raport 2012:27).

Interestingly, Nepal, Cambodia and Mongolia achieved the lowest level of gender

inequality within social norms confronted jointly with the lowest level of social globalization

in n-88 country cases investigated (Scatterplot 5.) Contemporary trends in Cambodia

6 SIGI Index has opposite trend direction measure and gives 0 for social contracts supportive for gender

equality and 1 for social contracts within society which are negative for gender equality.

13

according to SIGI index (developing countries samples) do not support early marriage,

incorporates laws system against domestic violence towards women and equal authority after

divorce.

Scatterplot 5.

Within n-88 case countries investigated the Pearson’s correlation between KOF

social globalization index and SIGI Index 2012 (Social Institutions and Gender Index)7 has

been estimated on 0,434 what in fact discover the high social globalization power to influence

on the changes in gendered society code on more equal. Standard deviation for KOF social

globalization index has been estimated on 16.26 (for SIGI st. deviation achieved 2.88).

Standard error of the mean for SIGI is defined on 0.307 level, while for KOF SG subindex

7 SIGI: Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI) measures important inputs to such outcome inequalities in

non OECD-countries. Social institutions are conceived as long-lasting codes of conduct, norms, traditions,

and informal and formal laws that impact on gender equality (OECD).

14

is estimated on 1.73. The Hypothesis 3. which link the cultural globalization with the highest

correlation within influence on estimating of gender equal cultural codes within society has

been confirmed (Scatterplot 5.).

In contrast, correlation between KOF Social Globalization level and GGG Index (n-137

cases) do not exist at all and is not visible what can suggest that the social globalization more

effect on outcomes of the cultural codes and social institutions, later probably if ever on the

covering of global gender gap (Scatterplot 6.).

Scatterplot 6.

15

Political Globalization and Gender Equality

Numerous studies have found that women from countries with high proportion of female

in the Lower Chamber are more able to benefit from the positive policy consequences for

women daily lives (ex. Bacchi, 1999, Woodward, 2011 and Dahlerup, 2006). There is nothing

surprising in the low correlation achieved due to the fact that international organizations deal

with establishing of international norms and do not have the power to influence country

national decision-making as for example supporting national female campaigning or financing

of partisan female candidates campaigns.

As the Scatterplot 7 suggests, the effect of political globalization on women

empowerment remains is surprisingly low for low-globalized countries as well as for

developed countries which already have established great international organizations

interconnectedness. Contrary, the significant correlation could not be expected due to the fact

that international organizations and embassies work have to work on the politic-neutral

ground and direct influence on the female candidates forcing would be destroyed for them,

even if highly influential.

Although as the research below shows there is a significant low correlation between the

KOF Political Globalization subindex8 and the Global Gender Gap Political Empowerment

subindex9 (Scatterplot7.) The overall correlation between KOF subindex Political

globalization 2009 (input indicator) and GGG subindex political empowerment (output

indicator) within n-133 countries occurred to be positive but weak, the correlation has been

estimated on 0.240 what makes the lowest globalization type correlation with gender equal

outcome examined in that particular paper (Scatterplot 7). Hypothesis 4 about low political

globalization impact on the female political empowerment (measured as % of female in the

Lower Chamber) has been positively confirmed. The results provide in depth the truth: the

international organizations in fact do not have the impact on the gender-friendly decision

making on the national level.

8 KOF Political Globalization input indicators: Embassies in Country, Membership in International

Organizations, Participation in U.N. Security Council Missions, International Treaties. 9 GGG Political Empowerment output indicators: Ratio: females with seats in parliament over male value,

Ratio: females at ministerial level over male value, Ratio: number of years of a female head of state or

government (last 50 years) over male

16

Scatterplot 7.

The Scatterplot 7. above shows that political globalization (as international organizations,

IO) suffer from inability to force gender equality into country domestic politics. However,

some studies (ex. O’Regan,2000). investigated that high women’s participation in the

parliament tend to result in stronger policies of employment and stronger wage protectionism.

Furthermore, also the significant positive relation on women empowerment has been

discovered between high female level of labor force participation what results in greater

female representation in parliament (Kittilson, 2004). Furthermore as the author (2004) have

found the larger female representation within labour forces often leads to the larger pool of

female candidates to run for parliamentary office.

17

The CEDAW international convention10

signing has been associated with 2% of increase

of the women workforces and the UN and WB country member status will affect female labor

forces 0.9 % higher within 35 years (on average), than the membership of country with

12 years (Kittilson, 2004). Furthermore, the increase in FDI (as % of GFCF11

) from 4 to 20%

leads to increase of 0.6% points in female parliamentary seats. The membership in

international organizations like UN and WB and ratification of CEDAW are associated with

improving of women conditions globally (Gray&Kittilson, 2004), but are not associated with

increase of female participation in the Lower Chamber (it has been confirmed in the

Scatterplot 7). Although political globalization definitely increased the growth and visibility

of international women movements, when the national gender equality discourse in the Lower

Chamber of gender equality remained untouched. However, the Scandinavian countries as

Finland, Norway and Sweden achieve significant trend of having both many if international

organizations and high percent of women influence in the parliament although it is rather

effect of culture promoting of equal gender policy under welfare state framework than

globalization influence.

Conclusion: The findings of globalization type towards more gender equality

Norris and Inglehart in “Rising Tides Gender Equality & Cultural Change around the

World” (2003) frankly recognized that firstly the cultural changes are needed for creation of

gender equal institutions and global gender equality on the market. Not without reasons, in

that research paper, the cultural globalization has been associated with the highest ability to

cover the gender gaps within the society and promote the socio-cultural contracts which are

positive towards gender equality incorporation. The changes forces under social globalization

occurred to positively affect both beliefs and values of social institutions and cultural codes

(SIGI Index). Changes in sociocultural globalization are able to strongly affect both people as

institutions, what makes that globalization type the most distinguished to establish positive

and equal opportunities for female within the often negative gendered society

10

The CEDAW International Convention has been adopted by UN General Assembly in 1978. The first

international bill signed by over 50 countries which describes the international rights of women. 11

GFCF - Gross Fixed Capital Formation: the total value of a producer's acquisitions, less disposals of fixed

assets during the accounting period plus certain additions to the value of non-produced assets (such as subsoil

assets or major improvements in the quantity, quality or productivity of land) realised by the productive activity

of institutional units (source:wikipedia:GFCF)

18

The sociocultural differences within the research definitely have to be recognized as

creating further influence on the outcomes of economic opportunities and political

opportunities within economic globalization and political globalization. That is probably the

main reasons, why the globalization has to be incorporated firstly by culture, later by

economic and political institutions.

The further research should be conducted to deny the sex differences and globalization

influence and rather focus on the social contracts examining within the society. The research

done here could be also preliminary extended on the examination of the globalization input

overall and in particular globalization type division on the two basic inputs as examination of

gender equality under globalization x type on gender equal education and on gender equal

health access opportunities. The social structures and cultural trends seem to be more

catchable by the institutional frameworks and probably the best practices to produce gender

equality will be associated with them in the future. The other types of globalization will be

more supportive for creating gender equality when the social contracts will force globalization

powers into respecting their cultural values and the pressure under dominant social contracts

will be pressure on them through the society. There is some further research prediction if the

increase in overall globalization cultural trend will shift up the economic and political

globalization as the result of the spillover effect on more gender equal.

19

References

Acker, J. (2004). Gender, Capitalism and Globalization. Critical Sociology 30(1), pp.17-41.

Akhter, R. (2009). Globalization and gender equality: A critical analysis of women's

empowerment in the global economy. Advances in Gender Research 13(1), pp. 141-173.

Bacchi, C. (1999). Women, Policy and Politics. The Construction of Policy Problems.

London: SAGE.

Bacchus, N. (2005). The Effects of Globalization on Women in Developing Countries. Pace:

Pace University.

Blau, F. & Kahn, M.(2000). Gender Differences in Pay. Journal of Economic Perspectives

14(4), pp. 75-99.

Busse, M. & Spielmann, C. (2008). Gender Inequality and Trade. Hamburg: Hamburg

Institute of International Economics.

Bystydzienski, J. (2002). Contradictory Effects of Globalization on Women: Problems,

Challenges and Opportunities. Iowa: Iowa State University.

Cagatay, N. (2004). Gender and Globalization: A Macroeconomic Perspective. Geneva: ILO.

Camps, E. (2009). Globalization and Culture as Factors that Shape the Gender Gap: A

Comparative Study of Urban Latin America and East Asia. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu

Fabra.

Chen, Z. (2013). Globalization and Gender Wage in China. World Development 44(1), pp.

256-266.

Davids, T. (2013). The Unhappy Marriage between Gender and Globalisation. Third World

Quarterly 30(5), pp. 906-920.

20

Edison, H. (2002). International Financial Integration and Economic Growth. Journal of

International Money and Finance 21(6), pp.749-776.

Greenway, D.(1999). Exports, Export Composition and Growth. Journal of International

Trade&Economic Development 8(1), pp. 41-51.

Kittilson, M. (2004). Women and Globalization: A Study of 180 Countries 1972-2000.

APSA: APSA Conference 2004.

KOF Globalization Index. Available at : http://globalization.kof.ethz.ch/ [Accessed 1 May

2012].

Kujawa, E. (2008). Empowering Women’s Leadership: A Case Study of Bangladesh

Microcredit Business. SAM Advanced Management Journal 73(4), pp.31-39.

Ghosh, B. (2011). Cultural Changes and Challenges in the Era of Globalization: The Case of

India. Journal of Developing Studies 27(1), pp. 153-173.

Global Gender Gap Index (2012). Available at: http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-

report-2012/ [Accessed 1 May 2012].

Horgan, G. (2001). How Does Globalisation Affect Women? International Socialism Journal

2001 (1), pp. 1-10.

ILO (2008). Gender Dimension of Globalization. Available at:

http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/--

integration/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_100856.pdf [Accessed 1 May 2012].

Inglehart, R. & Norris,P. (2003). Rising Tide: Gender Equality and Cultural Change Around

the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

21

Lovell, P. (2000). Race, Gender and Regional Labor Market Inequalities in Brazil. Review of

Social Economy 58(3), pp. 277-293.

Mohan, J. (2009) International Business. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Moghadam, V. (1999). Gender and Globalization. Female Labour and Women’s

Mobilization. Journal of World System Research 5(2), pp. 367-388.

Murray, P. (2013). Gender, Globalisation and Institutional Change. Journal of South Asian

Studies 1(1), pp. 1-20.

Oostendorp, R. (2009). Globalization and the Gender Wage Gap. The World Bank Economic

Review 23(1), pp. 141-161.

O’Regan, V. (2000). Gender Matters: Female Policy Makers Influence in Industrialized

Nations. CT: Preager.

Pearson, R. (2010). Moving the Goalposts: Gender and Globalisation in the Twenty-First

Century. Gender&Development 8(1), pp. 10-19.

Potrafke, N. (2012). Globalization and Gender Equality in the Course of Development.

European Journal of Political Economy 28(4), pp. 399-413.

Potrafke, N. (2011). Globalization and Gender Equality in Developing Countries. Konstanz:

University of Konstanz.

Sapkota, J. (2011). Globalization and Human Aspect of Development in Developing

Countries: Evidence From Panel Data. Journal of Globalization Studies 2(1), pp.78-96.

Schulz, P. (2003). Does Globalization Enhance Gender Equality. Yale: Yale University.

22

Scrase, R. (2003). Paradoxes of Globalization, Liberalization and Gender Equality: The

Worldviews of the Lower Middle Class in West Bengal, India. Gender and Society 17(4),

pp.544-566.

Seugino, S. (2006). The Great Equalizer? Globalization Effect on Gender Equality in Latin

America and the Carribean. Burlington: Vermont University.

Seugino, S. (1997). Gender Wage Inequality and Export-Led Growth in South Korea. Journal

of Development Studies 34(4), pp. 102-132.

Seugino, S. (2005). Gender Inequality in Globalizing World. New York: UNRISD.

Seugino, S. (2006). Gender Equity and Globalization: Macroeconomic Policy for Developing

Countries. Munich: University of Munich.

Seugino, S. (2000). Gender Inequality and Economic Growth: A Cross-Country Analysis.

World Development 28(7), pp.1211-1230.

SIGI (2012). Social Institutions and gender Index: Understanding the Drivers of Gender

Inequality. Paris: OECD.

Standng, G. (1989). Global Feminization Through Flexible Labor. World Development 17(7),

pp.1077-1095.

Stromquist, N. (2005). The Impact of Globalization on Education and Gender: an Emergent

Cross-Bational Balance. Journal of Education 37(1), pp. 7-37.

Sweeney, S. (2004). Global Transformations, National Institutions and Women Rights: A

Cross National Comparative Analysis. Chicago: APSA conference meeting.

Tseloni, A. (2009). Globalization, Development and Gender Equality across the World:

A Multivariate Multilevel Approach. London: London Metropolitan University.

23

World Bank (2011). Globalization Impact on Gender Equality. Available at:

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2012/Resources/7778105-

1299699968583/7786210-1315936222006/chapter-6.pdf [Accessed 1 May 2012].

World Bank Development Report. Gender Equity and Development (2012). Available at:

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2012/Resources/77781051299699968583/77862

10-1315936222006/Complete-Report.pdf [Accessed 1 May 2012].

Code Glossary

Research Country Codes

Albania ALB

Algeria DZA

Angola ANG

Argentina ARG

Armenia ARM

Australia AUS

Austria AUT

Azerbaijan AZE

Bahamas, The BHS

Bahrain BHR

Bangladesh BGD

Barbados BRB

Belarus BLA

Belgium BEL

Belize BLZ

Benin BEN

Bhutan BHT

Bolivia BOL

Bosnia and Herzegovina BSH

Botswana BWA

Brazil BRA

Brunei Darussalam BRN

Bulgaria BGR

Burundi BDI

Cambodia KHM

Cameroon CMR

Canada CAN

Cape Verde CPV

Central African Republic ZAF

Chad TCD

Chile CHL

China CHN

Colombia COL

Congo, CON

Costa Rica CRI

24

Cote d'Ivoire CIV

Croatia HRV

Cuba CUB

Cyprus CYP

Czech Republic CZE

Denmark DNK

Dominican Republic DOM

Ecuador ECU

Egypt, Arab Rep. EGY

El Salvador SLV

Eritrea ERT

Estonia EST

Ethiopia ETH

Fiji FJI

Finland FIN

Macedonia MCD

France FRA

Gambia, The GMB

Georgia GEO

Germany DEU

Ghana GHA

Greece GRC

Guatemala GTM

Guinea GNA

Guyana GUY

Haiti HTI

Honduras HND

Hungary HUN

Iceland ISL

India IND

Indonesia IDN

Iran IRN

Iraq IRQ

Ireland IRL

Israel ISR

Italy ITA

Jamaica JAM

Japan JPN

Jordan JOR

Kazakhstan KAZ

Kenya KEN

Korea, Rep. KOR

Kuwait KWT

Kyrgyz Republic KGZ

Lao People's Democratic Republic LAO

Latvia LVA

Lebanon LBN

Lesotho LSO

Liberia LBR

Libya LBY

Lithuania LTU

Luxembourg LUX

Macedonia, FYR MKD

25

Madagascar MDG

Malawi MWI

Malaysia MYS

Maldives MDV

Mali MLI

Malta MLT

Mauritania MRT

Mauritius MUS

Mexico MEX

Moldova MDA

Mongolia MNG

Morocco MAR

Mozambique MOZ

Myanmar MYN

Namibia NAM

Nepal NPL

Netherlands NLD

New Zealand NZL

Nicaragua NIC

Niger NGR

Nigeria NGA

Norway NOR

Oman OMN

Panama PAN

Papua New Guinea PNG

Paraguay PRY

Peru PER

Philippines PHL

Poland POL

Portugal PRT

Qatar QAT

Romania ROM

Russian Federation RUS

Rwanda RWA

Saudi Arabia SAU

Senegal SEN

Serbia SRB

Sierra Leone SRL

Singapore SGP

Slovak Republic SVK

Slovenia SVN

South Africa ZAF

Spain ESP

Sri Lanka LKA

Sudan SDN

Swaziland SWA

Sweden SWE

Switzerland CHE

Syrian Arab Republic SYR

Tajikistan TJK

Tanzania TZA

Thailand THA

Timor-Leste TMP

26

Togo TOG

Trinidad and Tobago TTO

Tunisia TUN

Turkey TUR

Turkmenistan TRK

Uganda UGA

Ukraine UKR

United Arab Emirates ARE

United Kingdom GBR

United States USA

Uruguay URY

Uzbekistan UZB

Venezuela, RB VEN

Vietnam VNM

Yemen, Rep. YEM

Zambia ZMB

Zimbabwe ZBW