GII Measure and Main Findings

8/12/2019 GII Measure and Main Findings

1/29

OPHIOxford Poverty & Human Development InitiativeDepartment of International Development

Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford

www.op .org.u March 4, 2011

The Measure and Main Findings

Oxford Human Development Course on Concepts, Measurement andPolicy Implications

Suman Seth


2/29

-

e new measure on gen er nequa ty

The Gender Inequality Index

Main findings

Concludin remarks


3/29

-

-

measures

1. Measures of well-being incorporating gender

inequality into account

2. Measures of gender inequality

3. Measures of womens disadvantage


4/29

1. Well-Being Measures

Incorporating Gender Inequality -

an index of well-being penalizing for inequality

health, education and incomes like the HDI

Gender Empowerment Index (GEM)

a complementary measure of gender equality in political,economic and decision making power


5/29

GDI HDI

Forsythe et al, (1998) proposed an index:

(HDI - GDI)/HDI


6/29

3. Measures of Womens

Disadvantage

and Hammer, 2000)

men and women in the three components of health,

education and income same as that of the HDI

Gender Equity Index (GEI) [Social Watch]

the female male ratios in three dimensions arecategorized by a 1-4 score and then a simple average is

Can have only 12 possible scores


7/29

3. Measures of Womens

Disadvantage .

calculated by converting data into male/female ratios,

benchmark

Klasen and Schler (2010)

proposed an index as the geometric mean of

female/male ratios of achievements in differentdimensions


8/29

The effectiveness of the life expectancy indicator is

Each indicator in the GEM arguably suffers from urban,

Over-reliance on imputations for missing data on income

Some of these measures are not methodologically sound

For more information, see Gaye et al. (2010)


9/29

Aggregation Methodology of GDI

and GEM , ,

and S

ExamplePopulation

Share L K S

Female 50.9% 0.776 0.850 0.684

Male 49.1% 0.737 0.877 0.772

Source: Human Development Report 2006, Example of Thailand


10/29

Population

ShareFemale 50.9% 0.776 0.850 0.684

Male 49.1% 0.737 0.877 0.772

ED-L: (0.5090.776-1 + 0.4910.737-1) = 0.756

ED-K: (0.5090.850-1 + 0.4910.877-1) = 0.863

ED-S: (0.5090.684-1 + 0.4910.772-1) = 0.725

= . . . = .

GEM uses the same methodology with different dimensions


11/29

What does it mean?

Consider the following example: opu a on

Share L K S

the same GDI

. . . .

Male 49.1% 0.737 0.877 0.772 It does not matter

who is oor: opu at on

Share L K S

. . . .

Male 49.1% 0.776 0.877 0.772


12/29


13/29

Dimension Indicator Source

Reproductive Maternal Mortality Ratio (MMR) UNICEF, 2010

ea t Adolescent Fertility Rate (AFR) UN DESA, 2009

Share of parliamentary seats held Inter-parliamentary Unions

Empowerment (E) ,

Attainment at secondary andhigher education (SE)

Barro and Lee, 2010

Labor Market (L)Labour market participation rate(LFPR)

International LaborOrganization, 2010


14/29


15/29

I. Few adjustment made to the MMR indicator and

II. An index for each group (male and female) is

calculated usin the erformance in all 5 indicators

III. Two group-wise indices are aggregated toconstruct anE uall Distributed Index

IV. Calculate the maximum possible welfare for thegiven performances for the two groups

V. Calculate the Gender Inequality Index


16/29

The maternal mortality rate is truncated below at 10,

are o par amentary seats e y eac sex

The minimum share was assumed to be 0 instead of

zero as t e aggregat on unct on s not e ne orzero values


17/29

,

each group: male (M) and female (F) F, F, F Male performance = [H

M

, EM

, LM

]

F

HM = 11 2

F F F Male Empowerment Index: EM = [PRMSEM]

1/2

= F F

Male labour market participation index: LM = LFPRM


18/29

GF = (HF

EF

LF)1/3

Male

GM = (HM EM LM)1/3


19/29

achievement

W(GF, GM) = [(GF)-1

+ (GM)-1

]1

This functional form is also known as harmonic

mean


20/29

performances [HF, EF, LF] and [HM, EM, LM]? ,

group has equal achievement in each dimension

H= (HF + HM)/2

= F M L= (LF + LM)/2


21/29

,

females are

GF = (H E L)1 3 = GM

The maximum welfare is

F, M = F-

M-

= (H E L)1/3


22/29

normalized distance between the maximum F, M

W(GF, GM).

GII = [W(GF, GM) W(GF, GM)]/W(GF, GM)

=


23/29

Male Female HF = [(1/MMR)(1/AFR)]

1/2

MMR n.a. 110AFR n.a. 75.6

= [(1/110)(1/75.6)]1/2

= 0.011

PR 0.906 0.094

SE 0.463 0.488

M

EF = [PRFSEF]1/2

= [0.094 0.488]1/2= 0.214LFPR 0.852 0.640 EM = [PRMSEM]

1/2

= [0.906 0.463]1/2= 0.647= 1/3

F = F = .LM = LFPRM = 0.852

= (0.011 0.214 0.640)1/3

=0.115-1 -1 1

GF = (HM EM LM)1 3

= (1 0.647 0.852)1/3 =0.82

F, M F M= [ 0.115-1 + 0.82-1]1

= 0.201


24/29

Male Female HF = [(1/MMR)(1/AFR)]

1/2

MMR n.a. 110AFR n.a. 75.6

= [(1/110)(1/75.6)]1/2

= 0.011

PR 0.906 0.094

SE 0.463 0.488

M

EF = [PRFSEF]1/2

= [0.094 0.488]1/2= 0.214LFPR 0.852 0.640 EM = [PRMSEM]

1/2

= [0.906 0.463]1/2= 0.647 = + =

F = F = .LM = LFPRM = 0.852

.

E= (EF + EM)/2 = 0.431

L= (LF + LM)/2 = 0.746

GF = GM = (H E

L

)1/3 = 0.546

F, M .

GII = 1 - 0.201/0.546 = 0.632


25/29

What does GII = 0.632 for Brazil mean?

It means that the loss of welfare due to the unequaldistribution in Brazil is 63.2 ercent

GII for few other countries (out of 138 countries)

Algeria 0.594 70 India 0.749 122

rmen a . er a .Jamaica 0.638 84 Malaysia 0.493 50

o om a . gan a .

Ghana 0.729 114 USA 0.400 37


26/29

varies from 17 percent to 85 percent x v u

gender disparity


27/29


28/29

IHDI and GII More unequal the overall human development of a

society is, higher is the gender disparity


29/29

indicators (such as parliamentary representation)

No comparable achievement for males in MMR and

It is difficult to intuitively interpret the contribution

Calculating the equally distributed equivalentshoulde we g e y popu a on

Documents

GII Measure and Main Findings