site banner
Londondare  I am new here  1yr ago (text post)   Edited 1yr ago   5925 thread views

How UN manipulates the Gender Development Index

I think that UN manipulating it's own index is not culture wars even if the index is related to gender. Let me know if I am wrong.

Human development

The Gender Development Index (GDI), along with its more famous sibling Human Development Index (HDI) is a an index published annually by UN's agency, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Whether an index is manipulated or not can be judged only against a precise definition of what the index claims to be measuring. So how do you measure human development? Whatever you do, you will never capture all nuances of the real world - you will have to simplify. The UNDP puts it this way:

The Human Development Index (HDI) was created to emphasize that people and their capabilities should be the ultimate criteria for assessing the development of a country, not economic growth alone.

So the UNDP defines the Human Development Index as a geometric mean of three dimensions represented by four indices:

Dimension Index
Long and healthy life Life expectancy at birth (years)
Knowledge Expected years of schooling (years)
Mean years of schooling (years)
Decent standard of living Gross National Income (GNI) per capita (2017 PPP$)

Source: https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/human-development-index#/indicies/HDI

Gender Development

So far so good. Next, on it's website the Gender Development Index (GDI) is defined like this:

GDI measures gender inequalities in achievement in three basic dimensions of human development: health, measured by female and male life expectancy at birth; education, measured by female and male expected years of schooling for children and female and male mean years of schooling for adults ages 25 years and older; and command over economic resources, measured by female and male estimated earned income.

Source: https://hdr.undp.org/gender-development-index#/indicies/GDI

While in the actual report HDI it is simply defined as a ratio of female to male HDI values:

Definitions - Gender Development Index: Ratio of female to male HDI values.

Source: https://hdr.undp.org/system/files/documents/global-report-document/hdr2021-22pdf_1.pdf

Let's look, for instance, at the Gender Development Index of United Kingdom. The value 0.987 means that despite longer life and more education, in UK, females are less developed than males.

Dimension Index Female value Male value
Long and healthy life Life expectancy at birth (years) 82.2 78.7
Knowledge Expected years of schooling (years) 17.8 16.8
Mean years of schooling (years) 13.4 13.4
Decent standard of living Gross National Income (GNI) per capita (2017 PPP$) 37,374 53,265

Source: https://hdr.undp.org/system/files/documents/global-report-document/hdr2021-22pdf_1.pdf

Wait, what?? What does it mean that females in UK have command over economic resources of post Soviet Estonia (GNI Estonia=38,048) while males in UK have command over economic resources of EU leader Germany (GNI Germany=54,534)?

The manipulation

The UNDP calculates separate command over economic resources for females and males, as a product of the actual Gross National Income (GNI) and two indices: female and male shares of the economically active population (the non-adjusted employment gap) and the ratio of the female to male wage in all sectors (the non-adjusted wage gap).

The UNDP provides this simple example about Mauritania:

Gross National Income per capita of Mauritania (2017 PPP $) = 5,075

Indicator Female value Male value
Wage ratio (female/male) 0.8 0.8
Share of economically active population 0.307 0.693
Share of population 0.51016 0.48984
Gross national income per capita (2017 PPP $) 2,604 7,650

According to this index, males in Mauritania enjoy the command over economic resources of Viet Nam (GNI Viet Nam=7,867) while females in Mauritania suffer the command over economic resources of Haiti (GNI Haiti=2,847).

Let's be honest here: this is total bullshit. There are two reasons why you cannot use raw employment gap and raw wage gap for calculating the command over economic resources:

Argument 1

Bread winners share income with their families. This is a no brainer. All over the world, men are expected to fulfil their gender role as a bread winer. This does not mean that they keep the pay check for themselves while their wives and children starve to death. Imagine this scenario: a poor father from India travels to Qatar where he labours in deadly conditions, so that his family can live a slightly better life. According to UNDP, he just became more developed, while the standard of living his wife is exactly zero.

Argument 2

Governments redistribute wealth. This is a no brainer too. One's command over economic resources and standard of living is not equal to ones pay check. There are social programs, pensions, public infrastructure. Even if you have never earned a pay check yourself, you can take a public transport on a public road to the next public hospital. Judging by the Tax Freedom Day, states around the world redistribute 30% to 50% of all income. And while men pay most of the taxis (obviously, they have higher wages) women receive most of the subsidies (obviously, they have lover wages). But according the UNDP, women in India (female GNI 2,277) suffer in schools and hospitals of the war-torn Rwanda, while men in India (male GNI 10,633) enjoy the infrastructure and social security of the 5-times more prosperous Turkey.

Don't get me wrong, the employment gap and pay gap are not irrelevant for the standard of living and command over economic resources. Pensions and social security schemes mostly do not respect the shared family income and as a result the partner doing less paid work - usually a women - gets lower pension, unemployment benefit etc. What's worse, the non-working partner is severely disadvantaged in case of divorce or break up. But while this has an impact on each gender's standard of living it certainly does not define 100% of that value.

Argument 3

You may argue that the command over economic resources measured by estimated earned income is some kind of proxy for all other disadvantages women face in society. But do you remember what I said in the beginning?

Whether an index is manipulated or not can be judged only against a precise definition of what the index claims to be measuring.

The HDI measures "people and their capabilities" and the GDI is a ratio of these capabilities measured separately for men and women. The economic dimension of the GDI is supposed to be standard of living or command over economic resources - neither of which can be represented by earned income alone.

The taboo

Wikipedia says: "For most countries, the earned-income gap accounts for more than 90% of the gender penalty." (I have not verified this.) This is important, because when we look at the other two dimensions it becomes clear that while men have shorter and less health lives they also increasingly fall behind in mean and expected years of schooling. Without the misrepresentation of the command over economic resources value, the index would show something very uncomfortable: that according to UN's own definition of Human Development men are the less developed gender.


PS: Is there a way to give those tables some borders and padding?
31
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

"gender inequalities in achievement"

Equating achievement with salary is the manipulation. Mother raising a baby is not a failure because she is momentarily not earning salary. Our society does not measure achievement with a salary, why should the index?

In your hypothetical, the wife's* economic well-being* is as high or higher than that of her husband, but her economic achievement is indeed about zero.

I don't understand this sentence.

A woman who relies on her husband as the breadwinner is dependent on him in ways that a woman who earns her own income is not.

This is of course true, but it does not imply that her command over economic resources is zero. You ignore social norms and even laws that govern the sharing of economic resources in a marriage. By default, half of all wealth owned by the couple belongs to her. And as the marketers says, women make majority of purchasing decisions.

Mother raising a baby is not a failure because she is momentarily not earning salary

I don't think it implies otherwise. The index component is meant to measure "command over economic resources", not other forms of achievement.

I don't understand this sentence.

Suppose there is one woman who has a minimum wage job, so she has earned income. Another woman is on welfare, with the same income, but of course it is all unearned. Their economic well-being is the same (as measured by purchasing power), but you rank them both the same on economic achievement? One is dependent on the state for her economic welfare, and the other is not. Perhaps "achievement" is not the most accurate term, but surely there is a separate phenomenon, and an important one, regarding which the two women vary.

This is of course true, but it does not imply that her command over economic resources is zero. You ignore social norms and even laws that govern the sharing of economic resources in a marriage. By default, half of all wealth owned by the couple belongs to her. And as the marketers says, women make majority of purchasing decisions.

Ok, so close to zero. Only if you define "command" as the ability to make decisions about purchases. But why would you do that? That is sufficiently measured by unearned income. And, why do you assume that "by default, half of all wealth owned by the couple belongs to her." That is not true in all US states, let alone in all countries. Nor is it necessarily true that women make the majority of purchasing decisions in every country.

Look, I am not saying that the index is perfect, but can you see why a reasonable person in the field of international development might find the index useful for many purposes?

The index component is meant to measure "command over economic resources", not other forms of achievement.

but you rank them both the same on economic achievement?

You seem to keep changing the definition. Choose just one, economic achievement or command over economic resources? The GDI says it compares command over economic resources.

Only if you define "command" as the ability to make decisions about purchases. But why would you do that?

How else would you define "command"? Don't you think that you command many more resources that just your salary? Do you think retirees command zero economic resources because they no longer earn salary?

why do you assume that "by default, half of all wealth owned by the couple belongs to her."

To be honest, I am from EU and it is true here so I assumed that it is true in the whole western developed world. Can you show me a concrete example to the contrary?

why a reasonable person in the field of international development might find the index useful for many purposes?

Useful for what purpose exactly? To me, the index seems as deliberately constructed to support certain ideology by very unreasonable people. As if they needed the index to show women are oppressed. But if you just used the dimensions from the HDI then it would show that men are much worse off. So they threw in the unadjusted pay gap but it was not enough, men were still worse off, so the threw in also the unadjusted employment gap, and finally, women are the worse off, even if the index does not make sense.

Look at it this way: if gender equality increases, what will the index show? Nordic countries are considered the most gender egalitarian. Married women have security and choices and they CHOOSE to stay with children and work more part-time jobs and less full time jobs. The index interprets it as women in Nordic countries being worse off.

You seem to keep changing the definition. Choose just one, economic achievement or command over economic resources?

I think perhaps you misconstrued my point; I meant to be saying exactly that: that economic achievement and command over economic resources are two different things. I said: " The index component is meant to measure "command over economic resources", not other forms of achievement" and "surely there is a separate phenomenon [ie, other than achievement], and an important one, regarding which the two women vary."

How else would you define "command"?

As the index does, as an ability to independently earn income. That is what it appears to be measuring, rather the ability to consume, which is what a measure of decisionmaking over purchases would measure.

To be honest, I am from EU and it is true here so I assumed that it is true in the whole western developed world.

  1. The index is meant to apply to all countries, not just in the western developed world.
  2. I can tell you that in community property states in the US, "Property that one party owned before the marriage is not owned by the “community,” and thus is treated as separate, and not community property. . . . Any property that is bought with separate property is also separate property, even if it is bought during the marriage. . . . Rent or income earned from separate property continues to be separate as well — so money or rent earned from businesses or real estate owned before the marriage will exist as separate property, as long as it is isn’t mixed with community assets.". And in non- community property states like New York, "courts must divide the marital property “equitably.” That means fairly, considering the circumstances of the case and of the parties involved, but it does not necessarily mean “equally.” There is no statutory requirement of a 50/50 split of marital property.".
  3. I am a little skeptical that that is the rule across the EU. Community property states in the US are generally those that originally were colonies of Spain, and originally adopted Spanish legal rules. Former colonies of England adopted English rules, and it seems that, in the UK, "There are no hard and fast rules regarding division of assets on divorce. When dividing assets the Court, and solicitors will take account of various factors when advising their clients. These are known as Section 25 factors (Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973)."

Useful for what purpose exactly? To me, the index seems as deliberately constructed to support certain ideology by very unreasonable people.

I want to suggest that perhaps that belief is a function of your particular biases, rather than on actual evidence. it was apparently developed in order to address weaknesses in broader measures such as GDP or, specifically, the Human Development Index, which measure only country-level metrics and hence might miss problems at the subnational level. What is wrong with that? It is like when I was in my first year of teaching, and a colleague mentioned that our data on the achievement of our Asian students failed to reveal that certain subgroups, such as Mien kids, might be underperforming. And don't get me started on the differences in achievement between Mien males and females.

As the index does, as an ability to independently earn income.

Such definition would determine that retirees have zero command over economic resources. Such definition would determine that MacKenzie Scott (Bezos) has zero command over economic resources. Which is obviously false, which in turn means that "independently earn income" can not be the measure of command over economic resources.

The index is meant to apply to all countries, not just in the western developed world.

The index is meant to apply to all countries, not just outside of western developed world. The burden of being correct lies on with the index, not with me.

"Property that one party owned before the marriage

Sorry but this feels like strawman argument. We were clearly talking about division in a paid/unpaid labour that happens during the marriage.

There is no statutory requirement of a 50/50 split of marital property.".

I never said it is 50/50, I said it is not 0/100. I feel frustrated by what I perceive as you shifting the argument.

I am a little skeptical that that is the rule across the EU

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_property and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrimonial_regime. Again, the point is not that it is always a 50/50 split, the point is that it is almost never a 0/100.

your particular biases

We all have biases, including myself. But I think I have proven beyond reasonable doubt that GDI uses incorrect measure of "command over economic resources".

the Human Development Index, which measure only country-level metrics and hence might miss problems at the subnational level. What is wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with that. Again, my argument never was that subnational level index is wrong.

Such definition would determine that retirees have zero command over economic resources.

Eh. Given that pension payments tend to be a function of past earned income, I would expect that including pensions in the index would do little to change the result.

Such definition would determine that MacKenzie Scott (Bezos) has zero command over economic resources

And were there a country where MacKenzie Scotts made up a substantial part of the population, that might be a problem. Or would it? Surely the point is to get insight into the typical resident of the country.

I never said it is 50/50,

You are misrembering. I was responding to your statement, "by default, half of all wealth owned by the couple belongs to her."

Sorry but this feels like strawman argument. We were clearly talking about division in a paid/unpaid labour that happens during the marriage

But, you said "wealth owned by the couple," not income. So, I responded with information about the division of property.

We all have biases, including myself. But I think I have proven beyond reasonable doubt that GDI uses incorrect measure of "command over economic resources".

  1. But my comment related to your claim about why the index was created, not how well it measures "command over economic resources".
  2. We are going to have to agree to disagree about whether you have proven your case, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt.

I would expect that including pensions in the index would do little to change the result.

Then you would expect wrong. Women are recipients of majority of wealth transfers.

And were there a country where MacKenzie Scotts made up a substantial part of the population...

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

You are misrembering.

Oh yes, I did say that. Sorry.

But, you said "wealth owned by the couple," not income.

You are right. And thanks, you are teaching me to be more careful with what I say.

But my comment related to your claim about why the index was created,

I am not really claiming to know why the index was created. My little speculation what just that, a speculation.

We are going to have to agree to disagree

I helped me to make my argument stronger and I thankful for that. If you are interested I will be glad to continue this discussion but I am also content with agreeing to disagree.

Women are recipients of majority of wealth transfers

But weren’t you talking specifically about pensions, not all transfers? I thought that was what your hypothetical was about.

If you are interested I will be glad to continue this discussion but I am also content with agreeing to disagree.

Honestly, this is far more time than I expected to spend discussing the Gender Development Index; it isn't even a topic I am all that interested in, nor do I feel I have enough knowledge about the underlying process involved in developing the index to say much more than I have already said, so I would just as soon leave it here.

But weren’t you talking specifically about pensions, not all transfers

Majority of pensions in the world are social transfers from the government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension#Pillars.

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats