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.

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.

Yes, but is it not also true that, as I said, the amount transferred to any given person is largely a function of their prior earnings?

Often it is, but with negative correlation. The less you earn, the more transfers you get.

For pensions? Not food stamps, or other poverty alleviation measures, but pensions? Where is your evidence for that?

Not for pensions.

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