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?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Correlation is not the only criterion. Amplitude matters too.
I am not making my own assumptions, I quoted UNJDP on what they say they measure.
I disagree. I read their methodological paper, I am even quoting it in my post.
Again, I am not assuming anything, UNDP clearly says what the economic dimension means.
Wikipedia is not a source, what is the actual source of that claim?
But when looking at whether a change in an index corresponds with actual changes on the ground, amplitude is included. Eg, does a 5 pct increase in an index correspond with a 5 pct increase in what it purports to measure, or a 2 pct increase, or a 3 pct decrease, or what?
I was referring to the question of what "command" means.
It is indeed a source, as are all secondary sources. How reliable it or other secondary sources are is a different question. I believe there is a citation in the Wikipedia article.
I believe it is not. Women receive majority of financial transfers from the government. If a government decides to double tax-deductibles, triple child benefits, or turn Matrimonial regime on its head this will have zero impact on the index. If a sharia laws gets foothold in a country and men are now able to divorce women without sharing their wealth, the index will show zero change.
So what is your definition of command? Make your case, show me why you think MacKenzie Scott (Bezos) has no command over her wealth.
If you want to discuss this point further, please check if the citation is actually correct and link it here.
Yes, it is because "it" is not the index itself, but rather the assessment of how well it corellates with what it purports to measure.
Yes, this is a reason that this particular index might be imperfect. But we have already discussed this, ad nauseum. The question is not whether we can think of a reason that the index might be imperfect; of course we can. The question, as I said before, is whether an alternative index would perform better.
Once again, you are missing the point. There is no "case" to be made, because as I said, "It seems to a perfectly reasonable way to estimate what I understand them to be trying to measure. Whether that is the same as what you understand them to be trying to measure is a different question." So, the issue is not what my definition of "command" is, but rather whether we all (you, me, and the UN) have the same understanding of what the UN means by "command," which seems to be, imho, a somewhat poorly chosen term, though of course it very possibly has a technical meaning of which I am unfamiliar.
Moreover, there is a very good reason not to count unearned income: The income metric of the GDI is meant to be an adjustment of the per capita GDP measure that is a component of the HDI. But, GDP is a measure of current year production, while a pension is deferred payment for past production. And Mackenzie Scott's wealth is the accumulation of profits from past production. So, counting them will fuck up the numbers: If I earn 100k, pay 20k in taxes, and the govt gives 10k to an indigent person, then counting that 10k implies that 110k in wealth has been created. Similarly, if Amazon disappears tomorrow and Jeff Bezos retires, Mackenzie will still have tons of wealth to spend next year, despite her, him, and Amazon producing nothing. Using that wealth or spending in an adjustment of GDP numbers makes no sense. And, yes, ideally you could use post-tax and transfer income to avoid the problem with payments to the indigent that I just mentioned, but 1) that data is probably not widely available outside the OECD and the like; and 2) most taxes are not used for transfer payments.
No, I have made my point and have presented evidence. If you think it is incorrect, it is in you to make the effort to demonstrate that.
It would be very easy to construct a better index. If you simply remove the unadjusted employment gap the index would be closer to reality.
I don't understand what you are trying to say. But it seems to me that you are in principle unwilling to consider the possibility that UN made a mistake. So I don't think any further discussion makes sense.
You are mistaking anonymous quote from wikipedia with evidence.
You don't know that unless you test the alternatives, right?
I agree that further discussion doesn't make sense, but it is because you claim to not understand that different people sometimes use words in different ways.
Again, there is a citation in the Wikipedia article. If it is that important, you are free to look it up.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link