User:FaithSara/sandbox

The Measurement of Human Capabilities
In 1990 in the Human Development Report commissioned by the United Nations Development Program set out to create a distribution-sensitive development measure. This measure was created to rival the more traditional GDP and GNP, which had previously been used to measure development in a given country, but which did not contain provisions for any considerations in terms of distribution. The resulting measure was entitled the Human Development Index (HDI). The Human Development index took into consideration a number of development and well-being factors that were not previously taken into account in the calculation of the GDP and the GNP. The HDI was calculated using the indicators of life expectancy, adult literacy, school enrollment, and logarithmic transformations of per-capita income. In 1995, the UNDP introduced two new measuring indices, namely the Gender Empowerment Index (GEM) and the Gender-related Development Index (GDI) in order to expand on the HDI and to add a gender component to the measurement of development in a given country. The GDI is defined as a “distribution-sensitive measure that accounts for the human development impact of existing gender gaps in the three components of the HDI” (Klasen 243). The GEM was a little more specialized, focusing particularly on the relative empowerment of women in a given country. In 1997, the UNDP introduced the Human Poverty Measure, which was aimed at capturing poverty in both industrialized and developing countries. In the 2010 Human Development Report the new Gender Inequality Index was introduced and calculated for 137 countries. This new experimental measure used indicators such as Reproductive Health, Empowerment, and Labor force participation in order to measure development in a gender-sensitive way. It was created in order to revise some of the shortcomings of the GDI and the HDI.

History of the GEM
In 1995 in the Human Development Report commissioned by the UNDP set-out to create two new measurement indices for measuring development. Their aim was to add to the Human Development Index by way of including a gender dimension in the measure. They were created, in addition to the HDI to rival the traditional income-focused measures of development such as the GDP and the GNP. Haq, the first director of the Human Development Report Office, established several principals for the newly emerging measure including provisions that it had to be simple, had to be represented as a single number, had to be easily calculated, had to yield numbers that were internationally comparable, had to use numbers available on a yearly basis and had to use numbers that were easily interpretable. The resulting measures that were created were the Gender-related Development Index (GDI) and the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM). The GEM, the more specialized of the two, is focused on indicating the relative empowerment of women in a given country.

Definition and Calculation of the GEM
The GEM was designed to measure ‘‘whether women and men are able to actively participate in economic and political life and take part in decision-making’’ (UNDP, 1995, p.73)(Klasen 257). The GEM tends to more agency focused than well-being focused. The GEM is determined using three basic indicators: Proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments, percentage of women in economic decision making positions (incl. administrative, managerial, professional and technical occupations) and female share of income (Earned incomes of males vs. females). The GEM is thought to be a valuable policy instruments because it allows certain dimmension that were previously difficult to compare between countries to come into international comparison.

Debates Surrounding the GEM
As time passes, and these measures (the GDI and the GEM) are applied year after year, debate has arisen over whether or not they seem to have been as influential in promoting gender-sensitive development as was hoped when. Some of the major criticisms of both measures includes that they are highly specialized and difficult to interpret, often misinterpreted, suffer from large data gaps, do not provide accurate comparisons across countries, and try to combine too many development factors into a single measure. The concern then arises that if these indices are not well informed, then their numbers might hide more than they reveal.

In terms of the GEM in particular, it is often accused of representing an elite bias. It has been argued to measures inequality only among the most educated and economically advantaged women and to focus mainly on the higher echelons of society. Women in grassroots organizations or at the local political level are not reflected, as well as work in lower levels of employment or in the informal sector, where many women in poor and developing countries are forced to seek employment. Furthermore, statistical information (data) is not very readily available for many of the indicators in the GEM. Not many less-developed countries collect really reliable data on women’s involvement in economic participation or labor involvement. As a result, the GEM is only really reliable for very highly developed countries which do collect those statistics. It is also often argued that the number of women in parliament isn’t necessarily a good indicator of gender empowerment progress in a given country because many times “feminists” are considered political liabilities, and as such, female politicians do not always promote female interests. On the other hand, however, information regarding the number of parliamentary seats held by women is very easy to obtain, and very hard to alter, making it one of the more reliable sources of data in the measure. Another criticism of the GEM is it’s failure to address the issue of female control over their bodies and sexuality, which some argue is an important source of female empowerment and as such should be included in the measure. Additionally, the GEM has also been criticized for being far too dependent on the income component of the measure for determining the overall GEM score.

Suggested Alterations and Alternatives to the GEM
Many suggestions have been made to alter and improve the GEM. It has been suggested that the GEM be altered to include female representation in local government instead of only national government to make it less elite. Furthermore, it has been recommended that it should be revised to reflect female participation in political activities such as voting. Additionally, it has been suggested that a component regarding women’s control over their own bodies and sexuality could be added by measuring availability of birth-control and the right to abortion. It has also been suggested that the GEM could be altered to include the proportion of females who are in extreme poverty as opposed to the proportion of females holding parliamentary positions. Lastly, it has also been recommended that the GEM could be altered to include female levels of unemployment. Other suggestions include coming up with different ways to deal with the earned income part so as to make it a more straightforward mode of measurement.

Suggestions have also been made to replace the GEM as a whole. One such suggestion is the calculation of separate HDI’s for males and females which would provide a more straight-foward picture of gender inequality (first suggested by Halis Akder in 1994). Another suggestion is to create a Gender-Gap Measure. In 2003 Charmes and Wieringa came up with the Women’s Empowerment Matrix which considers six spheres (physical, socio-cultural, religious, political, legal and economic) as well as six levels: individual, household, community, state, region, and global. Another suggested alternative is The GEE is another suggested alternative to the GEM, this measure would include legal framework and protection of women’s rights, as well as other important areas of women’s empowerment that are overlooked by the GEM like women’s movements, public attitudes, and equal rights. Lastly, in the 2010 Human Development Report, a new measuring mechanism was created entitled the Gender Inequality Index. This new experimental measure considers three dimensions: Reproductive health, empowerment, and labor market participation which aim to ameliorate some of the problems associated with the GEM.

History of the GDI
The GDI and the GEM were introduced in 1995 in the Human Development Report written by the United Nations Development Program. The aim of these measurements was to add a gender-sensitive dimension to the HDI. The first indice that they created as a result was the GDI. The GDI is defined as a “distribution-sensitive measure that accounts for the human development impact of existing gender gaps in the three components of the HDI” (Klasen 243). The HDI and the GDI (as well as the GEM) were created to rival the more traditional income-based measures of GDP and GNP.

Definition and Calculation of the GDI
The GDI is often considered a “gender-sensitive extension of the HDI” (Klasen 245). It addresses gender-gaps in life expectancy, education, and incomes. It uses an “inequality aversion” penalty, which creates a development penalty for gender gaps in any of the three categories of the HDI. In terms of life expectancy, the GDI assumes that women will live an average of five years longer than men. Additionally, in terms of income, the GDI considers income-gaps in terms of actual earned income. The GDI cannot be used independently from the HDI and so, it cannot be used on it’s own as an indicator of gender-gaps. Only the gap between the HDI and the GDI can actually be accurately considered, the GDI on it’s own is not an independent measure of gender-gaps.

Debates Surrounding the GDI
In the years since it’s creation in 1995, much debate has arisen surrounding the reliability, and usefulness of the GDI in making adequate comparisons and in promoting gender-sensitive development. The GDI is particularly criticized for being often misinterpreted as it is often mistaken for an independent measure of gender-gaps when it is not, in fact, intended to be interpreted in that way. Additionally, the data that is needed in order to calculate the GDI is not always readily available in many countries, making the measure very hard to calculate uniformly and internationally. There is also worry that the combination of so many different developmental influences in one measurement could result in muddled results and that perhaps the GDI (and the GEM) actually hide more than they reveal.

More specifically, there has been a lot of debate over the life-expectancy component of the GDI. As was mentioned previously, the GDI like expectancy section is adjusted to assume that women will live, normally, five years longer than men. This provisions has been debated, and it has been argued that if the GDI was really looking to promote true equality, it would strive to attain the same life-expectancy for women and men, despite what might be considered a biological advantage or not. However, this may seem paradoxical in terms of policy implications, because, theoretically, this could only be achieved through providing preferential treatment to males, effectively discriminating against females. Furthermore, it has been argued that the GDI doesn’t account for sex-selective abortion, meaning that the penalty levied against a country for gender inequality is less because it affects less of the population (see Sen, Missing Women).

Another area of debate surrounding the GDI is in the area of income gaps. The GDI considers income-gaps in terms of actual earned income. This has been said to be problematic because often, men may make more money than women, but their income is shared. Additionally, the GDI has been criticized because it does not consider the value of care work as well as other work performed in the informal sector. Another criticism of the GDI is that it only takes gender into account as a factor for inequality, it does not, however, consider inequality among class, region or race, which could be very significant. Another criticism with the income-gap portion of the GDI is that it is heavily dependent on GDP and GNP For most countries, the earned-income gap accounts for more than 90% of the gender penalty.

Suggested Alternatives to the GDI
As was suggested by Halis Akder in 1994, one alternative to the GDI would be the calculation of a separate male and female Human Development Index. Another suggested alternative is the Gender Gap Measure which could be interpreted directly as a measure of gender inequality, instead of having to be compared directly to the HDI as the GDI is. It would average the female-male gaps in human development and use a gender-gap in labor force participation instead of earned income. In the 2010 Human Development Report, another alternative to the GDI, namely, the Gender Inequality Index (GII) was proposed in order to address some of the shortcomings of the GDI. This new experimental measure contains three dimensions: Reproductive Health, Empowerment, and Labor Market Participation.