Human Development Report

[Facilitator’s note: This discussion is cross-posted on HDRStats-Net and Gender-Net. Kindly send your contributions to surf-hdr-stats@undp.org. Many thanks.]

Le texte en français suit le texte en anglais
El texto en español se encuentra después del texto en francés

Dear Colleagues and Friends,

Since their first publication in the Human Development Report 1995, the Gender-related Development Index (GDI) and the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) have become internationally-recognized composite measures of gender inequality. These measures have been used extensively in policy discussions, research and advocacy activities over the past ten years. And they continue to be used today to promote the Millennium Development Goals, the Beijing Platform for Action, PRSPs and gender national action plans – to name just a few.

In response to your feedback and to the growing demand for revisiting these measures, we have decided to undertake an in-depth technical review of these indices in order to explore the possible need for their updating and refinement; to determine how they have been used for advocacy, analysis and monitoring activities; to review the extent of their impact on policy discussions; and to gauge development professionals’ understanding of how to calculate and interpret the results of these composite measures. With support provided by the Government of the Netherlands, through the Gender Thematic Trust Fund, the Human Development Report Office will undertake such an in-depth technical review of these composite measures of gender inequality as part of a broader effort by UNDP to strengthen organizational capacity on gender issues.

Discussion Topics and Timelines

To this end, we would like to begin a discussion with you on these issues – to tap into the unique experience and knowledge that human development professionals on this network possess. Given the multiple objectives of this discussion, we will stagger the discussions – devoting a few weeks to each of the following topics:

Weeks 1-2 (July 18– Aug 1):
Discussion topic: In your experience, how has GDI and GEM been used in policy discussions, research, advocacy and/or monitoring activities?

Weeks 3-4 (Aug 2 – Aug 15)
Discussion topic: How has the GDI and GEM methodology been adapted to the local context, and what lessons can be drawn from these efforts for this current review?

Weeks 5-6 (Aug 16 – Aug 29)
Discussion topic: Next steps --- what are some key considerations to keep in mind during the review of these measures over the coming months?

Guest Moderators

It is my sincere pleasure to have both Stephan Klasen and Haishan Fu moderate this discussion. Stephan Klasen is a Professor of Economics at University of Göttingen in Germany, and is a leading expert on the determinants of pro-poor growth and the measurement of inequality in developing countries. He has also made invaluable contributions to the conceptualization and development of aggregate measures of gender-equality, including GDI and GEM, over the years. Haishan Fu is the Chief of Statistics in the Human Development Report Office, who has been working on these issues since late-1999 and is my right-hand on all HDR statistical matters.

Their message launching the first of these three discussions will follow shortly.

Survey

We also ask that you take a moment to respond to the quick survey in the margin. This survey is anonymous and is solely intended to help us roughly gauge your knowledge of GDI and GEM. We will use these results, along with other inputs, to develop training and outreach materials to enhance the use of these measures.

Background Information

GDI and GEM were first developed by HDRO in 1995, with Sudhir Anand and Amartya Sen providing invaluable intellectual leadership in this effort. HDR 1995 as well as Anand and Sen 1995 contain an excellent discussion of these indices. A brief description of how to calculate GDI and GEM, including an easy-to-understand diagrammatic of this calculation, is available in the HDR 2004 technical note.

As background information for this current review of GDI and GEM, it may be useful to read through the Project Document, which includes the intended objectives and outputs of this effort. Finally, in September, we will launch on our website an interactive tool that will help train all those interested in learning how to calculate and interpret the results of both GDI and GEM. Stay tuned!

We very much look forward to this discussion, and believe that your inputs will be essential to the success of this important work. Thank you in advance for participating!

Sincerely,

Kevin Watkins
Director,
Human Development Report Office
UNDP New York

Chers/Chères collègues et amis/es,

Depuis leur première publication dans le Rapport sur le développement humain 1995, l’Indicateur sexospécifique du développement humain (ISDH) et l’Indicateur de la participation des femmes (IPF) sont devenus des mesures composites internationalement reconnues de l’inégalité entre les sexes. Ces mesures ont été abondamment utilisées dans les discussions politiques, la recherche et les activités de plaidoyer au cours des dix dernières années. Aujourd’hui, elles continuent d’être utilisées pour promouvoir les objectifs du Millénaire pour le développement, la Plateforme d’action de Beijing, les Documents de stratégies pour la réduction de la pauvreté et les plans d’action nationaux en matière de parité hommes-femmes – parmi bien d’autres domaines.

En réponse à vos remarques et à la demande croissante qui s’est manifestée en faveur d’un réexamen de ces mesures, nous avons décidé d’entreprendre un examen technique approfondi de ces indices dans les buts suivants : voir s’il est éventuellement nécessaire de les mettre à jour ou de les perfectionner ; déterminer de quelle manière ils ont été utilisés pour les activités de plaidoyer, d’analyse et de contrôle ; examiner dans quelle mesure ils ont eu un impact sur les discussions politiques ; et évaluer comment les professionnels du développement calculent et interprètent les résultats de ces mesures composites. Grâce à l'appui fourni par le Gouvernement Hollandais, à travers le Fonds d'Affectation Spéciale Thématique sur l’Egalité des sexes. Le Bureau du Rapport sur le Développement Humain va entreprendre cet examen technique approfondi de ces mesures composites de l’inégalité des sexes comme partie intégrante d’une initiative plus large entreprise par le PNUD en vue de renforcer les capacités organisationnelles sur les questions de parité homme-femme.

Thèmes de discussion et calendrier

A cette fin, nous souhaiterions entamer une discussion avec vous sur ces questions, en vue de mettre à profit l’expérience et les connaissances uniques que possèdent les professionnels du développement de notre réseau. Cette discussion ayant des objectifs multiples, nous échelonnerons les thèmes de discussion en consacrant quelques semaines à chacun des sujets différents :

Semaines 1 à 2(du 18 juillet au 1 août) :
Thème de discussion : d’après votre expérience, comment l'ISDH et l'IPF ont-ils été utilisés dans les discussions politiques, la recherche et les activités de plaidoyer et/ou de contrôle ?

Semaines 3 à 4(du 2 août au 15 août):
Thème de discussion : comment la méthodologie de l'ISDH et de l'IPF a-t-elle été adaptée au contexte local, et quels enseignements peuvent être tirés de ces efforts aux fins du présent examen ?

Semaines 5 à 6(du 16 août au 29 août):
Thème de discussion : Prochaines étapes : quelles sont les considérations clés qu’il convient de garder à l’esprit au cours de l’examen de ces mesures dans les mois qui viennent ?

Modérateurs invités

Stephan Klasen et Haishan Fu nous font le grand plaisir de présider à cette discussion. Stephan Klasen est Professeur d’Economie à l’Université de Göttingen en Allemagne, et est l’un des principaux experts sur les déterminants de la croissance en faveur des populations pauvres et de la mesure des inégalités dans les pays en développement. Depuis des années, il a aussi fourni des contributions inestimables à la conceptualisation et à l’élaboration des indicateurs globaux en matière de parité homme-femme, notamment de l'ISDH et de l'IPF. Haishan Fu est pour sa part Chef des Statistiques au sein du Bureau du Rapport sur le Développement Humain (BRDH). Elle travaille sur ces questions depuis la fin 1999 et est mon bras droit sur toutes les questions statistiques intéressant le RDH.

Vous pourrez prochainement prendre connaissance de leurs messages de lancement de ces trois discussions.

Enquête

Nous souhaiterions vous demander également de prendre un moment pour répondre à la rapide enquête située dans la marge du présent texte. Cette enquête est anonyme et vise uniquement à nous aider à évaluer dans les grandes lignes quelles sont vos connaissances en matière de l'ISDH et de l'IPF. Nous utiliserons ces résultats, parallèlement à d’autres contributions, en vue d’élaborer des documents de formation et de vulgarisation pour améliorer l’utilisation de ces indicateurs.

Informations de base

L'ISDH et l'IPF ont été élaborés à l’origine par le BRDH en 1995, Sudhir Anand et Amartya Sen apportant une contribution intellectuelle inestimable à cette initiative. Le RDH 1995 ainsi que Anand and Sen 1995 comportent une excellente discussion sur ces indices. Une brève description sur la manière de calculer l'ISDH et l'IPF, illustrée par un diagramme facile à comprendre, est disponible dans la note technique du RDH 2004.

Au titre des informations de base relatives au présent examen de l'ISDH et de l'IPF, il peut se révéler utile de lire le Document de projet qui indique les objectifs visés et les contributions apportées à cette initiative. Enfin, en septembre, nous lancerons notre site Internet, un outil interactif qui nous aidera à former toutes les personnes intéressées sur la manière de calculer et d’interpréter les résultats du GDI et GEM. Restez à l’écoute !

Nous attendons cette discussion avec impatience, et sommes persuadés que vos contributions seront essentielles pour assurer le succès de ces importants travaux. Merci à l’avance de votre participation !

Meilleures salutations.

Kevin Watkins
Directeur
Bureau du Rapport sur le Développement Humain
PNUD New York

Estimados/as colegas y amigos/as,

Desde que fueron publicados por primera vez en el Informe de Desarrollo Humano de 1995, el Índice de desarrollo relativo al género (IDG) y el Índice de potenciación de género (IPG) se han convertido en indicadores internacionalmente reconocidos de la desigualdad entre los géneros. Durante los últimos diez años, estos indicadores han sido ampliamente usados en discusiones sobre políticas, así como en actividades de investigación y promoción. En la actualidad continúan siendo utilizados para promover, entre otros, los Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio, la Plataforma de Acción de Beijing, los documentos de estrategia de lucha contra la pobreza o DELPs, y los planes de acción nacionales relativos al género.

En respuesta a los comentarios de muchos de ustedes y a la creciente demanda para que se reexaminen estos indicadores, hemos decidido iniciar una exhaustiva revisión técnica de los mismos a fin de explorar la posible necesidad de actualizarlos y refinarlos; determinar cómo han sido utilizados para actividades de promoción, análisis y seguimiento; analizar el impacto que han tenido en las discusiones sobre política; y apreciar en qué medida los profesionales del desarrollo comprenden cómo calcular e interpretar los resultados de estos indicadores compuestos. Con el apoyo proporcionado por el Gobierno de Holanda, a través del Fondo Fiduciario Temático sobre Género, la Oficina del Informe sobre Desarrollo Humano va a emprender esta exhaustiva revisión técnica de estas medidas compuestas de desigualdad de género como parte de la más amplia iniciativa por parte del PNUD para fortalecer la capacidad organizacional sobre cuestiones de género.

Tópicos de discusión y calendario

Por ello, nos gustaría iniciar una discusión con todos ustedes sobre estas cuestiones – para aprovechar la excepcional experiencia y conocimientos que poseen los profesionales del desarrollo humano en esta red. Dado que esta discusión tiene múltiples objetivos, la dividiremos en tres fases, dedicando varias semanas a cada uno de los siguientes tópicos:

Semanas 1-2 (18 de julio – 1 de agosto):
Tópico de discusión: En su experiencia personal, ¿cómo se han utilizado el IDG y el IPG en discusiones sobre política, así como en actividades de investigación, promoción y/o seguimiento?

Semanas 3-4 (2 de agosto– 15 de agosto):
Tópico de discusión: ¿Cómo se ha adaptado la metodología IDG/IPG al contexto local, y qué lecciones pueden extraerse de esos esfuerzos de cara a la presente revisión?

Semanas 5-6 (16 de agosto – 29 de agosto):
Tópico de discusión: Próximas etapas --- ¿cuáles son algunas de las más importantes consideraciones a tener en cuenta durante la revisión de los referidos indicadores en los próximos meses?

Moderadores invitados

Me complace mucho que Stephan Klasen y Haishan Fu moderen esta discusión. Stephan Klasen es Profesor de Ciencias Económicas en la Universidad de Göttingen en Alemania, y es uno de los principales expertos en los factores determinantes del crecimiento que favorecen a los pobres y en la medición de la desigualdad en los países en vías de desarrollo. A lo largo de los años también ha hecho valiosas contribuciones a la conceptualización y desarrollo de indicadores agregados de la igualdad entre los géneros, entre ellos IDG e IPG. Haishan Fu es Directora de Estadística en la Oficina del Informe del Desarrollo Humano; trabaja en estas cuestiones desde finales del año 1999 y es mi más preciada colaboradora en todas las cuestiones estadísticas relacionadas con el IDH.

Próximamente se difundirá un mensaje del moderador y la moderadora, mediante el cual se iniciará la primera de estas tres discusiones.

Encuesta

También les rogamos encarecidamente que tomen el tiempo de responder a la breve encuesta en el margen. Esta encuesta es anónima y su única finalidad es ayudarnos a apreciar en líneas generales su nivel de conocimiento de los indicadores IDG e IPG. Utilizaremos los resultados de la encuesta, junto con otros datos, para desarrollar materiales de capacitación y difusión para incrementar el uso de los referidos indicadores.

Antecedentes

Los indicadores IDG e IPG fueron desarrollados por la oficina del IDH en 1995, y Sudhir Anand y Amartya Sen aportaron un valioso liderazgo intelectual a esta iniciativa. El IDH 1995 y un artículo escrito por Anand y Sen en 1995 contienen una excelente discusión de esos indicadores. Una breve descripción del método a utilizar para calcular el IDG e IPG, incluyendo un esquema del cálculo muy fácil de comprender, se incluye en la nota técnica adjunta al IDH 2004.

Como referencia para esta revisión de los indicadores IDG e IPG, les puede ser útil leer el Documento de Proyecto, donde se detallan los objetivos perseguidos por esta iniciativa y los resultados esperados de la misma. Finalmente, en septiembre lanzaremos en nuestro sitio Web una herramienta interactiva que ayudará a capacitar a todas las personas interesadas en aprender cómo calcular los indicadores IDG e IPG y cómo interpretar los resultados obtenidos.

Anticipamos con agrado esta discusión, y creemos que sus contribuciones serán esenciales para el éxito de esta importante iniciativa. De antemano les agradezco a todos y a todas su participación.

Un cordial saludo,

Kevin Watkins
Director
Oficina del Informe sobre Desarrollo Humano
PNUD New York

Le texte en français suit le texte en anglais
El texto en español se encuentra después del texto en francés

Dear Colleagues and Friends,

It is our pleasure to moderate this three-part discussion on the Gender-related Development Index (GDI) and the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM). These internationally-recognized composite measures of gender inequality are critical to the promotion of women’s empowerment worldwide. And as Kevin noted in his introductory message, in response to your demand we would like to revisit these indices – so that any technical limitations or weaknesses in our own understanding of these measures do not limit the use of these indices in the fight to achieve gender equality. Indeed, there has been a great demand from you for such a review and discussion, and we believe that this important effort will further help you advocate more effectively for policies that promote gender equality and women’s empowerment.

The topic of this first discussion is ‘How has GDI and GEM been used in policy discussions, research, advocacy and/or monitoring activities?’ Specifically, we would like you to respond to any or all of the following questions:

• How, specifically, have these measures been used in policy discussions, research, advocacy or monitoring activities?
• How has publishing these measures in global, regional or national HDRs impacted policymaking for women’s empowerment?
• What have been the advantages and/or limitations of using such aggregate measures, rather than focusing discussions on more straightforward gender-related statistics?
• Please provide papers, citations and other materials that show how GDI and GEM have been used in policymaking, research, advocacy or monitoring activities

We aim to wrap up this first of three discussions by Monday, August 1, 2005. Please do share the discussion among your colleagues who might be interested in participating in the debate.

Thank you for your participation, and we look forward to an informative and thought-provoking discussion.

Sincerely,
Stephan Klasen
Haishan Fu

Chers/ères collègues et amis/es,

C’est un grand plaisir pour nous de présider cette discussion en trois partie sur l’Indicateur sexospécifique du développement humain (ISDH) et l’Indicateur de participation des femmes (IPF). Ces mesures composites internationalement reconnues de l’inégalité entre les sexes sont cruciales pour promouvoir l’autonomisation des femmes dans le monde. Et ainsi que Kevin l’a noté dans son message d’introduction, nous souhaiterions réexaminer ces indicateurs en réponse à vos demandes, de manière à ce que toute limite technique ou point faible dans notre propre compréhension de ces mesures ne limite pas l’utilisation de ces indices dans la lutte en faveur de la réalisation de l’égalité des sexes. Une telle révision et discussion a en effet fait l’objet d’une large demande de votre part, et nous estimons que cet important effort nous aidera à défendre plus efficacement encore les politiques assurant la promotion de l’égalité des sexes et l’autonomisation des femmes.

Le thème de cette première discussion est « Comment l'ISDH et l'IPF ont-il été utilisés dans les discussions politiques, la recherche et les activités de plaidoyer et/ou de contrôle ? ». Nous souhaiterions que vous répondiez en particulier à l’une ou à la totalité des questions suivantes :

• Comment, en particulier, ces mesures ont-elles été utilisées dans les discussions politiques, la recherche et les activités de plaidoyer ou de contrôle?
• De quelle manière la publication de ces mesures dans les Rapports sur le développement humain mondiaux, régionaux ou nationaux a-t-elle eu un impact sur l’établissement de politiques en faveur de l’autonomisation des femmes?
• Quels ont été les bénéfices et/ou les limites de l’utilisation de telles mesures globales, outre le fait de centrer les discussions sur des statistiques plus simples en matière de parité hommes-femmes?
• Veuillez fournir des notes, citations et autres documents montrant de quelle manière le ISDH et le IPF ont été utilisés en matière d’établissement de politiques, de recherche et d’activités de plaidoyer ou de contrôle.

Notre but est de conclure la première de ces trois discussions d’ici au lundi 1er Août 2005. Veuillez étendre cette discussion a ceux de vos collègues interéssés à participer au débat.

Merci à l’avance de votre participation. Nous attendons avec impatience une discussion informative et riche en idées.

Meilleures salutations.
Stephan Klasen
Haishan Fu

Estimados/as colegas y amigos/as,

• De manera específica, ¿cómo se han utilizado esos indicadores en discusiones sobre política, así como en actividades de investigación, promoción y/o seguimiento?
• ¿Qué impacto ha tenido la publicación de esos indicadores en los IDH mundiales, regionales o nacionales sobre la determinación de políticas favorables al empoderamiento de las mujeres?
• ¿Cuáles han sido las ventajas y/o las limitaciones de utilizar estos indicadores agregados, en vez de focalizar las discusiones en estadísticas más simples relacionadas con el género?
• Por favor, aporten documentos, citas y otros materiales donde se muestre cómo se han utilizado el IDG y el IPG en la determinación de políticas, así como en actividades de investigación, promoción o seguimiento

Nuestro objetivo es finalizar esta primera de las tres discusiones planeadas el lunes 1 de agosto de 2005. Por favor, compartan la discusión con los colegas que puedan tener interés en participar en el debate.

Les agradecemos desde ya su participación, al tiempo que anticipamos una discusión informativa y estimulante.

Un cordial saludo,
Stephan Klasen
Haishan Fu

Congratulations!!

I think there is a need for a deeper discussion on these issues. During the seventies and the eighties the feminine movement has made important contributions around these measurements in London, Canada and the United States, as well as in New Zealand and Australia.

The GDI and the GEM indexes have been a great attempt to approach women's problems in the world, but they are too general to allow a deeper approach for the advance of women's equality and equity.

Additionally, as you know, differences in the labor force, and in the political arena can be measured more precisely in trasition economies than in poor countries. Therefore, I think that the HDRO should consider disagregated indexes by region in order to get a better approach to women's discrimination and exclusion in the world, without leaving traditional gender indexes behind.

Con los atentos saludos de

Amelia Marquez de Pérez
PNUD - PANAMA

Ok-Soon Lee
Programme Manager
UNDP Seoul/Republic of Korea

Dear colleagues,

I firmly believe that ‘development if not engendered is endangered.’ I have had the opportunity to use the different indices published by the UNDP in the Human Development Reports in my lectures for the National Training Workshops organized by the Institute of Chinese Studies, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi.

I have also written a paper on ‘Development Indices- a comparative study of India and China’   to be published in ICS Occasional papers. During my study I found it difficult to give any meaningful interpretation to the GDI. Analysing the methodology followed in calculating this index I found that the GDI discounts the HDI for gender inequalities and can be used as a measure of gender bias against women only if women are the disadvantaged group in all the three dimensions of human development (namely health, education and a decent standard of living). In 1995 when the GDI was introduced, this assumption was true for most countries excepting the Nordic countries. However the gender scenario has changed over the past decade (thankfully) so that the critical assumption is satisfied in only about half the countries for which data is available in the HDR 2004.Thus technically the GDI has become an obsolete index and needs to be redefined.

I strongly feel that:

• Gender bias in the three basic dimensions of human development should be measured by calculating a HDI for females and look at its ranking and its % deviation from overall HDI for all countries. I have worked this out for 144 countries for which data was available in HDR 2004.

• A second more comprehensive measure of gender bias needs to be evolved. The current report on gender gaps by the World Economic Forum is a step in the right direction but more needs to be done. Besides improving data availability incorporating security for women is important. Rapes, domestic violence, dowry deaths etc. do not make an equal world.

Regards

Anjani Kochak
Lady Shri Ram College
New Dheli
India

• Because the GDI focuses on measuring inequality at a certain point in time, it cannot consider dynamic relationships among variables and hence the possible causes of socioeconomic gender inequality, which reduces its policy relevance. (Dijkstra and Hanmer, 2000)
• The GDI relies too heavily on the GDP and the income gap (the earned-income gap accounts for more than 90% of the gender penalty). As such, it under-estimates, for example, women’s contribution to the GDP, because the unpaid reproductive labor, which is mostly performed by women, is not measured by the indicator (Charmes and Wieringa, 2003).
• With regard to the income component of the GDI, it does not fully account for discrimination in the productive sphere, which results not only from wage inequality but also from women being mostly employed in lower-paid, “female” occupations. Reconstruction of the income component both sectorally and remuneratively translates into a better ‘‘visibility’’ of discrimination and lower GDI. (Peinado and Céspedes, 2004).

Timely discussion and as usual invaluable contributions on both networks.

My contribution will be very brief: GDI and GEM are good, though not exhaustive indicators for the purpose of mapping progress on gender equality. It is important that in our work on gender mainstreaming we ensure the use and visibility of these indicators as available data. However unfortunately, these are only indicators and our discussion may tend to operate in close vase: the reality of gender equality and, within the UN System the reality of capacities to actually carry on work on mainstreaming is still very weak. Although we need indicators, the actual focus on our work should be on strengthening capacities of all staff to understand what gender mainstreaming is about and HOW TO undertake it. and not to discuss whether GDI and GEM have impact.

There is a need to revisit the use of the indicators within a methodology aiming at strengthening gender mainstreaming, and this can occur while revisiting the content of the map they draw, but do not get illusioned. there is a lot of work to be carried out before all staff are aware of their implications!

Regards
Isabella

Isabelle Waterschoot
Gender Adviser/Office of the SRSG
UNOTIL
Dili, East Timor

Dear all greetings,

It is very interesting to join this discussion about the GDI. Under this framework some elements are noteworthy when looking upon the issues of gender relations in parallel to process of economic growth, and measurement capacity to document the state of industrial relations in given settings. A challenging process for development policies, and at the same token for gender-related measurements which is in my understanding essential to drive new inquiries to tackle the impacts of investment patterns, production and consumption on the directions of public policy to contain structural and social changes.

Regards

Emmanuel Asomba
Advisor
Development Gateway
dgPoverty Team

Dear colleagues,

Yes, GEM has been used in policy documents in India. However, as has been mentioned by two other participants in this dialogue, I found that both the GDI and GEM were not useful indices for enabling the process of building equality between men and women in India.

Recognizing this, I had spoken at Beijing itself at the World Conference where I was given a platform, as a recipient of the UNDP Bradford Morse Award. During my lecture called ‘Minds not bodies’ I argued that while it was commendable that UNDP has produced a report which was more women centered, the GDI and GEM were inappropriate.

Responding to this criticism, Sakiko Fukuda-Parr approached me and asked if I would like to bring a feminist perspective into these indices. I suggested that we should have a brainstorming with people from different regions. She supported this idea and we had a most valuable meeting in Bangalore in 1996 exactly to look at these indicators GEM and GDI.

In preparation for this meeting, a group of eight of us, all economist who are familiar with data sets, that is familiar with official data collection systems and details, worked on preparing a paper which both looked at available data and what kind of data would enable us to make the GDI and GEM instruments for change.

One of the important outcomes of that paper writing was a publication in the Economic and Political Weekly (EPW) which studies all our papers including the paper on GEM which was written by Dr. Aasha Kapur Mehta. However, we then pursued this idea and developed alternative GEM at the district level. We prepared an eight districts study, taking 2 districts in each in 4 States of India – Gujarat, West Bengal, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. We collected data on institutions in which both men and women participate, which are crucial for women’s empowerment. For example we collected data on membership in trade unions and cooperative societies as well as of women and men who had received micro credit or credit meant for the poor IRDP. We reconstructed a GEM and compared it with the GEM that had come out of using what we called New York UNDP measures. We found that there was greater participation of women if we take those institutions than taking professional associations’ official participation and Parliament.

This can also be seen in two studies by the Singamma Sreenivasan Foundation (SSF) which took the new GEM and tried it out in more districts with the funding of the central statistical organization, which is part of the Government of India’s official data collection system.

However, the criticism of GDI was the same, as it did not reflect which measures were required in countries with high unemployment, high levels of poverty and inequality.

Therefore it is our view that GEM can be useful not only if it is designed according to differences in geography and economics as mentioned by the others, but also if it is created out of institutions which empower the poor and and if it looks at exclusion and inclusion in those institutions in order to use the right tools for engendering a change in Gender relations.

Devaki Jain
"Tharangavana"
Bangalore, India

[Facilitator's note: Many thanks to Agueda Perez for her translation of the message! To view the article shared by Teresa Lara Junca, please go to: http://hdr.undp.org/docs/network/hdr_net/GDI_GEM_Perfil_Mujer_Cubana.pdf]

TRANSLATED MESSAGE

Dear colleagues,

My name is Teresa Lara Junco, I am the deputy General Director of the National Statistics Office (ONE) in Cuba and I collaborate with UNDP on research related to the integration of gender issues in programs developed by UNDP.

UNDP Cuba has asked me and other specialists of gender issues within UNDP, to make a contribution to the ongoing debate on the Gender Development Index and the Gender Empowerment Index.

We consider this initiative to be very relevant at this time, since the methodology, follow-up and construction of these indices related to the evaluation and measurement of gender equality will be strengthened by this debate.

Since we discovered, in 1995, the existence of the GDI and the GEM, we have been studying their methodology and with the available information at ONE we made the first calculations. This is how, in February 1999, the GEM was published in an article written by me that studied the evolution of the Cuban woman from 1990 to 1997. The indicators that compose the GDI were also used to make a comparison with Canada as can be seen in the publication: “Perfil de la Mujer Cubana en el Umbral del Siglo XXI” .

The GDI and the GEM have advantages because they are composite indices that enable us to obtain a global characterisation of gender equality; the advancement of women with relation to men in terms of the development of their capabilities can be evaluated, as can their position in terms of opportunities for decision making. However, they have also limitations that obscure the aggregate indicators such as ethnic and racial, geographic and age groups inequalities; the lack of available information for the level of disaggregation necessary for punctual, local and focal analyses; and the international comparability issues that require that a single methodology be used for all countries without regard to the different levels of development, or differences in cultures and religions.

Finally, we consider that in order to increase and make more common the usage of these indicators, it is necessary to increase its dissemination amongst political decision makers and to move from the academic scene to a more public and participative scene. In order to do this, it is essential that those statistics and indicators with a gender perspective are available; that the capacity of analysis of national statistical offices and institutions are strengthened; and that capacity building workshops for the users of the data are organized so that they can use and interpret it and that it is fully used in the planning of actions in relation to gender equality.

Warm regards

Teresa Lara Junco
Sub Directora General
Oficina Nacional de Estadística
Cuba

ORIGINAL MESSAGE

Estimados/as colegas

Mi nombre es Teresa Lara Junco soy la Sub directora General de la Oficina Nacional de Estadísticas (ONE) de Cuba y colaboro con el PNUD en las investigaciones relacionadas con la proyección de género en los programas que se desarrollan por el PNUD en Cuba.

El PNUD en Cuba me ha solicitado que en coordinación con otros y otras especialistas y funcionarios vinculados al tema de género dentro del PNUD realicemos una contribución al debate que sobre el Índice de Desarrollo de Género y el Índice de Potenciación de Género se realiza actualmente.

Consideramos que esta iniciativa es muy pertinente en el momento actual, pues de este debate debe salir fortalecido, la metodología, seguimiento y construcción de estos índices relativos a la evaluación y medición de la equidad de género.

Desde que conocimos en 1995 de la existencia del GDI y GEM, estudiamos su metodología y con la información disponible en la ONE realizamos los primeros cálculos, de esta forma se publicó en Febrero de 1999 el GEM para Cuba en un artículo elaborado por mí donde se comparaba la evolución de la mujer cubana desde 1990 a 1997 y también se utilizaron indicadores que componen el GDI para hacer una comparación con Canadá como se puede ver en la publicación “Perfil de la Mujer Cubana en el Umbral del Siglo XXI".

El GDI y el GEM tienen ventajas por ser indicadores sintéticos que permiten tener una caracterización global de la equidad de género, se puede evaluar como avanza la mujer con relación al hombre en cuanto al desarrollo de su capacidad y como esta está acorde a las oportunidades para la toma de decisiones; sin embargo tiene limitaciones que ocultan los indicadores agregados como las desigualdades por etnia y raza, área geográfica y grupos etareos a esto está asociado la falta de información disponible con esos niveles de desagregación que permitan análisis puntuales, locales y focales y también la comparabilidad internacional que exige disponer de una sola metodología para todos los países sin tener en cuenta diferentes niveles de desarrollo, así como diferentes culturas y religiones.

Por último consideramos que para aumentar y generalizar la utilización de estos indicadores es necesario incrementar su divulgación entre los decidores de políticas y pasar de un escenario académico a un escenario público y mas participativo, para ello es imprescindible contar con la estadísticas e indicadores con perspectiva de género en los países y fortalecer la capacidad de análisis de las oficinas e institutos de estadísticas de los países y realizar talleres de capacitación a los usuarios de los datos para que puedan utilizarlo e interpretarlos y sean utilizados plenamente en la planificación de acciones en función de la equidad de género.

Saludos cordiales,

Teresa Lara Junco
Sub Directora General
Oficina Nacional de Estadística
Cuba

Have you already taken our survey? Describe your knowledge of GDI and GEM!

Dear colleagues,

I am not able at this time to provide an in-depth assessment of how the GDI and GEM have been used in UNDP-Timor Leste, as I have only been on the job since 22nd July. However, from lengthy interviews with the male East Timorese heads of unit and staff of Poverty Reduction and Environment and Natural Resource Management, it seems that they have high familiarity and comprehension of these indices. The Head of Poverty Reduction participated in compiling the data for these indices. Having said that, however, what emerged in the in-depth interviews were paradoxes and contradictions:

1. While some UNDP male staff may have strong familiarity with these indices, during my interviews with them, certain perceptions, institutional cultures, and attitudes emerged which indicated to me that they had very minimal critical gender analysis (for example, in relation to their perspectives regarding everyday office relations with junior female staff, secretaries, and women bosses). Some of them for example, asked for a specific workshop explaining the difference between `gender’ and `feminism’, because it is seen that while the former is `neutral’, the latter is a matter of `indoctrinating values’ and may cause alienation by male staff not just in the UNDP country office, but also East Timorese men in the rural districts.

2. Other scholars have also been critical of these indices, and gender mainstreaming in general, such as for example Cynthia Enloe and Carol Cohn (Signs, 2003) who say that there is too much talk about `gender’ and not enough about `patriarchy’. Others, like Carol Bacchi have some very interesting points to make (see below, which I cite from her article “The State of Play: Sex and Gender Issues. Gender Mainstreaming: a new vision, more of the same or backlash?”, Academy of Social Sciences in Australia, Vol. 20, 2001.

• The descriptive use of gender does not address the `relational aspects of gender, of power and ideology, and of how patterns of subordination are re-produced. Recent gender theory challenges this static, individualistic characterizing of gender. (Carol Bacchi, 2001).
  
• A focus on `existing differences’ does not tell us how these differences come to be. In effect, the goal becomes evening out the impact of a range of policies rather than interrogating their premises. For example, in the Guide to gender impact assessment (European Commission, 1998), the legitimacy of the goal of `liminating labour market rigidities’ is taken to be axiomatic. As Nicola Lacey (1995) explains, when the focus is simply a disparity in the treatment of men and women, `equalization was almost invariably in one direction – towards a male norm.’ An analysis which focuses on `evening out’ the effects of policy on women and men encourages us to think that women will be lieberated when they have work conditions like men, or pay comparable to similar groups of men. It is difficult in this framing to challenge the appropriateness of those work conditions or those male pay rates. Despite the claim then that mainstreaming works to change organizations rather than women, we are still working with a model which accepts the male as benchmark and which identifies different treatment as the problem. Rather we need to examine the impact of gendered assumptions in creating and reinforcing social hierarchies and in framing lives we may not wish to lead. (Carol Bacchi, 2001)
  
• Information-type explanations such as those which insist on the importance of female role models construct women as `lacking’ information and hence as needing direction. Removing `culture’ from the realm of analysis (defined as outside the purview of mainstream economics) reduces the `problem’ to a matter of individual choice. These kinds of explanations `tend to strip away the political content of information on women’s interests and reduce it to a set of needs or gaps, amenable to administrative decisions about the allocation of resources. Women are separated out as the central problem and isolated from the context of social and gender relations. Dare I say – yet again! Baden and Goetz’s (1997) point is that all we will be left with in this approach is a compensatory agenda rather than an analysis which probes the reasons women are positioned in an assymetrical power relationship to men in a range of statistical indices.(Carol Bacchi, 2001).

Finally, is there any category in these indices that measure poverty-broadly-defined, including poverty-in-the-self? I recently went to Suai Loro, to interview women in a very poor village, where they scored very poorly in the GDI and GEM indices, and yet as I began to interview them in-depth over a period of days, it emerged that they were not only ritual specialists and dance performers, they also wove their own tais (traditional cloth), and made their own musical instruments. So if some sort of `culture’ (de-essentialized) category were included in the indices, they would rank very high, as extremely talented, resilient, having socio-political agency, being multi-lingual, and multi-cultural. On the other hand, some of my rich grad students in first world countries would rank rather low, as they seem to suffer from poverty of imagination, vision, and mono-lingual, mono-culture.

I hope this is useful.

Best wishes,

Jacqueline Siapno
Gender Specialist
UNDP-Timor Leste

[Facilitator's note: To view the article "Looking beyond Gender Parity-Gender Inequities of Some Dimensions of Well-Being in Kerala", please go to: http://hdr.undp.org/docs/network/hdr_net/GDI_GEM_Kodoth_Eapen_Looking_ beyond_GDI.pdf]

Dear Friends,

Hope the following article related to our topic of discussion could be interest and useful for all of us: Praveena Kodoth, Mridul Eapen, “Looking beyond Gender Parity -Gender Inequities of Some Dimensions of Well-Being in Kerala”, Economic and Political Weekly July 23, 2005.

This paper engages critically with gender performance in select dimensions of well-being in the context of Kerala State in India. Kerala has been considered relatively free from the conventional restrictions against women’s education and employment, or women owning property. Indeed, the state level gender development index estimated by several scholars places Kerala ahead of other states. But a decomposition of this index reveals that the top position in education and health masks the poor employment profile of women in the state. Besides, the state witnesses negative trends in women’s property rights, rapid growth and spread of dowry and rising gender-based violence.

Kindly see the attachment for the full article.

With kind regards and thanks,
Seeralan Venkatesan
Ph.D. Scholar
CDS, Trivandrum, Kerala
India

Shipra Bose
UNV Programme Officer
Zambia

[Facilitator's note: To view the draft Gender Equity Index, please go to: http://hdr.undp.org/docs/network/hdr_net/GDI_GEM_Social_Watch_Gender_Equity_Index.pdf]

Dear all

Have you already taken our survey? Describe your knowledge of GDI and GEM!

Dear colleagues,

Congratulations on a timely discussion. One of the most powerful uses of the GDI and the GEM has been in juxtaposition with the HDI -often showing that countries with a high HDI do not necessarily treat their women well. But we need to go further and make greater use of such comparisons in our economic and social policy analysis.

Regarding perfecting the indices, if we had good data on violence against women, it might be interesting to introduce this as an indicator into the GEM.

I look forward to the continuing discussion.

Kristen Timothy
Consultant
UNIFEM

Have you already taken our survey? Describe your knowledge of GDI and GEM!

I must say I sympathise with Isabelle' (Waterschoot) point of view. In the last month I have had to comment on MANY proposed development indices and in each case the issue was the quality of the underlying data. I think, especially with regard to the MDGs and the Marrakesh accord, stats efforts should concentrate on improving data at national level and filling in gaps in policy requirements.

The EDEP calculations for income (below), show the female per capita income increasing (Column 2) against a constant male per capita income. Even if the two average incomes are equal, the EDEP is not equal to 1 because of the use of the average female and male income, rather than the female and male shares of total income.

Calculating the EDEP for income

Calculating a new EDEP income using shares of total income (below), the indexed EDEP reaches a value of 1 when there is no gender disparity, as in the calculations of the EDEP for parliamentary representations. 1 minus the indexed New EDEP gives GEM a value of 0, indicating no gender disparity, and a value of 1 indicating maximum gender disparity.

Calculating an New Income-Share based EDEP

UNDP Malaysia, in partnership with the Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development, is developing a general index of gender disparity, involving adaptation of the methodologies of the GDI and the GEM. We are experimenting with a relative gender disparity concept defined as (Xf – Xm)/Xm to develop a Gender Gap Index (GGI). The Xf and Xm values (where Xf is the value of the female achievement and Xm is the value of the male achievement) are general - they can be rates, ratios, percentage shares, and quantitative variables like income and life expectancy. The GGI gives a value of 0 indicating no gender disparity and a value of 1 indicating maximum gender disparity. An advantage of the GGI is that it can be decomposed into 2 components; one showing the contribution to total gender disparity from areas where females are at a disadvantage, and the second contribution where they are at an advantage.

In sum, we need to improve our monitoring of progress towards gender equality and women’s empowerment!

[Facilitators' note: Please find below a collection of two responses from Matthew Sudders and Emmanuel Asomba]

Matthew Sudders, Department for International Development, wrote:

This discussion is a very welcome look at the methodologies and uses of the GDI and GEM. In terms of advocacy it is clear that these composite measures are very high profile and useful to advocates.

As part of this 2 weeks of discussion on adaptations and uses I'd like to ask people 2 questions:

Firstly how much effort do they make to 'localise' the GDI and GEM. Is there sub-national data which can be used, are proxies being substituted and if so what are they? For how small an area to people find that it is feasible and useful to calculate these indices.

My second question relates to a different kind of adaptation and for the GEM in particular. The GEM is broadcast as a measure of empowerment but in fact the data used in doing so has one crucial underlying assumption that empowered women make the same choices as men. For example a higher proportion of seats in parliament held by women results in a country being classified as more empowered, similarly a higher proportion of female professional workers etc. My own concept of empowerment would be much more related to having choices and control over ones own life. If you have that control then you may make different choices. Is it true to say that empowered females would want equally to be legislators, professional and technical workers, senior officials to their male counterparts? This leads on to the question then is it possible to measure 'having choices', rather than what choice you make, and if so how have people done it.

Matthew Sudders
Department for International Development
UK

Emmanuel Asomba, Development Gateway, wrote:

Dear all greetings,

I would like to bring some short points in regards to Mrs. Siapno’s comments toward matters of gender analysis, feminism and indices. In the first instances, it is interesting to differentiate current observations between gender analysis and feminist perspectives. In my opinion, within this context, the former (g.a) evolves within a sphere, where matters of policymaking and knowledge should be merged as to strengthen informational practices and organizational structures. These elements present significant meanings to broaden the paths of development policies as they encounter diverse dynamics in social groups, and the potential of women’s agency. Thus, perspectives highly attractive to shape feminist approaches and gender analysis into explicit standards and norms to further promote research practices vis-à-vis gender-relations within labor market dynamics, forms of employment and vulnerability.

Regards.

Emmanuel Asomba
Advisor
Development Gateway
dgPoverty Team

We now would like to turn to the second discussion of this three-part dialogue (while we still welcome messages that address questions raised in the first part), which in fact, some of the previous messages have already touched upon. The topic of this discussion is "How has the GDI and GEM methodology been adapted to the local context, and what lessons can be drawn from these efforts for this current review?" Specifically, we would like you to respond to any or all of the following questions:

We would also like to invite network members to share ideas on additional indicators to better measure gender equity and empowerment.

We look forward to a continued lively debate!

All the best,

Stephan Klasen & Haishan Fu

Nous aimerions maintenant nous tourner vers la seconde discussion de ce dialogue à trois parties (les messages touchant les questions abordées dans la première partie sont toujours bienvenus), qui dans les faits, a déjà été abordée dans certains des messages précédents. Le sujet de cette discussion est "Comment la méthodologie de l'ISDH et de l'IPF a-t-elle été adaptée au contexte local, et quels enseignements peuvent être tirés de ces efforts aux fins du présent examen?" Plus spécifiquement, nous aimerions que vous répondiez à une ou chacune de ces questions:

Nous aimerions également inviter les membres du Réseau a contribuer leurs idées sur des indicateurs additionnels pour mieux mesurer l’égalité des sexes et l’habilitation des femmes.

Nous attendons avec impatience la suite de ce débat!

Cordialement,

Stephan Klasen & Haishan Fu

[Facilitator's note: To view the Regional Assessment on the Status of Official Statistics related to Gender, please go to: http://hdr.undp.org/docs/network/hdrstats_net/GDI_Gem_Assessment_ GS_RBEC.pdf]

Dear all,

[Facilitator's note: To view the Gujarat HDR 2004, please go to: http://hdrc.undp.org.in/shdr/Gujarat/State%20HDR%20Gujarat.pdf]

Dear all,

When it was first presented in 1995, the Gender Development Index (GDI) sparked a great deal of interest in India. In fact, a group of economists led by Devaki Jain had worked on the issue and published a set of papers in the Economic and Political Weekly (October 26, 1996) in which I had contributed a piece on GDI for Indian States: Methodological Issues.

Seeta Prabhu
Head Human Development Resource centre
United Nations Development Programme
New Delhi, India

[Facilitator's note: To view the note on "Gender Equality Indices in the Human Development Reports: Concepts, Measurements and Impact" by Selim Jahan, please go to: http://hdr.undp.org/docs/network/hdrstats_net/GDI_GEM_Selim_Jahan.pdf]

Dear Colleagues,

Have you already taken our survey? Describe your knowledge of GDI and GEM!

[Facilitator's note: To view Albania's 2005 NHDR "Pro-Poor and Pro-Women Policies: Operationalizing the MDGs in Albania", please go to: http://www.undp.org.al/?elib,698]

Dear network members,

[Facilitator's note: Many thanks to Tara Lisa Persaud for her translation of this mesage!]

TRANSLATED MESSAGE

Dear Colleagues:

From UNDP-Mexico we have followed the discussion on line on GDI and GEM, it is really fascinating. We want to share some reflections with you, which are divided in three sections:

1. Participation of the women in the decision-making to the interior of the homes.
2. Summary of other proposals for the measurement of gender inequalities, this extends the vision and conception of the GDI and the GEM. We share a revised bibliography with you.
3. Political participation as a component of the GEM.

Warm greetings,

Itzá Castañeda
Gender Advise
UNDP México

REFLECTIONS:

I. As any index referring to the capture and measurement of gender inequalities, the Gender Empowerment Index, GEM, contains some deficiencies. These include the lack of data to measure the participation of men and women in decision making within their communities, in the consumption of the resources, and regarding personal security and dignity among others. It is worth while therefore to do an evaluation with respect to its construction and application

On the other hand, the GEM results in a very useful measure to reflect women’s participation in the economic and political decision making in public life. Nevertheless, the GEM does not measure participation in these kinds of decisions within the interior of their homes. In these spaces, women have a range and a power of decision that deserves to be studied.

In Latin America, evidence exists that women spend much more time than men undertaking non-remunerative activities in the home. This implies that women spend more time in the home than men (owing to the time dedicated to taking care of children, older adults and the sick) and therefore could suggest that women are empowered to take the household decisions. However, this might not be always true, since household surveys refer to the heads of households by sex, a large proportion of these turn out to be men.

We think that the evaluation of the decision making within homes deserves a deeper analysis than that which currently exists.

II. The gender indicators proposed by the UNDP (GDI and GEM) have been, from inception, very useful tools to try to reflect the conditions of inequality between men and women in basic capacities of the human development.

The Municipal Index of Gender Equality (IMEG) was proposed by UNDP Bolivia. This index combines some components of the GDI and the GEM in such a way that it measure the levels of gender equality in each municipality with respect to education, economic participation, and participation in levels of economic and political decision. The IMEG is constructed on the basis of the following indicators:

1. Education. Measured through the ratio of literacy of women and men from age 15 years and up; and the comparative numbers of women and men who attend the school between 6 and 19 years of age.
2. Economic Participation. The relation of women and men the Economically Active Population (EAP) and the relation between women and men in the occupational group “professional and technical”.
3. Participation in levels of economic decision making. The relation between women and men in the occupational group "executive in public administration and business".
4. Political Participation. The relation between women and men elected as officials / chosen to hold office. [1]

This index provides information about gender equity relative to these components. In this sense, like all indices, it shows a relative figure, not an absolute one, of the phenomenon that it tries to capture as equity. It is important to note that the IMEG does not provide information on educational levels, or on the levels of existing political and economic participation of women in the municipalities. It shows the relative equity of women compared to men in these areas.[2]

On the other hand the Index of the Situation of the Woman [3] is a component of the Index of Social Progress (IPS) proposed by Estes (1984) as an alternative to measure the different spheres of social development. One of the main differences between the IPS and UNDP indices is the number and the range of its indicators. Originally the author proposed that the IPS consist of 10 sub-indices and 45 indicators: 1) education, 2) health status, 3) situation of women, 4) defense efforts, 5) economy, 6) demography, 7) geography, 8) political participation, 9) cultural diversity and 10) welfare efforts.

The sub-index on the situation of women contains five indicators: [4] 1) percentage of women in parliamentary seats; 2) total rate of female literacy; 3) use of contraceptives by married women; 4) rate of maternal mortality; and 5) female inscription in secondary education.

That is to say, of the 5 indicators that comprise the sub-index on the situation of the woman within the IPS, two refer to health, two to education and one to the political participation of the women.[5] So we can see that this alternative measurement has at its base the components of the UNDP indices.

Bardhan and Klasen (1999), Oudhof (2001) and Dijkstra (2002) have criticized the gender indices suggested by UNDP, with particular emphasis on the income component. The authors agree that estimating income skews the measurement and this is in turn skews the final value of the indices, especially the GDI. The main reason for this distortion is the high correlation between the absolute value of income and the value of the GDI. In this manner, according to the authors, the GDI and GEM underestimate the measure of inequality between the genders in rich countries.

Dijkstra (2000) proposes the use of a Standardized Index of Gender Equality (SIGE) [6] as an alternative measure to the GDI and the GEM. This new index excludes the estimation of income in its calculation and arises out of the necessity to generate an index which more closely reflects the real measure of inequality between the sexes in various aspects of social life. The SIGE is made up of five variables - that are the bases of the GDI and the GEM as well: 1) access to the education, 2) longevity, 3) occupation in positions of high level decision making such as civil officials, directors, professionals and technicians; 4) female and male participation in the labor market; and finally 5) positions in parliamentary seats.

Each one of the components of the SIGE is negatively related to gender inequity, which means that this will also be reflected in the final value of the index. That is to say, the greater the disparities between man and women in each component, the smaller the final value of the index. In other words, the greater the discrimination or inequality, the smaller the value of the SIGE.

Dijkstra (2002) shows the correlation among the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the GDI and the SIGE for a selection of countries. The analysis shows that the GDP is as highly correlated with the GDI as with the SIGE, which means that richer countries face less discrimination against women. In the case of the GDI, the strong correlation might be mainly because of income, which is a central component of this index; nevertheless in the case of the SIGE, one can argue that a correlation exists – to a lesser extent – between the levels of income and the discrimination against women. [7]

Additionally, Forsythe et al. (1998) developed a Gender Inequity Index (IIG) based on UNDP’s HDI and GDI through the formula {(HDI-GDI)/GDI}. This new attempt to measure gender inequity is based on indices previously proposed by UNDP (1995)

Dijkstra and Hanmer (2000) generated an index called Relative State of the Woman [8], in which they combine the same variables of the GDI and include the feminine rate of participation in the labor market. This new measurement focuses exclusively on variables relative to human development and at the same time excludes those variables relative to the dimension women’s power – included in the GEM.

Apodaca (1998) develops an index made up of seven indicators that measure the rights of the woman in the economic and social spheres. However, some of the indicators that she uses have methodological problems such as their unequal weighting.

III. Political Participation as a Component of GEM

As any index referring to the capture and measure of gender inequalities, the GEM displays some deficiencies, some of them are the lack of data to measure the participation in decision making in community life, in the interior of the homes, in the consumption of the resources, in personal dignity and security, among others. It is useful, after the analysis presented above, to evaluation the GEM in respect to its application and use in the case of Mexico.

The GEM was designed to try to reflect the economic and political power of the women. Bardhan and Klasen (1999) and Wieringa (1997) have criticized the construction of this index. One criticism questions the relevance of including the variable of political participation in the construction of the index, determined by the proportion of women to men holding parliamentary seats. The authors show evidence that in socialist countries this proportion tends to be high, but the parliamentarians have limited power to make decisions.

The same authors have made the recommendation to examine these same ratios at the local level, or perhaps to seek other indicators of female political empowerment, such as the number and the importance of women’s organizations and the ways in which the interests of women are promoted/supported. However, these suggestions have limitations because data is not always available.

The volatility of the GEM for 2000 and 2002 (Mexico) can be explained to a great extent by the political participation component. Since in Mexico elections for Local and Federal Congresses are made periodically, the proportion of women to men varies widely between one survey and another, a situation which results is constant changes to the calculations , and therefore in the results and trends for different periods.

The previous point may turn out to have negligible effect of the measurement of gender inequality due to the fact that the election of a woman can depend on may other factors besides female political empowerment. In other words, the total number of women legislators in the Local Congresses, in the House of Representatives and in the Senate can be slanted by political factors or simply by the preferences of the electorate, things that have little to do with the promotion of women. In other words, the volitility displayed by the GEM –at least in the case of Mexico – is a factor which does not show clearly some aspects of human development, particularly the support for women.

ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

Estimados/as Colegas:

Desde el PNUD-México hemos seguido la discusión on line sobre IDG e IPG, realmente es fascinante. Queremos compartir con ustedes algunas reflexiones al respecto, Las cuales están divididas en tres apartados:

1. Participación de las mujeres en la toma de decisión al interior de los hogares.
2. Recapitulación de otras propuestas para la medición de las desigualdades de género, ello permite ampliar la visión y concepción del IDG y el IPG. Compartimos con ustedes esta revisión bibliográfica
3. Participación política como componente del IPG

De antemano, una disculpa porque el texto está en español, pero su traducción nos hubiera llevado más tiempo y se hubiera pedido la pertinencia en la discusión on line.

Reciban un cordial saludo,

Itzá Castañeda
Asesora en Género
PNUD México

REFLEXIONES

I. Como cualquier índice referente a la captura y medición de las desigualdades de género, el Índice de Potenciación de Género (IPG) presenta algunas deficiencias. Algunas de ellas son la falta de datos para medir la participación de hombres y mujeres al momento de tomar decisiones dentro de la vida comunitaria, en el consumo de los recursos, en la dignidad y en la seguridad personal, entre otras. Vale la pena pues hacer una evaluación respecto a su construcción y aplicación.

Por otro lado, El IPG resulta una medida muy útil para reflejar la participación en la toma de decisiones económicas y políticas en la vida activa de la sociedad, sin embargo, el IPG no permite observar la participación de las personas en dichas decisiones al interior de los hogares. En estos espacios, las mujeres tienen una gama y un poder de decisión que merece ser estudiado.

En América Latina existe evidencia reciente de que las mujeres ocupan mucho más tiempo realizando actividades no remuneradas dentro del hogar con respecto al de los hombres. Lo anterior implica que ellas pasan mucho mas tiempo en el hogar que los hombres (esto último puede ser explicado debido al tiempo que hay que dedicarle al cuidado de los hijos, de los adultos mayores y de los enfermos) y por lo tanto se podría sugerir que las mujeres llegan a desarrollar un destacado poder de decisión en los hogares. Sin embargo, lo anterior no siempre se cumpliría ya que cuando las encuestas de relaciones de hogar se refieren a las jefaturas de hogar por sexo, una gran proporción de estos hogares la tiene ocupada por hombres.

Creemos que la evaluación de la toma de decisiones dentro de los hogares merece tener un espacio de análisis más profundo que el que tiene actualmente.

II. Los índices de género propuestos por el PNUD (IDG e IPG) han sido, desde su lanzamiento, herramientas muy útiles para tratar de reflejar las condiciones de desigualdad entre hombres y mujeres tanto en capacidades básicas del desarrollo humano como en su utilización y potenciación.

El Índice Municipal de Equidad de Género (IMEG) fue propuesto por el PNUD Bolivia. Dicho índice combina algunos componentes del IDG y el IPG de tal manera que da cuenta del nivel de equidad de género en cada municipio con respecto a educación, participación económica, y participación en niveles de decisión económica y política. El IMEG está construido en base a los siguientes indicadores:

1. Educación. Medido a través de la relación de mujeres y hombres alfabetos / as de 15 años y más; y la relación de mujeres y hombres que asisten a la escuela entre 6 y 19 años de edad.
2. Participación económica. La relación de mujeres y hombres en la Población Económicamente Activa (PEA) y la relación entre mujeres y hombres en el grupo ocupacional "profesionistas y técnicos".
3. Participación en niveles de decisión económica. La relación entre mujeres y hombres en el grupo ocupacional "directivos en la administración pública y empresas".
4. Participación política. La relación entre mujeres y hombres concejales elegidos / as como titulares. [1]

Este índice proporciona información acerca de la equidad de género relativa a estos componentes. En este sentido, como todo índice, muestra una figura relativa, no absoluta, del fenómeno que pretende describir la equidad. Resulta importante destacar que el IMEG no proporciona información sobre los niveles educativos ni de la participación económica o política de mujeres y hombres existente en los municipios, sino de la relación de equidad entre unas y otros en estos ámbitos.[2]

Por su parte el Índice de la Situación de la Mujer [3] es un componente del Índice de Progreso Social (IPS) propuesto por Estes (1984) como una medida alternativa para la medición de las distintas esferas del desarrollo social. Una de las principales diferencias entre el IPS y los índices de género propuestos por el PNUD es el número y la gama de sus indicadores, originalmente este mismo autor propuso que el IPS constara de 10 subíndices y 45 indicadores: 1) educación, 2) situación de la salud, 3) situación de la mujer, 4) esfuerzos de defensa, 5) economía, 6) demografía, 7) geografía, 8) participación política, 9) diversidad cultural y 10) esfuerzos de bienestar.

El subíndice de la situación de la mujer contiene a su vez cinco indicadores:[4] 1) porcentaje de mujeres en escaños parlamentarios; 2) tasa total de alfabetización femenina; 3) prevalencia de anticonceptivos entre mujeres casadas; 4) tasa de mortalidad materna; e 5) inscripción femenina en educación secundaria.

Es decir, de los 5 indicadores que generan el subíndice de la situación de la mujer dentro del IPS, dos de ellos se refieren a la salud, otros dos se refieren a educación y uno mas a la participación política de las mujeres.[5] Como se puede observar esta medida alternativa tiene sus bases en los componentes de los índices de género del PNUD.

Bardhan y Klasen (1999), Oudhof (2001) y Dijkstra (2002) han hecho críticas a los índices de género propuestos por el PNUD, haciendo especial énfasis en el componente de ingreso. Los autores coinciden en que la estimación del ingreso genera un sesgo en dicho componente, y éste se ve reflejado en el valor final de los índices -especialmente el IDG-. El principal generador de este sesgo es la alta correlación entre el valor absoluto del ingreso y el valor del IDG. De esta manera, de acuerdo a los autores, el IDG y el IPG subestiman la medición de la inequidad entre los géneros en países ricos.

Dijkstra (2000) propone el uso del Índice Estandarizado de Igualdad de Género [6] como una medida alternativa al IDG y el IPG. Este nuevo índice excluye las estimaciones del ingreso en su cálculo y surge tras la necesidad de generar un índice que trate de acercar un poco más a la realidad la medición de la desigualdad entre los géneros en distintos aspectos de la vida social. El SIGE está compuesto por cinco variables -que a su vez son las bases del IDG y el IPG-: 1) acceso a la educación, 2) longevidad, 3) ocupación en puestos de alto nivel de decisiones como funcionarios, directivos, profesionales y técnicos; 4) participación femenina y masculina en el mercado laboral; y finalmente 5) puestos en escaños parlamentarios.

Cada uno de los componentes del SIGE está relacionado negativamente con la inequidad de género, lo que significa que también lo estará el valor final del índice. Es decir, entre mayores sean las disparidades entre mujeres y hombres en cada uno de los componentes del índice, menor será el valor final del mismo. En otras palabras, una mayor discriminación o desigualdad representará un menor valor del SIGE.

Dijkstra (2002) muestra cómo están correlacionados el Producto Interno Bruto (PIB) con el IDG y el SIGE para una selección de países. En dicho análisis se muestra que el PIB está altamente correlacionado tanto con el IDG como con el SIGE, lo que significa que los países ricos enfrentan menos discriminación contra las mujeres. En el caso del IDG la alta correlación se puede deber fundamentalmente a que el ingreso es un componente central de dicho índice; sin embargo en el caso del SIGE se puede argumentar que existe -al menos- una correlación media entre los niveles de ingreso y las prácticas discriminatorias contra las mujeres.[7]

Por su lado, Forsythe et al. (1998) desarrollaron el Índice de Inequidad de Género (IIG) basados en la los índices propuestos por el PNUD, IDH e IDG, a través de la fórmula {(IDH-IDG)/IDG}. Este nuevo intento por medir la inequidad entre los géneros se basa en los índices anteriormente propuestos por el PNUD (1995).

Dijkstra y Hanmer (2000) generaron un índice llamado Estado Relativo de la Mujer [8], en el cual combinan las mismas variables del IDG e incluyen la tasa femenina de participación en el mercado laboral. Esta nueva medición se enfoca exclusivamente en variables relativas al desarrollo humano y al mismo tiempo excluye aquellas variables relativas a la dimensión de poder de las mujeres -incluidas en el IPG-.

Apodaca (1998) desarrolla un índice compuesto por siete indicadores que miden los derechos de la mujer en las esferas económica y social. Sin embargo, algunos de los indicadores que ella utiliza tienen problemas metodológicos como su desigual ponderación.

III. Participación política como componente del IPG

Como cualquier índice referente a la captura y medición de las desigualdades de género, el IPG presenta algunas deficiencias, algunas de ellas son la falta de datos para medir la participación al momento de tomar decisiones dentro de la vida comunitaria, al interior de los hogares, en el consumo de los recursos, en la dignidad y en la seguridad personal, entre otras. Es así como tras el análisis presentado en este documento, vale la pena hacer una evaluación respecto a su construcción y aplicación para el caso de México.

El IPG fue diseñado para tratar de reflejar el poder económico y político de las mujeres. Bardhan y Klasen (1999) y Wieringa (1997) han apuntado algunas críticas a la construcción de este índice. Una de ellas cuestiona la relevancia de incluir en la construcción del índice la variable de participación política, determinada por las proporciones femenina y masculina del total de escaños parlamentarios. Los autores muestran evidencia de que en países socialistas esta proporción tiende a ser alta, pero los parlamentarios tienen un poder de decisión limitado.

Los mismos autores han hecho la recomendación de buscar estas mismas proporciones a nivel local, o tal vez buscar otros indicadores de empoderamiento político femenino como el número y la importancia de las organizaciones de mujeres y la manera en que los intereses de las mujeres son promovidos. Sin embargo estas sugerencias tienen la limitación de que los datos no siempre están disponibles.

La volatilidad mostrada en el cálculo para 2000 y 2002 puede ser explicada en gran medida por el componente de participación política. Dado que en México se realizan elecciones para la renovación de los Congresos Locales y Federales periódicamente, las proporciones de hombres y mujeres son diferentes entre una estimación y otra, situación que genera cambios constantes en el cálculo, y por lo tanto en las posiciones y tendencias entre periodos temporales.

Lo anterior puede resultar no relevante a la medición de la desigualdad de género debido a que el hecho de que una mujer llegue a un puesto de elección popular puede depender de muchos otros factores ajenos al empoderamiento político femenino. En otras palabras, el número total de legisladoras en los Congresos Locales, en la Cámara de Diputados y la de Senadores puede estar sesgado por factores políticos o simplemente por las preferencias del electorado, cuestiones que poco tienen que ver con la potenciación de las mujeres. En otras palabras, la volatilidad que presenta el IPG -al menos en la estimación para México- es un factor que no deja muy claros algunos aspectos del desarrollo humano y principalmente de la potenciación entre los géneros.

[2] Para mayor detalle del cálculo y ajuste del IMEG ver http://idh.pnud.bo/WebPortal/Publicaciones/InformeTematico/Género2003/tabid/132/Default.aspx

[3] Women's Status Index (WSI) por sus siglas en inglés. Para mayor detalle consultar: http://adlib.iss.nl/adlib/uploads/wp/wp315.pdf

[4] Posteriormente, Estes (2003) ha propuesto reducir el número de indicadores pasando de 45 a sólo 40 permaneciendo sin alteraciones el número de subíndices. Mayor detalle en http://adlib.iss.nl/adlib/uploads/wp/wp315.pdf

[5] Para mayor detalle de la metodología ver Estes (1984 y 2003).

[6] Standarized Index of Gender Equality (SIGE) por sus siglas en inglés. http://adlib.iss.nl/adlib/uploads/wp/wp315.pdf

[7] Para mayor detalle de la metodología del SIGE ver Dijkstra (2002) y Busse y Spielmann (2003). http://adlib.iss.nl/adlib/uploads/wp/wp315.pdf

[8] Relative Status of Women (RSW) por sus siglas en inglés. http://adlib.iss.nl/adlib/uploads/wp/wp315.pdf

R. Sudarshan
Advisor-Justice
UNDP Oslo Governance Centre
Norway

[Facilitator's note: Please find below a collection of two responses from Rosina Wiltshire and Lina Hamadeh-Banerjee.]

Rosina Wiltshire, UNDP Barbados, wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

I have followed this discussion with great interest and have appreciated the wide cross section of interventions including those from academia and activists. I was particularly pleased to see the contributions of people like Devaki Jain who helped to shape this instrument. I think however that we have crossed from discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the GEM/ GDI back to the fundamentals of the HDI. A lot of ground has been covered on the latter and while it is not a perfect instrument I think that it has been widely accepted that the HDI created a revolution in development thinking, measurement and policy focus. The GDI and GEM became important measuring posts. It is not just the Nordic countries that take these measures seriously. Many countries rich and poor use them as a measuring rod. Barbados and the Caribbean countries take the HDI very seriously and both sides of the political spectrum, NGOs and key political actors debate when the country moves up or down a notch. Barbados takes issues of good governance and poverty eradication seriously and the HDI was hotly debated during the elections. Breeches of justice are hotly debated. The status of the country’s women and gender equality draws high level debate across the region. One political analyst said “show me the status of the women in a society and I can tell you the state of that country”. Let us acknowledge the gains of these indicators, while recognizing the challenges. While accepting that we may improve some of the measures let us not go back to the drawing board.

Regards

Rosina

Rosina Wiltshire
UN Resident Coordinator/UNDP Resident Representative
Barbados

Lina Hamadeh-Banerjee, UNDP/BOM/OHR, wrote:

I fully agree with Sudarshan. The GDI and GEM need to also focus on disparities relative to the development level of each country. Unfortunately the HD indicators have used the developed countries achievements as the standard. Violence against women for example, which was flagged by Kristin Timothy, is pervasive world wide and class wide.

In addition to including indicators on violence, I suggest that issues like trafficing with women need to be addressed as well. Another indicator that should be developed is on advocacy for equality - through active civil society and literature.

Lina Hamadeh-Banerjee
Adviser
UNDP, BOM, OHR

[Facilitator's note: Please find below a collection of two responses from Nomcebo Manzini and Isabelle Waterschoot.]

Nomcebo Manzini, UNIFEM, wrote:

Thank you all for the interesting interventions!

Isabelle Waterschoot, UNOTIL, Timor-Leste, wrote:

Greetings from Timor-Leste, again.

Rosina's contribution is invaluable! May I add that while the HDI is now an accepted and well-used indicators in many areas and walks of life, we could hope and joint efforts to progressively see GEM and GDI indicators (re-shaped or just not) also become part of the mainstream talking points and debates such as those mentioned by Rosina ( political agendas, social development planning and economic performances).

The meaning of mainstreaming is exactly this: ' become part of it' not a separate cluster. More than often, I am tempted to see the policy and advocay work on MDGs an opportunity to see similar indicators of gender equality be developed and widely used with all the shortcomings of indicators as I mentioned in a previous contributions to the discussion.

Isabelle Waterschoot

Gender Adviser
Gender & HIV/AIDS Unit
OSRSG -UNOTIL
Timor-Leste

[Facilitator's note: This discussion is cross-posted on HDRStats-Net and Gender-Net.]

Dear Colleagues,

This discussion has sparked a lively and dynamic discussion and so much has been said on the subject matter already. I hope I am not too late in joining and would like to offer my viewpoints as well.

There is no doubt that the GDI/GEM have served as invaluable measuring instruments of the status of women and in making a convincing case for governments all over the world in taking measures to improve women’s condition and position. However, the progress of women has been slow and protracted and more often than not, has been deeply affected by the uncertainties of an extremely volatile world that is fraught with natural and man-made disasters not to speak of armed conflict and strife, placing gender equality and advancement of women very low on the priorities of governments.

While education and women’s economic empowerment and employment are definitely worthy goals in themselves and thus a good measurement of their status as opposed to position, patriarchal social values that influence the design of education and its curriculum can lead to entrenchment of gender stereotyping and maintaining the status quo. At the same time, though economic empowerment can lead to a certain degree of independence, it does not truly empower women, to be self autonomous beings capable of having their own agency and voice. This is more so because the macro structures justify the creation and sustenance of unequal power and relations between men and women which manifest itself in socio-cultural practices that discriminate against girls and women.

Therefore, one must question then, what is the objective of revisiting the GDI and GEM? If the goal of revisiting GDI and GEM is to bring about a drastic transformation in the way policies and plans are formulated to achieve gender equality and advancement of women and the biased attitudes that shape such policies, then global measures to capture the real lived lives of women as compared to men that are common in any given society need to be formulated.

As has been well established, in no given society women and men are equal and violence against women is universal. Also were it not for women’s vital role and contribution to the reproductive economy then the outstanding role and contribution of men in productive economy would hardly be sustainable. The unequal structural stratification that prevents women from becoming engaged in productive employment forces the majority of women to seek employment in the informal sector to make ends meet. The GDI and GEM do not capture the contributions of women in the vast unorganised informal sector, where the majority of the women are concentrated.

Therefore, indices that reflect men’s and women’s separate lives, their entitlements that privilege men over women and the vulnerabilities and injustices that women are susceptible to should be taken into account. Only then would the world be one step closer to redressing women’s historical oppression and suppression that intersect in women’s lives worldwide.

Warm regards

Bharati

Bharati Silawal
Gender and Development Specialist
UNDP/BDP

Dear colleagues,

I read Richard's (Leete) piece on GDI and GEM with great interest. I would very much like to give some insight into this issue.

First, I want to point out that GDI (Gender-related Development Index) is not a measure of gender disparity. It measures the average achievement that is adjusted for gender disparity. It is based on Atkinson’s idea of equally distributed equivalent income. Using this concept, we can derive a gender disparity index (GDI*). The derivation is given as follows:

Suppose Xf is the index of female achievement and Xm is the index of male achievement, then the aggregate measure of achievement is given by

where af and am are the population shares of females and males in the population, respectively and measures the aversion to disparity between males and females. If = 0, the society does not care about the gender disparity. The larger is the , the greater is the concern for the gender disparity. Following Atkinson, a general gender disparity index (GDI*) in achievements can be written as

It can be easily seen that if females and males have the same achievement, the GDI* is equal to zero for all values of . Similarly, if Xf approaches 0 and Xm approaches maximum value of 1 (in limit), then GDI* approaches 1, which is the situation of maximum disparity in achievement. The society has to decide on the value of . In the HDR, the value of is assumed to be equal to 2.

Note that GDI* is a very general index of gender disparity. It can be easily calculated for all gender empowerment measures (GEM), namely, parliamentary representation, economic participation and income disparity between males and females.

I performed the calculations of GDI* on Richard's example. As one can see that GDI* decreases monotonically as female income increases (when male income is fixed) and becomes 0 when female income is equal to male income. But when female income surpasses that of male income, GDI* increases to .1118. In this case males suffer greater deprivation. Thus the GDI* gives very intuitive results. I have done these calculations assuming that is equal to 2 and female share of population is .497.

Let me now turn to your proposed GGI (Gender Gap Index), which is given by

This index is very simple but is not based on any notion of social welfare. Thus we cannot choose inequality aversion parameter. It is true that if Xf = Xm, the GGI is equal to 0 as it should be. However, if Xf = 0 and Xm = 1 (maximum value), the index should approach 1 (a situation of maximum disparity) but the index approaches -1. I propose a measure very similar to Richard's as

which has been derived from the Gini welfare function. Thus it has a welfare interpretation.

Best

Nanak

Nanak Kakwani
Director/Chief Economist
UNDP/International Poverty Centre
Brasilia, Brazil
http://www.undp.org/povertycentre

• Robust time-series analyses of GDI and GEM are needed, as both GDI and GEM have an unused potential both for advocacy, policy-making and strategic developments and interventions. Composite indexes are needed for global comparisons.
• The current lack of available GEM data for most African and LHD countries in general is an issue of major concern. Collection of GEM data for all countries must be ensured for its value as a tool for universal comparison and analysis.
• We in UNDP need to improve and build on what we have, and possibly add other aggregates that capture women’s unpaid work/ work in informal sectors and violence against women. These should not be included in the GEM but added.

• how do you measure mainstreaming?
• how do you know that you are moving in the right direction towards gender equality?
• how do you account for commitment to gender equality and investment for women's empowerment within mainstream programme?

[Facilitator's note: Please find below a collection of two responses from Jennifer Olmsted and Emmanuel Asomba]

Jennifer Olmstedt, Drew University, wrote:

A number of persons have raised the question of the importance of including a measure of gender violence in future gender indicators. Although in theory I think this is an excellent suggestion, I am rather skeptical of the ability to agree on a standardized measure of gender violence to be included in a global measure for a number of reasons. The types of violence, and the ability to measure that violence can vary significantly in different contexts. In addition, defining what is meant by gender violence may be difficult. I would thus appreciate hearing in more detail what those who advocate for such a measure have in mind.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Olmsted

Jennifer Olmsted
Associate Professor of Economics
Drew University
Madison, NJ 07940
USA

Emmanuel Asomba, Development Gateway, wrote:

It has been very interesting to note in this debate, that the GDI and GEM can be seen as adjustive measures toward systematic evaluation of human development at given times. In the context surrounding the role of women in development, it is quite clear that we are at a crossing point to extend our knowledge and methods toward gender-sensitive measures in policy implementation.

I would say that such actions evolve along the appraisals of projects as they capture matters of gender capacity and women’s agencies. These aims are the integration of participatory appraisal tools, such as Rapid Rural Appraisal to stress the relationships and/or gaps between policy and practice.

In fact, the current dynamics behind policy formulation highlight the necessity to broaden in this debate, the gender-sensitive methods of cost-benefits analysis in regards to programs and social accounting.

These arguments set to raise the alignments of policies vis-à-vis matters of energy, health, education or political participation among others, as they engage donors, governments and civil society strategies to cover the economic and social status of women.

Hence, a more pluralistic approach with regards to poverty analysis should be seen as: ‘ordre du jour’, as to bridge other dimensions within the problematique of inclusion versus exclusion. These factors essential to move forward the discussions/debates centralized around issues of income and consumption poverty.

Cheers

Emmanuel

Emmanuel Asomba
Advisor
Development Gateway - dgPoverty Team

[Facilitator's note: This discussion is cross-posted on HDRStats-Net and Gender-Net.]

Dear friends and colleagues,

In reading this discussion, I am reminded of the opening lines of Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina: "All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."

A major challenge with such indices is that the way in which gender inequality manifests differs across countries. The salience of indicators of inequality depends on the country’s economic structure and the gender division of labor within that country. Thus, at the outset, attempts to find a “one size fits all” indicator appear elusive. As they are currently constructed, the GDI and GEM are useful tools in some regions and countries because the formulation fits local conditions. But for other countries, they can be misleading. Let me give a couple of examples:

With regard to the GDI, inclusion of literacy as a component of the education measure is unrevealing for highly industrialized economies. A better education measure might be the gender gap in secondary or tertiary education. For countries that have a large agricultural sector (and as a result, limited paid labor markets), the GEM is inadequate since it measures women’s economic empowerment as their representation in technical and professional positions. Indeed, the lack of data mean that it is impossible to calculate the GEM for a number of countries. In those countries, alternative measures of gender empowerment could be devised, depending on economic and social conditions. For example, for Sub-Saharan Africa, gender differences in age at first marriage is a plausible alternative. This measure doesn’t measure economic empowerment directly but may be a good proxy. Such proxies are important to identify because the data necessary to accurately measure female economic empowerment (such as control or access to land and credit) may not be available for some time.

The main point I wish to make is that adapting these measures to the economic structure of a country would be very useful. While this then precludes an international comparison, it could allow for cross-country comparisons of countries at a similar level of development. (I am not suggesting the abandonment of efforts to construct an international measure, however, as international rankings play an important role in leveraging political attention).

For me, the single most problematic aspect of the GDI and GEM is that these are not pure measures of gender inequality. Rather, they conflate relative gender equality with absolute levels of human development and thus do not give information on comparative gender inequality among countries. The initial goal of using these measures to adjust the HDI for the degree of gender inequality is a laudable one, but gender inequality itself should be explicitly measured. This point was brought home to me by colleagues at the University of West Indies who noted that although that region ranks high in GDI and GEM, in fact gender inequality is a severe problem, and manifests in a number of ways, including exclusion from work, gender violence, and women’s greater responsibility for providing of children. This issue has been raised in the literature by numerous authors, including this list’s moderator, Stephan Klasen.

In my view, it is fundamental to separately measure absolute versus relative gender well-being. The latter is important in its own right because inequalities in relative well-being lead to absolute deprivation, as a result of women’s lesser bargaining power in household and labor markets. It seems to me this is an issue that needs more debate and discussion—that is, the merits of a pure measure of gender inequality versus the current approach in the GDI and GEM which accounts for per capita income and, as a result, advantages some very gender unequal countries in the rankings.

One final point: Analysis of gender trends in well-being is hampered by lack of a longer time series of the GDI and GEM. Such data would make it possible to assess gender effects of various national level policies.

Sincerely,

Stephanie Seguino
Associate Professor and Chair Department of Economics
University of Vermont, USA

El texto en español se encuentra después del texto en inglés

TRANSLATED MESSAGE

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

We are very pleased with the fruitful exchange that is being maintained. As with the previous contribution to the debate made from Cuba by Mrs. Teresa Lara, the reflections we are now conveying, are a result of internal thematic discussions held in our Office (UNDP) and the final remarks made by the Task Force interested in the measurement of these indicators, who have experience on the subject from the standpoint of diverse professional fields and, particularly, the local ambit.

The Task Force is comprised of Mr. Bruno Moro, Resident Co-ordinator of the UNDP in Cuba; Mrs. Ulrika Richardson-Golinski, Deputy Resident Representative of the UNDP in Cuba; Mrs. Edith Felipe, UNDP Programme Co-ordinator; Mrs. Teresa Lara, General Subdirector of the National Statistics Office (NSO, “Oficina Nacional de Estadisticas/ONE”) of Cuba; Mrs. Inalvis Rodriguez, UNDP/PHDLL National Gender Expert, and Mr. Sergio Novas, Main Technical Advisor of the Programme for Human Development at the Local Level (UNDP/PDHLL).

First of all, we would like to make some general points and then comment on experiences and the actions taken. References will be made to both the research field and the promotion and dissemination of results, as well as to the use of information related to the components of the Gender-related Development Index (GDI) and the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) in the practical actions at a local level.

General comments:

a) In our opinion, there is still not enough awareness regarding the relevance of gender-focused information and the importance of its adequate use. This is influenced mainly by the impossibility of most statistical offices in the world to generate information from a gender-related perspective, and the limitations of the use of statistics that include this new approach. Using statistical information from a gender-related dimension facilitates the diagnosis, planning, monitoring, and attainment of results that allow the measurement of whether what we are doing is aimed at achieving greater gender equality.

b) Likewise, we believe that many of the actions taken regarding public policies are not successful because gender conceptualisations and the advances in this perspective of analysis are only incorporated remotely or independently –if they are incorporated at all– and are not directly linked as an integral part of the process to be developed.

c) Undoubtedly, the organisation and projection of local actions should be focused, from the outset, on gender. The availability of information broken down by gender at a national and local level is an essential link in the chain of topics that require studies on gender equality, hence the importance that we in Cuba attach to gender-specific information.

d) Having information broken down at the local level has allowed us to strengthen the considerations that can describe or characterise the diverse problems we study and analyse in public policies. Thus, the tendency is stressed over time of gradually “de-feminising” sectors traditionally occupied by women and envisioning their presence in scientific, communications and construction activities. Also, it has been and is important to analyse the participation of women and men in decision-making. Not only in parliamentary participation, but also in provincial and local government administrations.

e) In Cuba, the information that is required for calculating the GDI and the GEM at a national and local level according to the UNDP methodology, and with our modifications, is available. We deem it relevant to maintain the life expectancy index for men and women as a resulting indicator of human health.

f) The actions that we will illustrate further below have been possible due to the systematic and dynamic interaction of four important strengths:

1- The existence of a statistical office with an organising structure and over 40 years of experience in generating statistics. The National Statistical Information System (Sistema Nacional de Informacion Estadistica), is well-developed and consistent. It offers systematic information broken down to the municipal level, and allows the monitoring of important population, healthcare, employment, and education indicators, among others.

2- The solid work done by the Cuban Women's Association (FMC, acronym in Spanish) for over 40 years, in favour of women's rights in Cuba. The FMC, as a National Mechanism for Women's Progress, is in charge of promoting the introduction of a gender perspective to joint plans with Ministries and organisations and, with regards to the achievement of gender-related statistics and indicators, the close and permanent relationship maintained with the National Statistics Office.

3- The existence of the Ministry of Foreign Investment and Economic Collaboration as a governmental body capable of organising and co-ordinating collaboration in Cuba.

4- The contributions of the UNDP Office, UNIFEM and other System Agencies in Cuba, which, through their diverse Programmes, facilitate gender mainstreaming, the realisation of projects and actions aimed at promoting equality between men and women, and more intense development of gender indicators and statistical analysis tools.

Particularly at the local level, it is important to mention the Programme for Human Development at the Local Level in Cuba (PHDLL/UNDP) that, in co-ordination with diverse actors of international co-operation and the involvement of UNIFEM, has accompanied the articulation of national and local organisations in the production of statistics and gender indicators, and supported actions for international publication and dissemination of the experience in Cuba.

Actions and experiences to be shared:

• The existence in Cuba of the Gender-focused Statistics and Indicators System (GSIS, “Sistema de Estadísticas e Indicadores con Enfoque de Género/SEIG”)

The System was prepared by the National Stastistics Office (NSO) under the co-ordination and general editorial direction of Ms. Teresa Lara Junco, Attorney-at-law, and was co-ordinated and discussed by scholars, researchers, governmental agencies, and the main users.

[The system] is the fruit of many years of labour geared towards generating demographic, social, and economic information broken down by sex and, in particular, in relation to women. Its main contribution is allowing the assessment and monitoring of the National Follow-Up Action Plan as per the Beijing Summit. This aspect has manifested itself in the two national evaluations carried out, where the GSIS provided the organisations and institutions with the necessary information.

The subjects selected for gender study that were used by the National Statistic Information System were: population, home and family, education, economic activities, healthcare, sexuality and reproduction, housing and human settlements, and political participation. The system also adheres to the basic principles for an indicator system of this type, namely: segregation by sex, relations and comparisons between men and women, and comparability over time. This has contributed to strengthening the capacity of statisticians and users to analyse this subject, which is so important to human development.

In addition, the GSIS responds to the specific characteristics of provinces and the nation and enables the diagnosis and follow-up of actions, projects and policies at the local and national levels. Its information is needed by various users, especially by the Cuban Women’s Association. This organisation makes ample use of the system while contributing to its enrichment by, on one hand, identifying new aspects of the social relationships between men and women that could be "hidden behind the numbers" and, on the other, promoting the verification and interpretation of how far we have come and which gender gaps and differences still exist.

The GSIS gave first priority to physical indicators. Except for the compensation, salary and wage payment indicator which is expressed as a value, the rest are considered as physical units.

In that regard, here are some comments based on the NSO’s experience:

a) Our first consideration for future study of the GDI/GEM is having indicators that are physical, not expressed as a value.

b) The main limitations of value indicators –such as the estimated income for men and women- is that the majority include deviations from the statements made in household income surveys. For example, sometimes due to lack of information they fail to include income from the informal sector, the effects of prices on adjustments for national and international comparability and –in the case of women, more so than men– they are not able to cover the entire economic and social contribution that they make to society due to the fact that unpaid domestic work is not taken into account.

This is part of the principle of the national accounting system, which only itemises those activities that are performed through a mercantile exchange, that is, when a maid cooks, then an economic activity is being performed and when a family member cooks (a responsibility predominantly assigned to women), it is a household chore and not an economic activity. This subject is sufficiently controversial as to justify a sub-network assigned to the dedicated discussion of solely this debate. However, by solidifying and maintaining the principle of physical indicators, which are less vulnerable to value measurements, we are making the following proposal:

- We believe that a better approach to [revealing] the contribution that women and men make to social and economic development is to measure the amount of hours dedicated to both remunerated and unpaid domestic work.

The primary source of information is the survey on time usage which allows, with significant validity, to clearly distinguish when women contribute to development in two dimensions: the personal one, and what she contributes to ensuring the development of her family.

For the GDI, this should be measured as an increase of a woman’s capacity to the extent that it diminishes in favour of less hours of unpaid domestic work. For the GEM, it will be relative to how much more women contribute vs. men in paid work participation –measured in the total hours worked, which includes hours of unpaid domestic work– if the objective is to measure inequality of opportunities. However, if the objective is to quantify the contribution made by women vs. men, then the quantity of hours of unpaid domestic work would be divided between the total hours of paid domestic work and unpaid domestic work.

c) As for the equitably-distributed education index, the Adult Literacy Rate and the Gross Enrolment Rate have been replaced, since these are rights that have already been attained by both men and women alike, with those who study and graduate from tertiary school, which is linked to the assessment of new education projects for taking higher education to the municipal level without distinctions of sex. This analysis should be considered as one of the flexibilities the GDI should include in national and local contexts. The GDI cannot be a mere reproduction of international methodology if the index is to show some information that will facilitate actions in favour of greater gender equality in the country or in a specific location.

In short, taking into account our context and based on our local experience and the availability of information, we have modified the GDI and the GEM into education indicators that are more aligned with the completion of the schooling cycle and that include a fairer measurement of the work of men and women, considering the activities linked to the development and formation of families, which lie at society’s fundamental core.

• Women and Men in Cuba

A publication created with the purpose of compiling, analysing and disseminating gender-related statistics since 1997, in order to have the necessary information available for decision-making on the part of policy makers.

Aimed at contributing to a culture of gender-related statistics, the publication includes national and provincial data that are of interest to researchers, specialists and educators. Its value also consists of gathering in a single document all useable gender-focused statistical information in the National Statistics Office.

• Gender focus in the production of nationwide statistics

Five examples worth mentioning:

a) Once the aforementioned GSIS was approved, the information was immediately made available to each of the country’s seven provinces incorporated to the PHDLL and their respective municipalities.

b) In 2001 the “Survey on Time Usage” was conducted in five of the country’s municipalities that are integrated to the PHDLL (www.cubagob.cu./ statistics).

c) Research on employment and salaries in Granma, a province in the eastern part of Cuba, that allowed the determination of male and female salaries according to their employment situation, in addition to evaluating the proper statistical tool for obtaining results. An important publication emerged based on the study, entitled “El enfoque de género en la producción de las estadísticas de empleo y salario en la provincia de Granma” (Gender-Focus in the Production of Employment and Salary Statistics in the Province of Granma), NSO, 2004.

d) In Holguin, another province in the eastern part of Cuba, the Human Development Index methodology was used as a reference for selecting the municipalities that would become a part of the PDHLL. Later on, work was done within the province on the Gender-related Development Index and the Gender Empowerment Measurement.

e) In local gender-related studies, educational indicators have been used that are related to the completion of studies. Such is the case of the indicator on higher education graduates as a result of a strengthening of capacity and the linking of this indicator to the number of women employed per completed level of education, which contributes to assessing to what extent the capacity attained by women is potentially used.

f) An example of how gender-focused information can be divulged is the local work of the GSIS with geo-referential information in the western-most province of Cuba, Pinar del Rio. This application of innovative techniques, such as the Geographical Information System, makes it easier for the authorities – in a very user-friendly and easily viewable format thanks to the expression of indicators in maps according to the local distribution of municipalities - to view the results of indicators such as male and female participation in local government, and the unemployment rate of men and women per municipality of each province, among others, from a gender-related perspective.

All of this information, especially within the territories that are a part of the PHDLL, has been incorporated – and is being incorporated – into the development projects and strategies which are identified and carried out at a nationwide level. The provincial and municipal administrations are the ultimate users and the ones responsible for incorporation [of the information] into local actions and policies.

Regards

Bruno Moro
Resident Coordinator/
Resident Representative
UNDP-Cuba

ORIGINAL MESSAGE

Muy estimados/as colegas y amigos/as.

Mucho nos agrada el rico intercambio que se está manteniendo. Al igual que la anterior contribución al debate realizada desde Cuba por la Sra. Teresa Lara, las reflexiones que ahora comentamos han estado precedidas de discusiones temáticas internas en nuestra Oficina (PNUD) y de las reflexiones finales realizadas por un Equipo de Trabajo interesado en la medición de estos indicadores y con experiencia en el tema desde diversos campos profesionales y en particular del ámbito local.

El equipo de trabajo está integrado por el Sr. Bruno Moro, Coordinador Residente del PNUD en Cuba; la Sra. Ulrika Richardson-Golinski, Representante Residente Adjunto del PNUD en Cuba; la Sra. Edith Felipe, Coordinadora de Programa PNUD; la Sra. Teresa Lara, Sub-directora General de la Oficina Nacional de Estadísticas (ONE) de Cuba); la Sra. Inalvis Rodríguez, Referente Nacional de Género del PNUD/PDHL, y el Sr. Sergio Novás, Asesor Técnico Principal del Programa de Desarrollo Humano Local (PNUD/PDHL).

Primero queremos apuntar breves comentarios generales y a continuación comentar acciones o experiencias realizadas. Las referencias incluirán tanto el campo de la investigación y la promoción-divulgación de los resultados como la utilización de la información relativa a los elementos constitutivos del Índice de Desarrollo relativo al Género (IDG, “Gender-related Development Index /GDI”) y el Índice de Potenciación de Género (IPG, “Gender Empowerment Measure /GEM”) en las acciones prácticas a nivel local.

Comentarios generales:

a) En nuestra opinión, aún no existe suficiente conciencia respecto a la relevancia de la información con enfoque de género y la importancia de su adecuado uso. En ello incide principalmente la imposibilidad que tienen gran parte de las oficinas de estadísticas en el mundo de generar información con perspectiva de género y se limita el empleo de las estadísticas con este nuevo enfoque. Utilizar la información con una dimensión de género facilita el diagnóstico, la planificación, el monitoreo y la obtención de resultados que permitan medir si lo que hacemos está dirigido a lograr una mayor equidad de género.

b) En igual sentido consideramos que no fructifican muchas de las acciones que se realizan en materia de políticas públicas porque las conceptualizaciones de género y los avances de esta perspectiva de análisis sólo se incorporan de manera aislada o independiente –en caso de ser incorporadas- y no se vinculan como parte integrante del proceso a desarrollar.

c) Sin lugar a dudas, la organización y proyección de acciones locales deben enfocarse desde sus inicios bajo la mirada de género. Es por ello que la disponibilidad de información desagregada por sexo a nivel nacional y local es un eslabón indispensable en la cadena de temas que requieren los estudios sobre equidad de género y de ahí la importancia que en Cuba concedemos a la información con perspectiva de género.

d) El disponer de una información desagregada a nivel local nos ha permitido fortalecer las consideraciones que pueden describir o caracterizar las diversas problemáticas que estudiamos y que analizamos en las políticas públicas. Así se destaca la tendencia en el tiempo de ir “desfemenizando” sectores tradicionalmente ocupados por mujeres y visualizar la presencia de las mismas en actividades científicas, de las comunicaciones y de la construcción. Por otra parte ha sido y es importante analizar la participación de mujeres y hombres en la toma de decisiones y no solo en la participación parlamentaria sino también en los gobiernos provinciales y locales.

e) En Cuba se dispone de la información necesaria que requiere el IDG y el IPG para calcularlo a nivel nacional y local acorde a la metodología del PNUD y con nuestras modificaciones. Consideramos pertinente mantener como indicador resultante de la salud humana la esperanza de vida para mujeres y hombres.

f) Las acciones que a continuación ejemplificaremos han sido posibles por la sistemática y dinámica interacción de 4 importantes fortalezas:

1- La existencia de un órgano estadístico con una estructura organizativa y una experiencia de trabajo estadístico por más de 40 años. El Sistema Nacional de Información Estadística, desarrollado y consistente, ofrece información sistemática hasta nivel municipal y permite dar seguimiento a importantes indicadores de población, salud, empleo, educación y otros.

2- El sólido trabajo realizado por la Federación de Mujeres Cubanas por más de 40 años a favor de los derechos de la mujer en Cuba. La FMC como Mecanismo Nacional para el Adelanto de la Mujer, es la encargada de impulsar la introducción de la perspectiva de género en los planes conjuntos con Ministerios y Organizaciones y en cuanto al logro de estadísticas e indicadores de género las relaciones mantenidas con la Oficina Nacional de Estadísticas son estrechas y permanentes.

3- La existencia del Ministerio de Inversión Extranjera y la Colaboración Económica como órgano de gobierno capaz de organizar y coordinar la colaboración en Cuba.

4- El aporte de la Oficina del PNUD, de UNIFEM y demás agencias del Sistema en Cuba que a través de sus diversos Programas facilitan la transversalización del enfoque de género, la realización de proyectos y acciones encaminados a potenciar la equidad entre mujeres y hombres y contribuyen a intensificar el desarrollo de herramientas de análisis estadísticos e indicadores de género.

En especial, para el nivel local, es de señalar al Programa de Desarrollo Humano Local en Cuba (PDHL/PNUD) que en coordinación con diversos actores de la cooperación internacional y el aporte de UNIFEM ha acompañado la articulación entre las instancias nacionales y locales en la producción de estadísticas e indicadores de género y ha apoyado las acciones de publicación y divulgación internacional de la experiencia en Cuba.

Acciones y experiencias a compartir:

• La existencia en Cuba del “Sistema de Estadísticas e Indicadores con Enfoque de Género” (SEIG).

El Sistema fue elaborado por la Oficina Nacional de Estadísticas bajo la Coordinación y Dirección General editorial de la Lic. Teresa Lara Junco y fue coordinado y discutido por académicos, investigadores, instancias de gobierno y principales usuarios.

Fruto de largos años de un trabajo encaminado a generar información demográfica, social y económica desagregada por sexo y en particular sobre la mujer, su principal aporte es permitir la evaluación y el monitoreo del Plan de Acción Nacional de Seguimiento a la Cumbre de Beijing. Este aspecto se ha evidenciado en las dos evaluaciones nacionales realizadas, momentos en los cuales el SEIG proporcionó a los organismos e instituciones la información necesaria.

Las materias seleccionadas para el estudio de género aplicado al Sistema de Información Estadística Nacional: -población; hogar y familia; educación; actividad económica; salud, sexualidad y reproducción; la vivienda y asentamientos humanos y la participación política;- junto al cumplimiento de los principios básicos para un sistema de indicadores de este tipo como son la división por sexo, las relaciones y comparación entre mujeres y hombres y la comparabilidad en el tiempo, ha contribuido también ha fortalecer la capacidad de análisis de productores y usuarios de las estadísticas en este tema de tanta importancia para el desarrollo humano.

Por otra parte, el SEIG responde a las características específicas de las provincias y del país y da la posibilidad de diagnosticar y monitorear las acciones, proyectos y políticas a nivel nacional y local. Su información es requerida por diferentes usuarios y muy especialmente por la Federación de Mujeres Cubanas. Dicha organización hace del Sistema un amplio uso a la vez que contribuye a su enriquecimiento; por una parte, al identificar nuevos aspectos de las relaciones sociales entre mujeres y hombres que pueden estar “escondidas detrás de las cifras” y por otra, al impulsar la constatación e interpretación de hasta dónde hemos avanzado y cuáles son las brechas y diferencias de género aún existentes.

En el SEIG se priorizó en primer lugar los indicadores físicos. Excepto el indicador de pago por remuneraciones, salarios, sueldos que se expresa en valor, el resto son contemplados en unidades físicas.

Al respecto algunos comentarios desde la experiencia de la ONE.

a) Nuestra primera consideración para el estudio futuro del IDG/IPG es disponer de indicadores físicos y no en valor.

b) Las principales limitaciones de los indicadores de valor -como es el caso de los ingresos estimados para mujeres y hombres- es que la mayoría tienen sesgos por declaración de las encuestas de ingresos en los hogares. Por ejemplo, a veces no incluyen por falta de información los ingresos del sector informal, los efectos de precios para los ajustes para la comparabilidad nacional e internacional, y en el caso de las mujeres -más que en los hombres- no logran abarcar todo el aporte económico y social que las mismas realizan a la sociedad por no contabilizar el trabajo doméstico que no se remunera.

Esto forma parte del principio del sistema de contabilidad nacional que solo contabiliza aquellas actividades que se realizan a través de un intercambio mercantil, -o sea que cuando se cocina por una empleada doméstica sí se realiza una actividad económica y cuando cocina un miembro de la familia (responsabilidad preferentemente asignada a las mujeres) es un deber del hogar y no es una actividad económica-. Este tema es suficientemente polémico como para dedicar una sub red solo a este debate, pero concretando y manteniendo el principio de indicadores físicos que son menos vulnerables a las mediciones de valor, hacemos la siguiente propuesta.

- Apostamos a que un mejor acercamiento al aporte que mujeres y hombres hacen al desarrollo económico y social es medir la cantidad de horas que se dedican tanto al trabajo remunerado como al doméstico no remunerado.

La fuente de información principal es la encuesta sobre el uso del tiempo y permite con una validez significativa distinguir con claridad cuanto aporta la mujer al desarrollo desde dos dimensiones, la personal y lo que ella aporta para garantizar el desarrollo de su familia.

Para el IDG este debe medirse como aumento de la capacidad de la mujer, en la medida que el mismo disminuya a favor de menos horas de trabajo doméstico no remunerado. En el IPG se relacionará con cuanto más aporta las mujeres con relación a los hombres en cuanto a la participación del trabajo remunerado en el total de horas trabajadas que incluyen las horas del trabajo doméstico no remunerado, si se quiere medir la inequidad en las oportunidades, pero si se quiere cuantificar el aporte de las mujeres con relación a los hombres, sería dividir la cantidad de horas de trabajo doméstico no pagado entre la suma de las horas por el trabajo pagado y el trabajo doméstico no pagado.

c) En cuanto al índice de educación igualmente distribuido, se ha sustituido el indicador Tasa de alfabetización de adultos y Tasa bruta de matriculación, por ser un derecho ya alcanzado tanto por mujeres como por hombres, por los que estudian y se gradúan en la educación terciaria, lo cual está vinculado a la evaluación de los nuevos proyectos educacionales de llevar la educación terciaria hasta nivel municipal sin distinción de sexo. Este análisis debe considerarse como una de las flexibilidades que debe tener el IDG en los contextos nacionales y locales, que no puede ser una simple reproducción de la metodología internacional, si se espera que el índice muestre alguna información que facilite las acciones a favor de una mayor equidad de género en el país o en la localidad.

En resumen, en cuanto a nuestra experiencia local y la disponibilidad de información teniendo en cuenta nuestro contexto, hemos modificado el IDG y el IPG en indicadores de educación mas asociados a la terminación del ciclo de estudio y a la medición más justa del trabajo de mujeres y hombres teniendo en cuenta las actividades vinculadas al desarrollo y formación de la familia que constituyen la célula fundamental de la sociedad.

• Mujeres y Hombres en Cuba.

Publicación realizada con el propósito de compilar, analizar y difundir las estadísticas con perspectiva de género desde 1997, a fin de disponer de la información necesaria para la adopción de decisiones por parte de los diseñadores de políticas.

Dirigida a contribuir a incrementar la cultura sobre las estadísticas de género la publicación comprende datos nacionales y provinciales que resultan de interés para investigadores, especialistas y docentes. Tiene además el valor de recoger en un solo documento toda la información estadística utilizable con enfoque de género en la Oficina Nacional de Estadísticas.

• El enfoque de género en la producción de estadísticas a nivel territorial.

Cinco ejemplos a señalar:

a) Una vez aprobado el mencionado SEIG de manera inmediata se dispuso de la información para cada una de las 7 provincias del país incorporadas al PDHL y sus respectivos municipios.

b) Realización en el 2001 de la “Encuesta sobre el Uso del Tiempo” en 5 municipios del país que están integrados al PDHL (www.cubagob.cu./ estadísticas).

c) La realización de una investigación sobre el empleo y los salarios en Granma, una provincia oriental de Cuba, que permitió determinar la magnitud de los salarios de mujeres y hombres de acuerdo a su situación ante el empleo, además de evaluar el instrumento estadístico adecuado para obtener los resultados. A partir del estudio se realizó la importante publicación “El enfoque de género en la producción de las estadísticas de empleo y salari

[Facilitator's note: This discussion is cross-posted on HDRStats-Net and Gender-Net.]

Congratulations to the HDRO for taking initiative for this discussion on the GDI and the GEM, rich in points of view and ideas on the pros and cons of these indices, and how to improve them. I think that few can disagree with the fact that, like the HDI for Human Development, the GDI and the GEM are only two ways to capture synthetically, using different methodologies, some dimensions of gender inequality, on the basis of the available data, for as many countries as possible. If one looks at them under this light they can be accepted for what they are and should be used that way. However there is a number of aspects to consider:

[Facilitator's note: Please find below a collection of responses from R. Sudarshan and Hajhamad]

R. Sudarshan, UNDP Oslo Governance Centre, wrote:

I agree with Jennifer Olmstedt that it is difficult to devise a standardized measure of gender violence, especially because it is fear of violence, apart from actual manifestation of it, that limits the capabilities of women to function in comparison to their male counterparts. However, devising measures for aspects of governance on the whole is not easy, but that should not detract us from having measures that can give guidance to policy makers.

We could have measures for two of the capabilities that Martha Nussbaum provides in her listing, using the proxy of the prevalence of women's organisations in a given population. The capabilities are practical reason and affiliation, and these are enhanced when women are organised in their own interests. Please see Martha Nussbaum, Women's Bodies, Violence, Security Capabilities, Journal of Human Development, Vol. 6, No. 2, July 2005, pp.167-183.

R. Sudarshan
Advisor-Justice
UNDP Oslo Governance Centre
Norway

Hajhamad, Social and Human Development Consultative Group, wrote:

Dear all,

Thanks for an interesting and quite inspiring discussion. May I add my voice to those who already expressed their concern about the uniformity of the GDI and GEM. Both are superficial when it comes to basic issues for the developing world, in general and for the African, Arabic and Islamic regions in particular, which comprise more than two thirds of the world’s population.

The concept of cultural empowerment is too rigidly based on sex, and statistics on this issue are quite misrepresentative. Traditions and religion are forceful factors in the social sphere.

The last census in Sudan in 1993 for example, indicates that 85% of income is spent in private households. This means that even if a working woman at times may earn more than the husband, the legal and traditional norms put the burden on the male who is considered the breadwinner and has to give money to his wife – the manager of the household.

Many governments do not publicly recognize households with single mothers. In some societies, women even publicly support rights such as polygamy for men.

Therefore it is important to develop a more region specific GDI and GEM. The existing rigidity of the indicators has made it very clear that there is a dire need to diversity the indicators and underlying concepts. Only this will in the end lead to the reform of the social sector.

Thanks again

Dr. Al-Haj Hamad Mohamed Kheir
Director
Social and Human Development Consultative Group
Sudan

[Facilitator's note: We are now starting the third and final part of our discussion ‘Next steps - what are some key considerations to keep in mind during the review of these measures over the coming months?' We look forward to your contributions! Many thanks to Agueda Perez and Susana Franco for their translation of the message!]

Le texte en français suit le texte en anglais
El texto en español se encuentra después del texto en francés

Dear Colleagues and Friends,

Thank you once again to all those who have contributed to this very lively discussion for their remarkable and substantive inputs.

We now turn to the final discussion in this three-part series. This final discussion is intended for you to provide us with recommendations – based on your experience as well as the fruitful discussions of the past few weeks – for moving forward with this technical review. What are the key issues that we should keep in mind? What are the likely challenges that we will face?

In this regard, we would like to bring to your attention several important questions resulting from this discussion and invite you to share your thoughts on them.

• Some messages have pointed out the difficulties in interpreting the GDI. Given that this index does not measure gender equity per se, but rather the impact of gender equity on overall human development, how easy has it been to communicate this concept? How have the findings been presented/interpreted (e.g. subtracting the GDI from the HDI, comparing the ranks countries have in both indices, etc.)?
• In some countries, the difference between the HDI and the GDI is very small. This might give the wrong impression that gender inequalities are either not large or not of significant importance for human development. Has this been a problem when working with the GDI?
• In some countries equality in earned incomes might be seen as counter to particular cultural or religious norms. Has this been a problem when using the measure for advocacy purposes?
• It turns out that gender gaps in labor force participation are the single most important reason why countries do badly in the GDI. Has this been addressed by policy discussions at the country level?
• Many participants pointed out that data deficiencies are a real problem for gender-related indicators and have also seriously affected the GDI and GEM, for which data is not available in many countries. Apart from the examples already mentioned in the discussion (Albania, Cuba, Bolivia), have there been efforts to systematically address the lack of sex-disaggregated data and to generate the data needed for the GDI and GEM?
• What were the problems encountered? Which data are particularly difficult to get? Are there ways to 'economize' on data by reformulating the measures? If so, how?
• A critique of the GEM could be that it is sensitive to 'tokenism', not reflecting the de facto empowerment of women in society. Some countries may have achieved high representation of women in parliaments, however those parliaments might have little say. Has this been an issue of discussion when using the GEM for policy or advocacy purposes?
• Several contributions have pointed out additional areas that should be measured in order to obtain a more accurate appraisal of women’s empowerment or their relative position with respect to men, such as: “having choices”, violence against women, culture, contributions in the informal sector, unpaid work, decision-making at home, and advocacy for equality. Have there been instances in which these variables have been already measured? If so, how?
• The computation of the income component of the indices is particularly problematic. Are there examples where income has been disaggregated by sex using a different methodology?
• Since 2000, national and international attention has shifted to the third Millennium Development Goal ("Promote gender equality and empower women") as the main indicator of gender equality. Has this led to more or less interest in the GDI and GEM as measures of gender-sensitive development and empowerment? What are the respective advantages and disadvantages of relying on MDG3 vis-à-vis an emphasis on the GDI/GEM?

Your participation in these discussions has truly been extraordinary! We believe it reflects both the importance of these indicators as well as the critical need to revise these measures in today’s development context. We hope that this third discussion is just as insightful and thought-provoking as the first two, and we look forward to hearing your thoughts on how to move forward with this important technical review.

Thank you once again for your participation!

All the best,

Stephan Klasen & Haishan Fu

Chers Amis et Collègues,

Je souhaite remercier encore une fois tous ceux qui ont contribué à cette discussion très animée pour leurs apports substantiels et de qualité.

Nous arrivons maintenant à la discussion finale de cette série en trois parties. Cette discussion finale a pour but que vous nous donniez des recommandations – basées sur votre expérience ainsi que sur les riches discussions des semaines passées – pour avancer cette revue technique. Quelles sont les questions essentielles que nous devrions garder en tête ? Quels sont les défis probables auxquels nous devrons faire face ?

A ce sujet, nous aimerions attirer votre attention sur plusieurs questions importantes surgies à la suite de cette discussion et nous vous invitons à partager vos idées sur celles-ci.

• Certains messages ont signalé les difficultés d’interprétation de l’ISDH. Etant donné que cet indice ne mesure pas l’égalité des sexes en soi, mais plutôt l’impact de l’égalité des sexes sur l’ensemble du développement humain, a quel point a-t-il été facile de communiquer ce concept ? Comment les résultats ont-ils été présentés/interprétés (par exemple, en soustrayant l’ISDH à l’IDH, en comparant les rangs des pays dans les deux indices, etc.)?
• Dans certains pays, la différence entre l’IDH et l’ISDH est très petite. Ceci peut donner l’impression erronée que les inégalités des sexes ne sont pas grandes ou n’ont pas une importance significative pour le développement humain. Est-ce que ceci a posé un problème en travaillant avec l’ISDH?
• Dans certains pays l’égalité des revenus perçus peut être considérée comme contraire à certaines normes culturelles ou religieuses. Ceci a-t-il posé un problème quand la mesure a été utilisée à des fins de mobilisation?
• Il se trouve que les écarts entre les sexes dans le taux d’activité sont la raison la plus importante pour laquelle les pays ont des mauvais résultats dans l’ISDH. Est-ce que ceci a été traité dans les discussions politiques à niveau national?
• Plusieurs participants on remarqué que le manque de données est un problème réel pour les indicateurs liés à l’égalité des sexes et ont sérieusement affecté l’ISDH et l’IPF, pour lesquels des données ne sont pas disponibles dans beaucoup de pays. Mis à part les exemples déjà mentionnés dans la discussion (Albanie, Cuba, Bolivie), y a-t-il eu des efforts pour traiter de façon systématique le manque de données décomposées par sexe et pour générer les données nécessaires pour l’IPF et l’ISDH?
• Une critique de l’IPF pourrait être qu’il est sensible au 'tokenism', ne pas refléter l’habilitation de facto des femmes dans la société. Certains pays peuvent avoir atteint une grande représentation des femmes dans les parlements, mais ces parlements peuvent ne pas avoir un poids important. Cette question a-t-elle été relevée dans la discussion quand l’IPF a été utilisé pour des objectifs politiques ou de mobilisation ?
• Plusieurs contributions ont indiqué des domaines additionnels qui devraient être mesurés afin d’obtenir une évaluation plus exacte de l’habilitation des femmes ou de leur position relative par rapport aux homes, telles que: “avoir des choix”, la violence contre les femmes, la culture, les contributions au secteur informel, le travail non payé, la prise de décision à la maison, et la mobilisation pour l’égalité. Y a-t-il eu des cas dans lesquels ces variables ont déjà été mesurées ? Si c’est le cas, comment ?
• Le calcul de la composante du revenu des indices est particulièrement problématique. Y a-t-il des exemples dans lesquels le revenu ait été décomposé par sexe en utilisant une méthodologie différente ?
• Depuis l’an 2000, l’attention nationale et internationale s’est tournée vers le troisième objectif du Millénaire pour le développement ("Promouvoir l'égalité des sexes et l'autonomisation des femmes") en tant qu’indicateur principal de l’égalité des sexes. Ceci a-t-il abouti sur plus ou moins d’intérêt pour l’ISDH et l’IPF en tant que mesures d’un développement sensible aux inégalités des sexes et de l’habilitation des femmes ? Quels sont les avantages et désavantages respectifs de s’appuyer sur l’OMD3 par rapport à une emphase sur les ISDH et IPF ?

Votre participation à ces discussions a vraiment été extraordinaire! Nous croyons que ceci reflète à la fois l’importance de ces indicateurs et la nécessité critique de revoir ces mesures dans le contexte actuel du développement. Nous espérons que cette troisième discussion soit aussi clairvoyante et qu’elle provoque autant de réflexions que les deux premières, et nous attendons avec impatience de recevoir vos réflexions sur comment avancer cette revue technique.

Merci encore pour votre participation!

Cordialement,

Stephan Klasen & Haishan Fu

Estimados/as colegas y amigos/as:

Gracias de nuevo a todos y a todas los que han contribuido a esta animada discusión por sus notables y sustanciales aportaciones.

Pasamos ahora a la última discusión de esta serie en tres partes. Esta última discusión se plantea con el propósito de que nos proporcionen recomendaciones – basadas tanto en sus experiencias como en las fructíferas discusiones de las pasadas semanas – para avanzar con esta revisión técnica. ¿Cuáles son las cuestiones claves que debemos tener presente? ¿Cuáles son los desafíos más probables que tendremos que enfrentar?

En este sentido, querríamos llamar su atención sobre varias importantes preguntas que han surgido de esta discusión e invitarles a compartir sus ideas sobre ellas.

• Algunos mensajes han señalado las dificultades para interpretar el IDG. Dado que este índice no mide la equidad de género en si misma sino el impacto de la equidad de género en el desarrollo humano total, ¿cómo de fácil ha resultado comunicar este concepto? ¿Cómo se han presentado/interpretado los resultados (por ejemplo, restando el IDG del IDH, comparando los rangos que los países alcanzan en ambos índices, etc.)?
• En algunos países, la diferencia entre el IDH y el IDG es muy pequeña. Esto podría dar la impresión equivocada de que las desigualdades de género son o bien no muy grandes o no muy significativas para el desarrollo humano. ¿Ha sido esto un problema al trabajar con el IDG?
• En algunos países la igualdad en ingresos percibidos podría verse como contraria a ciertas normas culturales o religiosas. ¿Ha sido esto un problema para utilizar esta medida para propósitos de promoción?
• Resulta que la brecha de género en la participación en la fuerza de trabajo es la razón más importante por la que los países tienen malos resultados en el IDG. ¿Se ha tratado esto en las discusiones políticas a nivel de los países?
• Varios participantes han mencionado que las deficiencias en los datos son un auténtico problema para los indicadores relativos al género y han afectado seriamente al IDG e IPG, para los que los datos no están disponibles en muchos países. Aparte de los ejemplos ya mencionados en la discusión (Albania, Cuba, Bolivia), ¿ha habido esfuerzos para abordar sistemáticamente la falta de datos desagregados por sexo y para generar los datos necesarios para el IDG y el IPG?
• Una crítica hacia el IPG podría ser que es susceptible al “tokenism”, no reflejando el empoderamiento de hecho de las mujeres en la sociedad. Algunos países puede que hayan alcanzado una alta representación de mujeres en sus parlamentos, pero sin embargo esos parlamentos puede que tengan poco poder de decisión. ¿Ha sido ésta un tema de discusión al utilizar el IPG con propósitos políticos o de promoción?
• Varias contribuciones han mencionado áreas adicionales que se deberían medir para obtener una evaluación más exacta del empoderamiento de las mujeres o de su posición relativa con respecto a los hombres, como por ejemplo: "tener opciones", violencia contra las mujeres, cultura, contribuciones en el sector informal, trabajo no remunerado, toma de decisiones en el hogar, y promoción de la igualdad. ¿Ha habido casos en los cuales ya se hayan medido estas variables? Si es así ¿cómo?
• El cómputo del componente de ingreso de los índices es particularmente problemático. ¿Existen ejemplos donde el ingreso se ha desagregado por sexo utilizando una metodología diferente?
• Desde el 2000, la atención nacional e internacional se ha trasladado al tercer objetivo de desarrollo de la ONU para el milenio ("Promover la igualdad entre los géneros y la autonomia de la mujer") como principal indicador de igualdad de género. ¿Esto ha producido un mayor o menor interés en el IDG e IPG como medidas de empoderamiento y desarrollo sensibles al género? ¿Cuáles son las ventajas y desventajas de depender del ODM3 con respecto al énfasis en el GDI/GEM?

¡Su participación en estas discusiones ha sido verdaderamente extraordinaria! Creemos que refleja tanto la importancia de estos indicadores como la crítica necesidad de revisar estas medidas en el contexto del desarrollo de hoy en día. Esperamos que esta tercera discusión sea tan perspicaz e intelectualmente estimulante como las dos primeras, y aguardamos sus ideas para avanzar en esta importante revisión técnica.

¡Gracias de nuevo por su participación!

Todo lo mejor,

Stephan Klasen & Haishan Fu

While a lot has already been posted on the construction and use of GDI and GEM, I would like to refer to some points I have raised in a book chapter that is still in the press.

GDI and GEM are good quick and dirty cross country measures but extremely misleading in how countries are compared on their basis. An article by Dijkstra and Hanmer in Feminist Economics (2000) points this out by showing the importance of the absolute level of GDP in the measurement of GDI. Others have mentioned that the GDI does not count unpaid work - a large source of economic activity in many countries. Also, the GDI does not count the work of children alongside mothers.

The GDI and GEM are somewhat out of touch with the issues that are important in developing countries nowadays - environmental degradation and access to water and sanitation, primarily a problem faced by women; a lack of assets (as opposed to credit) and in many contexts the ability to be legally and socially entitled to assets; and finally violence as women are leaving the house and becoming victim to reported/reportable violence. In Bangladesh the number of cases of reported violence is counted by lawyers' groups and NGOs so data is available. Trafficking is clearly hard to count but the three items I mention above are easy to measure in a sufficiently quick and dirty manner as well.

As far as interpretation, it seems that these measures do make some sense for a single country over time but could lead to competition among countries, reminiscent of hostilities among how well mothers take care of their children (how well do countries take care of their women). Is there any body that makes a comparison among countries for the sake of policy? I would certainly hope not.

However, even if the GDI is a teaching tool for students, let's say, then the ideological bias imparted in saying that the GDI ranking for Nepal is so far below the GDI for Argentina, for example, conveys a subjectivity that is tied in with - "oh, those people don't know how to treat their women." In this way, the GDI, when used as a tool of comparison can misrepresent the amount of information it is based on (this is true for any index) and perpetuates modern global notions regarding who is civilized and who is not.

Farida C. Khan
Professor and Chair of Economics
University of Wisconsin-Parkside

Page 5: “Some of the world’s poorest countries - including Bangladesh, Uganda and Viet Nam - have shown that rapid progress is possible”.

Page 22: “Bangladesh and China are two of the fastest climbers in the HDI ranking. Since 1990 Bangladesh has risen 14 places in the HDI ranking but just 10 places in the global wealth ranking. What this suggests is that social progress in Bangladesh has outstripped economic advance relative to the performance of other countries”.

Page 23: “Bangladesh demonstrates that it is possible to sustain strong human development progress across a broad front even at relatively modest levels of income growth.”

Page 46: Box 1.7, entitled “Bangladesh - moderate growth, rapid human development'. The box highlights Bangladesh’s progress, and presents a very rosy picture.

"Improved access to health and education for women, allied with expanded opportunities for employment and access to microcredit, has expanded choice and empowered women. While gender disparities still exist, women have become increasingly powerful catalysts for development, demanding greater control over fertility and birth spacing, education for their daughters and access to services" (my emphasis).

Page 6: "Gender is one of the world’s strongest markers for disadvantage. This is especially the case in South Asia"

Page 32: "poverty-related impediments to progress are intimately linked to gender inequality and the low status of women. In much of the developing world—especially South Asia - women lack the power to claim entitlements to nutrition and health resources, exposing them and their children to increased risk of mortality"

Page 61: "Gender disparities are among the deepest and most pervasive of inequalities. They are revealed most brutally in parts of South Asia"

Janet Raynor
University of London, Institute for Education
Consultant in Gender and Education

[Facilitator's note: Although this discussion is now closed, we would like to share the following two contributions that were received from Richard Leete, UNDP Malaysia and Inalvis Rodríguez, UNDP Cuba. Please note that the Consolidated Reply will follow soon. Many thanks to all colleagues who have shared their ideas on revisiting the GDI and GEM.]

Richard Leete, UNDP Malaysia wrote:

Thanks to Professor Stephan Klasen and Ms. Haishan Fu for their helpful summary of the interesting debate on the GDI and GEM. Please let me add a little more to the debate on next steps.

The concept of GDI is rather difficult to communicate since it measures the impact of gender disparity on overall human development, and is not a direct measure of gender disparity. Use of the ratio of GDI over HDI (or the difference) provides a useful indirect indicator of gender disparity. We could develop a simpler indicator of gender disparity using the three MDG3 indicators (which capture social, economic and political dimensions) to complement the GDI and GEM.

My thanks to Mr. Kakwani for his comments on Malaysia’s work on developing a Gender Gap Index (GGI). However, while the GGI is based on relative gender disparity (Xf - Xm)/Xm, it is in practice calculated as: GGI = | (Xf/ Xm) – 1. When Xf = 0, GGI takes the value of 1 indicating maximum gender disparity. When Xm = 0, Xf/Xm is not defined. However, as Xm goes to 0, we take the upper limit as 2 – gender ratios based on the indicators used in the GDI and GEM do not exceed 2. The upper limit of 2 is convenient because it makes the GGI symmetric. In this case, when Xm approaches 0, the GGI is equal to 1 indicating maximum gender disparity. When Xf = Xm, the GGI is equal to 0 indicating zero gender disparity.

Finally, now is the time for us all to advocate for having gender as the central theme for the 2007 HDR. The last time that this topic was covered in depth was in1995 when the GDI and GEM were first developed. By 2007 we could introduce improved indices for measuring gender equality and women’s empowerment as well as giving the theme of gender the priority it deserves.

Best regards,

Richard

Richard Leete
UN Resident Coordinator
UNDP Resident Representative for Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei Darussalam
UNFPA Representative
Malaysia

[Facilitator's note: Many thanks to Susana Franco for her translation of this message]

El texto en español se encuentra después del texto en inglés

TRANSLATED MESSAGE:

Dear colleagues and friends,

Inspired by the richness of the reflections of the second part of the discussion, and having participated in two international conferences that recently took place in Cuba, in which discussions on gender occurred and even reference to the gender indicators (GDI and GEM) were made, we would like to share with you the third contribution of the Cuba UNDP CO.

The main conclusions generated through our internal thematic discussions are the following:

A: Key points to keep in mind during the technical review of the GDI and GEM indicators.

1. The indicators should link the general picture with the individual dimensions measured by the indices.
Although the GDI and GEM (or other similar indicators) fundamentally show the general elements of the reality they capture, the gender indicators should also visualize important particularities, such as the income differences that affect the levels of poverty "with a woman face", the inequality in access to education for girls, the differences by geographic areas and zones of each country, which allow for a cross-sectional analysis of gender equity.

2. The indicators should be flexible in their measurement and selection of parameters.
This would facilitate the adaptation of the indicators to the different countries according to their national particularities. Moreover the indices could then contribute more effectively to national decision-making processes and the implementation of national policies.

3. The use of the gender indicators should be taken into account.
On the one hand, the indicators have to be used for national decision-making as "elements or indices that indicate" the gender situation. When they are revisited it will be necessary to determine: What are the indices going to be used for? Who should use them? If these indicators are not used on a national policy-making and decision-making level, their objective has not been attained and therefore they are not functional.

On the other hand, the indicators must also be useful for international comparison purposes. The ranking of countries from "1 to 186" based on one single criterion can be inadequate and not practical. In our view, an indicator should be able to capture the different approaches and divisions reflecting the current state of the world. Gender indicators should be able to capture the variety of gender situations in different countries and regions.

For example, structuring the indicators in a way that takes into account the possibilities of information of the countries could be an option. However, we think that considering the level of economic and social development as an element of comparison between countries would be more appropriate. And at the same time, it is also necessary to be flexible on the selection of parameters to measure development, so that they are appropriate to be used both at the national and international level.

4. Both qualitative and quantitative indicators should be employed for a more integral analysis of gender equity in development
Combining quantitative and qualitative analysis will contribute to better decision- making with regard to gender-equality. Simultaneously it will also help with the diagnosis, policy-making, monitoring and evaluation of gender-related matters.

As was already mentioned, the indicators should consider additional dimensions, such as: violence against women, economic contributions in the informal sector, and contributions of unpaid work that is generally carried out by women, taking into consideration cultural and regional differences.
All the above makes it necessary to combine quantitative and qualitative gender indicators and analyses.

5. The analysis of gender gaps that lead to a low GDI should be incorporated in the political discussions at a national level.
In fact, we believe that each of the elements or parameters that cause a low GDI, not only the participation in the labor force, must be topics for policy discussions. Even in countries with higher GDI, this discussion should take place.

This reflection would help to identify those aspects that can be responsible for gender equity and which would be important to monitor. In addition, it would reveal other aspects that can not be visualized yet but that might prevent the attainment of greater levels of equity. Equity is not fixed, advances and drawbacks might occur, and greater levels of equity between women and men are almost always necessary as well as possible.

6. The relevance of capacity building and dissemination of the indicators.
In relation to the deficiencies in obtaining the data "as a real problem for the indicators relative to gender" it is worth mentioning that Cuba has made great efforts in obtaining relevant data. Consequently, we have the information required for the calculation of the GDI and GEM at national and local levels. A lot of hard work has also been undertaken to disseminate the indicators and to support capacity building among the users of these indicators.

An example of this are the activities carried out with support from UNDP in the context of the Program for Local Human Development in Cuba (PDHL), which include national, provincial and municipal seminars and workshops on gender statistics and indicators.

Another example that shows the level of sensitization on the subject of the indicators and the importance conferred to their results, happened during the recently concluded VI Latin American Conference on Family. Researchers and followers of the GDI subject and gender differences at the local level recommended incorporating new aggregate elements in the measurement of family support services and analyzing the advantage of designing indicators that allow to objectively analyze the cultural, family and gender relation aspects in our society.

Furthermore, several actions directed in particular to the analysis of statistics and research on these subjects were approved as decree-laws in the National Action Plan of the Republic of Cuba for the Follow-up of the Beijing Conference. Measurement no. 90 for example states: "Widely disseminate the results of the research and statistical information on women, so that it is available to all the population". This political will is, without doubt, also a contributing factor to the measurement and use of the indicators.

7. The participation of women in high positions of decision-making must be considered
In the case of Cuba, the GEM reflects the empowerment of women in society. On the one hand, the power of female Cuban parliamentarians is recognized because many of them are coordinators of task forces for diverse socioeconomic and political subjects within the Parliament. On the other hand, the number of women in Parliament – 35.9% of Cuban parliamentarians are women - has been achieved through their promotion to decision-making positions and the recognition of their capacity and merits to hold the position, and not by merely responding to systems of quota or affirmative measures in order to diminish the gap between the number of female and male leaders. This example shows how important it is to integrate diverse elements in the synthetic indicators that will be constructed and that their interpretation and analysis should be flexible.

B: Challenges that we will have to face, actions to be taken.

1. Identifying a methodology that allows the evaluation of cross-sectional gender equity and that can be used by countries beyond international comparisons. So, when we say that inequity exists, we can identify how many individuals are in these conditions, who they are, what they are like and where they are.

2. Strengthening national statistical institutions so that they can calculate the data needed and actively participate in national measurements, taking into account pertinent territorial disaggregations.

3. Contributing to increase the capacity to analyze gender information in the countries. We should develop a strong capacity building program that would allow data producers and users to participate in a technical dialogue to facilitate the use of the information. Capacity-building in this area is important and essential to increase the understanding and the use of the indicators.

4. Contributing to improve the dissemination of gender-sensitive information. We should systematically promote the advantages that these indicators have, as they quickly show gender inequities. Therefore documents that show the importance of these indicators should be prepared, explaining how they are measured and applied. In addition, it would be necessary to increase among the data producers and users,