Some comments on The Gender Sensitive HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX, used in the United Nations Development Programme Human Development Report 1992 (New York: Oxford UP, 1992).

From pages 92-3 of the report (my comments are in brackets [ ] ):

Of the many inequalities in human development, the most striking is that along gender lines. [Not income distribution?] Women typically live longer than men once they have gone beyond the age when differential treatment of boys and girls makes life shorter for girls. [But some data would suggest that, in the US and possibly New Zealand at least, young boys fare worse than young girls, see here and here] They work harder and more hours than men, but they often do work that is unpaid or underpaid. [But data from western industrialised countries do not support this claim, on hours worked see here under UNPAID WORK] Women cook, take care of children, the elderly and the sick, look after the upkeep of the house and work on the farm or in the shop. [Men also participate in these activities, see again the unpaid work information, and also some results from the New Zealand component of the International Social Survey Programme 1994 survey on men's and women's roles] Only a small proportion of women find that their work gets paid and recorded as participation in the labour force. Labour force participation as a concept and in its measurement grossly understates women's work even in the productive, commodity producing sphere. [Participation rates overstate women's contribution as they make no allowance for the shorter hours worked or their possibly lower skill and productivity levels] It completely leaves out much work that is useful to the continuing existence of the household. [So labour is being considered here as an input to benefit others]

Any attempt to measure gender inequalities is thus bound to err on the low side. [In the index, income from paid work is counted as a benefit to the earner and noone else, whereas in this statement unpaid work is considered a cost. Hence the index "overstates" the position of women and understates the inequalities because they do more unpaid work. To be consistent, they should either assume that all the benefits from unpaid work go to the person concerned, and there are no costs associated with any work, or they should look at the distribution of consumption of benefits from both paid and unpaid work (perhaps also considering the costs to the workers concerned).

... for 33 countries we do have comparable data on the relative wage ratios and the relative ratios for labour force participation.

These data reveal a remarkable pattern of discrimination. ... Multiplying these two ratios gives the female-male wage-income ratio.

This wage-income ratio combines two identifiable correlates of gender discrimination. [Differences do not necessarily mean discrimination, there could be other explanations. The interpretation of discrimination could be reversed if we consider the wage-income ratio as a measure of the relative contributions of men and women, in which case men's contribution, by this measure, is greater, but the benefits they receive in return may not be.] The male wage is greater than the female wage, and the gap in labour force participation rates is even wider. When this is translated into absolute income levels, we see the profound consequences. [No we do not. This statement is based on the false assumption that there is no intrafamily reallocation of income and the person earning the money has full control and uses the money purely for personal benefit. For more on this point for New Zealand, look here.] To do this, a basic assumption has to be made that is clearly gender-biased: that the ratio of non-wage income to wage income is the same for men and women. This ratio therefore understates the inequality. [It overstates the inequality. If you treat unpaid work as benefit to the worker only (as is done for paid work), then the difference in total benefits received by men and women narrows when unpaid work is taken into account.]

In summary, the gender-sensitive HDI is flawed because it ignores unpaid work and confuses costs and benefits. It also takes no account of cross-gender redistributions of income.

To see how this index is then used for political purposes, follow this link to the 1995 Edition of UNDP Human Development Report and look at the information under "Highlights: Measuring the Global Gender Gap".

Stuart Birks

Last modified 25 January, 1996