Gender Development Index

src: www.viewsoftheworld.net

The Gender Development Index ( GDI ) is an index designed to measure gender equality.

GDI along with Gender Empowerment Empowerment (GEM) was introduced in 1995 in the Human Development Report written by the United Nations Development Program. The purpose of this measurement is to add a gender-sensitive dimension to the Human Development Index (HDI). The first measurement they make as a result is the Gender Related Development Index (GDI). GDI is defined as a "sensitive-distribution measure that takes into account the human development impact of the gender gap that exists in the three components of HDI" (Klasen 243). Distribution sensitivity means that GDI not only takes into account the level of welfare and average or general wealth in a country, but also focuses on how wealth and wealth are distributed among various groups in society. IPM and GDI (as well as GEM) were created to compete with more traditional common revenue-based measures such as gross domestic product (GDP) and gross national product (GNP).

Video Gender Development Index

Definisi dan perhitungan

GDI is often regarded as a "gender-sensitive extension of IPM" (Klasen 245). It discusses the gender gaps in life expectancy, education, and income. It uses the punishment of "unequal inequality", which creates a development score penalty for the gender gap in categories of Human Development Index that includes life expectancy, adult literacy, school enrollment, and logarithmic transformation of per capita income. In terms of life expectancy, GDI assumes that women will live on average five years longer than men. In addition, in terms of revenue, GDI considers the income gap in terms of actual revenue. GDI can not be used independently of Human Development Index score (HDI) and hence, it can not be used alone as an indicator of gender gap. Only the gap between HDI and GDI can be accurately considered; GDI itself is not an independent measure of the gender gap.

Maps Gender Development Index

Controversy

General debates

In the years since its formation in 1995, much debate has emerged about reliability, and the usefulness of the Gender Development Index (GDI) in making comparisons between countries and in promoting gender-sensitive development. GDI is particularly criticized because it is often misinterpreted as an independent measure of the gender gap when it is not, in fact, intended to be interpreted in that way, since it can only be used in combination with scores from the Human Development Index. , but not by itself. In addition, the data required to calculate the GDI is not always available in many countries, making measurements extremely difficult to count uniformly and internationally. There is also a concern that the combination of so many different developmental influences in one measurement can produce chaotic results and that perhaps GDI (and GEM) actually hide more than they express.

Debate around life expectancy adjustment

More specifically, there is much debate about the life expectancy component of the Gender Related Development Index (GDI). As mentioned earlier, the GDI life expectancy is adjusted to assume that women will live, usually, five years longer than men. This provision has been disputed, and it has been argued that if the GDI is really looking to promote true equality, it will seek to achieve the same life expectancy for women and men, despite what is considered a biological advantage or not. However, this may seem paradoxical in terms of policy implications, because, theoretically, this can only be achieved through the granting of special treatment to men, effectively discriminating against women. Furthermore, it has been argued that GDI does not take into account sex selective abortion, which means that the punishment imposed on a country on gender inequality is less because it affects fewer people (see Sen, Missing Women).

Debate of income gap around

Another area of ​​debate surrounding the Gender Related Development Index (GDI) is in the area of ​​income gap. GDI considers the income gap in terms of actual earnings. This has been said to be problematic because often, men can earn more money than women, but their income is shared. In addition, GDI has been criticized for not considering the value of maintenance work as well as other work done in the informal sector (such as cleaning, cooking, housework, and childcare). Another critique of GDI is that it only takes gender as a factor of inequality, but does not consider inequality among classes, territories or races, which can be very significant. Another critique of GDI's share of revenue gap is that it relies heavily on gross domestic product (GDP) and gross national product (GNP). For most countries, the income gap received includes over 90% of sex penalties.

src: 2.bp.blogspot.com

Recommended alternatives

As Halis Akder suggested in 1994, one alternative to the Gender-related Development Index is the calculation of separate male and female Human Development Index (IPI). Another suggested alternative is Gender Gap Measure which can be interpreted directly as a measure of gender inequality, rather than comparable to the Human Development Index (IPM) such as GDI. This will average the female-male inequality in human development and use the gender gap in labor force participation rather than income received. In the 2010 Human Development Report, another alternative to the Gender-Related Development Index (GDI), ie, the Gender Inequality Index (GII) is proposed to address some of the GDI deficiencies. The size of this new experiment contains three dimensions: Reproductive Health, Empowerment, and Labor Market Participation.

src: i.ytimg.com

See also

Index

src: 1hu9t72zwflj44abyp2h0pfe-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com

References

Source of the article : Wikipedia