Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:59:58.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

22 - Measuring Gender Inequality Using the Capability Approach

Issues and Challenges

from Part II - Methods, Measurement and Empirical Evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2020

By
Stephan Klasen
Edited by
Enrica Chiappero-Martinetti ,
Siddiqur Osmani  and
Mozaffar Qizilbash
Enrica Chiappero-Martinetti
Affiliation:
University of Pavia
Siddiqur Osmani
Affiliation:
Ulster University
Mozaffar Qizilbash
Affiliation:
University of York
Get access

Summary

Empirical measures of gender inequality lag behind the more sophisticated conceptual discussion of gender in the capabilities approach. This is due to a range of conceptual and empirical challenges associated with measuring gender inequality in capabilities. They relate to the distinction between well-being and agency, possible gender differences in needs and preferences, as well as household-based instead of individual-based assessments of well-being. As a result, it is very difficult to empirically assess gender inequalities in capabilities with a sufficient amount of accuracy and reliability. In contrast, more progress can be made in documenting gender gaps in functionings. This can be done by using all available individual-level information in standard household surveys, extending these surveys to include more individual-level indicators, and by relying on custom-made data for more detailed assessments. At the same time, measured gender gaps in functionings are not easily interpreted. While in some cases, it is relatively easy to conclude that such gaps imply unequal treatment and discrimination, not all observed gaps can be interpreted in this way. We therefore need to be more circumspect when interpreting gender gaps in functionings, and particularly try to understand much better why these gender gaps exist and, in many cases, persist.

Keywords

gender inequalityfunctioningscapabilitieswell-beingagency
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of the Capability Approach , pp. 437 - 452
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alkire, S. and Apablaza, M. 2016. ‘Multidimensional Poverty in Europe 2006–2012: Illustrating the Methodology’. OPHI Working Paper No. 74. University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Alkire, S. and Santos, M. E. 2014. ‘Measuring Acute Poverty in the Developing World: Robustness and Scope of the Multidimensional Poverty Index’. World Development 59: 251–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alkire, S., Meinzen-Dick, R., Peterman, A., Qisumbing, A., Seymour, , G. and Vaz, A. 2013. ‘The Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index’. World Development 52: 71–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anand, S. and Sen, A. 1995. ‘Gender Inequality in Human Development: Theories and Measurement’. Human Development Report Office Occasional Paper No. 19. New York: UNDP.Google Scholar
Bardhan, K. and Klasen, S. 1999. ‘UNDP’s Gender-Related Indices: A Critical Review’. World Development 27/6: 985–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardhan, K. and Klasen, S. 2000. ‘On UNDP’s Revisions to the Gender-Related Development Index’. Journal of Human Development 1/2: 191–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, E. 2016. ‘In India, a Small Band of Women Risk It All for a Chance to Work’. New York Times. 30 January.Google Scholar
Benería, L. and Permanyer, I. 2010. ‘The Measurement of Socio-Economic Gender Inequality Revisited’. Development and Change 41/3: 375–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bericat, E. 2011. ‘The European Gender Equality Index: Conceptual and Analytical Issues’. Social Indicators Research 108/1: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bessell, S. 2015. ‘The Individual Deprivation Measure: Measuring Poverty as if Gender and Inequality Matter’. Gender and Development 23/2: 223–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borrowman, M. and Klasen, S. 2020. ‘Drivers of Gendered Sectoral and Occupational Segregation in Developing Countries’. Feminist Economics 26/2: 62–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branisa, B., Klasen, S., Ziegler, M., Drechsler, D. and Jütting, J. 2014. ‘The Institutional Basis of Gender Inequality: The Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI)’. Feminist Economics 20/2: 29–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connell, R. and Pearce, R. 2014. ‘Gender Norms and Stereotypes: A Survey of Concepts, Research and Issues about Change’. EGM/B20/BP.2. New York: UN Women, Expert Group Meeting.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, G. 2002. ‘Revisiting UNDP’s GDI and GEM: Towards an Alternative’. Social Indicators Research 57: 301–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, G. 2006. ‘Towards a Fresh Start in Measuring Gender Equality: A Contribution to the Debate’. Journal of Human Development 7/2: 275–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, G. and Hanmer, L. 2000. ‘Measuring Socio-Economic Gender Inequality: Toward an Alternative to the UNDP Gender-Related Development Index’. Feminist Economics 6/2: 41–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, G., Lewbel, A. and Pendakur, K. 2013. ‘Children’s Resources in Collective Households: Identification, Estimation, and an Application to Child Poverty in Malawi’. American Economic Review 103/1: 438–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esteve-Volart, B. 2004. ‘Gender Discrimination and Growth: Theory and Evidence from India’. STICERD Discussion Papers DEDPS42. London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Haddad, L. and Kanbur, R. 1990. ‘How Serious Is the Neglect of Intra-Household Inequality?’ Economic Journal 100/402: 866–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausmann, R., Tyson, L. and Zahidi, S. 2007. The Global Gender Gap Report 2007. Geneva: World Economic Forum.Google Scholar
Hawken, A. and Munck, G. 2013. ‘Cross-National Indices with Gender-Differentiated Data: What Do They Measure? How Valid Are They?’ Social Indicators Research 111/3: 801–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibrahim, S. and Alkire, S. 2007. ‘Agency and Empowerment: A Proposal for Internationally Comparable Indicators’. Oxford Development Studies 35/4: 379–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kabeer, N. 1999. ‘Resources, Agency, Achievements: Reflections on the Measurement of Women’s Empowerment’. Development and Change 30/3: 435–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, E., Klasen, S. and Porter, M. 2009. ‘Gender and Development’, in Lomborg, B (ed.). Global Crises, Global Solutions, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press: 585–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klasen, S. 2006. ‘UNDP’s Gender-Related Measures: Some Conceptual Problems and Possible Solutions’. Journal of Human Development 7/2: 243–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klasen, S. 2007. ‘Gender-Related Indicators of Well-Being’, in McGillivray, M (ed.). Human Well-Being: Concept and Measurement. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan: 167–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klasen, S. 2016. ‘Gender, Institutions, and Economic Development: Findings, and Open Research and Policy Issues’. Discussion Papers 211. Courant Research Center, University of Göttingen.Google Scholar
Klasen, S. 2017. ‘UNDP’s Gender-Related Measures: Current Problems and Proposals for Fixing Them’. Discussion Papers 220. Courant Research Center, University of Göttingen.Google Scholar
Klasen, S. and Lahoti, R. 2016. ‘How Serious Is the Neglect of Intra-Household Inequality in Multidimensional Poverty Indices?’ Discussion Papers 200. Courant Research Center, University of Göttingen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klasen, S. and Lamanna, F. 2009. ‘The Impact of Gender Inequality in Education and Employment on Economic Growth: New Evidence for a Panel of Countries’. Feminist Economics 15/3: 91–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klasen, S. and Pieters, J. 2015. ‘What Explains the Stagnation of Female Labor Force Participation in Urban India?’ World Bank Economic Review 53/1: 44–62.Google Scholar
Klasen, S. and Schüler, D. 2011. ‘Reforming the Gender-Related Development Index (GDI) and the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM): Implementing Some Specific Proposals’. Feminist Economics 17/1: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klasen, S. and Wink, C. 2003. ‘“Missing Women”: Revisiting the Debate’. Feminist Economics 9/2–3: 263–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundberk, S., Pollak, R. and Wales, T. 1997. ‘Do Husbands and Wives Pool their Resources? Evidence from the United Kingdom Child Benefit’ Journal of Human Resources 32/3: 463–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malapit, H., Kovarik, C., Sproule, K., Meinzen-Dick, R. and Qisumbing, A. 2015. Instructional Guide on the Abbreviated Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (A-WEAI). Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.Google Scholar
Marcoux, A. 1998. ‘The Feminization of Poverty: Claims, Facts, and Data Needs’. Population and Development Review 24/1: 131–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murthi, M., Guio, A. and Drèze, J. 1995. ‘Mortality, Fertility, and Gender Bias in India: A District-Level Analysis’. Population and Development Review 21/4: 745–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2011. Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Permanyer, I. 2010. ‘The Measurement of Multidimensional Gender Inequality: Continuing the Debate’. Social Indicators Research 95: 181–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Permanyer, I. 2013. ‘A Critical Assessment of the UNDP’s Gender Inequality Index’. Feminist Economics 19/2: 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schüler, D. 2006. ‘The Uses and Misuses of the Gender-Related Development Index and the Gender Empowerment Measure: A Review of the Literature’. Journal of Human Development 7/2: 161–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. 1985. Commodities and Capabilities. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1988. ‘The Concept of Development’, in Chenery, H and Srinbicasan, T. N. (eds.). Handbook of Development Economics, vol. I. Amsterdam: North-Holland: 9–26.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1990. ‘Gender and Cooperative Conflicts’, in Tinker, I (ed.). Persistent Inequalities. New York: Oxford University Press: 123–149.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1998. Development as Freedom. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 2009. The Idea of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. 1990. ‘Intrahousehold Resource Allocation: An Inferential Approach’. Journal of Human Resources 25/4: 635–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, D. 1997. ‘Incomes, Expenditures and Health Outcomes: Evidence on Intrahousehold Resource Allocation’, in Haddad, L, Hoddinott, J and Alderman, H (eds.). Intrahousehold Resource Allocation in Developing Countries. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press: 142–164.Google Scholar
Trommlerova, K., Klasen, S. and Lessmann, O. 2015. ‘Determinants of Empowerment in a Capability-Based Poverty Approach: Evidence from The Gambia’. World Development 66/C: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 1995. Human Development Report 1995. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) 2010. Human Development Report 2010. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) 2014. Human Development Report 2014. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) 2015. Human Development Report 2015. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Waldron, I. 1983. ‘The Role of Genetic and Biological Factors in Sex Differences in Mortality’, in Lopez, A. D. and Ruzicka, L. T. (eds.). Sex Differentials in Mortality. Canberra: Australian National University Press: 141–164.Google Scholar
Waldron, I. 1993. ‘Recent Trends in Sex Mortality Ratios for Adults in Developed Countries’. Social Science Medicine 36: 451–462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waldron, I. 1998. ‘Sex Differences in Infant and Early Childhood Mortality’, in United Nations. Too Young to Die: Genes or Gender? New York: United Nations: 64–83.Google Scholar
World Bank. 2001. Engendering Development. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
World Bank 2011. World Development Report: Development and Gender Equality. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
World Bank 2014. Voice and Agency. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×