Gender Development Index

The GDI is often considered a "gender-sensitive extension of the HDI" (Klasen 245). It addresses gender gaps in life expectancy, education, and income. It uses an "inequality aversion" penalty, which creates a development score penalty for gender wander gaps in any of the categories of the Human Development Index (HDI) which include life expectancy, adult literacy, school enrolment, and logarithmic transformations of per-capita income. In terms of life expectancy, the GDI assumes that women will live an average of five years longer than men. Additionally, in terms of income, the GDI considers income gaps in terms of actual earned income. The GDI cannot be used independently from the HDI score, and so, it cannot be used on its own as an indicator of gender gaps. Only the gap between the HDI and the GDI can actually be accurately considered; the GDI on its own is not an independent measure of gender gaps. == Gender Development Index (2018) ==

Below is a list of countries by their Gender Development Index, based on data collected in 2018, and published in 2019. Countries are grouped into five groups based on the absolute deviation from gender parity in HDI values, from 1 (closest to gender parity) to 5 (furthest from gender parity). This means that grouping takes equally into consideration gender gaps favouring males, as well as those favouring females. File:Countries by Gender Development Index (2019).png|thumb|World map showing countries in Group 1 to 5 of the Gender Development Index (based on 2018 data, published in 2019). Countries in Group 1 are closest to gender parity, while those in Group 5 are furthest (i.e. have the greatest gender disparity). == Controversies ==

General debates In the years since its creation in 1995, much debate has arisen surrounding the reliability, and usefulness of the Gender Development Index (GDI) in making adequate comparisons between different countries and in promoting gender-sensitive development. The GDI is particularly criticized for being often mistakenly interpreted as an independent measure of gender gaps; it is not, in fact, intended to be interpreted in that way, because it can only be used in combination with the scores from the Human Development Index (not on its own). Additionally, the data that is needed in order to calculate the GDI are not always readily available in many countries, making the measure very hard to calculate uniformly and internationally. There is also worry that the combination of so many different developmental influences in one measurement could result in muddled results and that perhaps the GDI (and the GEM) actually hide more than they reveal. Furthermore, it has been argued that the GDI does not account for sex-selective abortion, meaning that the penalty levied against a country for gender inequality is smaller as it affects less of the population (see Sen, Missing Women). Debates surrounding income gaps Another area of debate surrounding the GDI is in the area of income gaps. The GDI considers income-gaps in terms of actual earned income. This has been said to be problematic because often, men may make more money than women, but their income is shared. Additionally, the GDI has been criticized because it does not consider the value of care work as well as other work performed in the informal sector (such as cleaning, cooking, housework, and childcare). Another criticism of the GDI is that it only takes gender into account as a factor for inequality; it does not, however, consider inequality among class, region or race, which could be very significant. Another criticism with the income-gap portion of the GDI is that it is heavily dependent on gross domestic product (GDP) and gross national product (GNP). For most countries, the earned-income gap accounts for more than 90% of the gender penalty. == Suggested alternatives ==

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