We measure the gender gap in the following indicators:• Literacy rate • Enrolment rate in primary education• Enrolment rate in secondary education• Enrolment rate in tertiary education

sourcE: unesco WEbsitE databasE (WWW.uis.unEsco.org), 2009.

Education is the sphere in which the gender equity gap has narrowed the most and in which more progress has been made. Yet, no country has reached the maximum value in this dimension. some 83 (41%) of the 202 countries observed are in the better

situation and another 60 (30%) are above average. However, of the 173 countries for which it was possible to evaluate recent evolution the relative situation has worsened in 80 and there has been severe regression in 29, so overall some 63% of countries have regressed and in just over 16% the situation has remained unchanged.

When we take a broad geographical perspective we find that the most problematic regions in absolute terms are sub-saharan africa and south asia where 80% of the countries are below the average. in relative terms the least equitable region, where gender polarization is more extreme in the education area, is south asia, where there are no countries in the slightly favourable situation (i.e. somewhat above the average).

the estimation of the gender gap in economic activity is based on the gender gap in the following indicators.• rate of economic activity• Estimated perceived income

sourcE: unesco WEbsitE databasE (WWW.uis.unEsco.org), 2009.

tHE empowerment gap

tHE gap in economIc ActIVItY

tHE gap in eDucAtIon

the gender Equity index 2009 computed by social Watch shows that the gender gap is not narrowing in most countries and a majority of the countries that show progress are those that were already comparatively better. the distance between the countries and regions in the better and worse relative situations has widened in the last years. in education and economic activity the situation of women has globally improved, but when it comes to empowerment some 15% of countries have regressed over the past year, and this has been so severe that the average global value of this indicator fell from 35% in 2008 to 34.5% in 2009.

sweden and Finland still have the highest values on the gender Equity index. rwanda, which for years has figured among the most equitable countries in terms of gender, has moved up to third place, overtaking germany and norway and the bahamas has risen from sixth to fifth.

the gEi makes it very clear that differences in income between countries are not directly correlated to gender inequity. Many poor countries have reached high levels of equity, even when the absolute situation of both women and men is one where too many live in poverty. on the other hand, in many countries that have acceptable average social indicators these satisfactory figures mask the fact that there are huge gaps between men and women.

a bad gender equity situation is associated with regression whereas a good starting situation favours progress: of the countries in the worse relative situation more than half (51.6%) regressed (slightly or severely), while more than half (77.1%) of those in a comparatively better situation made progress (slight or significant). this shows a structural and dynamic polarization in which, for the most part, the countries with higher equity index tend to evolve favourably, regardless of whether they are rich or poor or in what region they are located, while countries with higher levels of gender discrimination tend to get worse in this respect. in terms of regions, the paradigm examples of this polarization are Latin america and the caribbean on the one hand and East asia and the pacific on the other.

SOCIAL WATCH GENDER EQUITY INDEX 2009no progrEss tHErE WHErE it is nEEdEd tHE Most

of the 163 countries considered, 96 (59%) regressed slightly or severely and only 63 (39%) made progress. When we consider the proportion of countries that have progressed against the far higher proportion that have regressed it is evident that a process of geographic polarization is taking place, and the region worst affected is sub-saharan africa.

in some countries women participate in the labour market less today than they did five years ago, and this is reflected in a relative decrease in women’s average income since 2004. on the other hand there are countries where women’s participation in the labour market (excluding agriculture) is growing, and this is paralleled by a relative increase in women’s income when compared to men’s. this is an equity gap that is wider or narrower in different regions.

the estimation of empowerment is based on the following indicators:• % of women in technical positions• % of women in management and government positions• % of women in parliament • % of women in ministerial level positions

sourcEs: unesco WEbsitE databasE (WWW.uis.unEsco.org), 2009.

Ipu databasE (WWW.ipu.org) , 2009.

Women continue to be under-represented in decision making. Even in the countries in the better relative situation women have still not achieved parity with men in empowerment. in the countries in the worse relative situation there are two diverg-ing trends. since 2008 there has been a slight improvement in wom-en’s participation in the professions, the legislature, and high official and management positions, but the values show that these countries are still a very long way from acceptable levels of equity. in the last two indicators on the list, the percentages of women in parliament and in ministerial positions, the average values among countries in the worse relative situation have fallen alarmingly since 2008 (from 8.3 to 5.4 and from 9.6 to 6, respectively).

010

2030

4050 60

70 80 90 100

906034

The race to gender equity

eDucAtIon. Education is tHE diMEnsion in WHicH tHE gEndEr EquitY gap Has sHrunk Most. tHE probLEMs tHat rEMain to bE ovErcoME in Education arE LEss sEvErE tHan in tHE EMpoWErMEnt and EconoMic activitY diMEnsions.

economIc ActIVItY. tHE progrEss tHat Was MadE in 2008 in gEndEr Eq-uitY in EconoMic activitY Was aLL but WipEd out in 2009.

empowerment. it is in accEss to dEcision-Making spacEs and tHE ExEr-cisE oF poWEr tHat inEquitY bEtWEEn MEn and WoMEn is Most EvidEnt. in no countrY do WoMEn HavE tHE saME opportunitiEs as MEn to par-ticipatE in EconoMic and sociaL dEcision-Making procEssEs. HoWEvEr, in tHE Last 15 YEars proMising progrEss Has bEEn MadE in EquitY oF ac-cEss to poLiticaL poWEr in tHE WidEst sEnsE oF tHE tErM.

in the world as a whole the gender gap in education is far narrower than the gaps in the other gender equity dimensions. While prog-ress has been made in empowerment – mainly in terms of women’s increased participation in politics – the overwhelming majority of countries in the world have not attained minimum acceptable levels because the starting points have been so low. as to economic par-ticipation, the overall situation has worsened since 2008 and a high percentage of countries have actually regressed.

Sub-saharan Africa

Middle East & North Africa

Latin American & Caribbean

Europe & North America

South Asia

East Asia & Pacific

Central Asia

Luxembourg

KuwaitSingapore

Bahrain

Saudi ArabiaSpain

Finland

Bahamas

RwandaPhilippines

GENDER EQUITY INDEX

GD

P PE

R C

APIT

A ($

)

Côte d’Ivoire0

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

20000

40000

60000

80000

Yemen

Sweden

Qatar

Norway

United States of America

MyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMy

GeI

EquaLitY is not Just about incoMEincoME is not tHE onLY variabLE tHat dEtErMinEs gEndEr EquitY or tHE Lack oF it. countriEs tHat arE as Far apart in pEr capita incoME as sWEdEn and rWanda or tHE pHiLippinEs and spain HavE vErY siMiLar vaLuEs on tHE gEi. a HigH gdp doEs not autoMaticaLLY MakE For an accEptabLE LEvEL oF gEndEr EquitY, WHiLE it is EquaLLY truE tHat countriEs WitH LoW gdp MaY rank HigH WHEn it coMEs to gEndEr EquitY. tHis sHoWs tHat EquaLitY in tHE structurE oF opportunitiEs in a sociEtY is a goaL tHat Must and can bE pursuEd rEgardLEss oF EconoMic poWEr.

ay

social Watch developed the gender Equity index (gEi) to make the gender inequities more visible and to monitor the evolution in the different countries of the world. the gEi is based on information available that can be compared internationally, and it makes it possible to classify countries and rank them in accordance with a selection of gender inequity indicators in three dimensions, education, economic participation and empowerment.

in most societies men and women are assigned different responsibilities, rights, benefits and opportunities in the activities they perform, in access to control of resources and in decision-making processes.

in order to measure inequities we have established the proportions or ratio between the sexes in different indicators. this is used as a basis for inferring the structure of opportunities and so countries can be compared in an agile way that is direct and intuitive. What the gEi measures is the gap between women and men, not their well-being. For example, a country in which young men and women have equal access to a university education receives a value of 100 on this particular indicator, and a country in which boys and girls are equally barred from completing primary education would also be awarded a value of 100. this does not mean that the quality of education does not need to be improved; it just establishes that, in this case, girls education is not inferior than that of boys.

the way the gEi is calculated is a response to the need to reflect all situations that are unfavourable to women. When there is a situation in which women are at a proportional disadvantage with respect to men, the gEi does not reach its maximum value of 100 points. the final value on the index depends on the degree of negative inequity for women prevailing in a given country or region regardless of whether there may also be inequities that are positive for women (that is to say negative for men).

in 2009 some 156 countries were classified on the gEi using the most recent available values in the three dimensions of gender equity estimation. this is done by comparing their 2009 values with those for 2005. the number of countries considered in each of these three dimensions was not the same because of lack of available data, which is not homogenous among all countries. a country for which no data in available in one of the dimensions can be integrated into the partial analysis of the other dimensions.

Measuring inequity: the 2009 Gender Equity Index

MyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMy

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

73 73

68

534945

80

92 949999

100

6265

35

1920

47

61 5957

24

35 37

30

North America

Europe

Latin American & Caribbean

East Asia & Pacific

Central Asia

90 90

Middle East & North AfricaSouth AsiaSub-saharan AfricaWorld

(N.A.)

(E.)(L.A.&C)

(E.A.&P)(W.)

(C.A.)

(S.S.A.)

(S.A.)(M.E.&N.A.)

EDUCATION ECONOMIC ACTIVITY EMPOWERMENT

GEI regional averageby component

Better off does not mean more empowered, or the other way around

Women’s levels of empowerment do not depend on a country’s level of

wealth; a high level of economic development does not necessarily lead

to gender equity. In all the regions of the world, with the marked excep-

tion of North America, there are countries that are deficient in the em-

powerment dimension. Even in Europe there are countries in the worse

relative and below average situations. There are also some countries

that are classed by the World Bank as high income in which women

are relatively deprived in terms of access to power, such as Japan (59

points) and the Czech Republic (53 points). Also, while the proportion of

women in positions to make decisions and influence state policy may

be increasing, and thus paving the way towards gender equity, there are

still structural limitations, above all those of cultural origin, that may

hamper, impede or even reverse progress in this area.

——THE THREE GAPS——

Situation andevolution of the GEI components.

Number of countries progressing and regressing

Number of countriesaccording to situation

MyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMy

ECONOMICACTIVITY

ECONOMICACTIVITY

GEI COMPONENTS

BY LEVEL

RECENT EVOLUTION

OF THE GEI BY

COMPONENTS (2004-2009)

MyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMyMy

EDUCATION

Significant progress 19 41 129 Slight progress 13 16 7Without variation 25 4 4Slight regression 71 18 3Severe regression 24 70 14

89 43 3521 42 4231 39 4016 33 40

EMPOWERMENT

EDUCATION EMPOWERMENT

Better situationAbove averageBelow averageWorse situation

1009998979695949392019089888786858483828180797877767574737271706968676665646362616059585756555453525150494847464544434241403938373635343332313029282726252423222120191817161514131211109876543210

51

61

71

68

71

66

41

55 6351

48

74

Severeregression

Significantprogress

Slightregression

Withoutvariation

Slightprogress

61

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

MIDDLE EAST & NORTH AFRICA

LATIN AMERICAN & CARIBBEAN

EUROPE & NORTH AMERICA

SOUTH ASIA

EAST ASIA & PACIFIC

CENTRAL ASIA

NO DATA ON VARIATION

INDIA

CHINA

xabeijingprueba2.indd 1 05/02/2010 11:21:20

MAD

E POSSIB

LE THAN

KS TO TH

E FUN

DIN

G AN

D SU

PPORT

OF TH

E EURO

PEAN U

NIO

N AN

D O

XFAM N

OVIB

.

47

44CHAD

42

45

43

46

44

45

47

44

47

49

47

51

50

51

49

53

5454

54

5353

60

55

56

58

71

58

59

60

6464

64

67 75

71

84

41 IND

IA

43

51

53

58

61

30

44

45

47D

JIBO

UT

I

46

47

43

47

46

5048

54

50

53

54

73

51

52

56

61

60

61

62

63 65

66

68

6767

68

69

70

68

7070

72

70

72

69

75

76

79

55

58

61

62

65

66

65

67

65

68

69

70

65

70

71

73

72

71

72

75

73

70

73

69

7474

7575

77

76

77

78

79

78

83

84

88

66

55

53

66EAST

TIM

OR

58

62

59

63

68C

HIN

A

7070

74

75

76

75

78

46

52

57

60

70

71

39

RW

AND

A

NAM

IBIA

BO

TSW

ANA

MO

ZAMB

IQU

E

MAU

RIT

IUS

TAN

ZANIA

ZIMB

ABWE

ZAMB

IA

SENEG

AL

GAB

ON

ETH

IOPIA

BU

RK

INA FASO

CAPE V

ERD

E

MALI

SWAZILAN

D

GU

INEA-B

ISSAU

SAO T

OM

E AN

D PR

INC

IPESAM

OA

NIG

ER

EQU

ATO

RIAL G

UIN

EA

ERIT

REA

CO

NG

O, R

EP.

NIG

ERIA

CEN

TR

AL AFRIC

AN R

EP.

SUD

AN

SIERR

A LEON

E

BEN

IN

TO

GO

CÔ

TE D

'IVO

IRE

RU

SSIANFED

ERAT

ION

AZERB

AIJAN

TU

RK

EY

HO

NG

K

ON

G

TH

AILAND

SING

APOR

E

JAPAN

CAM

BO

DIA

VANU

ATU

ARM

ENIA

BO

SNIA AN

D H

ERZEG

OV

INA

KO

REA R

EP.

IND

ON

ESIA

SWED

EN

FINLAN

D

NO

RW

AY

GER

MAN

Y

DEN

MAR

K

NET

HER

LAND

S

LITH

UAN

IA

SPAIN

LATV

IAC

ANAD

A

USA

U.K

.

SLOVAK

IA

BU

LGAR

IA

UK

RAIN

E

ESTO

NIA

AUST

RIA

RO

MAN

IA

HU

NG

ARY

POLAN

D

SLOV

ENIA

CZEC

H R

EPUB

LIC

MAC

EDO

NIA

ITALY

GEO

RG

IA62

SWIT

ZERLAN

D

LUX

EMB

OU

RG

MALT

A

ALBAN

IA

BAH

AMAS

CO

LOM

BIA

UR

UG

UAY

ST LU

CIA

TR

INIT

Y AND

T

OB

AGO

BR

AZIL

CO

STA

RIC

A

CH

ILE

JAMAIC

A

GU

YANA

ST V

INC

ENT

AN

D G

REN

ADIN

ES

MEX

ICO

IRAN

ALGER

IA

SYRIA

QAT

AR

TU

NISIA

OM

AN

LEBAN

ON

SAUD

I AR

ABIA

JOR

DAN

BAH

RAIN

47SO

LOM

ON

IS.

KU

WAIT

LAOS

MO

RO

CC

O

EGYPT

YEMEN

MALD

IVES

BAN

GLAD

ESH

PAKIST

AN

74

4949 52

60 61

58

72

Severe regressionSignificant progress

Slight regressionW

ithout variationSlight progress

SOU

TH

AFR

ICA

VIET

NAM

CR

OAT

IABELG

IUM

FRAN

CE

POR

TU

GAL

ARG

ENT

INA

ECU

ADO

R

ISRAEL

KYR

GYZST

ANM

ON

GO

LIA

PANAM

A

CU

BA

PERU

IRELAN

DH

ON

DU

RAS

EL SALVADO

R

UG

AND

APAR

AGU

AY

BO

LIVIA

VEN

EZUELA

LESOT

HO

BU

RU

ND

I

CYPR

US

GR

EECE

DO

M.R

EP.

BELAR

US

BELIZE

MAU

RIT

ANIA

GU

ATEM

ALA

UN

ITED

ARAB

EMIR

ATES

NEPAL

NEW

ZEALAND

AUST

RALIA

PHILIPPIN

ES

ICELAN

D

MO

LDO

VA

BAR

BAD

OS

KEN

YA

GH

ANA

ANG

OLA

UZB

EKIST

AN

MALAYSIA

SUR

INAM

E

SRI

LANK

A

CAM

ERO

ON

GAM

BIA

TAJIK

ISTAN

NIC

ARAG

UA

Sub-saharan Africa

Middle East &

North Africa

Latin American &

Caribbean

Europe & N

orth America

South Asia

East Asia & Pacific

Central Asia

No data on variation

Significant progress

Slight progress

Slight regression

Severe regression

50,000,000 People

10,000,000 People

< 5,000,000 People

REFER

ENC

ES

30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

Empow

erment

Economic Activity

Education

NETH

ERLAND

SN

EW

ZEALAND

ICELAN

DG

ERMAN

YD

ENM

ARKB

AHAM

ASN

ORW

AYRW

AND

AFIN

LAND

SWED

EN

6571

96

59

76

9799

79

55

73 68

94

61

79

98 8181

98 8282

96

8585

88

7979

99 8484

96

YEMEN

CÔ

TE D

'IVOIRE

IND

IAB

ENIN

SUD

ANPAKISTAN

CH

ADEG

YPTEQ

UATO

RIAL G

UIN

EASAU

DI

ARAB

IA

6

3449

15

38

64

3737

78

18

5554

1229

86

13191834

7675

46 98

49

74

1525

9196

The Best 10

The Worst 10

© ITEM

2009, SOC

IAL WATC

H, W

WW

.SOC

IALWATC

H.O

RG

PHO

NE: +598(2) 902 0490. FAX: +598(2) 902 0490 EXT 113

ICODEMON.COM

SOC

IAL W

ATC

H

GEN

DER

EQU

ITY

IND

EX 2009

EV

OLU

TIO

N SIN

CE

2004

Severe regressionSignificant progress

Slight regressionW

ithout variationSlight progress

EV

OLU

TIO

N SIN

CE

2004

THE IN

TERNATIO

NAL SEC

RETARIAT OF SO

CIAL W

ATCH

ALSO

RECEIVES FU

ND

ING

AND

SUPPO

RT FROM

THE FO

RD FO

UN

DATIO

N

AND

THE C

OALITIO

N O

F THE FLEM

ISH N

ORTH

SOU

TH M

OVEM

ENT - 11.11.11.

THE C

ON

TENTS O

F THIS PU

BLIC

ATION

ARE THE SO

LE RESPON

SIBILITY

OF SO

CIAL W

ATCH

AND

CAN

IN N

O W

AY BE TAKEN

TO REFLEC

T THE VIEW

SO

F THE EU

ROPEAN

UN

ION

, OXFAM

NO

VIB, TH

E FORD

FOU

ND

ATION

OR TH

E CO

ALITION

OF TH

E FLEMISH

NO

RTH SO

UTH

MO

VEMEN

T 11.11.11.

xabeijingprueba2.indd 2 05/02/2010 11:21:22