How Gender Inequality Affects Economic Growth & Development as Illustrated in The Articles by Sen., Knowles and Klasen, Owen and Largely

Introduction

The relationship between gender equality and economic growth is a highly controversial topic that has captured the special attention of numerous experts and researchers over the past few decades. Gender equality may be defined as the view that everybody received equal opportunities and treatment, regardless of their gender. Besides being essential to social progress, gender equality has been found to play a key role in fuelling economic development and growth, with recent findings suggesting that countries with severe gender inequality find it difficult to achieve strong and sustainable GDP growth – with the exception of resource-rich countries.

Three articles have been selected to determine whether and how researchers’ approach to this topic has evolved over time. Sen (1989) analyses gender equality from a cross-cultural perspective thus emphasising how women’s employment and literacy rates vary across cultures and countries, whereas Klasen (2000) resorts to cross-country and panel regressions to determine whether gender inequality in both education and employment have a negative impact on economic development. Finally, Knowles, Lorgelly & Owen (2002) investigated the effect of female education on labour productivity by evaluating a neoclassical growth framework. Judging from the different approaches adopted in the articles being analysed, it can be inferred that Klasen (2000) and Knowles et al.’s (2002) research is more focused and exploratory than Sen’s (1989) article, which is more discursive and explanatory in nature. In the following sections, the ways in which these three particular articles were found and the reasons why they were selected will be explained. Moreover, the goals and limitations of each article will be compared and contrasted in such a way to identify relevant similarities and differences.

Method

This micro-literature aims to explore the relationship between gender inequality and economic development so as to answer the following research question:

Does gender inequality affect economic growth and development?

Sen’s (1989) article was found by typing “gender inequality”, “gender biases” and “economic growth” in the Jstor database. After screening dozens of papers, Sen’s (1989) article was selected as besides analysing the way in which women are treated across the world, it also highlights the various economic implications of unequal gender ratios. Both Klasen’s (2000) and Knowles et al.’s (2002) articles were found by typing “gender inequality”, “economic growth” and “economic development” in Google. They were selected as they both use statistical techniques to demonstrate how gender inequality in specific domains (e.g. education and employment) affect economic growth, which the authors measured in different ways. Klasen (2000) relied on PPP-adjusted income per capita, investment rates, demographic growth, openness, educational spending, years of schooling and employment to measure economic growth, whereas Knowles et al. (2002) used years of schooling, life expectancy, income per worker, labour force growth, physical capital investment and technical efficiency to measure productivity. While all of the chosen articles provide a wealth of information on the impact of gender inequality on economic growth, Sen’s (1989) article is outdated and mostly based on second-hand data, whereas both Klasen (2000) and Knowles et al. (2002) attempted to analyse rather qualitative phenomena, i.e. gender inequality, productivity and human capital, in quantitative terms.

Discussion of findings

Sen (1989) observes that unequal gender ratios can help understand why women are treated differently - in terms of nutrition, education, social care, employment etc.- across the world. Sen (1989, p. 15) notes that contrary to popular belief, women are significantly outnumbers by men in numerous countries. The author argues that even though women tend to outlive their male counterparts, there are numerous countries where men outnumber women and female mortality rates are remarkably high; as of 1989, over 100 million women were missing, which would suggest that there are certain regions where women are neglected. Sen (1989, pp. 16-18) evaluates various possible explanations to such a worrying deficit and observes that the common belief that eastern countries are more sexist than western ones may not be wrong considering that back in the 1980s, female mortality rates in many eastern countries were very high compared to western countries. Nevertheless, things have changed a lot over the past few decades, with many eastern nations moving towards a significant surplus of women. The first part of Sen’s (1989) article focuses almost exclusively on birth and mortality rates, thus portraying gender equality as a matter of female-male ratios, rather than equal treatment. In this, Sen’s (1989) approach is very different from that of Klasen (2000) and Knowles et al. (2002), who primarily investigate gender equality in relation to education and employment. It follows that from a methodological perspective, the three articles are very different from one another in that they rely on different measures of gender inequality. It is also worth pointing out that while Klasen (2000) and Knowles et al. (2002) aimed to test specific hypotheses, Sen (1989) performed a critical analysis of various common beliefs, theories and models on gender inequality across the world. Sen’s (1989) focus on regional differences is another aspect that sets his article apart from the other two.

As far as the relationship between gender equality and economic development is concerned, Sen (1989, p. 20) argues that while it is true that nations with significant deficits of women are usually poor, real-life cases indicate that gender inequality and economic growth may still coexist. That would explain why many Sub-Saharan countries where women outnumber men are very poor, while both India and China have seen impressive economic development whilst experiencing an increase in women’s mortality rates.

Similarly to Sen (1989), Klasen (2000) also adopted a cross-country perspective to his research so as to show the extent to which gender inequality affects economic growth and development across the world. However, unlike Sen (1989), Klasen (2000) did not provide a historical account of gender inequality; instead, he used regression analysis to see how a number of gender equality, education and employment-related variables interacted. His findings revealed that severe gender inequality has a negative impact on nations’ human capital, thus hindering economic growth; gender inequality was also found to adversely affect demographic growth and investment, both of which have a direct impact on economic growth. While Klasen (2000) evaluated the impact of gender inequality in both education and employment on economic growth, Knowles et al. (2002) opted for a more specific research topic in that they decided to focus exclusively on educational gender gaps. After evaluating the long-term effect of male and female education on labour productivity – intended as output per worker – across various countries, Knowles et al. (2002) found that there exists a positive correlation between female schooling and productivity, thus demonstrating that their initial hypothesis was correct. With this being said, it should be noted that in their study, statistical significance clearly depends greatly on the variables selected by the researchers, which means that their research should be replicated using different variables in order for their results to be considered reliable. Overall, it is evident that the three article analyse gender inequality from different and yet equally interesting perspectives. Their respective findings have certainly contributed to the current gender inequality debate by highlighting and exploring different aspects of this widespread phenomenon. On the one hand, Sen’s (1989) article introduces the reader to the various controversies and grey areas surrounding gender inequality, thus suggesting that further research needs to be conducted on this topic; on the other hand, Klasen (2000) and Knowles et al. (2002) relied on quantitative research methods to evaluate the effects of gender inequality on economic growth and development, reaching the conclusion that in both employment and education, gender equality is beneficial to productivity and sustainable growth.

Figure 1. Relationship between the three articles (thoroughness)

Figure 2. Relationship between the three articles (findings)

Conclusion

The three articles analysed in the previous sections explore the relationship between gender inequality and economic growth and development from different perspectives. Sen (1989) sees gender inequality as a quantitative matter and attempts to explain why certain countries have a significant deficit of women. Sen’s (1989) study also raises a number of questions as to whether gender inequality does indeed prevent economic growth and development, mentioning various real-life cases which would suggest that there are situations where gender inequality may even fuel economic growth. Klasen (2000) and Knowles et al. (2002) adopt a much more focused and exploratory approach. While both studies rely on quantitative data to estimate how large gender gaps in employment and education are, it is evident that the researchers perceive gender inequality as an ethical and social issue. Klasen (2000) and Knowles et al. (2002) reach the conclusion that gender inequality in employment and education does indeed hinder long-term economic growth and development and even decreases nations’ human capital.

Being gender inequality a relatively qualitative phenomenon that can be measured in many different ways, one’s findings depend greatly on what variables have been included in the equation. As a result, future research should take into consideration other variables so as to determine whether all measures of this phenomenon support the claim that gender inequality has a negative impact on economic growth and development.