Soc Indic Res DOI 10.1007/s11205-015-0949-y
Structural Gender Equality in Europe and Its Evolution Over the First Decade of the Twentyfirst Century Eduardo Bericat1 • Eva Sa´nchez Bermejo2
Accepted: 21 March 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
Abstract This paper presents the annual time series and the average annual growth rate of the European Gender Equality Index, which was proposed by Bericat (Soc Indic Res 108:1–28, 2012), for the EU and its 27 member countries for the period 2000–2011. The paper also reports the time series and average annual growth rate for each of the three subdimensions of gender equality—education, work, and power—and the underlying indicators for each subdimension for EU as a whole. The calculated index shows that in the period 2000–2011, overall gender equality, equality in education, work, and power in the EU has been improving at a rate of 1.7, 0.92, 0.65, and 3.48 % per year, respectively. By 2011, overall gender equality, and equality in education, work, and power has reached 58.3, 77.4, 60.9, and 42.7, respectively. In short, this paper offers the scientific community, as well as those that design and implement public policies, a robust, valid and precise synthetic description of the current situation and evolution, from 2000 to 2011, of structural gender equality in European countries. Keywords Gender equality Social change Composite indicators Indices Social quality Europe Education Work Power
1 Introduction Gender equality is a fundamental human right and it is explicitly recognized as such in article 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (European Union 2000). However, the solemn declaration of a right is not the same as its actual achievement.
& Eduardo Bericat
[email protected] Eva Sa´nchez Bermejo
[email protected] 1
Department of Sociology, Faculty of Communication, University of Seville, Avda. Ame´rico Vespucio, s/n, Isla de la Cartuja, Seville, Spain
2
Servicio Andaluz de Empleo, Junta de Andalucı´a, Seville, Spain
123
E. Bericat, E. Sa´nchez Bermejo
Thus, 10 years after the drafting of the Charter, on the occasion of the celebration of International Women’s Day, the European Commission published a new declaration reaffirming its commitment to gender equality (European Commission 2010a) and a new strategy of public policies aimed at its achievement (European Commission 2010b). Due to the great differences that often exist between words and deeds, between public statements and reality, and between the ascription to social values and their actual realisation, it is essential in this case, as it is in many others, to know, objectively, precisely and with adequate detail, the level of gender equality that exists in Europe as well as its recent evolution. Given that gender equality is a multidimensional phenomenon, its measurement requires the help of a composite indicator, in other words, a series of individual indicators compiled into a single index based on an underlying model (Nardo et al. 2008:13). Given that the phenomenon of gender equality has a transversal character and affects all spheres of life, it is necessary to use a middle range or focused index (Bericat and Camarero 2012) that delineates the phenomenon being measured using a clear, consistent and precise conceptual definition (Stiglitz et al. 2009: 57). In short, this article offers a synthetic description of the current situation and evolution of structural gender equality in Europe through the use of a focused composite indicator: the European Gender Equality Index (EGEI) (Bericat 2012). When a phenomenon of great social transcendence is analysed, a phenomenon that has also undergone a long process of secular change, the synchronic analysis of a single year is clearly inadequate, as it is essential to understand the dynamic of the process. Hence, we have estimated the annual value of the EGEI index, from 2000 to 2011, for all the member countries of the European Union. In concrete, through the application of the index we intend to test certain hypotheses regarding the evolution of structural gender equality: Is structural gender equality advancing or, on the contrary, as many fear, has its advance been halted (Hochschild 1989; Esping-Andersen 2009), or has it even regressed? If it is advancing, is it doing so at a good pace or, on the contrary, very slowly and with great difficulty? And given its multidimensional nature, in which spheres is it advancing, stabilizing or regressing? Following the classic article by William F. Ogburn (1935), which provided a vision of social change occurring in the United States between 1920 and 1935 without any text, through the use of 41 self-explanatory graphs, this article depicts the empirical information gathered representing graphically 30 time series referring to the EU as a whole, as well as 27 others, referring to each member country. First, after briefly explaining the theoretical framework, conceptual definition, analytical features and the informational content of the 18 indicators that make up the EGEI, we look at structural gender equality in the European Union in 2011. Secondly, we offer a general overview of its evolution both in the European Union as a whole and in each of its 27 member countries. And third, we analyse with greater detail the evolution of the index’s 3 fundamental dimensions (education, work and power), its 8 subdimensions and its 18 indicators. Lastly, we briefly comment on three additional considerations. First, that one of the main objectives of this article is to offer, to the scientific community, as well as to those that design and implement public policy, a robust, valid and precise descriptive structure of basic data to carry out further analysis on the state and evolution of gender equality in Europe. For example, even though 12 annual observations are not enough for applying most time series techniques, the measures provided can be incorporated into synchronic explanatory models or can be used to observe and compare the characteristic profile of each country. Secondly, that the primary objective of the EGEI is not to establish a ranking of European countries, but to offer, through the multidimensional nature implicit in its
123
Structural Gender Equality in Europe and Its Evolution Over the…
measurement model, an adequate and legitimate contrast of their social structures in relation to their achievement of gender equality. Lastly, that the EGEI, given the precision and consistency that should characterize all focused indexes, does not attempt to describe or incorporate the complete range of existing gender inequalities. Gender inequality also manifests itself in states of health and in the provision of healthcare, in male violence against women, in cultural stereotypes and the sexist use of images of women, in the patterns that prevail in intimate relationships, in the emotions that men and women can express and feel, and in their respective aspirations. But the EGEI is focused specifically on an aspect of gender equality considered to be particularly determinant: the relative position that women and men occupy in a social structure that distributes educational, employment and power resources unequally.
2 The European Gender Equality Index (EGEI) An index or composite indicator is a complex descriptive structure, based on both a theoretical framework and a conceptual definition, which forms a measurement model that is empirically operationalizable and capable of quantifying an aspect or phenomenon of social reality. Indices or composite indicators tend to be used mainly for two primary or immediate applications: (a) comparing a series of cases by establishing a classification from greater to lesser (ranking function), and (b) monitoring one or more cases, registering their evolution over time (monitoring function). However, given the descriptive structure that they incorporate, they have two other fundamental uses or functions: (c) analysing the complex nature of the cases studied (multidimensional description), and (d) offering potentially much more robust, reliable and valid estimates, which can be incorporated as dependent or independent variables in explanatory models of social reality (descriptively valid explanation). The EGEI, like other indexes Yllo¨ (1984), Sugarman and Straus (1988), Frias (2008), is based on the measurement of the relative social status that men and women enjoy. It measures structural inequality, considering the status of women to be conditioned by the confluence of two factors: a clear division of social space between private and public spheres and a differential distribution of subjects based on gender. In this specific sense, the aim of the EGEI is to measure the degree to which European women participate in areas of the public sphere that have traditionally been forbidden to them. Following Max Weber’s theory of stratification, as explained in Class, Status, Party, (Weber 1979) there are three types of basic resources that sustain individuals’ social status: economic resources, social prestige and organisational power. Given that in modern societies these resources are obtained through participating in three public spaces—the labour market, the educational system and the political system—the structure of the EGEI incorporates three basic dimensions: education, work and power Bericat (2012: 3–4) Bericat and Sa´nchez (2008). In Table 1 we can see the 8 basic sub-dimensions and the 18 indicators that form the informative content of the index. The education dimension has three sub-dimensions. In education level attained two different education levels are considered, and two different populations, the general adult population and young adults. Thus, the index is somewhat more sensitive to current gender equality and somewhat less so to gender equality in the past. Life-long learning includes both participation in academic as well as vocational training and the use of the internet, one of the main educational resources available in the information society. Educational segregation measures the degree to which men and women choose different degree programmes in the university.
123
E. Bericat, E. Sa´nchez Bermejo Table 1 Descriptive structure of the European Gender Equality Index (EGEI) Dimensions, sub-dimensions and indicators No
Indicator
Source
D.1 Education 1.1 Education level 1
Population, aged 25–74. At least upper secondary. Levels 3, 4, 5, 6 (ISCED 1997)
Eurostat-LFS
2
Population, aged 25–74. Tertiary education. Levels 5, 6 (ISCED 1997)
Eurostat-LFS
3
Population, aged 25–39. At least upper secondary. Levels 3, 4, 5, 6 (ISCED 1997)
Eurostat-LFS
4
Population, aged 25–39. Tertiary education. Levels 5, 6 (ISCED 1997) (%)
Eurostat-LFS
1.2 Life-long learning 5
Population, aged 25–64. Adult participation in education and training
Eurostat-LFS
6
Population, aged 25–54. Internet use: daily, in the last 3 months
Eurostat-ICT
1.3 Educational segregation 7
Tertiary students enrolled in education, humanities, health and welfare studies
UNECE
8
Tertiary students enrolled in science, engineering, manufacturing and construction studies
UNECE
D.2 Work 2.1 Participation 9
Population, aged 15–64. Employment rates (%)
Eurostat-LFS
10
Population, aged 25–49. Employment rates (%)
Eurostat-LFS
2.2 Contracts conditions 11
Total employment, aged 15–64. Part-time employment
Eurostat-LFS
12
Total employees, aged 15–64. Temporary employees
Eurostat-LFS
2.3 Occupational and Pay segregation 13
Employees in enterprises (C10). Unadjusted gender pay gap (gross hourly earnings)
Eurostat-SES
14
Total employment, aged, 15–64. Occupational segregation Clerks; services workers; Elementary occupations Agricultural workers; Craft workers; Plant operators
Eurostat-LFS
D.3 Power 3.1 Political-administrative 15
Total population. Political representation: National and Regional Members of National Parliaments Members of Regional Assemblies
UNECE
16
Total population. Political administration: Judges and Public administration managers Judges Public administration managers
UNECE EUROSTATLFS
3.2 Economic-managerial 17
Total population, aged 15–64. Self-employed/employers. Self-employed Employers
Eurostat-LFS
18
Total population. Leaders of business/members of highest decision-making body Directors, chief executives and managers of companies and small enterprises Members of the highest decision-making body of largest quoted companies
E. Commission
LFS labour force survey, ICT information and communications technologies, SES structure of earnings survey
123
Structural Gender Equality in Europe and Its Evolution Over the…
The work dimension also has three sub-dimensions. Participation in the labour market considers both the total potentially active population and those age-cohorts most active in the labour market. Contract conditions distinguishes between full-time and part-time contracts and between permanent and temporary contracts, indicating in this way the type of temporal framework in which paid work is carried out. Occupational and pay segregation measures the gender pay gap and the degree of masculinisation/feminisation in the occupational structure. The power dimension measures the degree of access to decision-making positions and includes two sub-dimensions. Political-administrative power measures political representation in national and regional parliaments and occupation of positions in public administration (judges and senior officials). Economic and managerial power measures the percentage of employers and self-employed as well as access to managerial positions in business and on corporate boards of directors. Gender equality in each one of the indicators is estimated calculating ‘‘the ratio of achievement rates or of access to a given resource (for example, tertiary education)’’. This ratio ‘‘is calculated by dividing the proportion of women who have reached this achievement or attained this resource by the proportion of men who have done so: R ¼ pxx = pyy . In the example, x and y are the number of women and men who have a tertiary education; and px and py the population of women and men that potentially could have this educational level’’ (Bericat 2012: 9). The result is multiplied by 100 to facilitate interpretation of the index. When both percentages are equal, the indicator will have a value of 100 (Ii = 100), indicating full gender equality. When the situation of women is worse than that of men, its value will be below 100 (Ii \ 100), the lower it is, the more unequal the situation is for women. In the opposite case, in other words, when the situation of women is better than that of men, the value of the indicator will be above 100 (Ii [ 100). The EGEI overall score is calculated using a logarithmic transformation that allows us to aggregate the ratios of equality for each one of the indicators that compose the index.1 The mode of aggregation used permits us to compensate for the direction of inequality. In other words, if the situation of women is worse than men regarding a specific indicator, as is the case with the majority of indicators, the level of gender equality declines. However, if the situation of women regarding a specific indicator is better than that of men, the score on the general index will increase in that proportion. In addition, to correctly interpret the index, it is necessary to bear in mind that the EGEI is calculated respecting its hierarchical structure and weighting elements at each level equally. That is, the overall score on the index is the arithmetical mean of its three dimensions; that of each dimension is the average of its sub-dimensions; and that of each sub-dimension is the average of its respective indicators (Bericat 2012). The article, ‘‘The EGEI: Conceptual and Analytical Issues’’ (Bericat 2012), analyses and evaluates the theoretical, conceptual, analytical and empirical decisions adopted by gender equality indices developed during the last 25 years, that is, from the publication in 1984 of the Status of Women Index, by Yllo¨, to the publication in 2009 of the Social Institution and Gender Index of Branisa, Klasen and Ziegler. The article reviews a total of 18 indices, among which are Sugarman and Strauss’ Gender Equality Index; the Gender Development Index and the Gender Empowerment Measure of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP); the Relative Status of Women, by Dijkstra; the African
1
EGEI ¼
n P 100: ex 1n ln Ri i¼1
123
E. Bericat, E. Sa´nchez Bermejo
Gender Status Index, from the Economic Commission for Africa, the Gender Equity Index from Social Watch; the Global Gender Gap Index, from the World Economic Forum; the Multidimensional Gender Equality Index, from Permanyer; the Gender Equality Index of Mexican States, from Frı´as; and the EGEI, from Plantenga, Remery, Figueiredo and Smith. All the decisions adopted in the design and construction of the EGEI are based on a methodological analysis of the indices included in this review. Therefore, for a detailed consideration of these issues, we refer the reader to this article. Despite gender equality being a key factor in determining the quality of a society, and despite the elevated number and great variety of gender equality indices proposed over the last three decades, the European Union has no empirical analysis that, using a composite index especially designed for European countries, offers a synthetic and precise image of the annual evolution of gender inequality in Europe. First, the indices specially designed to estimate gender inequality in European countries only offer, at least until now, data for a single year: that of Plantenga and her collaborators, 2006 (Plantenga et al. 2009); that of Bericat 2009 (Bericat 2012); and that of the EIGE, 2010 (EIGE 2013). Secondly, the empirical operationalization proposed by other indices, such as those designed by the United Nations, Social Watch or the World Economic Forum, are strongly conditioned by their global scope, that is, by their need for data from all the countries of the world. This explains, for example, why the Gender Inequality Index of the UNDP is composed of only 6 indicators (UNDP 2013). Among these indices, the only one that offers annual data continually over a number of years is the Global Gender Gap Index designed by Hausmann for the World Economic Forum (Hausmann et al. 2014). The 2014 Global Gender Gap Report provides the evolution of the dimensions and indicators of the index from 2006 to 2014. However, for the 2000–2014 period it only provides the evolution of the general index, and only for 39 countries. As mentioned, as it is a global index, the choice of indicators differs greatly from those utilized for calculating the EGEI, thus, the two indices are not strictly comparable. The enormous difficulty involved in obtaining the exact same series of data for a wide group of countries, and for a continuous number of years, explains why the majority of indices offer estimations corresponding to only one, or at most, just a few years, and not always in succession. Despite their assumed stability, factors such as statistical sources, the operative definitions of variables, the formats of survey questions, administrative records, the samples being used and the years being examined, change with unusual frequency, making it very difficult to build time series from indices or composite indicators whose calculations can be perfectly comparable. Due to these variations it must be noted that the information content of the present empirical operationalization of the EGEI varies slightly from that used in the previous publication (Bericat 2012). It was necessary to introduce certain modifications to be able to calculate the index score annually and to analyse its evolution over time. These changes, which in no case alter either the measurement model or the structure of the empirical operationalization used, exclusively affect only four indicators (6, 14, 15 and 16). Comparing the tables which specify the informative content of the EGEI, that is, Table 1 from this article, and Table 2 from the 2012 article, we can see these changes. Indicator 6, which calculated the ‘‘every day or almost every day’’ use of the internet, now exclusively uses the frequency ‘‘daily’’. Indicator 14 is now calculated taking the population from 15 to 64 years of age as a base, while in the previous estimation the population from 15 to 39 years of age was used. Indicator 15 now only combines information from two variables, excluding the calculation, for lack of data, of the number of members of municipal councils. Lastly, for indicator 16, the ratio based on the number of ‘‘Senior Level Civil
123
Structural Gender Equality in Europe and Its Evolution Over the…
Servants’’ has been substituted for the ratio based on the number of ‘‘Public Administration Managers’’, a change that strengthens the validity of this dimension. It must also be pointed out that the estimates from the EGEI are not comparable with estimates from the 2010 Gender Equality Index (GEI) developed by the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE 2013). The conceptual definition and the measurement model of these two indexes differ in four fundamental aspects. First, the EGEI measures structural equality in education, work and power exclusively, while the GEI also incorporates other complementary dimensions (EIGE 2013: 44–46). Secondly, the EGEI is purely an index of gender (in)equality. Accordingly, it exclusively calculates, in each country, the existing differences between the situation of men and women (gender gaps). The EGEI does not take into account if the general situation of women and men in certain countries is better or worse than in others; thus, for example, it does not take into account if the education level, labour market participation rate or income level in one country is higher or lower than in other countries (Bericat 2012: 4). The GEI, in contrast, in addition to considering the differences between men and women, ‘‘a correcting coefficient based on the average or total levels (original values) of the variables was applied to each gap’’; this ‘‘ensures that obtaining a score that is near 1 is the reflection of both low gender gaps and high level of achievement’’ (EIGE 2013: 37). In this way, the GEI does not just measure gender equality in each country. As a result, assuming that two European countries have the exact same level of gender inequality, the more developed country, or that which enjoys a greater level of achievement, would obtain a higher score on the GEI, while their scores on the EGEI would be exactly the same. Third, the EGEI measures the equality of women in comparison to men, in other words, the degree to which women’s resources are, on average, greater or lesser than, or equal to, those of men (Bericat 2012: 10–11). In contrast, the GEI measures gender equality, that is, the sum of the absolute value of existing inequalities for all its indicators, regardless of whether this inequality favours men or women (EIGE 2013: 36). Lastly, while the EGEI is designed to offer annual data, a decision which significantly reduces the availability of the indicators, the GEI uses data only available every 5 years, which significantly reduces its capacity to monitor social change (EIGE 2013: 40–41). Keeping in mind these basic characteristics of the EGEI, we can now interpret Fig. 1, which shows the state of structural gender equality for the European Union2 in 2011. The graph offers a general measurement of the phenomenon as well as a structural vision of its internal composition. Both must be taken into account in choosing, designing and implementing public policies aimed at achieving full gender equality. The multidimensionality of the phenomenon is revealed in the great differences that exist between the height of the bars indicating the level of gender equality in the different dimensions, sub-dimensions and indicators of the index. The overall score on the EGEI (58.2) shows that there is still a long way to go to reach full gender equality in Europe, the equivalent of more than 40 points on the index. Tables 2 and 3 include the overall scores for each EU country on the EGEI and for its three dimensions and 8 sub-dimensions, for the years 2000 and 2011. Using the scores for the eight sub-dimensions in 2011, we have carried out a hierarchical cluster analysis in order to reveal similarities in the socio-structural profile of gender equality between EU countries. Figure 2 shows the resulting dendrogram. Comparative analysis of the structures of gender equality is much more important for understanding the social reality of each
2
All of the values for the EU as a whole are estimated by calculating the arithmetic mean of the values for the 27 countries of the EU, weighted by the population 15 years of age and over in each country in 2006.
123
123
63.2
60.0
66.7
65.8
Portugal
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
64.2
65.9
Slovenia
Finland
Poland
64.5
61.7
Sweden
43.9
61.4
53.0
Italy
Denmark
50.5
Greece
Malta
50.8
Ireland
55.1
U. Kingdom
49.8
52.4
Czech Rep.
56.6
56.8
Germany
Cyprus
55.7
Austria
Slovakia
59.8
Netherlands
46.3
58.0
Belgium
52.2
61.5
Spain
Hungary
60.3
France
Luxembourg
EGEI
Countries
77.4
77.0
80.8
81.8
78.5
81.2
76.3
87.4
84.8
74.5
84.5
76.4
78.9
78.3
80.0
73.3
71.5
76.9
71.8
69.0
73.7
69.4
73.6
80.3
78.4
D1. EDU
118
134
131
131
124
118
122
118
112
95
117
110
115
110
110
111
95
101
100
92
89
100
110
112
106
D1.1 Edu level
129
130
126
100
115
111
117
132
124
103
104
89
104
105
114
103
91
108
99
94
105
100
101
106
105
D1.2 Lifelong
31
26
32
42
34
41
31
43
44
42
50
46
41
42
41
35
43
42
37
38
43
34
36
44
43
D1.3 Educ.Segr.
Table 2 Structural gender equality in European Countries 2011
88.9
80.8
69.9
71.9
74.2
71.0
63.0
59.4
63.4
52.1
54.3
63.5
61.3
52.9
65.9
70.7
47.0
56.0
52.7
56.4
56.7
59.5
54.1
57.8
57.8
D2. WORK
101
98
91
91
93
83
94
94
92
59
70
71
88
87
81
82
80
86
79
88
88
88
86
84
88
D2.1 Parti cipat.
116
99
76
71
70
69
58
49
58
39
40
59
57
41
66
75
30
48
39
44
43
53
40
48
45
D2.2 Contrcondit
60
54
49
58
63
63
46
46
48
61
58
62
46
41
54
57
43
43
48
46
49
45
46
48
49
D2.3 Occp. Segr.
41.4
47.7
38.2
42.9
49.1
45.8
48.8
51.7
43.1
21.9
32.4
26.6
27.1
29.7
34.4
27.5
29.5
38.8
38.0
47.1
41.4
51.7
49.0
50.1
48.5
D3. POWER
58
73
57
50
77
64
89
82
69
19
33
27
21
31
42
40
47
43
44
55
51
66
74
70
72
D3.1 Politi cal
30
31
26
37
32
33
27
33
27
25
32
26
35
29
28
19
19
35
33
41
34
40
33
36
33
D3.2 Economic
E. Bericat, E. Sa´nchez Bermejo
72.0
60.5
58.2
Bulgaria
Romania
EU average
EGEI
Countries
Table 2 continued
77.4
78.2
85.9
D1. EDU
107
100
126
D1.1 Edu level
104
97
102
D1.2 Lifelong
42
49
50
D1.3 Educ.Segr.
60.9
87.5
86.4
D2. WORK
84
82
94
D2.1 Parti cipat.
53
109
101
D2.2 Contrcondit
52
75
68
D2.3 Occp. Segr.
42.7
32.3
50.3
D3. POWER
55
43
67
D3.1 Politi cal
34
24
38
D3.2 Economic
Structural Gender Equality in Europe and Its Evolution Over the…
123
123
54.0
56.1
58.6
Denmark
Sweden
Finland
50.8
67.2
72.7
69.8
Portugal
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
59.4
33.4
Malta
57.5
39.1
Italy
Slovenia
47.0
Greece
Poland
41.3
Ireland
45.7
U. Kingdom
29.4
43.3
Czech Rep.
50.6
45.5
Germany
Cyprus
45.9
Austria
Slovakia
42.2
Netherlands
38.0
46.3
Belgium
55.9
46.6
Spain
Hungary
49.6
France
Luxembourg
EGEI
Countries
81.5
82.1
83.5
79.6
71.6
77.5
71.3
75.4
74.3
59.7
73.7
73.3
77.8
61.2
71.9
72.0
59.7
66.5
56.6
59.0
63.8
58.1
70.4
73.1
74.0
D1. EDU
112
114
130
126
108
111
117
109
104
70
100
95
107
91
90
101
85
83
84
79
79
89
105
99
100
D1.1 Edu level
131
147
135
98
106
106
101
93
97
69
90
98
93
86
99
110
60
79
58
66
78
78
86
89
98
D1.2 Lifelong
37
33
33
41
32
39
31
42
41
44
44
42
47
29
42
34
41
45
37
40
42
28
39
44
41
D1.3 Educ.Segr.
Table 3 Structural gender equality in European Countries 2000
88.7
90.3
71.7
63.4
74.5
75.7
62.1
55.7
57.5
49.3
54.5
58.1
51.2
48.5
60.6
68.3
38.5
50.0
52.9
49.9
50.8
52.1
48.5
49.1
52.7
D2. WORK
98
90
91
82
92
82
91
96
90
42
60
60
72
69
85
81
68
83
79
81
81
78
77
60
80
D2.1 Parti cipat.
120
127
85
45
72
89
55
43
45
38
39
49
38
37
52
65
20
37
35
34
33
42
28
38
39
D2.2 Contrcondit
59
64
48
70
62
60
47
42
47
75
69
67
49
44
50
61
42
41
53
46
49
43
52
52
47
D2.3 Occp. Segr.
47.1
51.8
50.6
25.9
35.6
35.8
45.4
42.1
36.9
12.7
14.9
24.3
17.6
8.6
29.7
35.5
23.9
28.7
27.1
32.1
29.9
24.8
29.1
28.2
31.3
D3. POWER
52
73
61
25
38
41
79
60
64
15
21
26
21
17
43
41
29
26
32
36
38
41
40
46
49
D3.1 Politi cal
43
37
42
26
33
31
26
30
21
11
11
22
15
4
21
31
20
32
23
28
23
15
21
17
20
D3.2 Economic
E. Bericat, E. Sa´nchez Bermejo
68.6
56.8
48.3
Bulgaria
Romania
EU Average
EGEI
Countries
Table 3 continued
69.9
75.1
85.4
D1. EDU
95
86
120
D1.1 Edu level
87
91
97
D1.2 Lifelong
42
54
53
D1.3 Educ.Segr.
56.7
83.9
82.6
D2. WORK
77
86
89
D2.1 Parti cipat.
47
89
93
D2.2 Contrcondit
53
78
69
D2.3 Occp. Segr.
29.3
29.1
45.8
D3. POWER
37
26
65
D3.1 Politi cal
24
33
32
D3.2 Economic
Structural Gender Equality in Europe and Its Evolution Over the…
123
E. Bericat, E. Sa´nchez Bermejo 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
I1 8
an I1 ag 6 er ia l I1 7
M
PO I14 W Po ER li ca l I1 5
I1 3
I9 on I1 di 0 on Oc s cu I1 p. 1 se gr I1 eg 2 a on tc
Co nt ra c
Pa W I8 r OR cip K a on
I7
I5
ga I6 on
c. se gr e
Ed u
I3 le I4 ar ni ng elo ng
Li f
I1
I2
E Ed DUC EGE uc AT I a I on ON le ve l
0
Fig. 1 Structural gender equality in Europe, EGEI 2011. Note Table 1 shows the content of the 18 indicators of the index (I1 to I18)
country than their mere position in a general ranking. Each country must advance toward gender equality based on its own history and forging its own path.
3 The Evolution of Structural Gender Equality in Europe: An Assessment The EGEI trend line, shown in Fig. 3, condenses all of the information gathered in this study, in other words, the data regarding men and women for 18 specific indicators in 27 countries over 12 consecutive years. This line synthesizes the results obtained by European societies in a process of social transformation aimed at achieving full equality between men and women. As can be seen in the graph, the EGEI trend line is a slightly upward sloping straight line that reveals a continuous and gradual advance. This indicates that the resources invested, the public policies implemented and the efforts made by European women to be able to occupy similar socio-structural positions as men, are paying off, as over the course of the past decade, the EGEI has increased by 10 points, from 48.3 in 2000 to 58.3 in 2011. Over the course of this secular change, a specific moment stands out. At the beginning of the twentyfirst century, specifically in 2002, European countries reached the threshold of 50 on the index for the first time (Fig. 3). But this also means that after many years trying to achieve gender equality, European societies had still no covered, at the end of the past century, half the distance. Observing the EGEI line in Fig. 3 also shows that at least during the initial years of the economic crisis (between 2008 and 2011), the process toward equality continued to advance. However, as will be seen in the subsequent multi-dimensional analysis, the evolution in the EGEI in these years of crisis masks divergent trends (European Commission 2013).
123
Structural Gender Equality in Europe and Its Evolution Over the… Dendrogram 0
5
10
15
20
25
France Spain Belgium Netherlands Austria Germany Czech Republic United Kingdom Luxembourg Hungary Slovakia Cyprus
Y
Ireland Greece Italy
Malta Denmark Sweden Finland Poland Slovenia Portugal Estonia Latvia Lithuania Bulgaria Romania
Fig. 2 Socio-structural profile of gender equality in European countries, 2011. Hierarchical cluster analysis
In short, the process toward structural gender equality in Europe has not stalled, nor gone backward, but has continued to advance, albeit slowly. However, how should we evaluate the pace with which European societies are approaching the goal of structural gender equality (in other words, reaching 100 on the EGEI)? Is this pace acceptable for Europe, for European institutions, for national governments, for European women, for all those persons who are fighting for gender equality? Based on this rate of growth, can we say that policies for gender equality are reaching their objectives, that they are sufficiently effective and/or efficient? Calculation of the average rate of annual growth in gender equality can facilitate the perception, interpretation and valorisation of the social change experienced. This rate is the percentage increase that, on average, the EGEI undergoes over the course of a year and
123
E. Bericat, E. Sa´nchez Bermejo 80
70
EGEI scores
65 60
69,9
71,2
72,3
72,6
57,3
57,5
73,3
WORK 56,7
56,8
55
57,8
74,0
58,2
EGEI
50 45
(0.92)
EDUCATION
75
48,3
49,3
50,2
50,8
52,2
53,1
75,2
75,9
76,4
76,9
58,5
58,1
58,3
59,1
53,8
54,7
55,4
60,0
77,4
60,9
(0.65) (1.70)
56,4
57,1
58,2
(3.48)
40 POWER
35
34,3
30 25
77,0
29,3
30,4
31,2
35,6
36,1
37,8
39,0
40,3
41,0
42,7
32,1
EGEI D1. EDUCATION D2. WORK D3. POWER
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Fig. 3 The evolution of structural gender equality in Europe, EGEI 2000–2011
over a determined number of years.3 The average annual rate of growth in structural gender equality in Europe, during the period from 2000 to 2011, was 1.70 %. Given the stability of the trend over this period of time, another way of evaluating the rate of change would be to ask how many years it will take for Europe to reach full gender equality (EGEI = 100) at this rate of annual growth. Solving for the time variable in the formula, and using 58.3 and 100 as the initial and final values, we obtain the following estimate: an annual rate of growth equivalent to that maintained over the 2000–2011 period (1.70 %) would mean that Europe would reach full structural gender equality in 2043, in other words, in 32 years. In Fig. 3 we also see the evolution in equality in education, work and power. The parentheses include the average rate of annual growth for each dimension. The three trend lines for these dimensions reveal a key characteristic of the dynamic of gender equality in European societies. The trend toward equality is not homogeneous and happening simultaneously in all spheres and dimensions. Women’s educational achievement (77.4) seems to be the motor that drives gender equality in the labour market (60.9) (Eurydice 2012: 177). At the same time, both these dimensions contribute to greater equality in the power sphere (42.7), which, as can be seen, arrives much later, advancing with great difficulty in the face of great resistance. Universal access to education, as well as the strong commitment and involvement of women in educational processes, has driven a major change in education among women 3
The rate is calculated using the following formula: 1 rðt0 ; tn Þ ¼ Vðtn Þ =Vðt0 Þ tn t0 1 where r is the compound annual growth rate, Vðtn Þ the value of the EGER index in the last year, Vðt0 Þ the value of EGER index in the first year, and t0 ytn the initial and final years. The number of years needed to move from one level to another in gender inequality—a given growth rate remaining be estimated by the following equation: constant—can n ¼ ln
Vtn Vt0
=lnðr þ 1Þ,
where n is the number of years, and ln the natural logarithm.
123
Structural Gender Equality in Europe and Its Evolution Over the…
and explains the high level of equality attained in this dimension (Eurydice 2012) (OECD 2013). In contrast, women’s employment situations are much more unequal. First, work is a scarce good for which women have to compete in a market which has followed discriminatory practices in many sectors and occupations (Eurofound 2013). The educational capital acquired by women favours, but does not automatically or immediately translate into employment (Eurydice 2012). Secondly, for women, in contrast to men, work is not their exclusive life project, as they tend to carry out both productive (in the labour market) and reproductive (within their families) work. Therefore, as long as there is no radical advance in gender equality in the private sphere, it will be practically impossible for women’s participation and involvement in the work sphere to be comparable to that of men (Hochschild 1989). At this time, gains in equality in the labour market have been achieved thanks to the additional sacrifices women must make as they carry out the demands of multiple roles. Lastly, it is clear that women’s access to decision-making positions is very limited (European Commission 2010a, 2011a, 2012). The hierarchical and pyramidal nature of power structures, whether political, economic or social, means that positions of authority are an extremely scarce good. In addition, patriarchal and sexist societies establish powerful mechanisms for systematically excluding or at least restricting women’s access to these positions. In such an environment, women come up against multiple glass ceilings that are significant obstacles to their advancement. However, the dynamic represented in the graph reveals that, despite the clear delay, equality in terms of power is moving in the same direction as equality in education and employment. The level of gender equality reached in Europe in each of the dimensions is, as we have seen, very different. However, Fig. 3 reveals another important fact, namely, that these three dimensions have advanced in parallel during the 2000–2011 period. This shows that gender equality constitutes a single social process characterised by its interdependent multi-dimensionality. Progress toward equality in certain areas promotes progress in other areas, although each advances at a different pace. Equality in education grew at an annual rate of 0.92 %, while equality in work at a rate of 0.65 %. Equality in power, perhaps because of its low level at the beginning of the period examined, grew at a much faster pace (3.48 %), thus achieving a considerable reduction in the difference between it and the work dimension. The distance between them, which was 27.4 points in 2000, declined to 18.3 in 2011. The dynamic of all processes of socio-structural transformation will be affected by the vicissitudes and changes society experiences over time. As a result, it is necessary to continually monitor these processes and have adequate composite indicators available that enable us to carry out that close monitoring. Doing so reveals that the rate of advance in structural gender equality in Europe during the initial years of the crisis slowed, going from a growth rate of 1.78 % in the period from 2000 to 2007, to 1.56 % in the period from 2007 to 2011. In addition, the crisis has affected each dimension differently. Gender equality in education experienced a considerable slowdown, decreasing from a growth rate of 1.2 to 0.5 %, a reduction of 60 percent. Growth in gender equality in the power dimension slowed from 3.7 to 3.1 %, still a high rate of growth. In contrast, the crisis has accelerated the advance of gender equality in the work sphere, almost tripling its rate of growth from 0.35 to 1.20 %. The crisis, although worsening the employment situation of both genders, has had a greater negative impact on male employment. We end this general overview looking at the evolution of structural gender equality in the EU’s 27 member countries. Tables 2, 3 and 4 include the actual scores on the EGEI from 2000 to 2011 for the 27 countries. However, with the aim of providing a clear visual
123
E. Bericat, E. Sa´nchez Bermejo Table 4 The evolution of structural gender equality (EGEI) in European countries 2000–2011 Country
EGEI 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
France
49.6
50.8
51.4
50.8
54.3
56.5
55.5
56.4
59.8
60.0
59.5
60.3
Spain
46.6
47.8
47.9
47.1
51.5
52.6
53.7
55.9
56.5
58.1
59.7
61.5
Belgium
46.3
46.3
48.1
49.6
50.8
51.9
52.7
52.4
54.2
56.0
57.6
58.0
Netherlands
42.2
45.9
46.9
48.9
50.1
50.7
51.7
54.7
54.6
55.9
55.9
59.8
Austria
45.9
45.6
49.0
50.2
50.5
51.2
51.4
52.5
53.3
53.4
54.9
55.7
Germany
45.5
46.5
47.3
48.9
49.6
50.2
51.5
51.5
52.1
53.2
53.9
56.8
Czech Repub.
43.3
45.3
46.3
47.9
48.2
49.1
49.4
49.5
49.6
51.5
52.0
52.4
Unit. Kingdom
45.7
46.7
47.7
48.3
48.7
49.5
49.9
52.1
52.2
53.2
54.4
55.1
Luxembourg
38.0
39.2
39.6
41.3
44.8
43.0
46.2
48.9
50.0
48.2
47.4
46.3
Hungary
55.9
56.8
57.7
57.7
56.8
56.5
57.7
58.4
59.3
59.1
58.0
52.2
Slovakia
50.6
51.8
53.4
52.5
54.0
54.4
53.2
56.1
56.0
59.1
60.5
56.6
Cyprus
29.4
30.1
31.1
30.8
30.8
33.4
34.5
42.5
35.0
43.7
44.5
49.8
Ireland
41.3
41.1
42.2
43.4
42.9
43.2
43.7
44.4
45.7
46.3
48.6
50.8
Greece
47.0
48.3
49.3
49.0
47.5
49.5
49.9
50.8
50.7
51.3
53.3
50.5
Italy
39.1
41.4
42.4
42.5
43.9
46.0
47.8
47.6
48.7
49.1
49.3
53.0
Malta
33.4
34.6
32.9
36.4
33.4
34.7
37.1
37.7
35.8
41.6
41.0
43.9
Denmark
54.0
55.0
55.2
54.8
56.6
55.6
57.2
60.9
59.7
61.0
61.3
61.4
Sweden
56.1
57.8
59.0
57.9
60.9
61.1
62.5
62.2
63.5
65.7
65.4
64.5
Finland
58.6
58.5
59.5
59.7
60.3
61.7
61.9
62.1
62.6
64.0
64.1
61.7
Poland
59.4
57.3
58.1
61.8
61.6
62.0
62.8
63.7
62.7
62.9
63.7
64.2
Slovenia
57.5
57.9
57.0
58.5
58.7
62.0
60.5
59.4
61.6
63.4
63.1
65.9
Portugal
50.8
52.5
53.5
53.4
54.4
55.9
57.9
57.8
56.4
61.1
60.6
63.2
Estonia
67.2
63.3
64.2
68.9
63.6
64.2
61.0
60.6
64.0
65.3
64.2
60.0
Latvia
72.7
72.1
73.6
67.7
69.6
73.5
72.7
71.4
71.4
71.0
72.0
66.7
Lithuania
69.8
73.3
72.6
69.5
65.4
69.5
73.8
69.5
66.7
67.5
69.0
65.8
Bulgaria
68.6
69.8
70.6
70.0
74.7
69.3
68.6
67.1
68.8
70.2
71.9
72.0
Romania
56.8
56.9
58.7
58.9
59.8
58.9
59.3
60.6
60.0
61.9
64.8
60.5
EU average
48.3
49.3
50.2
50.8
52.2
53.1
53.8
54.7
55.4
56.4
57.1
58.2
representation, Fig. 4 includes estimated regression lines based on 12 actual values from each series (Table 4). A simple linear regression analysis, based on ordinary least squares (OLS), has been performed to estimate these linear trends. With the information from Tables 2, 3 and 4, we can carry out an interesting comparative analysis of the change in different European societies. In this article we will only comment on their combined evolution. Figure 4 shows that the majority of European countries have shared a general trend of slight but steady growth toward structural gender equality. However, there are significant differences among them. In some countries, for example, Spain (2.71 %) and Holland (2.70 %), as well as Italy (2.44 %), Luxembourg (2.27 %), Belgium (2.14 %) and France (1.97 %), equality has progressed at a quicker pace. Given the volatility of their data, as
123
Structural Gender Equality in Europe and Its Evolution Over the… 75 LATVIA LITHUANIA
70
65
60
EGEI scores
55
BULGARIA (0,12) LATVIA (-0,30)
BULGARIA
LITHUANIA (-0,59) SWEDEN (1,38) POLAND (0,88) FINLAND (0,77) SLOVENIA (1,17) ROMANIA (0,84) PORTUGAL (1,82) ESTONIA (-0,54) DENMARK (1,33) FRANCE (1,97) SPAIN (2,71) NETHERLANDS (2,70) SLOVAKIA (1,33) BELGIUM (2,14) HUNGARY (-0,04)
ESTONIA
POLAND FINLAND HUNGARY ROMANIA SWEDEN SLOVENIA
AUSTRIA (1,69) GERMANY (1,79) U. KINGDOM (1,69)
DENMARK
50
45
CZECH REP. (1,52) GREECE (0,82) ITALY (2,44)
PORTUGAL SLOVAKIA
LUXEMBOURG (2,27)
FRANCE
IRELAND (1,73)
GREECE AUSTRIA BELGIUM GERMANY U. KINGDOM SPAIN CZECH REP. NETHERLANDS
CYPRUS (5,04)
MALTA (2,38)
40
IRELAND ITALY LUXEMBOURG
35 MALTA
30 CYPRUS
25 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Fig. 4 The evolution of structural gender equality in Europe by country, EGEI 2000–2011. Note: The black thick line represents EU average
well as their very low starting points, Cyprus (5.04 %) and Malta (2.38 %) can be considered atypical cases. One group of countries, Austria (1.69 %), Germany (1.79 %), the Czech Republic (1.52 %) and the United Kingdom (1.69 %), has experienced an evolution very similar to that of the European Union as a whole. Finally, the growth rates of the Nordic countries, Sweden (1.38 %), Denmark (1.33 %) and Finland (0.77 %), have been somewhat lower, although given their starting position, they have maintained levels of equality above the average. Analysis of growth rates is fundamental for evaluating social change and the effectiveness of gender policies in the different countries. We have to keep in mind that small differences in rates create very different time frames for the attainment of full gender equality. Thus, if Spain and Holland maintain their current rates of growth, they could reach this goal in 19 and 20 years, respectively, while countries with low growth rates, such as Poland (0.88 %), would take approximately 50 years to do so. The rates also have
123
E. Bericat, E. Sa´nchez Bermejo
consequences for the rankings of countries. Starting from a lower level in 2000, Sweden (1.38 %), with a higher growth rate, was able to pass Finland (0.77 %) in 2006. A similar process can be seen comparing Hungary (-0.04 %) and Slovakia (1.33 %). Due to the stagnation of Hungary, Slovakia was able to reduce the gap that separated them and pass it in the ranking in 2009. Having established the pace at which the different countries are advancing, social scientists now need to address the most important and fundamental task, namely, to discover and analyse the causal mechanisms that might explain these different rates. In this sense, it would be of great interest to carry out a comparative study of the gender equality policies implemented in each country, in the context of the progress actually made by each of them.
4 Evolution in the Dimensions of Gender Equality In this section, we will look at the evolution of gender equality in the three dimensions of education, work and power, analysing in great detail the dynamic of their respective subdimensions and indicators.
4.1 Equality in Education Figure 5 shows that the evolution of the subdimensions of education level and life-long learning and use of Internet is quite positive. In both cases, the level of attainment of women surpassed that of men in the middle of the first decade of the twentyfirst century. In
Fig. 5 The evolution of educational gender equality in Europe, EGEI 2000–2011, by subdimensions and indicators. Note Ind.1 At least upper secondary, aged 25–74; Ind.2 Tertiary education, aged 25–74; Ind.3 At least upper secondary, aged 25–39; Ind.4 Tertiary education, aged 25–39; Ind.5 Adult participation in education and training, aged 25–64; Ind.6 Internet use, aged 25–54; Ind.7 Tertiary students in humanities and health studies; Ind.8 Tertiary students in science and an engineering
123
Structural Gender Equality in Europe and Its Evolution Over the…
contrast, the subdimension of educational segregation by types of studies, with an equality level well below the overall EGEI average, presents a perfectly flat trajectory in which no progress is detected.4 In the year 2000, the education level attained by European women was very close to that of men (95); in 2004, the level attained by men and women was the same (100), but in 2011, at the end of the first decade of the twentyfirst century, the educational attainment of women was already higher than that of men (107) (European Commission 2011a, 2011b), Eurydice 2007: 37–73, Eurydice (2012: 171), OECD (2012). Given the great importance that education has in the micro and macro stratification of our societies, this historic turning point (McDaniel and Buchmann 2010), achieved thanks to a very rapid improvement in women’s education, will not only have consequences on social relationships and interactions in the private sphere, but will also transform the social structure of European countries (Goldin 2006). The comparison of the level and trajectory of the Ind.1 and Ind.2 indicators, which refer to men and women between 25 and 74 years of age, with that of the Ind.3 and Ind.4 indicators, which only take into account young adult cohorts between 25 and 39 years of age, reveals the great generational change experienced in educational gender equality in Europe Goldin (2006), Smyth (2005). Specifically, the indicator regarding attainment of tertiary education among young adults (Ind.4), which by the beginning of the decade had already far exceeded the equality threshold (109.6), continued growing without interruption to reach, in 2011, a level of inequality extraordinarily favourable to women (126.9). This important change is manifested with such intensity in tertiary education (Ind.2 and Ind.4) because these levels, unlike lower education levels, are not compulsory. And this indicates that the great improvement in women’s education is a direct consequence of the free choice of women; that is, of their deep involvement and intense commitment to education (Bericat 2015). The trajectory of gender equality in the life-long learning subdimension (Arulampalam et al. 2004) is quite similar to that of education level attained. It grew more rapidly in the first years of the decade, but the growth rate declined in the last three years of the period examined, coinciding with the economic crisis. However, its two indicators present very different levels and trajectories. Ind.5, which compares percentages of adult participation in education and training, was in the year 2000 favourable to women (109.9); it continued to rise slightly for the first few years of the decade, but it began to show a clear decline at the end of the decade. Regarding daily use of Internet (Ind.6) (European Commission 2011b: 90), women started off in 2000 with a clear disadvantage (70.7), but thanks to a high growth rate (2.8 %), by the end of the decade they had almost attained full equality (95.6). Finally, the trajectory of horizontal educational segregation, in addition to demonstrating a level of equality (42.0) in 2011 significantly lower than the overall EIGE rate (58.2), is completely flat (European Commission 2011a: 111–113). Neither of the two indicators in this sub-dimension improved even slightly during the period examined. Thus, very substantial increases in the educational level attained by women do not seem to have had any effect on the type of studies chosen in university: broadly categorised as ‘‘humanities/health’’ vs. ‘‘science/engineering’’ (Barone 2012). 4
For further details, see: OECD (2012, 2013, 2104a, 2015), European Commission (2011b, 2004–2014), Eurydice (2012), Betio and Solera (2013), Charles and Bradley (2002), Gundert and Mayer (2012), McDaniel and Buchmann (2010), Barone (2012), Goldin (2006), Smyth (2005), Valentova et al. (2007), Arulampalam et al. (2004).
123
E. Bericat, E. Sa´nchez Bermejo
Regarding the theoretical debate on inequality and difference (Verloo and Lombardo 2007), this picture of social change points to a situation in which gender inequalities may have been reduced, and even reversed, while gender differences remain virtually unchanged. In short, equal but different? (Charles and Bradley 2002) However, to confirm the hypothesis of ‘‘equality in difference’’ would first of all require demonstrating that educational segregation in its shift to the world of employment, does not bring with it or generate implicit and hidden inequalities in the apparent difference (Gundert and Mayer 2012; Baranowska-Rataj and Unt 2012; Valentova et al. 2007). In addition, educational segregation could be due to the persistence of a gender difference deeply rooted in the foundations of culture, a ‘‘naturalised’’ difference, which an improvement in the structural and instrumental resources of women would not be able to eradicate. But this hypothesis is literally not verifiable. Moreover, we know that the more traditional the attitudes and social values are in relation to the role of women in a country, the greater is educational segregation (McDaniel 2012). In any case, it is obvious that the trajectory of horizontal educational segregation raises interesting and important theoretical issues closely linked to the formulation of innovative public policies oriented toward the attainment of full gender equality.
4.2 Equality in Work In contrast to the great strides made in educational attainment by women during the first decade of the twentyfirst century, Fig. 6 shows that the advances in work equality from 2000 (56.7) to 2011 (60.9) have been relatively small. In fact, until 2008 (58.3), the score on the work dimension remained practically the same, and only with the beginning of the
Fig. 6 The evolution of gender equality in employment in Europe, EGEI 2000–2011, by sub-dimensions and indicators. Note Ind.9 Employment rates, aged 15–64; Ind.10 Employment rates, aged 25–49; Ind.11 Part-time employment, aged 15–64; Ind.12 Temporary employees, aged 15–64; Ind.13 Unadjusted Gender Pay Gap; Ind.14 Occupational segregation
123
Structural Gender Equality in Europe and Its Evolution Over the…
economic crisis did we begin to see a period of relative progress, perhaps due not so much to the improvement of women’s employment situation but to the worsening of men’s European Commission (2011a: 70, 2013), OECD (2012).5 Analysing in greater detail the composition as well as the dynamic of the scores regarding work equality, we first of all see a contrast in the relatively high level of gender equality that exists in the subdimension participation in the labour market in comparison to the great inequality that persists in contract conditions and in occupational and pay segregation. With respect to their respective dynamics, we can see a slight but constant increase in equality in labour market participation, a gradual but also very slight equalisation of contract conditions and finally, as with educational segregation, a perfectly flat trajectory, even slightly descending, in occupational segregation. The sub-dimension regarding labour market participation compares employment rates by gender; that is, the percentage of men and women who work within a particular cohort of the population with respect to the total number of men and women in that cohort. Gender equality in labour market participation increased from a value of 77 in 2000 to 84 in 2011, an average annual growth rate of 0.83 %, although this growth rate increased to 0.87 % after the onset of the economic crisis. The level of equality among the 15–64 years of age cohort (Ind.9) and that of 25–49 years of age (Ind.10) is very similar, and both have an identical trajectory, perfectly parallel. In short, Europe has still not reached full gender equality in labour market participation, although the process reveals a trend of gradual and continuous growth during the first decade of the twentyfirst century (Eurofound 2013; OECD 2012). The problem of gender equality in Europe in the work dimension is not so much in the levels of participation in the labour market, as we have just seen, as in the different form of labour market insertion characteristic of women and men (Eurofound 2013). The level of equality in contract conditions not only remained below the overall score on the EGEI during the period examined, but the difference between the two lines also grew from 1.7 points in 2000 to 4.9 points in 2011. However, despite this relative decline with respect to the overall index, there was a gradual equalising of contract conditions. The growth rate over the whole period was positive (1.2 %), and it increased even more following the onset of the crisis (2.5 %). This improvement can be seen in the two indicators composing the sub-index, which refer to part-time and temporary employment (Ind.11 and Ind.12, respectively), although their respective level of equality is, as can be seen in Fig. 6, radically different. Women’s mode of insertion into the labour market is different from that of men. Women’s employment in part-time jobs is the best expression of the asymmetrical functional distribution that societies have established based on gender Sparreboom (2014), OECD (2010), Booth and Van Ours (2008). Ind.11, although showing a positive evolution over the course of the decade, was still at a very low level in 2011 (31.2), indicating just how far Europe is from achieving full gender equality in many aspects of employment. In contrast, in analysing the percentages of permanent or temporary contracts among women and men (Ind.12), the data reveal almost full equality, a score of 90 in 2000 and 95 in 2011. However, this overall average hides contract situations that are very different for women, depending on whether they work in primary or secondary labour markets.
5
For further details, see: Eurofound (2007, 2009, 2010, 2013), OECD ( 2010, 2012), Bettio et al. (2013), Bettio and Verashchagina (2009), Arulampalam et al. (2007), Blau and Kahn (2003), Sparreboom (2014), Perales (2014), Booth and Van Ours (2008), Davoine et al. (2008).
123
E. Bericat, E. Sa´nchez Bermejo
Lastly, Fig. 6 shows that the trajectory of employment segregation is the most negative of the three work subdimensions, having only reached a level of 52 by the end of the period. Its two indicators (Ind.13 and Ind.14) have very different levels of equality and different dynamics, and are subject to very different interpretations. Ind.13 shows the wage gap (Arulampalam et al. 2007; Eurofound 2010; Blau and Kahn 2003). Women’s salaries in the year 2000 were equivalent to 81.3 percent of those of men and rose to 84.7 percent in 2011, which means a meager average annual growth rate of 0.4 %. The value of this indicator reveals European societies’ disregard for the principle, ‘‘equal pay for equal work’’, key to the ethical structure of any society. Ind.14 compares the percentages of men and women who work in feminised and masculinised occupations (Bettio and Verashchagina 2009). The level of horizontal occupational segregation, which was already high at the beginning of the period (38.1), continued to grow throughout the period, reaching a minimum of equality in 2009 (33.4). It is clear that, as with educational segregation, there seems to be deep resistance to the achievement of free choice in occupations by gender in Europe. The persistence of occupational segregation Perales (2014), European Commission (2014), therefore, also raises interesting theoretical questions and significant political challenges.
4.3 Equality of Power The level of gender equality in 2011 in Europe in the power dimension continued to be very low (43), despite a very high rate of growth in this area during the first decade of the century (3.5 %). Europe has not yet reached the halfway mark (EGEI = 50) in this dimension and is very far from achieving the goal the EU itself proposed; that is, attaining a distribution of power in which women occupy at least 40 % of decision-making positions (European Commission 2010b). A 40/60 distribution is equivalent to an EGEI value of 66.7, which is 24 points above the current level. Even in the unlikely case of Europe maintaining the very high growth rate it has had up to now into the near future (European Commission 2010c: 52), it would still take more than another decade, almost thirteen years, to achieve this fundamental goal.6 The subdimension measuring gender equality in political-administrative power, which refers to women’s access to positions of political representation and to positions of management in public administration, has a low value (55), although it is higher than the overall average in the power dimension (43). Its growth rate during the decade was 3.6 %. In contrast, the economic and managerial power subdimension, which measures the percentage of women who are self-employed and employers, as well as in senior management positions in companies, still showed the existence of extreme inequality in 2011 (European Commission 2010c). Although the growth in gender equality in the economic and business sphere has been significant (3.2 %), the very low starting point in the year 2000 (24.1) has meant that the level of equality in 2011 remained exceptionally low (33.9). These low levels of gender equality in power are incompatible with the goals of achieving a fair and equal society in which both women and men can be active and influential agents in decision-making. The political-administrative subdimension (European Comission 2010c) combines two indicators, each with two variables. Ind.15 calculates the distribution by gender of political representation, averaging the representation in national parliaments and, where 6
For further details, see: European Commission (2010c, 2011a, 2012), Eurofound (2009), OECD (2104b), Zahidi and Ibarra (2010), Delgado-Ma´rquez et al. (2013), Dahlerup (2007), Kuperus and Rode (2008).
123
Structural Gender Equality in Europe and Its Evolution Over the…
appropriate, regional assemblies OECD (2104b), Delgado-Ma´rquez et al. (2013). The level of equality in 2011 was 30.1, and the growth rate was 3.2 %. Ind.16 reveals the distribution by gender of management positions in public administration, based on the distribution of positions of judges and public administrators, and shows a much higher level of gender equality than all the other indicators of power (Kuperus and Rode 2008). From a value that was already relatively high in 2000 (58.7), it grew at a rate of 3.3 % to 83.9 in 2011. The fact that the systems of access to positions in public administration are based on objective exams that are less subject to manipulation and that as a result are less likely to discriminate against women, could explain this high level of equality European Commission (2010c), Bettio and Solera (2013). These data highlight the importance for women of the strict application of meritocratic principles in the access to any position of responsibility and power. However, we must not forget that gender distribution is more unequal and unfavourable for women the higher the level of power being analysed. Moreover, this systematic discrimination also operates horizontally, relegating women to less ‘‘important’’ positions in public management. This explains why women occupy more positions of political responsibility in socio-cultural areas than, for example, in economic areas (European Commission 2010c: 54–56). In the economic-managerial sphere, the hierarchical structure of power further restricts women’s access to higher level decision-making positions (Eurofound 2009; OECD 2012; Zahidi and Ibarra 2010). Thus, the level of equality of Ind.17 (41.7) is much higher than Ind.18 (28.1), which is extraordinarily low. There are very few women in senior management positions and on boards of directors of companies in Europe. The data for the two variables comprising Ind.17 are also evidence of a glass ceiling. The percentage of selfemployed women is higher than that of women employers, as the role of employer is one of greater responsibility and more power. Lastly, it is important to stress the different dynamics of these two indicators. While Ind.18 has undergone a very high rate of growth (5.0 %), the growth rate of Ind.17 has been much much lower (0.9 %). This difference in growth rates, as well as in the growth rates between the political and economic power subdimensions, is perhaps a consequence of the differential impact of social awareness in regard to demanding policies of affirmative action for women, as well as in promoting political-legislative measures aimed at breaking the glass ceilings – both objective and subjective – that stand between European women and the positions with the greatest decision-making power (Eurofound 2009). The relative ‘‘ease’’ with which changes can be introduced in the legal and political superstructures, which only depend on the will of a limited number of agents Delgado-Ma´rquez et al. (2013), Dahlerup (2007), stands in great contrast to the extreme difficulty faced in transforming social, economic and cultural structures, requiring the implementation of changes in broad sectors of the population. In fact, as can be seen in Fig. 7, the distance between the political and economic subdimensions of power increased during the first decade of the twentyfirst century. In short, analysis of the evolution of gender equality regarding power in Europe suggests that public policies must give greater attention to both the catalysts capable of promoting superstructural changes, which involve primarily elite social agents and institutions, and those capable of promoting diffuse structural transformations, which involve all of the population at all institutional levels. Both types of transformation are absolutely necessary, and it is therefore essential that public policies for gender equality clearly differentiate and aim at both types of processes.
123
E. Bericat, E. Sa´nchez Bermejo
Fig. 7 The evolution of gender equality in power in Europe, EGEI 2000–2011, by subdimensions and indicators. Note Ind.15 National and regional parliamentary representation; Ind.16 Judges and Public administration managers; Ind.17 Self-employed and Employers, aged 15–64; Ind.18 Leaders of business, small and large companies
5 Conclusions The EGEI scores show that the European Union is quite far from reaching full structural gender equality, that is, attaining the goal of women having similar levels of educational, work and power resources as men. In 2011, the overall score on the index was 58.2 points on a scale of 100. In the European Union, the process toward gender equality has not stopped or regressed. During the first decade of the twentyfirst century it experienced a slight but gradual advance, equivalent to an average annual growth rate of 1.7 %, the overall score on the index climbing from 48.3 points in 2000 to 58.2 points in 2011. Almost all EU countries have experienced a positive evolution in structural gender equality. However, their starting points in 2000, their growth rates during the decade and the levels reached in 2011 differ greatly. Beyond their overall EGEI score and the position they occupy in the ranking, it is important that each country takes into account its specific socio-structural profile of gender equality in designing and implementing its own social policies for equality. The time series of the EGEI reveal fundamental features of the process toward gender equality. We will highlight three: (a) the great and rapid improvement in women’ education is leading the social transformation and promoting progress toward equality in the work and power dimensions; (b) a high level of educational and employment segregation persists in Europe, in other words, the type of studies and the types of jobs women and men do have remained unchanged; and (c) progress toward equality in structural aspects of society, which require changes in the whole population, is much slower than that registered in superstructural elements, in which change can be made by modifying laws or the behaviour of certain social agents.
123
Structural Gender Equality in Europe and Its Evolution Over the…
Even though 12 years is a period too short for applying most time series techniques, the descriptive structure of the EGEI provides a rich body of empirical information that, beyond its value in analysing the state and evolution of gender equality, can be used in synchronic explanatory models to understand the relationship of gender equality to other important social phenomena, to explore the causal mechanisms behind gender equality, and to design social intervention policies. Explanation is, by its very nature, the goal of all scientific work, and indices can be an important element in obtaining a good explanation as they provide a valid, robust and precise description of reality. The objective of the EGEI measurement model is to offer valid, robust and reliable estimates of structural gender equality, an important phenomenon in determining the social quality of Europe and the quality of life of Europeans, both men and women. Etienne Laspeyres in 1871 created the price index formula to calculate the rate of inflation, and 80 years ago, in 1934, Simon Kuznets presented before the United States Congress the GDP index. It has been said that societies measure what they value. Today it is necessary to create and use multiple middle-range or focused composite indicators that will allow us to monitor the state of things we really care about. The EGEI allows us to monitor and evaluate structural gender equality in Europe. However, this index has certain weaknesses and could be improved in the future. Despite the care and methodological prudence applied in its construction, the implicit complexity of its design and the inevitable limitations involved in its operationalization require that it be critiqued scientifically. We conclude by again mentioning that the EGEI only measures inequality in access to three resources obtained by participation in three public spaces: the education system, the labour market and the power structure. It is, therefore, urgent to design a complementary index to measure the state and evolution of structural gender equality in the private spheres of social interaction. Given the current impossibility of building such an index due to the lack of empirical information, European authorities should promote the establishment of a periodic survey to supply the necessary data. It would also be very important to broaden the field of observation by creating indices that target other important areas, which also require special attention in European social policy, such as gender violence, and women’s health and individual well-being. Acknowledgments This research has been supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. Research Project: ‘‘Social Quality in Europe. Design and Development of Composite Indexes for the Measurement and Monitoring of the Quality of European Societies’’ (CSO2012-35032).
References Arulampalam, W., Booth, A. L., & Bryan, M. L. (2004). Training in Europe. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2(2–3), 346–360. Arulampalam, W., Booth, A. L., & Bryan, M. L. (2007). Is there a glass ceiling over Europe? Exploring the gender pay gap across the wage distribution. Industrial and Labor Relation Review, 60(2), 163–186. Baranowska-Rataj, A., & Unt, M. (2012). Is it worth becoming an engineer in central and eastern Europe? The evidence from Poland and Estonia. European Sociological Review, 28(6), 717–728. Barone, C., (2012). Some things never change. Gender segregation in higher education across eight nations and three decades. Sociology of Education, 84(2), 157–176. Bericat, E., (2012). The European gender equality index: Conceptual and analytical issues. Social Indicators Research, 108, 1–28. Bericat, E., (2015). The subjective well-being of working women in Europe. In M. Connerley & J. Wu (Eds.), Handbook on well-being of working women. The quality of life research series. Berlin: Springer.
123
E. Bericat, E. Sa´nchez Bermejo Bericat, E., & Camarero, M. (2012). Three types of social indicators systems, In Social Reporting in Europe 2012, Villa Vigoni Conference. Available at: http://www.gesis.org/soziale-indikatoren/ veranstaltungen/villa-vigoni-2012/ Bericat, E., & Sa´nchez, E. (2008). Balance de la desigualdad de ge´nero en Espan˜a. Un sistema de indicadores sociales, Actualidad 23: 4–29. Sevilla, Fundacio´n Centro de Estudios Andaluces. Bettio, F., Plantenga, J., & Smith, M. (Eds.). (2013). Gender and the European labour market. London: Routledge. Bettio, F., & Solera, C. (2013). Women’s continuous careers in Italy: The education and public sector divide. Population Review, 52, 1. doi:10.1353/prv.2013.0007. Bettio, F., & Verashchagina, A. (2009). Gender segregation in the labour market. Root causes, implications and policy responses in the EU. European Commission. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Blau, F., & Kahn, L. M. (2003). Understanding international differences in the gender pay gap. Journal of Labor Economics, 21(1), 106–144. Booth, A., & Van Ours, J. (2008). Job satisfaction and family happiness: The part-time work puzzle. Economic Journal, 118(526), F77–F99. Charles, M., & Bradley, K. (2002). Equal but separate? A cross-national study of sex segregation in higher education. American Sociological Review, 67(4), 573–599. Dahlerup, D. (2007). Electoral gender quotas: Between equality of opportunity and equality of result. Representation, 43(2), 73–92. Davoine, L., Erhel, C., & Guergoat-Lariviere, M. (2008). Monitoring quality in work: European employment strategy indicators and beyond. International Labour Review, 147(2–3), 163–198. Delgado-Ma´rquez, B. L., Ramı´rez-Gonza´lez, V., & Lo´pez-Carmona, A. (2013). Ensuring parliamentary gender equality through a new zipper method: An application to Finland. Social Indicators Research,. doi:10.1007/s11205-013-0301-3. EIGE. (2013). Gender equality index—report. Vilna, European Institute of Gender Equality. Available at: http://eige.europa.eu/content/document/gender-equality-index-report Esping-Andersen, G. (2009). The incomplete revolution. Adapting to women’s new roles. Cambridge: Polity Press. Eurofound. (2007). Working conditions in the European Union: The gender perspective. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union Eurofound. (2009). Women managers and hierarchical structures in working life. Dublin, Eurofound Eurofound. (2010). Addressing the gender pay gap: Government and social partner actions. Dublin, Eurofound Eurofound. (2013). Women, men and working conditions in Europe. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg European Commission. (2004–2011). Report on equality between women and men. Annual Reports. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/document/index_en.htm#h2-2 European Commission. (2010a). A strengthened commitment to Equality between Women and Men. A women’s charter. Communication from the Commission of 5 March 2010 (COM(2010) 78 final). Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/president/news/documents/pdf/20100305_1_ en.pdf European Commission. (2010b). Strategy for equality between women and men 2010–2015, Brussels, 21.9.2010 (COM(2010) 91 final). Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/document/ index_en.htm European Commission. (2010c). More women in senior positions – Key to Economic stability and growth. Luxembourg, Publication Office of the European Union. European Commission. (2011a). Report on progress on equality between women and men in 2010. The gender balance in business leadership. Luxembourg, Publication Office of the European Union European Commission. (2011b). Progress towards the common European objectives in education and training. Indicators and benchmarks—2010/2011. Commission Staff working Document. Brussels: European Commission. European Commission. (2012). Women in economic decision-making in the EU: Progress report. Luxembourg, Publication Office of the European Union European Commission. (2013). The impact of the economic crisis on the situation of women and men and on gender equality policies. Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union European Commission. (2014). A New Method to Understand Occupational Gender Segregation in European Labour Markets. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union
123
Structural Gender Equality in Europe and Its Evolution Over the… European Union. (2000). Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union (2000/C 364/01), 7 December 2000, Official Journal of the European Communities, 18 December 2000. Available at: http:// www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf Eurydice. (2007). Key data on higher education in Europe, 2007. Luxembrug, European Commission, Eurydice, Eurostat Eurydice. (2012). Key data on education in Europe, 2012. Brussels, European Commission, Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency Frias, S. (2008). Measuring structural gender equality in Mexico: A state level analysis. Social Indicators Research, 88, 215–246. Goldin, C. (2006) ‘‘The quiet revolution that transformed women’s employment, education, and family’’. NBER Working Paper Series, working paper 11953. Gundert, S., & Mayer, K. U. (2012). Gender segregation in training and social mobility of women in West Germany. European Sociological Review, 28(1), 59–81. Hausmann, R., Tyson, L. D., Bekhouche, Y., & Zahidi, S. (2014). The global gender gap report, 2014. Geneva: World Economic Forum. Hochschild, A. R. (1989). The second schift. New York: Penguin Books. Kuperus, H., & Rode, A. (2008). Top public managers in Europe. Maastricht: European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA). McDaniel, A. E. (2012) Three essays on cross-national gender gaps in education. Dissertation Abstracts International. Available at: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/osu1313449850/inline McDaniel, A. E., & Buchmann, C. (2010) Gender Inequalities in Higher Education: Trends and Prospects from a Cross-National Perspective. International Sociological Association. Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffman, A. and Giovennini, E. (2008) Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide, OECD and European Commission. OECD. (2010). How good is part-time work, In OECD employment outlook 2010: Moving beyond the jobs crisis. Paris, Chapter 4, pp. 211–266 OECD. (2012). Closing the gender gap: Act now, OECD Publishing. Available at: doi: 10.1787/ 9789264179370-en OECD. (2015). Education at Glance. Interim Report: Update of Employment and Educational Attainment Indicators. OECD Publishing OECD. (2103). Education at Glance 2013. OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing. OECD. (2104a). Education at Glance 2014. OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing. OECD. (2104b). Women, Government and policy making in OECD Countries—fostering diversity for inclusive growth. OECD Publishing. Ogburn, W. F. (1935). Indexes of social trends and their fluctuations. American Journal of Sociology, 40(6), 826–828. Perales, F. (2014). Why do men and women still work in different occupations? A test of human capital and socialization theories. In A. Tavidze (Ed.), Progress in economic research (Volume 29) (pp. 171–207). New York: Nova Science Publishers. Plantenga, J., Remery, Ch., Figueiredo, H., & Smith, M. (2009). Towards a European union gender equality index. Journal of European Social Policy, 19(1), 19–33. Smyth, E. (2005). Gender differentiation and early labour market integration across Europe. European Societies, 7(3), 451–479. Sparreboom, Th. (2014). Gender equality, part-time work and segregation in Europe. International Labour Review, 153(2), 245–268. Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J.-P. (2009) Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. Paris. European Commission. http://www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/ documents/rapport_anglais.pdf Sugarman, D. B., & Straus, M. A. (1988). Indicators of gender equality from American states and regions. Social Indicators Research, 20, 229–270. UNDP. (2013). Human development report 2013. New York: United Nations Development Programme. Valentova, M., Krizova, I., and Katrnak, T. (2007) ‘‘Occupational Gender Segregation in the light of the Segregation in Education: A Cross-National Comparison, IRISS Working Paper 2007–2004. Verloo, M., & Lombardo, E. (2007). Contested gender equality and policy variety in Europe: Introducing a critical frame analysis approach. In M. Verloo (Ed.), Multiple meanings of gender equality: A critical frame analysis of gender policies in Europe. Budapest: Central European University Press. Weber, M. (1979). Economı´a y sociedad. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Econo´mica. Yllo¨, K. (1984). The status of women, marital equality, and violence against wives. A contextual analysis. Journal of Family Issues, 5(3), 307–320. Zahidi, S., & Ibarra, H. (2010). The corporate gender gap report 2010. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
123