Five Gender Gaps
in the Labour Market
Moazam Mahmood
Director
Economic and Labour Market Analysis
Employment Policy Department
ILO
Economic Indicators used in Gender-related Measures
Earned Income
GDI = 𝑓 (life expectancy, education,
earned income)
RSW = 𝑓 (education, life expectancy,
earned income)
Labour Market Participation
SIGE = 𝑓 (education, life expectancy,
share in higher
occupations/positions, share in
parliament)
GEI = 𝑓 (education, economic
participation [% of women in total
paid job, ratio of female income to
male income], empowerment)
GGI = 𝑓 (economic participation,
education, political empowerment,
health and survival)
GSI (AGDI) = 𝑓 (social power,
economic power [wages and other
income, time-use, employment,
employment in management, access
to resources], political power)
GGM = 𝑓 (labour force participation
rates, education, life expectancy)
Note: Sources of Indices
GDI, GEM, GII – UNDP
RSW, SIGE – Djikstra
GGM, GEM3 – Klasen/Schüler
GEI – Social Watch
GGI – World Economic Forum
GSI (AGDI) – UNECA
Hybrid
GII = 𝑓 (reproductive health,
empowerment, labour force
participation)
GEM = 𝑓 (representation in senior
positions in the economy, power
over economic resources [earned
income], political representation)
GEM3 = 𝑓 (parliamentary
representation, economic
participation in leadership
positions, income shares)
Source: Klasen (2013)
•
-
Limitations
Measurement of income: wage income often not well-estimated, non-wage income almost
impossible to estimate especially in developing countries
Economic participation: limited representation of multiple dimensions (unemployment,
employment-to-population, labour force participation rates)
Not measuring the labour market correctly and sufficiently
Global Employment Trends for Women 2012
The report examines the conditions of women’s engagement in the
labour market, by analysing the gender gaps for five indicators.
• Unemployment
Positive gender gap indicates that women are disadvantaged.
Closing the gap, convergence, means moving towards zero.
Economic indicator of registered distress in the labour market
• Employment-to-population ratio
Assessment of employment growth rates and discouragement by gender
• Labour force participation
Demographic and behavioral indicator, indicating increase or decrease of different age groups to the
labour market
- Demographic change shows impact on the labour market, for example through more women in
younger age cohorts dropping out of the labour force for education.
- Behavioral change affects the labour market, for example by society and culture choosing to send
more of its working-age women into the labour market.
• Vulnerability
• Sectoral and occupational segregation
Economic indicators of
job quality
Data and Time period
-
For the economic indicators (unemployment, employment, vulnerability, and segregation)
the gaps are examined over the last decade, 2002-2012, with the focus on the crisis.
For the demographic and behavioral variable (labour force participation), gaps are examined
over the past two decades (1992-2012) as it moves more slowly.
Global findings
• Gender gap in unemployment
-
Constant in the period 2002 to 2007, but increased as an impact of the crisis
from 2008 to 2012
• Gender gap in employment
-
Convergence in the period 2002 to 2007, but reversals coinciding with the
period of the crisis from 2008 to 2012 in many regions
• Gender gap in participation
-
Convergence in the 90s but constant in the 2000, with increasing gaps in
some regions like South and East Asia, Central and Eastern Europe
Demographic and behavioral change adding, even over-riding, to the impact
of the crisis
• Gender gap in vulnerability, occupational segregation
-
Significant gap for 2012
• Sectoral segregation
-
Women crowding into service sector, in both developed and developing
countries
1. Gender gap in unemployment
Figure: Global female and male unemployment, 2002-2017
Male unemployment
Female unemployment
Male unemployment rate
Female unemployment rate
210
7.0
190
6.5
150
0.7 pp
130
6.0
110
0.5 pp
90
5.5
70
50
Unemployment rate (%)
Unemployment (millions)
170
5.0
30
10
4.5
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Note: 2012 are preliminary estimates and 2013 onwards are preliminary projections.
Source: ILO, Trends econometric models, July 2012.
• Before crisis (2002-2007): gap in unemployment rates constant at 0.5 percentage points
• Impact of crisis (2008-2012): increase of gap to 0.7 percentage points by 2012
(unemploying 13 million more women)
• Projections show no reduction by 2017
1. Gender gap in unemployment: regional variation
Figure: Gender gap in unemployment rate by region, 2000-2012
Before Crisis (2002-2007)
Regions with low gender gaps in unemployment rate
Gender gap in unemployment rate
(percentage points)
2.0
South Asia
1.5
Sub-Saharan
Africa
1.0
South-East Asia
& the Pacific
0.5
0.0
Central &
South-Eastern
Europe (nonEU) & CIS
Developed
Economies &
European Union
-0.5
-1.0
East Asia
• Downward trend in the positive gap
- Advanced economies
- North Africa
- South East Asia
- Sub-Saharan Africa
- South Asia
• Increase in the positive gap
- Middle East
• Negative gender gap
- Central and Eastern Europe
- East Asia
-1.5
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Impact of Crisis (2008-2012)
Regions with high gender gaps in unemployment rate
Gender gap in unemployment rate
(percentage points)
12.5
North Africa
10.5
8.5
Middle East
6.5
Latin America
& the
Caribbean
4.5
2.5
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Note: 2012 are preliminary estimates.
Source: ILO, Trends econometric models, July 2012.
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
• Reversal of convergence and
increase in positive gap
- South Asia
- South East Asia
- Africa
• Convergence towards zero
(from negative gaps)
- Advanced economies
- Central and Southern Europe
• Unaffected by the crisis
- Latin America and the Caribbean
- Middle East
- East Asia
2. Gender gap in employment
Table: Gender gap in employment-to-population ratios, 2002, 2007 and 2012
Male employment-topopulation ratio (%)
Female employment-topopulation ratio (%)
Gap
(percentage points)
Region
2002
2007
2012p
2002
2007
2012p
2002
2007
2012p
WORLD
73.3
73.5
72.7
48.6
49.0
47.8
24.8
24.6
24.8
Developed Economies & European Union
64.5
65.2
61.6
47.7
49.5
48.4
16.7
15.7
13.2
Central & South-Eastern Europe (non-EU) & CIS
61.3
63.0
64.7
44.4
45.2
46.0
16.9
17.8
18.7
East Asia
77.4
76.8
75.4
66.4
65.6
64.0
10.9
11.2
11.4
South-East Asia & the Pacific
78.0
77.7
78.3
54.7
55.1
56.0
23.3
22.6
22.3
South Asia
79.8
79.4
78.5
34.2
33.6
30.4
45.7
45.9
48.1
Latin America & the Caribbean
74.3
75.4
74.8
43.9
47.2
48.8
30.3
28.2
26.0
Middle East
66.3
67.1
68.2
13.7
15.1
15.3
52.6
52.0
52.8
North Africa
66.2
68.1
68.3
16.6
19.7
19.7
49.5
48.4
48.5
Sub-Saharan Africa
70.4
70.5
70.8
57.4
58.9
59.2
12.9
11.7
11.6
Note: 2012 are preliminary estimates; the gap equals the difference between male and female ratios.
Source: ILO, Trends econometric models, July 2012.
• Before crisis (2002-2007): slight decrease in global gender gap by 0.2 percentage points
Decrease seen in…
- Developed Economies & EU
- South-East Asia & the Pacific
- Latin America and the Caribbean
- Middle East
- North Africa
- Sub-Saharan Africa
• Impact of crisis (2008-2012): increase in global gap by 0.2 percentage points
Increase seen in…
- Central & South-Eastern Europe (non-EU) and CIS
- East Asia
- South Asia
- Middle East
→ Can be explained by employment growth rates by gender
2. Gender gap in employment
Table: Global and regional employment growth rates by sex
Average over
the period:
1992–2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012*
Average over
the period:
2013–17*
1.6
0.6
0.3
1.1
2.1
2.2
2.0
3.5
2.7
2.6
1.8
1.3
2.2
1.2
1.9
1.8
1.9
4.0
2.4
2.8
1.3
0.3
1.4
0.1
1.8
1.8
2.2
2.4
2.9
2.9
0.5
-3.1
-1.5
0.7
1.7
1.4
0.1
4.2
2.4
2.7
1.5
-0.4
1.8
1.0
2.3
1.6
2.4
3.8
2.3
2.8
1.5
0.5
1.8
0.7
2.0
2.0
1.4
3.0
1.2
3.0
1.4
0.3
1.0
0.7
1.5
1.9
1.5
2.6
1.8
3.0
1.3
0.5
0.3
0.5
1.4
1.8
1.4
2.2
1.9
3.0
1.8
1.1
0.3
1.2
1.9
2.6
3.7
6.2
3.2
3.3
1.6
1.6
2.1
1.2
3.1
-1.1
3.3
3.1
8.6
2.8
0.9
1.1
0.8
-0.2
2.6
-1.1
2.8
-1.9
2.9
3.0
0.4
-1.1
-0.7
0.6
1.7
-1.3
1.4
3.9
2.1
2.8
1.0
0.0
1.3
1.0
2.0
-1.9
3.4
5.0
3.3
2.7
1.4
0.3
1.6
0.5
2.1
2.5
2.0
4.5
-0.3
2.8
1.3
0.3
0.8
0.4
1.6
2.3
2.3
4.0
2.7
2.8
1.2
0.4
0.3
0.1
1.5
2.1
2.1
3.6
3.1
2.9
Employment growth, male (%)
WORLD
Developed Economies and European Union
Central and South-Eastern Europe (non-EU) and CIS
East Asia
South-East Asia and the Pacific
South Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean
Middle East
North Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
Employment growth, female (%)
WORLD
Developed Economies andEuropean Union
Central and South-Eastern Europe (non-EU) and CIS
East Asia
South-East Asia and the Pacific
South Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean
Middle East
North Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
Note: 2012 are preliminary estimates; 2013–17 are preliminary projections.
Source: ILO, Trends econometric models, July 2012.
• Before crisis: Higher employment growth rate for women(smaller base) of 1.8%, compared to men at 1.6%
→ Decreasing gender gap in employment-to-population ratio
• Impact of crisis: Fall of global female employment growth by more than men’s (especially South Asia)
→ Lower female growth rate for each year of the crisis up to 2012, and projected to continue
→ Increasing gender gap in employment-to-population ratio
In advanced economies, women’s growth rate was lower than men’s over 2011-2012, and projected through 2017
3. Gender gap in Labour force participation
Figure: Distribution of female and male labour force participation rates, 1992 and 2012
n=178
Male, 1992
Male, 2012
In the long term, the
global gender gap in
labour force participation
shows convergence in the
last two decades.
Female, 1992
0.0
10.0
20.0
Female, 2012
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Labour force participation rate (%)
Note: n=number of countries; 2012 are preliminary projections.
Source: ILO, EAPEP, 6th edition (July 2012 update).
80.0
90.0
100.0
3. Gender gap in Labour force participation
However, all the convergence progress was made in the first decade, 1990s.
Table: Gender gap in labour force participation rate, by region, 2002, 2007 and 2012
Male labour force
participation rate (%)
Female labour force
participation rate (%)
Gap (percentage points)
Region
1992
2002
2012p
1992
2002
2012p
1992
2002
2012p
WORLD
80.2
78.1
77.1
52.4
52.1
51.1
27.9
26.1
26.0
Developed Economies & European Union
71.8
69.4
67.5
50.3
51.7
52.8
21.5
17.7
14.7
Central & South-Eastern Europe (non-EU) & CIS
74.1
68.0
70.7
52.6
49.1
50.2
21.5
18.9
20.5
East Asia
84.2
81.4
79.4
71.4
69.1
66.4
12.8
12.4
13.0
South-East Asia & the Pacific
82.6
82.8
81.8
58.4
58.4
58.8
24.2
24.4
23.1
South Asia
84.8
83.3
81.3
36.1
35.8
31.8
48.6
47.5
49.5
Latin America & the Caribbean
82.5
80.3
79.5
43.5
49.6
53.6
39.0
30.7
25.9
Middle East
77.6
73.8
74.3
13.3
17.2
18.7
64.3
56.6
55.5
North Africa
74.4
74.1
74.3
21.8
21.2
24.4
52.6
52.9
49.9
Sub-Saharan Africa
79.0
76.5
76.3
60.3
63.5
64.6
18.6
13.0
11.8
Note: 2012 are preliminary estimates; the gap equals the difference between male and female ratios.
Source: ILO, Trends econometric models, July 2012.
• 1992 - 2002: Decrease in gap from 28% to 26% because male rates fell by more than women’s rates
Gap decreasing or constant in all regions
• 2002 - 2012: Constant gender gap because male and female rates fell equally, and regional variation
Decrease seen in…
Increase(reversal) seen in…
- Developed economies & EU
- South-East Asia and the Pacific
- Latin America and the Caribbean
- Middle East
- North Africa
- Sub-Saharan Africa
- South Asia: 2 percentage points
- Central & South-Eastern Europe (non-EU) and CIS: 0.6 percentage points
- East Asia: 0.6 percentage points
Account for the global halt in convergence
in the participation gaps
3. Gender gap in Labour force participation
Age cohort decomposition
•
•
-
In the 1990s, female labour force participation rate has been decreasing in
the last two decades for youth, and increasing for adults
In the 2000s,
Young female LFPR decreased in all regions
Adult female LFPR increased in all regions except East Asia, and South
Asia
Demographic changes and behavioral factors worked to reinforce the negative
impact of the crisis.
• Reversal of convergence in regions more hit by the crisis, such as the
advanced economies and Central and Eastern Europe, as well as regions
more hit by demographic and behavioral factors, such as South Asia and
East Asia
Further complexity:
• Increase in LFPR gaps can be due to a desirable: young girls leaving the
labour market for education.
• Decrease in LFPR gaps can be due to an undesirable: pervasive and
persistent poverty, not allowing an option of dropping out of work.
Persistent differentials in the quality
of employment
: vulnerability and segregation
4. Gender Difference in vulnerability
In 2012, vulnerability gaps are still pervasive, with a global gender gap at
2 percentage points.
Figure: Share of status in total employment by region and sex, 2012
World
Central &
Developed South
Economies Eastern
Latin
&
Europe
South-East
America &
European (non-EU)
Asia & the
the
Middle
Union
& CIS
East Asia Pacific South Asia Caribbean
East
North
Africa
SubSaharan
Africa
Wage and salaried workers (%)
F
Own-account workers (%)
14.7
M
44.7
39.7
28.6
50.4
F
42.0
19.2
22.0
M
24.0
57.3
M
8.1
19.0
22.7
68.1
F
22.5
64.9
M
15.8
M
44.5
4.0
38.9
64.2
33.2
M
35.5
38.6
46.6
46.9
M
11.7
21.5
30.5
52.6
F
35.8
9.1
79.0
M
14.6
76.4
89.8
M
48.2
M
48.6
0.0
20.0
10.3
25.5
60.0
0.7
25.0
39.5
40.0
2.1
6.3 2.1
83.7
F
• Decomposition of vulnerable
employment
5.4
18.6
F
Share of women in vulnerable
employment lower than men’sDeveloped Economies & EU
- Central & South-Eastern Europe and
CIS
10.9
30.1
F
Gap < 10 percentage points
- East Asia
- South Asia
- South-East Asia and the Pacific
8.6
27.6
23.4
F
4.3
23.7
62.4
F
Gap > 15 percentage points
- North Africa
- Middle East
- Sub-Saharan Africa
33.7
55.1
F
• Big regional differences in
vulnerable employment gap
Contributing family workers (%)
8.6
80.0
Note: 2012 are preliminary projections. The shares do not add up to 100 because the category for employers is not presented in the
figure for the sake of a clear presentation.
Source: ILO, Trends econometric models, July 2012.
- Share of own-account workers higher
for men in all regions
- Share of contributing family workers
higher for women in all regions,
leading to a higher dependency of
100.0 women
5. Gender segregation: Sectoral
Sectoral segregation increased over time, with women moving into service
sectors, in both developed and developing countries.
Table: Employment shares by sector and sex, world and regions (%)
Both sexes
WORLD
Developed Economies & European Union
Central & South-Eastern Europe (non-EU) & CIS
East Asia
South-East Asia & the Pacific
South Asia
Latin America & the Caribbean
Middle East
North Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
Males
WORLD
Developed Economies & European Union
Central & South-Eastern Europe (non-EU) & CIS
East Asia
South-East Asia & the Pacific
South Asia
Latin America & the Caribbean
Middle East
North Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
Females
WORLD
Developed Economies & European Union
Central & South-Eastern Europe (non-EU) & CIS
East Asia
South-East Asia & the Pacific
South Asia
Latin America & the Caribbean
Middle East
North Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
Agriculture
2002 2012p
39.7
34.2
5.0
3.8
23.3
19.6
47.6
35.1
48.2
43.1
57.0
50.9
19.6
16.0
21.9
16.7
30.4
30.2
65.7
62.2
Agriculture
1992
2002 2012p
41.2
37.5
32.8
7.2
5.7
4.5
26.6
23.5
19.0
47.7
41.0
31.8
56.9
47.4
42.3
56.3
51.0
44.3
29.1
24.4
20.7
21.2
19.3
14.0
34.6
31.4
29.8
64.4
65.2
61.8
Agriculture
1992
2002 2012p
48.8
43.2
36.4
5.9
4.2
3.0
23.9
23.0
20.3
65.6
55.5
39.0
60.5
49.4
44.2
77.0
71.9
68.9
16.2
11.9
9.0
36.2
35.2
30.3
40.6
26.4
31.8
70.8
66.3
62.5
1992
44.2
6.6
25.4
55.8
58.4
62.1
24.7
23.0
35.9
67.2
Source: ILO, Trends econometric models, July 2012.
1992
21.1
30.5
26.6
23.1
13.7
15.4
22.3
24.1
19.0
8.3
1992
24.6
39.0
32.2
26.7
15.3
16.9
26.6
25.9
21.0
10.4
1992
15.7
19.0
19.8
18.7
11.6
11.8
14.2
11.1
11.4
5.6
Industry
2002
20.2
26.3
25.0
22.4
17.3
17.0
21.5
24.6
19.0
8.0
Industry
2002
23.9
35.6
30.7
25.9
19.5
18.5
26.0
26.8
20.6
9.8
Industry
2002
14.7
14.5
18.2
18.0
14.3
13.1
14.2
13.3
12.7
6.0
2012p
22.1
21.9
26.6
28.4
18.5
21.0
21.8
25.6
21.5
8.6
2012p
25.9
31.3
33.3
31.4
21.0
23.1
27.7
28.1
24.5
10.5
2012p
16.2
10.6
18.3
24.8
15.1
15.4
13.3
13.0
11.2
6.3
Services
2002 2012p
40.0
43.7
68.7
74.3
51.7
53.8
30.1
36.5
34.5
38.4
26.1
28.0
58.8
62.2
53.5
57.7
50.6
48.3
26.3
29.3
Services
1992
2002 2012p
34.2
38.6
41.3
53.8
58.7
64.2
41.2
45.8
47.7
25.6
33.1
36.8
27.8
33.1
36.7
26.8
30.5
32.6
44.3
49.5
51.5
52.9
53.9
57.9
44.3
48.0
45.8
25.2
25.1
27.7
Services
1992
2002 2012p
35.4
42.1
47.4
75.0
81.4
86.4
56.3
58.9
61.4
15.7
26.5
36.2
27.9
36.3
40.7
11.3
15.0
15.8
69.6
73.9
77.7
52.8
51.4
56.7
48.0
60.9
57.0
23.6
27.7
31.2
1992
34.7
62.9
48.0
21.1
27.9
22.5
53.0
52.9
45.1
24.5
2012 snapshot
1/3 of women in agriculture, 1/2 in
service, and 1/6 in industry
Trends in the last two decades
- Industrial share of women has
barely changed: women moving out
of agriculture into services
- In advanced economies, women’s
employment in industry halved,
crowding 85% of them into services.
- In most developing economies,
women crowded out of agriculture into
services, with the exception of East
Asia where women’s employment in
industry went up to a quarter.
5. Gender segregation: Occupational
Occupational segregation also appeared quite pervasive over time.
• Men over-represented in craft and related trades workers, plant/machine operators, and managerial / legislative
occupations.
• Women concentrated in mid-skills occupations: clerks and service workers, and shop/market sales workers.
Figure: Differences in average shares of major occupational groups by sex in selected developed and developing
economies, latest year available after 2000
Difference (male minus female) in average shares
of major occupational groups (percentage points)
20.0
European economies
Developing economies
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
-5.0
-10.0
-15.0
Legislators,
senior officials
and managers
Professionals
Technicians and
associate
professionals
Clerks
Service workers
Skilled
Craft and related
and shop and agricultural and trades workers
market sales
fishery workers
workers
Plant and
machine
operators and
assemblers
Elementary
occupations
Note: The calculation of male–female differentials by occupation is as follows, using major group X: “share of persons employed in major group X in total
employment, males” minus “share of persons employed in major group X in total employment, females”. Hence, a positive differential implies that men tend to be
concentrated more in the specific occupation in comparison to women. The sample of developed economies comprises 25 countries, and the sample of developing
economies 24 countries.
Source: KILM, 7th edition, table 5a.