Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694825161210.pdf (Georgia)
GENDER EQUALITY PROGRAMME June 2012 Gender Equality in Georgia on the Bases of International Indices and Ratings Nani Bendeliani Research Fellow Contents Gender Equality Indices of UN Human Development Report .................................................................. 3 Gender Gap Index (GGI) – World Economic Forum ............................................................................... 6 Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI), OECD .............................................................................. 16 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 23 About the Author .................................................................................................................................... 23 Bibliography: .......................................................................................................................................... 24 2 The report - Assessing the Gender Equality in Georgia on the Bases of International Indices and Ratings is a comprehensive evaluation of gender equality in Georgia from the multiple perspectives – based on different international agencies, methodologies and themes; It is focused on methodology to make the right interpretation of the data of the indices and ratings.
It reveals the most problematic areas and topics for further research and policy application and presents the country progress / drawbacks through the data available for multiple years.
Gender Equality Indices of UN Human Development Report1 • Gender and Development Index (GDI) GDI is a Human Development Index calculated for women; the conclusion on the gender inequality should be drawn through comparison of the GDI and HDI (Human Development Index) scores; It includes the following components: decent leaving standards (mean income), education (literacy and school enrolment), health (life expectancy).

According to GDI the gender inequality is not detected in Georgia in 90s.
• Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) GEM Measures women’s political and economic participation/decision-making and economic resources.

Indicators: MPs, the high-ranked officials, managers, legislators, technical/qualified workers and income.

GEM is calculated as a percentage of equivalents: in case of perfect equality the GEM score is 1 - 100%.

Georgia scores among 35% and 40.8% - this is a significant gender equality gap among women and men according to specified criteria of the index.
• Gender Inequality Index (GII) GII Measures inequality among women and men based on reproductive health, empowerment and the labor market; It ranges from 0 (women and men fare equally) to 1 (women fare as poorly as possible in all measured dimensions).

Georgia scored 0.597 according to 2010 report – this indicates the disadvantage of women according to specified criteria and is the worst score in South Caucasus region.

In 2011 the score improved to 0.418.


1 The data comes from the UN Human Development Reports and World Banks’ statistical data base.

For Detailed references, please refer to Bibliography.
3 Diagram 1.Gender Equality Indices of UN Human Development Report – Georgia Country Scores Gender and Development Index Gender Empowerment Measure Gender Inequality Index HDI 0.65 0.63 0.626 0.645 0.637 0.633 0.597 0.355 0.381 0.387 0.416 0.407 0.414 0.414 0.408 0.418 s e r o c S y r t n u o C 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 *The years on diagram refer to the period the UN Human Development Report was issued, not the time period of collecting the hard data; ** HDI and GDI are comparable with each other, the rest is not comparable; 4 Diagram 2.
Gender Equality Indices of UN Human Development Report – Georgia, Country Ratings Gender and Development Index Gender Empowerment Measure Gender Inequality Index 98 87 73 73 69 s g n i t a R 96 79 79 71 73 67 67 64 62 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 *The years on diagram refer to the period the UN Human Development Report was issued, not the time period of collecting the hard data; ** Each Human Development Report includes the different number of countries to calculate the country ratings; therefore, the ratings are not comparable through the years; 5 Gender Gap Index (GGI) – World Economic Forum2 The GGI is the most comprehensive index assessing gender equality in 135 countries worldwide (2011).
The scores reflect the ratios of women/men fare according to each criteria and indicator; Score 1 stands for perfect equality, 0 – for complete inequality.
It measures the gap among women and men according to four criteria:  Economic participation and opportunity (salaries, participation and highly-skilled employment)  Education (access to basic and higher education)  Political empowerment (representation in decision-making structures)  Health and survival (life expectancy and sex ratio) According to GGI, the overall rating of Georgia has worsened from the 54th place among 115 countries in 2006 to 86th place among 135 countries in 2011.
Gender Gap is almost closed according to Education Attunement and Health and Survival Criteria.

Yet, according to Health and Survival sex ratio of newborn girls/boys is unfavorable, indicating the possibility of selective abortions.

Economic Participation and Opportunities criteria demonstrate the considerable gender gap; yet, Georgia scores above the sample’s average, but the scores have not notably improved over time.
Political Empowerment is the most problematic criteria for Georgia, demonstrating that women in Georgia are scarcely represented in political decision-making structures, and the representation has decreased over time, while it increased in other countries of the world in average.

The criteria of GGI and the most problematic indicators are illustrated in following diagrams: 2 World Economic Forum.

Gender Gap Index, official website.


Available at: http://www.weforum.org/issues/global-gender-gap, (Accessed on 03.05.12.

12:00) 6 Diagram 3.
12:00) 6 Diagram 3.

Gender Gap Index (World Economic Forum) – Georgia, Country Rating 134 129 119 134 131 103 88 87 83 82 54 54 135 128 120 86 67 54 Number of Countries Included In Report Georgia’s Overall Rating Economic Participation and Opportunities Education Attainment Health and Survival Political Empowerment 115 115 59 54 41 28 140 120 100 g n i t a R 80 60 40 20 0 128 125 130 127 69 67 66 28 92 82 69 1 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 7 Diagram 4.
WEF Gender Gap Index – Rating and Score, Georgia 128 130 115 134 134 135 Georgia’s Rating Number of Countries Included in Report 82 83 88 86 g n i t a R 67 54 0.67 0.666 0.665 0.668 0.660 0.662 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Georgia’s Score Scale: 0=total inequality 1=total equality 8 Diagram 5.

Gender Gap Index – Economic Participation and Opportunities 0.675 0.675 0.672 The 2011 report score Indicates the difference among women and men according to economic Participation – the ratio is 40%/60%.
0.656 0.635 0.63 e r o c S 0.596 0.577 0.594 0.59 0.588 0.587 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Economic Participation and Opportunities – Sample Average Economic Participation and Opportunities - Georgia Scale: 0=total inequality 1=total equality 9 Diagram 6.
Gender Gap Index – Education Attainment 0.998 1.000 0.985 0.981 0.990 0.916 0.929 0.930 0.929 0.928 e r o c S 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 The 2011 report score Indicates the difference among women and men according to Education Attainment – the ratio is 48%/52%.

Education Attainment – Sample Average Education Attainment - Georgia Scale: 0=total inequality 1=total equality 10 Diagram 7.
Gender Gap Index – Health and Survival 0.973 0.958 0.958 0.96 0.955 0.956 0.948 0.944 The 2011 report score Indicates the difference among women and men according to Health and Survival – the ratio is 48.5%/51.5%.

0.939 0.939 0.933 e r o c S 0.923 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Health and Survival – Sample Average Health and Survival - Georgia Scale: 0=total inequality 1=total equality 11 Diagram 8.
GGI – Health and Survival, Sex Ratio at Birth 0.94 e r o c S 0.86 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Sex Ration at birth – Sample Average (Score) Sex Ratio at Birth - Georgia (Score) 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.90 Scale: 0=total inequality 1=total equality 0.89 Georgia’s Rating Percentage of newborn girls 115 46% 126 47 % 128 132 130 129 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 12 Diagram 9.
Gender Gap Index – Political Empowerment 0.179 0.185 0.163 0.169 0.138 0.142 0.104 0.104 e r o c S 0.088 0.073 0.039 0.039 The 2011 report score Indicates the difference among women and men according to Political Empowerment – the ratio is 4%/96%.

Political Empowerment – Sample Average Political Empowerment - Georgia Scale: 0=total inequality 1=total equality 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 13 Diagram 10.
GGI – Political Empowerment, Women in Parliament 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.19 e r o c S 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.05 86 9% 95 9% 100 9% 124 5% 118 7% 120 7% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Women in Parliament – Sample Average (Score) Women in Parliament - Georgia (Score) Scale: 0=total inequality 1=total equality Georgia’s Rating Percentage of Women in Parliament 14 Diagram 11.
GGI – Political Empowerment, Women in Ministerial Positions 0.29 0.29 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.18 e r o c S 0.13 Women in Ministerial Positions – Sample Average (Score) Women in Ministerial Positions – Georgia (Score) Scale: 0=total inequality 1=total equality 27 22% 27 22% 61 18% 63 18% 0.06 0.06 117 6% 118 6% Georgia’s Rating Percentage of Women in Ministerial Positions 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 15 Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI), OECD SIGI Measures the effect of social institutions on gender equality according to family code, civic liberties, physical integrity, son preference and ownership rights of women; the report is issued by the OECD, based on extensive qualitative and quantitative data.
Georgia was rated as 33rd out of 102 countries according to 2009 report3 and 60th among the 86 countries according to 2012 report4.

According to 2009 SIGI report, no influence of social institutions on gender equality is detected in Georgia, except the family code (early marriage indicator) and physical integrity criteria (indicator of violence against women).
On the other hand, according to 2012 report, influence of social institutions on gender equality in Georgia is detected according to all components of the index.

2009 report falls short to reflect the effect of institutions over Gender equality in Georgia - it measures formal, legislative indicators, not so relevant to the reality existing in Georgia, in 2012 report the indicators measuring the informal institutions were included in the index.
In addition, the indicators focused on legal environment in 2009 report, take into account the existing reality – for example, Freedom of Movement.
The 2009 report includes the components and indicators as follows: Family Code (Parental authority, Inheritance, Early marriage), Civil Liberties (Polygamy (acceptance / legality), Freedom of movement, Dress code in public), Physical Integrity (Female genital mutilation, Violence against women - legal indicator), Son Preference, Ownership Rights (Women´s access to land, Women´s access to loans, Women´s access to other property than land).
The components and indicators of SIGI 2012 report are: Discriminatory family code (Legal age of marriage, Parental authority, Inheritance, Early marriage), Restricted civil liberties (public space, political participation, political quotas), Restricted physical integrity (violence against women(laws), female genital mutilation, reproductive integrity, attitudes towards domestic violence, prevalence of domestic violence), Son Bias (fertility preferences, missing women), Restricted resources and entitlements (Access to land, Access to property other than land, Access to bank loans and credit).
Scale includes 0=no influence of social institutions detected; 1=social institutions influence the majority of women.

It should be mentioned, that Diagram 12 and Diagram 13 reflect the index component names according to 2012 report.

3 OECD (2009).

Social Institutions and Gender Index.

Available at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/49/39/42296064.pdf (accessed on 11.04.12.

14:15) 4 OECD (2012).

Social Institutions and Gender Index 2012: Understanding the drivers of gender inequality.
Available at: http://genderindex.org/sites/default/files/2012SIGIsummaryresults.pdf, (accessed on 18.06.12.

16:00) 16 Diagram 12.


Social Institutions and Gender Index (OECD), Georgia, Index scores Restricted resources and entitlements SON BIAS Restricted physical integrity Restricted civil liberties 0.1598 0.135 0.3863392 0 0 0 0.969879 0.7656 2012 2009 Discriminatory family code 0.0648481 0.3466 0.3382 Overall Score Scale: 0=No influence of social institutions detected 1=Social Institutes influence the majority of women 0.0306926 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 score 0.8 1 1.2 Diagram 13.
Social Institutions and Gender Index (OECD), Georgia, Ratings Restricted resources and entitlements SON BIAS Restricted physical integrity Restricted civil liberties 22 13 1 1 1 Discriminatory family code 17 Overall Rating 33 60 54 60 93 100 2012 2009 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Rating 17 Diagram 14.
Social Institutions and Gender Index, 2009 – Georgia’s Scores According to Specific Indicators Son Preference Women´s access to other property than land Women´s access to loans Women´s access to land Violence against women(legal indicator) Female genital mutilation Dress code in public Freedom of movement Polygamy (acceptance / legality) Early marriage (women) Inheritance Parental authority 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.75 0.16 Scale: 0=No influence of social institutions detected 1=Social Institutes influence the majority of women 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 Score 18 Diagram 15.
Social Institutions and Gender Index, 2012 – Georgia’s Scores According to Specific Indicators Access to bank loans and credit 0 Access to property other than land Access to land 0 fertility preferences missing women prevalence of domestic violence the assigned score is not visible attitudes towards domestic violence 0.069 reproductive integrity 0.163 female genital mutilation 0 violence against women(laws) political quotas 0.25 political participation 0.065693 public space Early marriage (women) 0.137 Inheritance Parental authority Legal age of marriage 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Scale: 0=No influence of social institutions detected 1=Social Institutes influence the majority of women 0.5 0.563482 0.416667 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 score 1 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Women’s Economic Opportunity Index, Economist Intelligence Unit 5 Women’s economic opportunity is defined as a set of laws, regulations, practices, customs and attitudes that allow women to participate in the workforce under conditions equal to those of men, as employees or as business owners.
Index is composed of following determinants: General Business Environment, Women’s Legal and Social Status, Education and Training, Access to Finance, Labor Policy and Practice.

0 stands for completely unfavorable environment and 100 stands for completely favorable environment.
Georgia has scored 54.5 according to 2012 report and 49.2 according to 2010 report and was rated as 59th in 2012 – the scores and ratings indicate the average, but improving situation according to the specified determinants of the index.
The argument of the legislative environment VS existing reality is relevant for this index, similar to SIGI: according to 2010 data, the legislation-related determinants score highest (legal and social status, labor policy), while practice falls short (access to finance, labor practice).

5 Economic Intelligence Unit.

Women’s Economic Opportunity Index.

New study spotlights opportunities and barriers for working women worldwide.
Available at: http://www.eiu.com/site_info.asp?info_name=womens_economic_opportunity&page=noads (accessed on 22.06.12.

12:30) Diagram 16.

Women’s Economic Opportunity Index (EIU), Rating and Score of Georgia Scale: 0=Completely unfavorable environment 100=Completely favorable environment 2012 59 out of 128 Rating 54.5 Score 2010 67 out of 113 Rating 49.2 Score 21 Diagram 17.
Woman’s Economic Opportunity Index (EIU) – Scores and Ratings of Georgia, 2010 2010 45 54 78 90 99 55 76 67 General Business Environment 56.3 Women’s Legal and Social Status 84.7 Education and Training Access to Finance Labor Practice Labor Policy Labor Policy and Practice Overall Score 52 15.6 22.6 64.3 43.4 49.2 0 20 40 Score 60 80 100 Georgia’s Rating 22 Conclusion Access to basic capabilities VS political and economic participation and decision-making: Gender inequality is irrelevant in terms of literacy, enrolment rates and life expectancy among women and men in Georgia; however, if variables related to the political and economic empowerment are included in the analysis, the gender inequality is significant.
Legislative environment VS practice: Indices/indicators measuring the formal, legislative environment score higher, than ones measuring the practice.

Potential research areas:  missing women (unfavorable sex ratio at birth);   structural violence: women’s physical integrity in Georgia; causes of very low level of women’s political empowerment;  diverse results on woman’s economic empowerment – improvements / drawbacks;  correlation among economic and political empowerment – is it happening?
About the Author Nani Bendeliani cooperates with CSS since 2007.

She is a CSS alumnus, graduate of MA programme in International Relations in 2005.

She obtained the MA degree in Development Studies specialized on economics of development from the Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam in 2011.

Currently she is a research fellow at the Education and Development program at the Center for Social Sciences.
23 Bibliography: Bhaskar, V. and Gupta, Bishnupriya (2007) India's development in the era of growth.

OXFORD REVIEW OF ECONOMIC POLICY, 23 (2).

pp.

135-142 Office of the Special Advisor on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women.

Gender Mainstreaming: Strategy for Promoting Gender Equality.

UN 2001 http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/pdf/factsheet1.pdf (accessed on 18.05.12/17:15) Economic Intelligence Unit.

Women’s Economic Opportunity Index.


New study spotlights opportunities and barriers for working women worldwide http://www.eiu.com/site_info.asp?info_name=womens_economic_opportunity&page=noads (accessed on 22.06.12.

12:30) Economic Intelligence Unit (2010).

Women’s economic opportunity 2010. http://graphics.eiu.com/upload/WEO_report_June_2010.pdf (accessed on 10.04.12; 17:00) Economic Intelligence Unit (2012).
Women’s economic opportunity 2012. http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/haciendayadministracionpublica/planif_presup/genero/documentacio n/Women_Economic_index2012.pdf (accessed on 10.04.12; 17:00) OECD (2012).

Social Institutions and Gender Index 2012: Understanding the drivers of gender inequality.

http://genderindex.org/sites/default/files/2012SIGIsummaryresults.pdf (accessed on 18.06.12.

16:00) OECD.

The Social Institutions and Gender Index, official website.
http://genderindex.org/country/georgia (accessed on 18.06.12.

16:00) OECD (2009).

Social Institutions and Gender Index.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/49/39/42296064.pdf (accessed on 11.04.12.

14:15) OECD Social Institutions and Gender Index.

OECD Official Website.

http://www.oecd.org/document/39/0,3746,en_2649_33935_42274663_1_1_1_1,00.html (accessed on 11.04.12; 14:15) World Economic Forum.

Gender Gap Index, official website.

http://www.weforum.org/issues/global-gender-gap (accessed on 03.05.12.
12:00) Hausmann, Ricardo, et al (2006).

The Global Gender Gap Report 2006.

World Economic Forum.

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2006.pdf (accessed on 19.05.12/16:00) Hausmann, Ricardo, et al (2007).

The Global Gender Gap Report 2007.

World Economic Forum.

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2007.pdf (accessed on 19.05.12/16:00) 24 Hausmann, Ricardo, et al (2008).

The Global Gender Gap Report 2008.

World Economic Forum.


http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2008.pdf (accessed on 19.05.12/16:00) Hausmann, Ricardo, et al (2009).

The Global Gender Gap Report 2009.

World Economic Forum.

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2009.pdf (accessed on 19.05.12/16:00) Hausmann, Ricardo, et al (2010).

The Global Gender Gap Report 2010.

World Economic Forum.

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2010.pdf (accessed on 19.05.12/16:00) Hausmann, Ricardo, et al (2011).
The Global Gender Gap Report 2011.

World Economic Forum.

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2011.pdf (accessed on 19.05.12/16:00) United Nations Development Programme (1995).

Human Development Report 1995.

Oxford University Press http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr1995/chapters/ (accessed on 28.02.12/12:00) United Nations Development Programme (1996).

Human Development Report 1996.


Oxford University Press http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr1996/chapters/ (accessed on 28.02.12/12:00) United Nations Development Programme (1997).

Human Development Report 1997.

Oxford University Press http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr1997/chapters/ (accessed on 28.02.12/12:00) United Nations Development Programme (1998).

Human Development Report 1998.


Oxford University Press http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr1998/chapters/ (accessed on 28.02.12/12:00) United Nations Development Programme (1999).

Human Development Report 1999.

Oxford University Press http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_1999_EN.pdf (accessed on 28.02.12/12:00) United Nations Development Programme (2000).

Human Development Report 2000.


Oxford University Press http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2000_EN.pdf (accessed on 28.02.12/12:00) http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/completenew1.pdf (accessed on 28.02.12/12:00) 25 United Nations Development Programme (2002).

Human Development Report 2002.

Oxford University Press http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2002_EN_Complete.pdf (accessed on 28.02.12/12:00) United Nations Development Programme (2003).

Human Development Report 2003.


Oxford University Press http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr03_complete.pdf (accessed on 28.02.12/12:00) United Nations Development Programme (2004).

Human Development Report 2004.

Hoechstetter Printing Co http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr04_complete.pdf (accessed on 28.02.12/12:00) United Nations Development Programme (2005).

Human Development Report 2005.


Hoechstetter Printing Co http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR05_complete.pdf (accessed on 28.02.12/12:00) United Nations Development Programme (2006).

Human Development Report 2006.

Palgrave Macmillan http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR06-complete.pdf (accessed on 28.02.12/12:00) United Nations Development Programme (2007).

Human Development Report 2007/2008.


Palgrave Macmillan http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_20072008_EN_Complete.pdf (accessed on 28.02.12/12:00) United Nations Development Programme (2009).

Human Development Report 2009.

Palgrave Macmillan http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2009_EN_Complete.pdf (accessed on 28.02.12/12:00) United Nations Development Programme (2010).

Human Development Report 2010.


Palgrave Macmillan http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2010/chapters/ (accessed on 28.02.12/12:00) United Nations Development Programme (2011).

Human Development Report 2011.

Palgrave Macmillan, 2011 http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2011/download/ (accessed on 28.02.12/12:00) 26 World Bank.

World Development Indicators Database http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators (accessed on April 2, 2012.

17:30) 27