critical. In male‐dominated industries such as science and engineering, specific technical training is beneficial.<sup>81</sup>

- **Targeting training to those with binding constraints to acquire skills** . Training incentives are ineffective if targeted to those who would have acquired the same level of training without support. A 2003 OECD study suggests that incentives provided for firms to offer training are more likely to benefit workers in large firms, in high‐tech industries, and in industries where the number of competitors is limited. This means that benefits might not accrue to the types of female employees who could most benefit from training—including those in low‐skilled occupations, part‐time or temporary workers, or less‐educated workers.<sup>82</sup>

- **Identifying which actors can best provide training.** Firms can be incentivized to provide training directly, or can be incentivized to take advantage of employee training that is provided by the government, or by third parties (e.g. educational institutions). Since smaller firms may not be well equipped to offer training programs—apart from short‐term, on‐the‐job training—they may find that relying on government or third‐party training for their employees would be more impactful. For example, Malaysia incentivizes firms to offer training to women returning to the workforce, and training programs are overseen by a third‐party partner (see Country Example 4).

- **Offering certification and qualification programs that will ensure the quality of training programs** , and providing beneficiaries with a “portable” training certification that will be recognized across firms or sectors.<sup>83</sup>

# **3 Conclusions**

## **3.1 Summary of key findings**

Given the lack of rigorous, comparative evaluations of different incentive types, and country‐specific variations, it is difficult to provide prescriptive guidelines on which incentive types, or which combinations, may be more effective than others. Moreover, the various case studies highlight that these instruments are not “one size fits all” and no one tool can serve as a panacea to the social, legal, and cultural barriers that women face. The key premise, suggested through this paper, is to encourage policymakers to systematically think through the policy options for addressing gender inequality and to provide an initial framework for such an analysis in the context of investment incentives.

Incentives have the potential to create market inefficiencies and redundant outcomes and so their use should be limited to addressing clear and significant market failures or equity barriers, and providing societal benefits that outweigh private and social costs. The design of appropriate incentives will depend on the barriers that policymakers wish to address, which actors and outcomes are targeted, the approach to implementation, as well as country‐specific conditions or regional context. **Table 2** broadly summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of different types of incentive instruments, and includes general guidance on when to consider using each.

> 81 “Training Tool: Gender Equality,” (November 2013),

> http://hrbdf.org/upload/training/HRBDF_TrainingModule_Gender_EqualityHR_V20_090514.pdf.

> 82 Andrea Bassanini and Wooseok Ok, “How Do Firms’ and Individuals’ Incentive to Invest in Human Capital Vary across Groups?” (OECD, 2003), http://www.oecd.org/els/emp/34932778.pdf.

> 83 Bassanini and Ok.

23