However, gender gaps in access to formal employment and market income still persist in Brazil. The proportion of women with formal jobs increased from 41.5 percent in 1999 to 48.8 percent in 2009, but it is still lower than that of employed men, which stood at 53.2 percent in 2009. At the same time, women in formal sector employment work less than men–an average of 36.5 hours a week in 2009, against 43.9 hours for men. Even though there has been progress in the share of women employed in the non-agricultural sector, their comparative advantage in education has not been reflected in relative market wages–in spite of the average higher skill level of the female labor force. In 2008, women’s wages were 84 percent of men’s and the gap increases at higher levels of education.<sup>5</sup> Among those with 12 or more years of schooling, women earned merely 58 percent of men’s salaries. Brazilian women, even those working full time, continue to bear the brunt of time allocated to family chores (Bruschini (2007)); in 2008, they devoted an average of 25.1 hours per week to caring for their families and housekeeping, whereas men devoted an average of only 10 hours per week to such tasks. The unemployment rate for females consistently exceeds by an average of 4-5 percentage points the unemployment rate for males; the gap is up to twice as high for those aged 15-24. According to the Gender Inequality Index (GII) introduced by the United Nations, in 2011 Brazil’s rank is only 80 out of 187 countries, with a score of 0.449–same as in 2008.<sup>6</sup> The Gender Gap Index (GGI) developed by the World Economic Forum since 2006 gives similar results; in 2011 Brazil was ranked 82 out of 135 countries, with a score of 0.668–compared to 0.654 in 2006.<sup>7</sup>

> 5There are also considerable gender differences across regions. For instance, wage gaps tend to be lower in Rio de Janeiro than in Sao Paulo; the largest gaps are found in the Northeast. Note that these disparities are not unique to Brazil; see Ñopo (2012).

> 6On the GII index, see http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/gii/. The GII is a composite measure reflecting inequality in achievements between women and men in three dimensions: reproductive health, empowerment and the labour market. It varies between zero (when women and men fare equally) and one (when men or women fare poorly compared to the other in all dimensions). The health dimension is measured by two indicators: maternal mortality ratio and the adolescent fertility rate. The empowerment dimension is also measured by two indicators: the share of parliamentary seats held by each sex and by secondary and higher education attainment levels. The labour dimension is measured by women’s participation in the work force.

> 7On the GGI index, see http://www.weforum.org/. The GGI is designed to measure gender-based gaps in access to resources and opportunities in individual countries. The highest possible score is 1 (equality) and the lowest possible score is 0 (inequality). Beneria and Permanyer (2010) criticize the GGI for only capturing inequality in certain aspects of women’s lives therefore making it an incomplete measure of gender inequality. Their calculations suggest that the levels of gender inequality are mostly

6