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

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

Earned Income Labour Market Participation Hybrid

GDI = (life expectancy, education, earned income)

RSW = (education, life expectancy, earned income)

SIGE = (education, life expectancy, share in higher occupations/positions, share in parliament)

GGI = (economic participation, education, political empowerment, health and survival)

GGM = (labour force participation rates, education, life expectancy)

GII = (reproductive health, empowerment, labour force participation)

GEI = (education, economic participation [% of women in total paid job, ratio of female income to male income], empowerment)

GSI (AGDI) = (social power, economic power [wages and other income, time-use, employment, employment in management, access to resources], political power)

GEM = (representation in senior positions in the economy, power over economic resources [earned income], political representation)

GEM3 = (parliamentary representation, economic participation in leadership positions, income shares)

Note: Sources of IndicesGDI, GEM, GII – UNDPRSW, SIGE – DjikstraGGM, GEM3 – Klasen/SchülerGEI – Social WatchGGI – World Economic Forum GSI (AGDI) – UNECA

Global Employment Trends for Women 2012The report examines the conditions of women’s engagement in the labour market, by analysing the gender gaps for five indicators.

• UnemploymentEconomic indicator of registered distress in the labour market

• Employment-to-population ratioAssessment 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

Positive gender gap indicates that women are disadvantaged. Closing the gap, convergence, means moving towards zero.

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

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 201710

30

50

70

90

110

130

150

170

190

210

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0 Male unemployment Female unemployment Male unemployment rate Female unemployment rate

Une

mpl

oym

ent (

mil

lion

s) Unem

ployment rate (%

)

0.5 pp

Note: 2012 are preliminary estimates and 2013 onwards are preliminary projections.Source: ILO, Trends econometric models, July 2012.

0.7 pp

• 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

Figure: Global female and male unemployment, 2002-2017

1. Gender gap in unemployment

1. Gender gap in unemployment: regional variation

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

South Asia

Sub-Saharan Africa

South-East Asia & the Pacific

Central & South-Eastern Europe (non-EU) & CIS

Developed Economies & European Union

East Asia

Gen

der

gap

in u

nem

ploy

men

t rat

e (p

er-

cent

age

poin

ts)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20122.5

4.5

6.5

8.5

10.5

12.5

North Africa

Middle East

Latin America & the Carib-bean

Gen

der

gap

in u

nem

ploy

men

t rat

e (p

erce

ntag

e po

ints

)

Note: 2012 are preliminary estimates.Source: ILO, Trends econometric models, July 2012.

Regions with low gender gaps in unemployment rate

Regions with high gender gaps in unemployment rate

Before Crisis (2002-2007)

• 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

Impact of Crisis (2008-2012)

• 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

Figure: Gender gap in unemployment rate by region, 2000-2012

 Male employment-to-population ratio (%)

Female employment-to-population 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

Table: Gender gap in employment-to-population ratios, 2002, 2007 and 2012

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 pointsDecrease seen in… - Developed Economies & EU - Middle East- South-East Asia & the Pacific - North Africa- Latin America and the Caribbean - Sub-Saharan Africa

• Impact of crisis (2008-2012): increase in global gap by 0.2 percentage pointsIncrease seen in… - Central & South-Eastern Europe (non-EU) and CIS - South Asia - East Asia - Middle East

→ Can be explained by employment growth rates by gender

2. Gender gap in employment

 Average over the period: 1992–2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012*

Average over the period: 2013–17*

Employment growth, male (%)                WORLD 1.6 1.8 1.3 0.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3Developed Economies and European Union 0.6 1.3 0.3 -3.1 -0.4 0.5 0.3 0.5Central and South-Eastern Europe (non-EU) and CIS 0.3 2.2 1.4 -1.5 1.8 1.8 1.0 0.3East Asia 1.1 1.2 0.1 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.5South-East Asia and the Pacific 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.7 2.3 2.0 1.5 1.4South Asia 2.2 1.8 1.8 1.4 1.6 2.0 1.9 1.8Latin America and the Caribbean 2.0 1.9 2.2 0.1 2.4 1.4 1.5 1.4Middle East 3.5 4.0 2.4 4.2 3.8 3.0 2.6 2.2North Africa 2.7 2.4 2.9 2.4 2.3 1.2 1.8 1.9Sub-Saharan Africa 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.0 3.0

Employment growth, female (%)                WORLD 1.8 1.6 0.9 0.4 1.0 1.4 1.3 1.2Developed Economies andEuropean Union 1.1 1.6 1.1 -1.1 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.4Central and South-Eastern Europe (non-EU) and CIS 0.3 2.1 0.8 -0.7 1.3 1.6 0.8 0.3East Asia 1.2 1.2 -0.2 0.6 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.1South-East Asia and the Pacific 1.9 3.1 2.6 1.7 2.0 2.1 1.6 1.5South Asia 2.6 -1.1 -1.1 -1.3 -1.9 2.5 2.3 2.1Latin America and the Caribbean 3.7 3.3 2.8 1.4 3.4 2.0 2.3 2.1Middle East 6.2 3.1 -1.9 3.9 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.6North Africa 3.2 8.6 2.9 2.1 3.3 -0.3 2.7 3.1Sub-Saharan Africa 3.3 2.8 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.9

Table: Global and regional employment growth rates by sex

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

2. Gender gap in employment

3. Gender gap in Labour force participation

Female, 1992Female, 2012

Male, 2012

Male, 1992

n=178

Inci

den

ce

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.010.0 30.0 50.0 70.0 90.0

Labour force participation rate (%)

Figure: Distribution of female and male labour force participation rates, 1992 and 2012

Note: n=number of countries; 2012 are preliminary projections.Source: ILO, EAPEP, 6th edition (July 2012 update).

In the long term, the global gender gap in labour force participation shows convergence in the last two decades.

 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

Table: Gender gap in labour force participation rate, by region, 2002, 2007 and 2012

Note: 2012 are preliminary estimates; the gap equals the difference between male and female ratios. Source: ILO, Trends econometric models, July 2012.

However, all the convergence progress was made in the first decade, 1990s.

• 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 variationDecrease seen in… - Developed economies & EU- South-East Asia and the Pacific- Latin America and the Caribbean- Middle East- North Africa- Sub-Saharan Africa

3. Gender gap in Labour force participation

Increase(reversal) seen in…- 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

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.

3. Gender gap in Labour force participation

Persistent differentials in the quality of employment

: vulnerability and segregation

4. Gender Difference in vulnerability

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

Cent

ral &

Sou

th E

aste

rn E

urop

e (n

on-E

U) &

CIS

Sout

h As

iaN

orth

Afr

ica

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

48.6

48.2

83.7

89.8

76.4

79.0

52.6

46.9

38.6

33.2

23.4

15.8

62.4

64.9

68.1

57.3

55.1

42.0

28.6

14.7

39.5

25.5

10.3

6.3

18.6

14.6

35.8

21.5

46.6

30.1

64.2

44.5

27.6

23.7

22.5

19.0

24.0

22.0

50.4

44.7

8.6

25.0

0.7

2.1

2.1

5.4

9.1

30.5

11.7

35.5

10.9

38.9

4.0

8.6

4.3

22.7

8.1

33.7

19.2

39.7

Wage and salaried workers (%) Own-account workers (%) Contributing family workers (%)Figure: Share of status in total employment by region and sex, 2012

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.

• Big regional differences in vulnerable employment gap

Gap > 15 percentage points- North Africa- Middle East- Sub-Saharan Africa

Gap < 10 percentage points- East Asia- South Asia- South-East Asia and the Pacific

Share of women in vulnerable employment lower than men’s- Developed Economies & EU- Central & South-Eastern Europe and CIS

• Decomposition of vulnerable employment

- 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 women

In 2012, vulnerability gaps are still pervasive, with a global gender gap at 2 percentage points.

5. Gender segregation: Sectoral

  Agriculture Industry Services Both sexes 1992 2002 2012p 1992 2002 2012p 1992 2002 2012p WORLD 44.2 39.7 34.2 21.1 20.2 22.1 34.7 40.0 43.7 Developed Economies & European Union 6.6 5.0 3.8 30.5 26.3 21.9 62.9 68.7 74.3 Central & South-Eastern Europe (non-EU) & CIS

25.4 23.3 19.6 26.6 25.0 26.6 48.0 51.7 53.8

East Asia 55.8 47.6 35.1 23.1 22.4 28.4 21.1 30.1 36.5 South-East Asia & the Pacific 58.4 48.2 43.1 13.7 17.3 18.5 27.9 34.5 38.4 South Asia 62.1 57.0 50.9 15.4 17.0 21.0 22.5 26.1 28.0 Latin America & the Caribbean 24.7 19.6 16.0 22.3 21.5 21.8 53.0 58.8 62.2 Middle East 23.0 21.9 16.7 24.1 24.6 25.6 52.9 53.5 57.7 North Africa 35.9 30.4 30.2 19.0 19.0 21.5 45.1 50.6 48.3 Sub-Saharan Africa 67.2 65.7 62.2 8.3 8.0 8.6 24.5 26.3 29.3  Agriculture Industry Services Males 1992 2002 2012p 1992 2002 2012p 1992 2002 2012p WORLD 41.2 37.5 32.8 24.6 23.9 25.9 34.2 38.6 41.3 Developed Economies & European Union 7.2 5.7 4.5 39.0 35.6 31.3 53.8 58.7 64.2 Central & South-Eastern Europe (non-EU) & CIS

26.6 23.5 19.0 32.2 30.7 33.3 41.2 45.8 47.7

East Asia 47.7 41.0 31.8 26.7 25.9 31.4 25.6 33.1 36.8 South-East Asia & the Pacific 56.9 47.4 42.3 15.3 19.5 21.0 27.8 33.1 36.7 South Asia 56.3 51.0 44.3 16.9 18.5 23.1 26.8 30.5 32.6 Latin America & the Caribbean 29.1 24.4 20.7 26.6 26.0 27.7 44.3 49.5 51.5 Middle East 21.2 19.3 14.0 25.9 26.8 28.1 52.9 53.9 57.9 North Africa 34.6 31.4 29.8 21.0 20.6 24.5 44.3 48.0 45.8 Sub-Saharan Africa 64.4 65.2 61.8 10.4 9.8 10.5 25.2 25.1 27.7  Agriculture Industry Services Females 1992 2002 2012p 1992 2002 2012p 1992 2002 2012p WORLD 48.8 43.2 36.4 15.7 14.7 16.2 35.4 42.1 47.4 Developed Economies & European Union 5.9 4.2 3.0 19.0 14.5 10.6 75.0 81.4 86.4 Central & South-Eastern Europe (non-EU) & CIS

23.9 23.0 20.3 19.8 18.2 18.3 56.3 58.9 61.4

East Asia 65.6 55.5 39.0 18.7 18.0 24.8 15.7 26.5 36.2 South-East Asia & the Pacific 60.5 49.4 44.2 11.6 14.3 15.1 27.9 36.3 40.7 South Asia 77.0 71.9 68.9 11.8 13.1 15.4 11.3 15.0 15.8 Latin America & the Caribbean 16.2 11.9 9.0 14.2 14.2 13.3 69.6 73.9 77.7 Middle East 36.2 35.2 30.3 11.1 13.3 13.0 52.8 51.4 56.7 North Africa 40.6 26.4 31.8 11.4 12.7 11.2 48.0 60.9 57.0 Sub-Saharan Africa 70.8 66.3 62.5 5.6 6.0 6.3 23.6 27.7 31.2

Table: Employment shares by sector and sex, world and regions (%)

Source: ILO, Trends econometric models, July 2012.

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.

Sectoral segregation increased over time, with women moving into service sectors, in both developed and developing countries.

5. Gender segregation: Occupational

-15.0

-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

European economies Developing economies

Dif

fere

nce (

male

min

us

fem

ale

) in

av

era

ge s

hare

s o

f

majo

r o

ccu

pati

on

al

gro

up

s (p

erc

en

tag

e p

oin

ts)

Figure: Differences in average shares of major occupational groups by sex in selected developed and developing economies, latest year available after 2000

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.

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.