 in developing countries—leading to about 3.9 million “missing” women per year. About two-fifths are never born (due to son preference), a sixth die in early childhood, and over a third die in their reproductive years. And the problem is getting worse, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Big gaps remain also in access to economic opportunities and in voice. Around the world, women are far more likely than men to work as unpaid family laborers or in low-earning occupations, to farm smaller plots, and to manage smaller firms in less profitable sectors. So, almost everywhere, whether as workers, farmers or entrepreneurs, women earn less than men. Women have less say over decisions and less control over household resources than men do. And women’s representation in society, in business and in politics is significantly lower than men’s, with little differences between poor and rich countries. Less than 20 percent of seats in parliament around the world are held by women.
Redressing these gender disparities is smart economics. There is a growing body of careful micro-level studies that highlight the beneficial effects of closing these gender gaps. For example, improving women’s access to agricultural inputs in Burkina Faso would increase total household agricultural production by about 6 percent, with no additional resources—simply by reallocating resources such as fertilizer and labor from men to women. And in Malawi and Ghana equalizing access to fertilizers and other inputs between women and men farmers could increase maize yields by over a sixth. Similarly, eliminating barriers that discriminate against women working in certain sectors or occupations could increase labor productivity by as much as 25 percent across a range of countries. These productivity gains are likely to be even larger in a more globalized world where efficiency in the use of resources is essential to countries’ growth.
And gender equality matters for society more broadly. Empowering women as economic, political and social actors can make institutions more representative of a range of voices and change policy choices. In India, giving power to women at the local level led to increases in the provision of public goods, such as water and sanitation, which mattered more to women.
Gender equality can also help improve outcomes for the next generation. Women’s education and health have been linked to better outcomes for their children in countries as varied as Brazil, Nepal, Pakistan, and Senegal. In China increasing women’s income improved schooling for both boys and girls. Instead, a comparable increase in men’s income reduced educational attainment for girls.
So, what should policymakers do? The WDR 2012 identifies four priority areas: 1) addressing excess deaths of girls and women and eliminating gender gaps in education where these persist; 2) closing earning and productivity gaps between women and men; 3) giving women greater voice within households and societies; and 4) limiting the perpetuation of gender inequality across generations.
To be effective, policies need to target the root causes of these gaps. For some problems, as with high maternal mortality, this requires fixing the institutions that deliver services to expectant mothers—as Turkey did, targeting underserved women and areas. For other gaps, as with unequal access to economic opportunities, policies need to tackle the multiple constraints—in markets, in institutions and inside the household—that keep women trapped in low productivity/low earning jobs. This requires not just improving women’s access to productive resources, but also tackling information problems and institutional biases that work against women and lifting time constraints linked to care and housework.
What does this mean for the World Bank? These findings have implications for how the development community supports gender equality, starting with the Bank.
First, we need to enhance our country-level diagnostics so as to better inform country policy dialogue. The WDR 2012 shows that to understand gender outcomes we need to a