1GzuFGC

Figure 1.5Ratio of the share of women to men of prime working age (20-59 years) in the poorest 20 per cent of householdsWomen are more likely than men to live in the poorest households in 41 out of 75 countriesWomen more likely than mento live in poor householdsWomen no more likelythan men to live in poorhouseholdsWomen less likely thanmen to live in poorhouseholds130120110Ratio100908070BurundiRwandaMalawiGabonDemocratic Republic of the CongoChadBurkina FasoNamibiaCameroonKenyaNigeriaZimbabweSudanUnited Republic of TanzaniaSwazilandBeninNigerEthiopiaTogoMaldivesIndiaMadagascarMozambiqueLebanonUgandaTunisiaGuineaMaliThe State of PalestineCentral African RepublicVanuatuCambodiaTimor LesteIraqTajikistanEquatorial GuineaAlbaniaNepalSenegalMauritaniaAzerbaijanSierra LeoneBangladeshComorosYemenMoroccoIndonesiaLiberiaBhutanEgyptJordanCote d’IvoireAfghanistanTurkeyGhanaZambiaPakistanMyanmarSomaliaUzbekistanViet NamArmeniaThailandSão Tomé and PríncipeRepublic of MoldovaBosnia and HerzegovinaKyrgyzstanUkrainePhilippinesMongoliaKazakhstanLesothoBelarusMontenegroSerbiaSource: UN Women calculations using latest available data from Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) and the Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS).Note: This indicator is weighted by the ratio of female to male aged 20-59 in all households to take into account the fact that women may be overrepresented in the entire population. See Annex 1for details. Values above 103 indicate that women are over-represented in the poorest quintile. Values below 97 indicate that men are over-represented in the poorest quintile. Values between 97and 103 indicate parity. ‘Poor households’ refers to the bottom 20 per cent of households, using the wealth asset index as a proxy measure in DHS and MICS.between the access to health services of thepoorest groups of women compared to womenfrom the better-off social groups.The picture is more positive with respect to wealthbasedinequalities in girls’ attendance in secondaryschool. The investments in education made sincethe adoption of the MDGs have contributed toreducing gender gaps in enrolment at both primaryand lower secondary levels in developing countries,although drop-out rates remain high in somecontexts, especially among girls. 96 There has alsobeen significant progress in reducing gender gapsin gross enrolment at the upper secondary level.These investments have narrowed the gaps ineducational attendance between rich and poor,but have not succeeded in closing them. Based ondata from 23 countries, Figure 1.6 shows that netattendance in secondary school was, in most cases,significantly lower for girls in the poorest quintile thanin the richest quintile in the early 2000s. 97 In almostall of these countries, wealth-based inequalities inattendance have narrowed over the past decade, butthey remain very significant in some. In Mozambique,for example, girls from the highest wealth quintilewere still 27 times more likely than girls from thepoorest wealth quintile to be attending secondaryschool in 2011, down from 47 times in 2003.