Undercurrent-Issue-Fall-Winter-2014-3

OVERALL FINDINGS" The conclusions drawn from both scores of the GDI and GEM in South Africa is that a largeestimated income gap does not play a significant role in the overall score. In the GEM the income gapappears to have little bearing on the calculation as South Africa still manages to score quite high. This isvery problematic when applying a measure that evaluates the wellbeing of women within a countrybecause a country can still score relatively high on GEM while having serious economic inequalitiesbetween men and women. The estimated income gap cannot be ascertained within this calculationunless the individual variables within the GEM are taken into account. Beteta reported a similarconclusion in the research on Barbados (2006, p. 223). She stated that, “high levels of gender equality interms of women in parliaments and in decision-making positions- it is ranked 24 in the 2004 HumanDevelopment Report – but where women are still the majority of the poor, female unemployment ratesare higher than those of males” (2012, p. 223).! By neglecting to account for the three separate variables used in the GEM formula one mightconclude, in the South African case, that women experience low levels of inequality since the countryranks fairly high out of all the countries ranked. This is not accurate because income disparity, high ratesof domestic violence and the high incidence of HIV/AIDS among women contradict the findings thatimply a high level of wellbeing. In the GDI, the income gap has a minimal impact on the calculationcompared to the GEM because the life expectancy is also fairly low. Due to the fact that two out of thethree variables score low, the overall GDI will decrease.CONCLUSIONS" This paper analyzed the strengths and limitations of the GEM and GDI in measuring thewellbeing of women in the context of South Africa. The analysis provided evidence that suggests thatthe application of these indices is problematic when studying the wellbeing of women for a number ofreasons. Specifically, it was demonstrated by the GEM and GDI scores that a country can experiencesignificant female income inequalities yet have a high overall GEM score and ranking with respect to thewellbeing of women. Subsequently, continued application of these indices for the purpose of measuringwellbeing is questionable since it produces an inaccurate perspective of the reality of women in thiscountry. Future research in this area should examine, in more detail, the direct effects of these indices inthe overall calculation and how the results can be corrected in order to produce a measure that is moreeffective in demonstrating an accurate status of the wellbeing of women in South Africa. In addition,increased attention should be given to developing additional indices that incorporate different variablesin order to more accurately measure the wellbeing of women. With respect to issue of limitedaccessibility for women to participate in national politics, it would be useful to examine how the GEMwould be impacted, when taking into account women’s participation in provincial and municipal levelpolitics.37