Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-07
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • The need for better measurement of gender empowerment cannot

    2019-06-24

    The need for better measurement of gender empowerment cannot be understated, given that 80% of indicators to monitor SDG5 lack adequate data, often because of an absence of valid measures. Although measures of gender empowerment are available, and more are being developed, there is no consensus on the best evidence measures, and certainly no standard. Debates continue on what constitutes gender empowerment (as a process and an outcome), how to measure it ion channel across domains such as economics and health, and even whether it can be accurately and comprehensively quantified without masking or negating nuanced and culturally or contextually specific gendered vulnerabilities. Although these points are reasonable and important, quantitative measures of empowerment can be useful, particularly if they enable international and subnational comparisons, if they are built on empirical evidence, and are supported by experts. Such measures can bring broader recognition of gender empowerment issues and track progress in improving them. Through its use of DHS, the most widely available gender empowerment data across low-income and middle-income countries since 1999, SWPER can fulfil a need in studies of women\'s empowerment. Although promising, SWPER has limitations, many identified by Ewing and colleagues. The index is not a comprehensive measure of empowerment and death rate is not a measure of empowerment as a process, which includes aspiration, voice, choice, and change. It is limited to DHS data available across nations, and was further restricted by principle component analysis to include only attitudes to intimate partner violence, social independence (indicated by education, media exposure, and ages at first birth and cohabitation), and decision-making control (inclusive of female employment). As in previous DHS analyses involving gender empowerment measures, the components of SWPER were differentially associated with key outcomes, and associations were not consistent across all countries, calling into question whether the index is a sufficiently robust measure. Important indicators of gender empowerment such as direct intimate partner violence experiences or control over assets (eg, land ownership, mobile telephone, bank account) could not be included, because their use is not standardised across countries using DHS. As inclusion of such variables expands, SWPER could be improved, although comparisons over time will not be possible before that inclusion.
    Lancet Glob Health —In this Comment, Ruqing Liu was incorrectly listed as Ruging Liu. The author list has been corrected as of July 26, 2017.