Why do governance indicators need to be gender-sensitive in order to be pro-poor? To what extent are existing indicators of governance gender-sensitive and pro-poor? This paper for the UNDP Oslo Governance Centre and the Indian Council for Social Science Research argues that existing governance indicators are neither pro-poor nor gender sensitive.
Women comprise slightly over half the population and considerably more than half the poor in most countries. They play strategic roles in both supply and demand sides of poverty eradication strategies, and their contribution to household income is critical to the welfare of poor families. Gender-sensitive governance is therefore a prerequisite for good governance. However, a survey of 34 governance indicators shows that none were clearly pro-poor and only five related to gender. The study finds that existing indicators:
- Do not disaggregate data by sex to reveal gender differences
- Do not disaggregate data by socio-economic status to identify the disadvantaged position of the poor
- Are based on experiences and situations that are not relevant to the majority of women or the poor
- Are mainly used at the international level by international bodies and agencies of first world governments. Citizens are not primary users.
Governance indicators need to incorporate the situation and needs of users, especially women and the poor, into their design in order to contribute directly to participation and accountability. Building the capacity of users should be given equal priority to technical aspects of indicator development. Separate gender indicators are inadequate. Governance indicators across all practice areas need to be gender-sensitive. Specific policy-relevant recommendations are:
- Disaggregation of data by sex and socio-economic status is a prerequisite for indicators to be relevant to poverty reduction policies
- Gender sensitive budgeting, gender sensitivity training and awareness programmes, affirmative action quotas, anti-discrimination legislation (and number of cases brought under this), employment and land ownership by sex are suggested output/process indicators for gender sensitive governance
- Ratios of women to men in national and local government, the civil service, as voters, and accessing civil courts/legal aid, prevalence measures of domestic violence, women’s satisfaction with public services, and separate gender indicators are suggested outcome/impact indicators for gender sensitive governance
- Participatory budgeting, participatory poverty assessments as part of PRSPs, civic and voter education programmes targeting the poor and vulnerable, affirmative action programmes for the poor in the civil service are suggested as output process indicators for pro-poor indicators
- Public expenditure on health, education, and transport as shares of GDP, availability and cost of basic services, corruption issues relating to basic services are suggested outcome/impact indicators for pro-poor indicators
