Abstract
The gaze of the reviewer of this article is that of a feminist economist whose knowledge mainly concerns Sweden and the European Union (EU) countries. From this standpoint, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Closing the Gender Gap: Act Now (henceforth Closing) can be welcomed as it brings together large amounts of useful, valuable, and interesting information. My main criticism is that there is a certain asymmetry of perception which means that (1) women are seen to need to progress, but not men and the corollary, that women should become more like men; (2) women are considered under-represented but men are not; (3) employment data mirror men’s occupations, which, for historic reasons, are much more detailed than women’s; and (4) women’s active participation in the advances toward gender equality is not sufficiently acknowledged.
Closing is grounded both in a discourse about gender equality as a social and democratic goal but also in a rather instrumental vision where gender equality in terms of female education, employment, and entrepreneurship risks becoming a means to reach economic ends. 1 Thus, the first paragraph of Closing states that gender equality is a moral imperative (p. 13). It is about fairness and equity and a key factor in self-reported well-being and happiness across the world. Nevertheless, instrumental reasons predominate, such as gender equality furthers economic growth, increases productivity, enlarges the talent pool, affords opportunities for businesses to expand, innovate, and compete, raises tax revenue and social security contributions as the population ages, and so on (e.g. p. 24). This instrumental vision results, unintentionally, in most of the recommendations being focused on women’s progress, while measures focusing on men are few and far between. It could be that policies aimed at men do not contribute to economic growth and productivity, as it is measured, to the same extent as policies aimed at women.
Another problem is that this instrumental vision implies that the recommended policy interventions entail making women behave more like men rather than changing the roles of both women and men in the labor market and in families. One such example is the calculation of the potential size of the labor force by narrowing the gender gaps in labor market participation, as well as the effect on economic growth of the closing of this gap (p. 26ff). In both cases, three scenarios are presented. In an all- male labor market participation rate remains constant, while women’s (to different degrees) increases. This will ceteris paribus increase economic growth, but it is not self-evident that women’s position is improved by working in the labor market as men, especially not if it is a question of low-paid, marginalized, low-quality, heavy employment in a country with long-hours culture. And if women work in the labor market like men and men continue as before, who is to care for the children and the increasing number of elderly? These questions are not answered in the report.
Considering the strong interconnection between paid and unpaid work and the importance of unpaid domestic and care work for gender inequality, the measures aimed at men taking greater responsibility in these fields are very limited. I believe there should be less focus on reconciliation of work and family – implicitly for women – and more on sharing of unpaid and paid work between women and men. In addition, little attention is paid to the growing number of domestic workers in the OECD countries, although the situation of informal domestic workers in other geographic areas is discussed. Increasing income differences between women and, in general, in OECD result in women at the lower end covering the household and care work deficit in wealthier families, while women at the upper end are employed in senior management in business and being on boards. Chapters 14 and 15 focus on how to promote the latter, while the precarious working conditions and low wages of informal domestic workers and migrant care workers in the OECD countries are omitted.
One key finding in Closing is that ‘Across the world gender gaps in education, employment and entrepreneurship are related to discriminatory social institutions, defined as laws, social norms and practices, which restrict the economic and social roles of girls and women’ (p. 31). The citation mentions girls and women, but not discriminatory social institutions which restrict boys and men. Moreover, it is predominantly women’s preferences and choices, attitudes toward women, and female stereotypes which seem to result in gender inequality, not men’s preferences, choices, attitudes toward men, and male stereotypes. Education in the OECD countries is one area where this perspective seems especially problematic.
Closing notes that boys are more likely than girls to drop out of secondary education, that young women are increasingly better educated than young men, and that if the trend continues, there will be an average of 1.4 female students for every male by 2025, and almost twice as many women in tertiary education in some countries (p. 100). But when gender differences in subject choices are discussed, it is women’s under-representation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics which is seen as the problem, not men’s under-representation in even more areas of study. For example, in all EU-25 countries, men are under-represented in teacher training and education science, humanities and arts, health and welfare, and social science, business, and law (European Commission, 2009). This is also the case in a majority of the countries in agriculture and veterinary studies and even in science, mathematics, and computing in some countries. 2 Engineering, manufacturing, and construction are the only male-dominated areas in all EU-25 countries. The situation is similar in many countries outside the EU – for example, certain Middle East and North African countries (p. 101ff). In other words, it is not only the under-representation of women, but also the under-representation of men in certain subject areas that reinforces gender stereotypes and hinders men from taking up employment in, for example, child, elderly, and health-care sectors. This leaves social care jobs as well as care work in the families to women (Fagan and Norman, 2013). Both boys and girls, young men as well as women should be encouraged to make nontypical educational choices.
Similarly when employment is examined, Closing maintains that ‘Women continue to choose different occupations from men’ (p. 153). However, it might be more valid to proclaim that men continue to choose different occupations from women. Women are making inroads into traditionally male occupations, while few men enter female-dominated occupations. In Sweden, for example, several occupations that were very male dominated in the 1960s are today female dominated: veterinary, optician, psychologist, journalist, physician, dentist, and biologist, or include a substantial share of women: university teacher, customs officer, postman, prosecutor, police, and chemist/physicist. However, the share proportion of men in traditionally female occupations such as nurses and preschool teacher has hardly changed at all. Gender stereotyping actually seems stronger when it comes to men entering female-dominated jobs than the other way around. Not only women but also men should be encouraged to make nontraditional career choices and be involved in making the social changes needed to achieve gender equality.
Closing mentions that ‘bringing gender issues into statistics is more complex than simply disaggregating data by sex’ (p. 43). This is well reflected in Closing’s statement that women’s employment is concentrated in fewer occupations than men’s (p. 153). One explanation for this could be that male-dominated occupations are much more diversified than female-dominated ones in the statistics. To take another example from Sweden, using the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO) 1988 and the EU-version ISCO-88 (COM): Occupational area 8, ‘Plant and machine operators and assemblers’, includes 66 different occupations (Löfström, 2004). 3 Occupational group number seven, ‘Craft and related traders workers’, includes 62 occupations. 4 These occupational areas are extremely male dominated. If these are compared to female-dominated occupational area five, ‘Service workers and shop and market sales workers’, the number of specific occupations is much fewer, 29. 5 This category includes ‘Personal care and related workers’, which contains six occupations. 6 These six very female-dominated occupations together accounted for almost as many employed as the 128 male-dominated occupations in occupational areas seven and eight (Löfström, 2004: 65). The occupational classification thus gives the impression that men are spread out, in this case, in 128 different occupations, while almost the same number of women crowd together in six occupations. Yet if the same classificatory principles were to be used within female-dominated occupational areas as within male-dominated ones, the number of ‘female occupations’ would increase considerably.
Closing also claims that ‘the considerable changes that have taken place in women’s and mother’s employment behavior in recent decades have led and not followed changes in policy and public opinion’ (Closing, citing Dex, 2010: 204, my italics). However, this is not the impression one gets when reading Closing. Women’s agency, voice, and collective actions are missing in the text. The impression is, instead, of policies leading and women following. For example, it is claimed that in the Nordic countries, child-care services were developed ‘as a deliberate effort to increase levels of female employment/ . . . /, as the Swedish example attests: their expansion during the 1970s contributed to a rise in female employment rates from 60% to over 80% (Box 18.4)’ (p. 211). However, if we examine Box 18.4, we find that in 1965 the share of women (aged 25–54 years) in employment was about 57%, while the share of children in formal child care was 3%. If we study only mothers of preschool children, which is more relevant, we find that in 1965, 36% of the mothers with preschool children were employed, while, as already mentioned, very few children were in formal child care, whereas in 1970 almost half of the mothers were employed while 9% of the children were in public child care (Nyberg, 2000). It actually was not until the beginning of the 2000s that the supply of formal child care more or less met demand (Nyberg, 2007). When individual mothers entered the labor market, they and women’s and feminist organizations made demands on formal child care, and in the case of Sweden the politicians listened to this demand and supplied formal child care; that is, women’s and mother’s employment behavior led rather than followed changes in policy. Of course, it is unlikely that a woman acting alone will attain gender equality, and even if the voices of women are organized they might not reach gender equality. Yet gender equality will not be reached without women’s individual and collective voices and agency, which should be recognized.