With rigorous economic research and practical policy solutions, we focus on the issues and institutions that are critical to global development. Explore our core themes and topics to learn more about our work.
In timely and incisive analysis, our experts parse the latest development news and devise practical solutions to new and emerging challenges. Our events convene the top thinkers and doers in global development.
In many parts of the world, women and girls, and other marginalized groups including LGBT people are constrained by both social norms and legal barriers to equal participation in society and the economy. CGD work on rights and norms examines the two-way feedback loops between changing legislation and changing attitudes.
Globalization of the economic sort is often maligned. But then there is globalism: of norms, values, culture, and attitudes. Are norms and values, even “culture,” being globalized? Is the idea, for example, that women have equal rights, as in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), gaining ground as a universal norm? And might changing norms and values affect legal regimes and behavior (sometimes, maybe)?
The charts below show the results of questions posed to men and women in the (nationally representative) Demographic and Health Surveys starting in the early 2000s, which asked about what circumstances respondents believe might justify a husband beating his wife: when the wife burns the food? Argues with her husband? Goes out without telling him? Neglects the children? Refuses to have sex with him? Is too tired?
The first set of charts indicates the percentage of urban women interviewed who agreed that one or more of the reasons posed justifies wife-beating, for each of five regions and separately for Anglophone and francophone Africa. (We include only countries in which the questions were posed in at least two years. For rural women, the percentages are slightly higher and the trends very much the same, country by country.)
Figure 1. Percentage of respondents who agreed that one or more reasons justify wife-beating by husband.
In many countries surveyed, the absolute percentages of women are disturbingly high—except in Peru and Colombia, both upper middle income countries of Latin America where less than 5 percent of women see some justification for wife-beating. For the most recent survey years in other countries outside Latin America, levels range between 9.5 percent (the Philippines) and 89.5 percent (Guinea). In India and Bangladesh, it is hard to see a “good” downward trend from relatively high levels (see the chapter on meta-preference for sons in this latest economic report on the Indian economy). On the other hand, the trend is downward in Egypt and Jordan, in many countries of francophone Africa, and in most countries of Anglophone Africa.
There are anomalies (why is the percentage rising in Cambodia and Indonesia, while falling to a low level in low-income Benin? (Is it Benin’s democracy?) Why so high in Guinea (recent war? Ebola?) and why is it failing to fall in Sierra Leone (Ebola?), but falling in Liberia (Africa’s first female president for a decade?) Why is the percentage lower and more likely to be falling in Anglophone compared to francophone Africa? Is the difference real—something about colonial history or “culture”—or were the relevant questions framed or understood differently?
The next chart illustrates the difference between the percentage of urban women and men who said that there are one or more justifications for wife-beating (in the most recent year for each country and including countries with only one survey year with these questions). Except in the Dominican Republic, Colombia, Mozambique, Lesotho, and Kenya, the percentage of men who endorse at least one reason is lower. Why? Perhaps because some wives who are survivors of partner violence suffer confirmation bias. Perhaps men more than women try to answer the way they assume they ought to? (See Rachel Glennerster on the challenge of attitude and other questions meant to measure women’s agency or empowerment.)
Figure 2. Percentage of respondents who agreed that one or more reasons justify wife-beating by husband.
These questions, and additional ones on domestic violence, were only introduced into the DHS after the turn of the century. Why then? In 1979, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)—and there is evidence of a subsequent positive and statistically robust (though uneven across countries) “CEDAW Effect” on women’s rights around the world. The Beijing Women's Conference (more formally known as The Fourth World Conference on Women: Action for Equality, Development, and Peace) was in 1995. Did global “jawing” in the late 20th century help inspire, with some lag, the introduction of these questions into the DHS system?
The questions are about attitudes, not behavior. But surely in the long run attitudes matter. Might the universal values reflected in CEDAW, discussed in Beijing, and codified in the Sustainable Development Goals explain some of the downward trend the charts show in many countries? Is recent news of sexual assaults on women—in Delhi on a public bus, by UN peacekeepers in the Congo, in Hollywood, USA—a sign that at the global level the norm is changing? Let us hope there is in fact a phenomenon we could call globalism of norms, and that changing norms are changing behavior. That would mean that sometimes-maligned globalism has been good for women in the most intimate and private part of their lives—and thus good for all of us.
Christal Morehouse, Alla Volkova, and Silvia Fierăscu of The Open Society Foundation (OSF) have just issued a fascinating report on the gender breakdown of speakers at 23 high-level conferences across Europe—including nine forums, six conferences, four meetings, three summits, and a games and an ideas lab (which adds up to 24 because the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting is a Meeting at a Forum—doubtless why it costs $71,000 to attend).
The OSF team tracks 12,600 speaking roles between 2012 and mid-2017 and finds that across conferences with data for 2012 and 2016 there’s a welcome trend: 14 of the 15 conferences had a larger proportion of women speaking in the later year. But across the sample they still find that overall men occupied 74 percent of speaking roles and women only 26 percent. Women were better represented amongst keynotes and moderators than panelists—where only 24 percent were women.
Some gender equality leaders stand out: Chatham House had 44 percent women speakers at its 2016 London Conference, for example. Chatham House’s Laura Dunkley reports that the institution:
recently launched an internal gender awareness action plan. Covering three strands of Chatham House’s activities, the work will aim to build a toolkit for think tanks operating within international affairs…Specifically on convening and debate, Chatham House is committed to no all-male speaker panels at events and encouraging staff to uphold this commitment when speaking externally. Chatham House places equal importance on creating a greater mix of gender representation in participants, as well as ensuring events and workshops are designed to facilitate and encourage inputs and contributions from all participants.
We look forward to seeing—and learning from—this toolkit. And the OSF report is well worth reading in full both for the data and ideas on how to improve. But OSF doesn’t report on the proportion of European conference panels that are all-male—Euromanels, if you will. So we used the OSF’s dataset to calculate that.
Gender Breakdown of European Conference Panels
In short: the Euromanel is alive and well. Of the 2,282 panels in the database we looked at, 903 (or 40 percent) were all male. At the other end of the scale, 56 (2.5 percent) were all women. In the middle 280 (12.3 percent) were 50/50 gender-balanced (only possible on panels with even numbers of participants, of course) and 154 (6.8 percent) had more women than men but did have a man. Some comforting data: over time (between 2012 and 2017) the proportion of Euromanels has gone from 43 percent to 33 percent (though note that is over a changing set of conferences).
Thanks to OSF for quantifying and highlighting the conference speaker gender gap in Europe. Doubtless the situation is little different in the United States, and we’d love to see data on that.
Data notes: We used the OSF data on panel membership alone (excluding keynotes, moderators, and others), dropping panels that appeared to have only one panelist and a few observations that were potentially duplicate or where the panel name was too generic to ensure it was a separate event from other listed panels. You can download our code here.
Women’s equality and empowerment is a driver of economic growth and development around the world, and development organizations routinely include and espouse this goal as part of their missions and activities. But if you peel back the curtain, there are serious questions about whether—behind the scenes—development organizations are living up to these values in the workplace.
My colleagues Tanvi Jaluka and Charles Kenny analyzed a random sample of 30 US organizations (10 each from foundations, think tanks, and NGOs) that work on global development, and found that less than one-third of key/high-paid employees at the sampled think tanks are women, and that key/high-paid women appear to be paid less than key/high-paid men in all three of the sample groups. Some years ago, my then-colleague Victoria Fan and current colleague Rachel Silverman asked “who runs the global health world?” and concluded: not women.
The data is clear: there is more that we can all be doing, and it’s time to look inward.
First, development aid organizations need better workplace policies. One woman wrote to us on Twitter last week, telling us that she’s running a project that encourages Moroccan companies to adopt better maternity leave practices, but she has no maternity leave herself. That’s not okay. Every organization needs to look at their own policies and assess what needs to change to recruit, hire, and pay women equally.
At the Center for Global Development, we are taking a hard look at the makeup of our board, for example. We recently lost three valuable women leaders (Henrietta Fore to UNICEF, Dina Habib Powell to the Trump administration, and Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala to an expiring term), so we’re starting more targeted outreach to new board members, hoping to better match our values to our board composition. We are also disappointed by the low male participation in any CGD event branded as relating to women; our stats are dismal. At non-gender-related events, about half of participants are male. At gender-related events, only 13 percent of the audience is male.
Elsewhere in the field, the World Health Organization’s great move to diversify its leadership was welcome (see here), although the fact that a merit-based competition was not part of those appointments left some with a funny aftertaste. It was exciting to see my former employer, the Inter-American Development Bank, obtain EDGE Certification and commit to parity last year, but it is disappointing that an organization can be certified when only six of 25 board members are women, and 10 of its 33 top leaders are women, with most of the 10 in charge of administrative matters. At the World Bank Group, Jishnu Das and co-authors find a gender wage gap between male and female professionals of about $27,400 between 1987 and 2015, mainly explained by men entering the WBG in higher paid positions and by differential rates of salary growth throughout careers favoring men. (The World Bank has also committed to parity.)
So there’s been progress, but there is much more to do.
Second, development organizations need to foster work environments that are safe spaces for women and people of all genders. The #MeToo movement and recent allegations against aggressors and their enablers at Oxfam and Save the Children are reminders that sexual harassment and exploitation occur in all sectors, and development is no exception. When it happens, organizations should be ready to take it seriously and respond quickly and fairly.
Finally, there’s the subtle stuff. It’s pointing out a problem when you see it, as in Alice Evans’ response to a mostly male list of “top development thinkers.” It’s taking—and upholding—Owen Barder’s pledge not to appear on male-only panels (we’re as guilty as everyone). It’s creating space for discussions like this to happen, and really listening to what people are saying. It is easy to become more aware, but not easy to change. Cultural shift and leadership is essential to make policies effective.
In that spirit of discussion, the Center for Global Development is hosting an event with Devex at 4:00 pm ET on Tuesday, March 6, called Practicing What We Preach, which will highlight practical ways organizations can live up to their promises for a gender-equal workplace. I’m honored to be joined by Alice Evans, lecturer in international development at King’s College London; Angela Bruce-Raeburn, formerly of Oxfam; and my colleague Cindy Huang, co-director of CGD’s Migration, Displacement, and Humanitarian Policy Program, along with Devex’s Kate Warren and Kate Wathen.
We hope you’ll be there too, sharing your tips and experiences and keeping the conversation going.
Last year on International Women’s Day, we talked about labor and financial equality as a prerequisite for women’s empowerment. This year, we’re being a little more introspective. Many nonprofits working in global development advocate for women’s empowerment and gender equality (this one included). But do they follow through when it comes to their own staff and management? Tax reporting requirements in the US mean that we can at least partially answer that question as it relates to remuneration, and the preliminary answer is “not yet.”
To compile a database of organizations and employees in international development we started with three websites: the Inside Philanthropy list of global development funders, the 2016 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report list of “Top International Development Think Tanks” (p. 90), and the list of members at Interaction, an alliance organization of international development NGOs. We then randomized the order of the names in each of the three lists and searched in list order for the organization’s IRS Form 990.
We extracted data on the organization’s total revenue, the fiscal year of the 990, and the gender and pay of the listed employees who worked at least 30 hours a week (which excluded most board and trustee members). Not every organization was eligible for analysis: we excluded organizations with no available tax form and/or fewer than five salaried and full time (at least 30 hours) employees. For the think tanks list, we excluded non-US organizations which would not have 990s available. We continued down the list for each group until we had 10 organizations of each type to make up our sample to analyze. All but two of the Form 990s we examined were from 2015, the exceptions were from 2016.
The resulting database covers 110 NGO employees, 151 think tank employees, and 64 foundation employees (an average of 10.8 per institution). We report below what proportion of those key/high paid employees were women in each group, the average pay of key/high paid women expressed as a percentage of the average pay of key/high paid men, the percentage of organizations for which a woman is listed as the highest paid employee, the percentage of organizations where more or equal numbers of key/high paid women were listed as men and the percentage of organizations where the average pay of key/high paid women was the same or more as the average for men in the organization.
Some caveats regarding data and interpretation of results:
We are limited by the data that nonprofits self-report on their forms: in that regard, our database includes more than just the top five highest paid employees in think tanks and NGOs, it also includes other “key” employees that worked 30 hours a week or more. For the foundation lists, it’s important to note that they are only required to list the top five highest paid employees which creates a smaller sample pool.
Our sample size is small: out of 202 foundations, 130 think tanks, and 182 NGOs we only look at 10 for each group. This means the margin of error of our estimates will be large, particularly on questions at the institutional level (on the question “what percentage of best paid employees are women,” for example, we can only be 90 percent confident that the mean of the full group of foundations listed by Inside Philanthropy is within about 25 percentage points of the mean we report from our sample).
The pool of organizations includes nonprofits that only work on development issues as one part of a much broader portfolio of activities. That’s particularly true of the think tanks and foundations.
The purpose of the exercise is not to shame specific nonprofits, but rather to (imperfectly) paint a sector-wide picture. To this end, we’ll break from standard CGD practice and not release the underlying dataset (however, please note: this information is all in the public domain). But for the sake of transparency, we also report CGD’s 2015 numbers on a separate line (it was not part of the random sample of think tanks).
In short, the data we’ve collected suggests that nonprofits involved in international development still have some way to go in terms of gender equality. Here are our key findings:
Less than a third of people in our (small) sample of key/high paid employees in US think tanks are women, although in our sample of foundations there was parity between the number of men and women.
Key/high paid women appear to be paid less than key/high-paid men in all three of our sample groups, and very few of the highest-paid employees in organizations connected to global development are women—a total of 5 out of 30 across the three groups.
Looking across organizations, it is impressive that 6 out of 10 of our foundations list more than or equal numbers of high-paid or key women as they do men and 4 out of 10 foundations pay more or the same on average to listed women as to men. But only 2 out of 10 think tanks and the same proportion of NGOs pay more or the same on average to listed women as to men.
Percentage of Women amongst High Paid EmployeesPercentage of Women amongst Orgs' Single Highest Paid EmployeesAvg Women's Pay (as a % of Avg Men's Pay amongst High Paid)Percentage of Orgs with >49% Women in High Paid GroupPercentage of Orgs with Avg Women's Pay >= Men's (amongst High Paid)
Back to caveats: these numbers can only be taken as suggestive given the small size of our sample. We didn’t do more data collection for this blog post because attempts to automate the process failed—though many thanks to CGD’s Mike Brown for trying—and the manual exercise is reasonably labor intensive. We’d happily be a part of a (funded) exercise that scaled up the analysis, looked at trends over time, and examined factors that lie behind variation in women’s representation at top pay levels on the nonprofit space. There is more information to analyze including expanding our gender analysis to leadership positions and board membership. It’s also crucial to look at this through the lens of racial diversity: while women make up 48 percent of board members in nonprofits, only 20 percent of board members are people of color (compared to a 38 percent population share in the US as a whole).
And it would be great to be able to look at trends over time. That can add important details to the story: a recent study of the World Bank’s staff found that the average woman earns 77 percent as much as the average man, with the big reason for that gap being that women tended to have entered at lower employment grade levels in the institution (women and men who started at the same time and grade in the Bank have fairly similar wages years later).
But if these numbers broadly hold up, they suggest US institutions involved in international development aren’t sufficiently practicing what they preach when it comes to the importance of diversity and equality to outcomes—and they are less effective as a result. More (and more fairly remunerated) women in nonprofit leadership will change what the sector does for the better.
We welcome comments about methodology or concerns with our data source—or anything else!
Many organizations working on development champion women’s empowerment and equality as a core goal. But behind the scenes, how are these organizations living these values and what can they do better? On March 6, the Center for Global Development and Devex will host an event highlighting practical ways organizations can live up to their promises for a gender-equal workplace.
On top of 63 million missing women, a new report from the Indian government reveals an even more pervasive pattern of sexism in recent demographic data—hinting at persistent patriarchal preferences impervious to India's economic boom.
Will the rising tide of India's rapid economic development lift all Indians equally, and gradually wash away gender discrimination and patriarchy? That's the question—and clearly the hope—underlying chapter seven of India's 2018 Economic Survey, led by the Chief Economic Advisor Arvind Subramanian (on leave from CGD) and released by the Ministry of Finance on Monday.
Building on Seema Jayachandran's recent review from a global perspective, the Economic Survey finds that on 12 out of 17 indicators measuring women's welfare and agency, India has progressed over the most recent decade for which data are available (2005-6 to 2015-6), and in most of those progress has been roughly at the pace its economic growth would predict.
But there are glaring exceptions. Notably, Indian women have depressingly little agency in their reproductive choices. Sterilization, as opposed to other reversible forms of birth control, is 50 percent more common in India than income would predict, and barely declining overtime. On the purely economic front, women's employment in non-manual work has risen over the last decade, but India remains a (bad) outlier for its level of GDP.
Underlying these failings, the report's diagnosis focuses on stubborn cultural norms: son preference, and the ugly term, "son meta-preference."
How meta-preferences produce "unwanted girls"
Son preference manifests itself in sex-selective abortions and differential treatment of boys and girls. It produces the startling imbalance in gender ratios in India, known as "missing women" in Amartya Sen's famous phrasing. The Economic Survey places the current tally of missing women at 63 million.
But as the report points out, the reality is worse than this. Even where sex ratios are balanced, son preference may be widespread. Couples' decisions to keep having kids until they get a boy—what scholars refer to as “son meta-preference”—create what the report calls "unwanted girls." This neologism refers to a phenomenon that is visible only in the sex ratio imbalances of the last child among women who have completed fertility.
Our chart of the week, pictured above, shows this phenomenon of son meta-preference in stark relief:
For India, the sex ratio of the last child for first-borns is 1.82, heavily skewed in favor of boys compared with the ideal sex ratio of 1.05. This ratio drops to 1.55 for the second child for families that have exactly two children and so on. The striking contrast between the two panels conveys a sense of son meta preference. This contrast is even more stark when seen against the performance of Indonesia (middle panels) where the SRLC is close to the ideal, regardless of the birth order and whether the child is the last or not.
Adding up the gap between the ideal sex ratio of 1.05 and the actual ratio for the last child, the Economic Survey calculates there are 21 million "unwanted girls" among females ages 0-25 in India today.
Without making any strong claims of causation, it is notable that "unwanted girls" are concentrated in Indian states where as adult women they are likely to experience low welfare outcomes and limited agency (see the bottom panel of the figure above). As Seema Jayachandran and Rohini Pande show in their recent article in the American Economic Review, these kinds of preferences can help explain the much higher incidence of malnutrition among Indian children relative to their peers in most African countries.
In an extremely thoughtful review of the literature on the reciprocal relationship between economic development and women's economic empowerment, MIT economist Esther Duflo concludes that while causation surely flows in both directions, the relationships are often weaker than we might hope. Her final verdict is that "economic development alone will probably not be enough to bring about equality between women and men in the foreseeable future, and policies will be required to accelerate this process."
The Economic Survey is a bit weak on this last point, listing a handful of government efforts to promote gender equality, without any data on their success. Lest anyone be confused, the Survey's demonstration of deep social norms and preferences underlying India's unequal gender outcomes is no justification for policy quietism—nor is it presented as such. Preferences can be changed, and even when they can't, people with patriarchal preferences still respond to incentives. It's up to policymakers to start providing better ones.
Thanks to Divyanshi Wadhwa for research assistance.
The Canadian government has made some impressive steps towards prioritizing gender and women’s rights in international relations. I’m hoping that’s a sign of momentum towards even bigger steps in the New Year—using the full range of tools from trade and migration policy through investment and aid.
In just the past few months, the Canadian government has made:
A number of commitments around women peace and security, including the “Elsie Initiative,” which will provide training, support, and financial incentives to increase the proportion of women in UN peacekeeping operations.
An updated trade deal with Chile that includes a gender chapter referencing existing gender equality commitments made by both countries, creating a trade and gender committee to foster initiatives to ensure women benefit equally from trade, and a proposal to the WTO Working Party on Domestic Regulation that members do not discriminate against individuals on the basis of gender in the context of licensing requirements, licensing procedures, qualification requirements, or procedures.
A commitment to support 1,200 largely Yazidi women and girls alongside male family members fleeing violence in Northern Iraq.
A new Feminist International Assistance Policy which places a strong emphasis on—and reallocates funding towards—gender equality and empowerment of women and girls. Not least, that has involved a 3-year commitment of $650 million towards family planning and reproductive health as well as a $150 million 5-year fund for women’s rights organizations.
And there’s evidence of more to come—not least of which, Canada’s plan to focus the upcoming G7 meeting in Charlevoix on gender equality at home and abroad. This is good news—and suggests there might be potential to build on a strong start with even more.
Improving gender equality across the board
The government says that gender chapters in trade agreements will be standard going forward. That’s great news, but it would be better to see them have more bite, and to have elements included in the binding parts of the treaty. In particular, Canada could make a commitment to use trade deals (and continue pushing at the WTO) to tackle gender apartheid in the workplace. Seventy-nine countries restrict the kind of jobs women can do purely on the grounds they are women. Fifteen countries say men can stop their wives getting a job. These kinds of restrictions mean that women have fewer opportunities to benefit from global exchange than do men, and they stand in contravention of Article 11 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)—to which Canada is party alongside 109 other countries. Canadian trade officials could highlight removal of gender apartheid laws as areas for pre-ratification reform.
Canada’s migration policy could both benefit the country and some of the world’s most discriminated-against women with a tweak in the system. Worldwide, women want to migrate equally with men. Women from gender-unequal countries are particularly keen to move, but the extra barriers they face means that fewer actually manage to leave. About 45 percent of all immigrants to Canada are women, but from countries that put specific legal barriers in the way of women emigrants, the female share drops to 36 percent. Given the extra barriers these women face, the ones who manage to leave are likely to be particularly able and motivated—and so of high value to Canada. And given the increasing evidence of “social remittances”—migrants repatriating not just money but attitudes to their home countries—increased women’s migration will be a force for change in sending countries. That suggests a triple win for the migrants, Canada, and sending countries from a policy of favoring women emigrants from gender-unequal countries. The change would be simple to introduce given that Canada already uses a points system for immigration decision: just add a few points for women from the selected group of gender-unequal countries.
Regarding investment, Canada is about to set up its own Development Finance Institution— to support private investments in developing countries. Along with the rest of the World, Canada itself has a real problem with gender equality in private sector management. Women hold less than nine percent of the five highest-paid jobs in each of Canada’s 100 largest listed companies. One (more) reason that’s a problem is that women-managed firms hire considerably more women staff. So if Canada wanted to maximize the impact of its DFI on women’s economic empowerment worldwide, it would search out women-run companies to support—perhaps even offering preferential terms. It should also prioritize investments that help overcome barriers to women’s entrepreneurship—partnering with financial institutions to promote women’s financial inclusion, for example. At the same time, Canada should ensure that it doesn’t support gender-unequal investments. Given the number of countries worldwide have laws that specifically discriminate against women’s participation in the workforce, and the fact such laws are associated with considerably lower female labor force participation, companies receiving DFI support should be encouraged to mitigate the impact of local discriminatory legislation to the extent possible within the host country’s domestic laws by following a code of conduct regarding women’s employment and reporting data on employment by gender. If the government wanted to go further and help the Canadian private sector as a whole become a world leader in gender equality it could encourage the same code of conduct and mandate the same reporting on all Canada-based multinationals. And it could also take the emerging idea of supplier diversity goals for Canadian government procurement global—setting goals for aid and other overseas procurement, and encouraging multilateral institutions like the UN and World Bank to follow suit.
While aid resources are moving towards prioritizing women and girls, Canada’s overall aid budget fell by 4.4 percent last year. ODA as a proportion of GDP is now at 0.26 percent—that’s considerably below the OECD average. Better aid is at least if not more important than more aid. And shifting resources towards programs like family planning where there is a strong evidence base of effectiveness is likely moving towards better aid. But girls and women also benefit when Canada provides resources for quality education, vaccines, access to productive assets, gender-responsive infrastructure to reduce unpaid care work burdens, or (even) budget support. An improved feminist international assistance policy would involve both better and more ODA.
A global partnership
Finally, the Canadian government could use its global leadership position on gender to support international partnership. Women’s economic empowerment is an area where all countries (and firms) have a long way to go, with developing countries often ahead of (at least some) OECD countries: 32 percent of firms included in the World Bank’s enterprise surveys of East Asia and the Pacific are managed by women compared to 15 percent in high income OECD countries, for example. That suggests there are lessons to be learned across income divides in both directions. A global partnership of business and political leaders could make and track commitments on how they will help level the playing field for women in the economy, as well as sharing what has worked.
I’m excited to see Canada’s burgeoning leadership on gender in international relations. From this side of the border, it is hard not to be a little jealous. But it would be great if the New Year brought even more to be jealous about.
Under managing director Christine Lagarde, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has become a champion for gender equality. This note examines how much the IMF’s dialogue with its member countries has changed as a result of the labeling of gender as a "macrocritical" issue. In short, there has been increased attention to the issue as reflected in word counts and discussion of women’s labor force participation, but there is still a long way to go.