Gender Inequality Index
Also known as: GII, UNDP Gender Inequality Index
The Gender Inequality Index (GII) is a composite measure introduced by the UNDP in the 2010 Human Development Report to capture the loss in potential human development due to inequality between women and men. It combines three dimensions — reproductive health, empowerment, and labour-market participation — into a single index ranging from 0 (perfect equality) to 1 (complete inequality), using an association-sensitive aggregation that penalises both gaps between the sexes and inequality across dimensions.
Key highlights
- Captures overlapping disadvantage by combining health, empowerment, and labour dimensions into one association-sensitive index.
- Computed annually for over 160 countries by the UNDP, enabling consistent cross-national and time-series comparison.
- Penalises imbalance across dimensions through geometric and harmonic means, so strong performance in one area cannot mask weakness in another.
- Improves on the earlier GDI and GEM by avoiding their reliance on income-based components that were heavily criticised.
Intuition
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
How it works
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
When to use it
Use the GII for cross-national comparison and monitoring of gender inequality over time, particularly when a single headline figure is needed alongside the Human Development Index. It is well suited to ranking countries, tracking progress against development goals, and flagging dimensions where a country lags. It is less appropriate as a fine-grained policy diagnostic, since its small indicator set omits domains such as unpaid care, gender-based violence, and asset ownership, and the reproductive-health dimension has no male counterpart, complicating the equality interpretation.
Strengths & limitations
- Captures overlapping disadvantage by combining health, empowerment, and labour dimensions into one association-sensitive index.
- Computed annually for over 160 countries by the UNDP, enabling consistent cross-national and time-series comparison.
- Penalises imbalance across dimensions through geometric and harmonic means, so strong performance in one area cannot mask weakness in another.
- Improves on the earlier GDI and GEM by avoiding their reliance on income-based components that were heavily criticised.
- The reproductive-health dimension applies to women only, so the index conflates gender inequality with women's absolute health outcomes.
- It omits major domains of gender inequality such as unpaid care work, time use, asset ownership, and gender-based violence.
- The parliamentary-seats indicator captures only the national legislature, ignoring other forms of political and economic power.
- Its association-sensitive aggregation makes the index hard to decompose intuitively and sensitive to data quality in the maternal-mortality term.
Common pitfalls
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
Applications
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
Frequently asked
How does the GII differ from the Global Gender Gap Index?
The GII, produced by the UNDP, measures the loss in human development from inequality and mixes women's absolute reproductive health with female-to-male gaps in empowerment and labour. The Global Gender Gap Index, produced by the World Economic Forum, measures only female-to-male ratios across four sub-indices and explicitly ignores absolute levels, so a poor country with small gaps can rank above a rich one with larger gaps. They answer related but distinct questions and are not interchangeable.
Why does a higher GII mean more inequality?
The GII is constructed as one minus the ratio of the gender-equity-adjusted achievement to the reference achievement. When women and men fare identically, the ratio is one and the index is zero. As gaps widen, the harmonic-mean aggregate falls relative to the reference, the ratio shrinks, and the index rises toward one. So the index counts inequality, not attainment: higher values are worse.
Can the GII be decomposed by dimension?
Not cleanly. Because it relies on nested geometric and harmonic means rather than an additive structure, the GII cannot be split into exact additive contributions of each dimension the way a simple weighted average can. Analysts instead inspect the underlying indicators and the within-gender dimension indices to see which components drive a country's score, but the headline number itself is not additively separable.
Sources
- 1.Gaye, A., Klugman, J., Kovacevic, M., Twigg, S., & Zambrano, E. (2010). Measuring key disparities in human development: The Gender Inequality Index. Human Development Research Paper 2010/46. UNDP Human Development Report Office.
- 2.Klugman, J., Rodríguez, F., & Choi, H.-J. (2011). The HDI 2010: New controversies, old critiques. The Journal of Economic Inequality, 9(2), 249–288.
- 3.United Nations Development Programme (2010). Human Development Report 2010 — The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Human Development. UNDP.
You have read it. What now?
Cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 22). Gender Inequality Index. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/gender-studies/gender-inequality-index