Rethinking gender equality: why the rankings don't tell the whole story

Widely used measures of gender equality may be missing important dimensions of inequality, and in doing so, inadvertently reinforcing Western-centric views of what equality should look like.

The problem with rankings

Gender equality indices have become powerful tools. Policymakers use them to justify reforms, researchers rely on them to test theories, and countries compete to climb the rankings. But according to Maria Olsson, associate professor at INN, these measures were built around traditional labour markets and Western ideals, leaving significant gaps in what they capture.

"These measures typically focus on a narrow set of domains, often overlook disadvantages faced by men, rely on assumptions rooted in Western contexts and traditional labour market structures, and lack both a psychological perspective and a data-driven, psychometric approach," Olsson notes.

Her Young CAS research project, "Towards a New and Culturally Sensitive Understanding of Gender Inequality," has been developing and testing components of a more inclusive measure called the Gindex, which aims to capture inequalities experienced by both women and men across various dimensions.

"What surprised me most was how unstable and context-dependent 'gender equality' actually is as a concept once you stop treating it as a fixed, universal benchmark," explains Olsson. "Countries that look very similar in standard rankings often look fundamentally different once you experiment with including additional domains such as norms, horizontal segregation, or men's gender-related disadvantages."

What's missing?

Traditional indices focus primarily on vertical inequalities: how many women hold political office or participate in the workforce. But they overlook horizontal segregation: the ways women and men are channeled into entirely different educational fields and occupations.

The indices also miss psychological and cultural dimensions. "In our work, we incorporate psychological and normative dimensions, such as gender norms, attitudes toward care work, and perceptions of fairness," Olsson explains. "These dimensions shape behaviour, policy support, and resistance to change, yet they are almost entirely absent from existing indices."

Consider a country with high female employment rates. It may appear successful on paper, but deeper examination might reveal strong normative expectations that women still carry primary responsibility for care work at home, a reality that many indices fail to capture.

The Gindex project also examines disadvantages faced by men. "Our research has identified several domains where men face systematic disadvantages, particularly in education, health, and family life," Olsson says, citing higher school dropout rates, elevated risks of mental health problems and suicide, and limited uptake of parental leave.

Importantly, recognising these disadvantages does not imply equivalence with women's disadvantages. Women continue to face substantial structural barriers, especially in political power, economic security, and exposure to gender-based violence. "The key insight is that gender inequality is not a zero-sum phenomenon," Olsson notes. "Ignoring men's disadvantages can undermine support for equality policies and obscure how rigid gender systems harm people of all genders in different ways."

One notable finding is how dramatically country rankings can shift depending on which domains are included and how they're weighted. "In our analyes, changing which domains were included or how they were weighted led to dramatic shifts in country positions, particularly for less economically developed countries," Olsson observes.

This instability reveals something fundamental: many existing indices don't measure inequality neutrally but reflect a specific cultural and socioeconomic model of equality.

The research team has observed meaningful variations in what constitutes gender inequality across different cultures. In some contexts, particularly those with strong welfare states, gender equality is understood primarily through work–family balance, whereas in others it's framed more narrowly around labour market participation or formal rights.

A collaborative approach

Creating the Gindex has involved an iterative development process rather than applying standard solutions. The team combined systematic reviews, analysis of large cross-national datasets, and extensive discussions with international scholars, practitioners, and people with lived experience of inequality.

"Rather than starting from a predefined list of domains, we treated domain selection as an empirical and conceptual question," Olsson explains. "This iterative process was slow and demanding, but necessary to avoid reproducing narrow or culturally biased definitions of equality."

Unlike traditional indices that apply fixed weights universally, the Gindex is being developed using a psychometric approach that treats gender equality as a multidimensional construct that may manifest differently across contexts.

The research team have conducted extensive analyses and development work during the past years, and currently have several manuscripts at different stages of completion and submission. At the same time, the index itself remains under refinement, as the team continues to test and validate its structure and components.

To support continued development, the team is also preparing to launch a dedicated website later this semester. The platform will function not only as a dissemination channel for publications and updates, but also as an interactive tool for ongoing global data collection

Beyond the numbers

If policymakers started using the Gindex, their approach might shift significantly. "Policymakers would see that progress in one domain does not guarantee equality overall," Olsson suggests. "The Gindex is intended to encourage more targeted, context-specific interventions, rather than one-size-fits-all solutions."

Some preliminary findings are already revealing new patterns. "Some countries that rank highly in standard indices appear far more ambivalent once we include horizontal segregation and norms," Olsson notes. "Conversely, some countries that rank lower show strengths in areas such as shared caregiving or normative support for equality that are currently invisible."

The broader insight is clear: ranking alone is a blunt tool, and profiles of inequality are far more informative.

The Gindex project highlights something broader about how we measure social progress: the metrics we choose aren't neutral. They embody assumptions about what matters, what counts as inequality, and what version of equality we're striving for.

By expanding our view to include horizontal segregation, cultural norms, and a relational understanding of gender systems, the Gindex aims not only to improve measurement but also to challenge us to think more carefully about what equality means in diverse contexts.

In a world where gender equality indices shape policy decisions affecting millions of lives, that's a conversation worth having.