How Close Are We to Achieving Global Gender Equality?

The intense desire to achieve gender equality for women—in relation to men—demands the most significant social advance of the last centuries. It is also the most important conquest of the civilizing process. But this objective has not been fully accomplished. It combines elements of non-discrimination, inclusion, and fairness. At the same time, this process includes substantial differences among the world’s two hundred countries today, as it is far from homogeneous regarding the equality of women and girls. The developed (and democratic) world is advancing rapidly, but entire regions of the world are stagnant with respect to the inclusion of women (and girls). There are various itineraries to achieve equality, overcoming patriarchal society. Africa and large parts of Asia are still considerably lagging behind.

There is no country that has achieved total equality for women. The Nordic countries—Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland—stand out in terms of inclusion. But even in those countries, total equality of women in their different spheres has not been achieved. Much depends on economic development, the existence of genuine democracy, a universal and effective welfare state system, and the existence of organized feminist movements. These are four essential characteristics.

“No country has achieved total gender equality, but some stand out more than others”

In the past decade, Spain has attained a prominent position in the world regarding the equality of women and girls. According to various international reports, the progress has occurred mainly in the last eight years, with a progressive and feminist government. The most important question is whether total gender equality will be achieved in the future for the majority of the world, and within what timeframe.

The best international reports analyze discrimination against women and girls around the world. They aim to quantify the factors of equality. The objective in analyzing a topic as complex and multidimensional as gender equality is to delve into counterintuitive ideas, which may allow the establishment of new lines of solutions. A global public agenda—worldwide—is required if gender equality is to be achieved in the coming century.

Therefore, gender equality for women implies different domains. It is also pursued through diverse pathways. That is why there is no consensus on how to reach a global indicator. This equality includes a multiplicity of factors, and its analysis yields a variety of indicators and indexes. In this regard, the most important institutions of today’s global society work on these analyses, such as the UN, UNESCO, OECD, the World Bank, and the World Economic Forum. In our view, the following main sources should be consulted: World Development Indicators (WDI), Gender Inequality Index (GII), Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI), Gender Parity Index (GPI), Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI), and Gender Equality Index (GEI).

“A global public agenda—worldwide—is required if gender equality is to be reached in the coming century”

It is not only about quantity, but also quality. It is worth considering the situation of women in health and survival, in the labor market, in business relations and in political power. Women’s equality can be analyzed in different “domains” (in English, domains). There are at least six: time allocation, power, money, work, health, and knowledge. Violence against women is also measured—though not the focus here. It is also related to the protection and integration of minorities such as LGBTIAQ+. There is diversity and clear inequalities among these domains. The equality of women in power (political, economic, and social) is perhaps the most complex to achieve.

In all these multiple domains and factors, there is a certain degree of progress, but it is slow and uneven. In advanced countries, women achieve non-discrimination in some aspects (such as life expectancy or education). It is therefore useful to analyze the present and envision a line of progress for societies and countries. The best reports include measures to truly advance these changes. The objective is to achieve total gender equality and to calculate—based on the current progression—the time required to achieve it.

Already in 1973 it was stated that “the oppression of women constitutes the most fundamental repressive structure of organized societies. That is to say, it is the oldest form of oppression, preceding all oppressions based on class, caste, and race. It is the most primitive form of hierarchies.” The quote is from Susan Sontag (1933-2004), Prince of Asturias Award recipient in 2003.

The Women’s Inequality Index is calculated by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). This index of the situation of women is known, in English, as the GII, or gender inequality index. It measures the inequality of women worldwide (in 195 countries), ranging from 0.4% in the case of Denmark to 84% in Yemen. The first hypothesis is that the world is varied and there are countries with substantial gender equality and others with very little. The global average is around 45%, suggesting there is still a long way to go for women… and for society.

“The equality of women in power (political, economic, and social) is perhaps the most complex to achieve”

In Table 1 we present the results of this gender inequality index, GII, for 46 countries, selected to illustrate the variety of outcomes in the world. The calculations of the index are converted into percentages by multiplying the results by one hundred. In addition, we include the order of these countries in the global ranking of the index, from the first country, Denmark, to the last (in this table), Nigeria. The 0% GII does not necessarily represent total gender equality with respect to men. It is a pragmatic index that scores real situations. Our hypothesis is that there remains a long road toward total gender equality.
 

We introduce the table with the results of four of the world’s great powers: United States, Russia, China and India. Interestingly, the first three have similar scores, between 13% and 17% gender inequality. This means they occupy similar positions in the ranking, between 41st and 45th. By contrast, India is a different case, with 40% inequality, ranking 102nd.

Australia and Canada are similar to each other. They have a level of gender inequality of 5%, and both are among the twenty best countries on the planet in terms of women’s equality.

“Our hypothesis is that there is still a long road toward total gender equality”

Asia is a continent with extreme differences. On one side are democratic and developed countries—South Korea, Japan and Taiwan—and on the other, much poorer and non-democratic ones. Among the democracies and developed countries, South Korea does not reach 4% gender inequality and Japan is below 6%. However, Indonesia and the Philippines have high levels of inequality, and especially Pakistan, which surpasses 50% inequality. South Korea is in a privileged position, ranked 12th; Japan is further back at 22nd, while Pakistan sits toward the end of the list, at 145th.

These data suggest that the level of economic development and whether a country is democratic are two variables closely related to women’s equality. Some religions tend to discriminate against women. United Nations reports avoid the quagmire of analyzing the harmful effects of existing religions on gender inequality (and girls’ inequality).

Then we include some of the best-performing countries in relation to gender inequality and discrimination against women: the Nordic countries. In order, the best country in this regard is Denmark, closely followed by Norway and Sweden, and then the Netherlands and Finland. They are all among the six countries with the least gender inequality on the planet. Other reports identify Iceland.

The situation is also very favorable in Western and Central Europe, especially in Switzerland and Belgium, but also in Germany and the United Kingdom. Thus, Switzerland ranks 4th in the global GII ranking. In this group, the United Kingdom has slightly more inequality, ranking 31st, even behind Poland, which is 29th.

The Southern European countries are of interest to understand the case of Spain. In order, the best for women (and girls) is France (with barely 3.4% gender inequality), followed by Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greece. In the ranking, they occupy positions ranging from 11th to 34th. Recently, Spain has achieved magnificent results in gender equality, as corroborated by other indicators. It is the result of eight years of a progressive government. Spain has a gender inequality of 4.3% (the same as Italy) and both occupy 15th place in the world in the gender equality ranking. Spain has made great progress toward gender equality in recent years.

“The best country in this regard is Denmark, followed closely by Norway and Sweden, and then by the Netherlands and Finland”

Thus ends the list of some countries that have achieved relative gender equality. But everything changes when we move to the East or the South, where undemocratic, much less developed countries with some Islamic cultural background appear. In that region, the United Arab Emirates has a good situation, with 4% gender inequality, ranking 13th. But others, such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, and especially Morocco, maintain a much lower level of gender equality. Our neighbor Morocco ranks 113th in the ranking.

In Latin America, economic development is important for a good score on the gender inequality scale, as in Uruguay and Chile. But it is also relevant in democratic countries (such as Costa Rica). The surprise is Cuba, whose economic development is low but still obtains favorable scores in women’s inequality. Some Latin American countries occupy relatively low positions in the ranking: Argentina 70th, Mexico 88th, and Brazil 96th.

Africa is the continent that is most behind in women’s equality. The GII reaches a maximum of 68% in Nigeria or Somalia. This places them at very low positions in the ranking: 171st and 170th. Very similarly is Chad, with 67% of the gender inequality index. Almost the entire African continent maintains a women’s situation far from ideal, as can also be seen by other indicators.

The third column of the table includes a development ranking, also produced by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP): the HDI or human development index (HDI). It integrates three indicators: life expectancy, years of schooling, and a decent standard of living. It does not measure inequalities or poverty; it applies to the entire population. The HDI measures socioeconomic development, but not inequalities or poverty. That is why it should be combined with the GII to better understand the position of women in each country. This yields two things: (1) to measure the influence of socioeconomic development on women’s equality; and (2) to observe disparities. Note that we are measuring rankings in both classifications, not actual measurements.

“The HDI measures socioeconomic development, but not inequalities or poverty”

The United States holds a good position in the HDI (17th globally), but a considerably worse position in women’s equality (45th in the GII). Women’s situation, like that of various minorities, remains an ongoing challenge in the United States. It is common for most countries to obtain a higher ranking in the HDI than in the GII. Yet some Latin American countries achieve opposite results. A correlation is observed between the human development index (for the entire population of a country) and its gender inequality index (GII). There are no large disparities, and the trend is to vary within a similar level in both indices. In Europe, especially Switzerland, Germany and the United Kingdom, outcomes in gender equality are worse than those in human development. They are developed countries but must strive more for women’s equality. Spain obtains a good GII score (15th in the world), while its position in the HDI is somewhat lower (28th). Norway is an exceptional case with 2nd place in both indicators and, in addition, an excellent score in democracy, without belonging to the European Union.

A predictor of women’s equality is the indicator of the proportion of women with secondary education or part of it, measured among women over 25 years of age. The global average is 62%, but there are large differences across countries and regions. In the United States, 98% of women have secondary education; in Russia it even reaches 99%; but it falls to 68% in China and is only 44% in India. In many European countries, over 90% of women have secondary education; especially in the United Kingdom, with 99%, or Switzerland, with 98%. In Asia, only Japan reaches 98%. In Southern Europe it is a bit lower, with 90% in France and 82% in Spain, 80% in Italy, and, below, Portugal, with 64% of women with secondary education. France’s good situation is partly an anomaly, as it has always had a particular emphasis on secondary education for the population. Spain’s situation is improvable. Ensuring that all women in the country receive secondary education (at least in part) should be a goal of the public agenda. The indicator will improve gradually as the generational replacement progresses. It takes time to change this indicator. It should be compared with our neighbor Morocco, which has only 33% of women with secondary education.

In Latin America, intermediate levels are achieved, some of them improvable. They are high in Chile, with 86% of women with secondary education, but much lower in Mexico (65%) or in Costa Rica (52%). Cuba has a relatively high indicator, with 78% of women with secondary education.

The situation in Africa is catastrophic, which also explains the inequality of African women. South Africa is an obvious exception. But in Niger only 6% of women have secondary education, and even less in Chad or Somalia, with 4% of women with secondary studies.

The last related indicator is the proportion of women in the workforce or labor market. If women work—outside the home—and with a salary (and a formal contract), they can gain a certain independence and better defend their equality with men. It is calculated against the total number of women aged 15 and over. The world average is only 48% of women in the workforce. The great powers—United States, Russia, and China—exceed half of women in their labor force. But India has only a third of women in the world of work. In Pakistan it is only a quarter of women.

Nordic countries exceed 60% of women working, and Central Europe approaches those levels. In Spain and France it is 53%, but in Italy only 42%. These percentages drop dramatically in North Africa, with 15% in Egypt and 20% in Morocco. The Latin American percentages are fairly homogeneous, between 44% and 56%. In Africa the differences are notable. Nigeria has 81% of women in the labor market, while in Somalia it is only 22%. It is a more erratic distribution.

Overall, the data reinforce the relationship between development, education, and the reduction of inequalities, although labor participation shows less linear patterns and variations that can only be explained on a case-by-case basis. The democratic status of the country is also important. A basic indicator is the participation of women in education, especially with secondary-level training.

“The data reinforce the relationship between development, education, and the reduction of inequalities”

Women—if we follow social stereotypes and prejudices—tend to engage in child care, care for elderly family members, and care for disabled or vulnerable people. In addition to these responsibilities, most of the household tasks fall on them. That time spent on “caring” for free limits women’s economic opportunities, their professional advancement, and also the time available for leisure, volunteering, or political participation.

Women who work in the care sector (childhood, old age, and vulnerable family members) tend to move into part-time jobs or even unemployment. When they work, women tend to be found in lower-paying sectors with lower perceived value. Only 20% of EU ICT specialists are women. Women managers and directors are 35%. A problem that exaggerates gender differences is social stereotypes that reinforce employment inequalities.

Intrafamilial differences are a factor to consider. In terms of the distribution of money and financial resources, women live longer, but pensions are lower. It implies a gender gap of about 25%. For women, it is a combination of often-part-time jobs with lower wages, for fewer years. Also, within the family, the man earns about 52% more than his wife or partner. This is more significant for women with little formal education, immigrant women, and, in general, younger women. It is believed that in the EU two generations will be needed to achieve greater gender equality.

Gender differences in domestic work remain enormous. Only some developed and democratic societies—like Denmark—show gender gaps of barely 13 percentage points. In the European Union of 27, women take care of children in 41% of cases and men in 20%. Domestic work falls on women in 59% of cases and on men in 33%. These average percentages already represent a notable conquest in the world. But even in this “modern” EU, 49% of women and 48% of men firmly believe that “men are naturally less competent than women to perform household tasks”.

There are aspects that may seem positive for women, but when analyzed in depth—counterintuitively—reveal further shortcomings. This is the case of formal education: women are already a majority among students and teachers in many education systems, but not in leadership and management positions. There are more female teachers, but fewer female principals and fewer female rectors in higher education. The inequality thus appears not so much in access as in leadership positions.

“Inequality appears thus not so much in access as in leadership positions”

UNESCO analyzes precisely this last bastion of men in the educational system: leadership and administration of schools. See the report Global Education Monitoring Report 2025. There are other Global Education Monitoring Reports of interest for the gender topic, such as Meeting Our Commitments to Gender Equality in Education (published in 2018), Building Bridges for Gender Equality (2019) and A New Generation: 25 Years of Efforts for Gender Equality in Education (2020). But their data are older.

The teaching profession has become feminized almost everywhere. But not the leadership or headship positions in the educational system. The gap is 20% between teachers and leaders. UNESCO considers—and has reasons to do so—that women’s leadership in schools enhances collaboration, is less authoritarian and more consensus-driven, builds relationships with the community, and increases learning processes. This happens in both public and private centers. It is a fact that women are underrepresented in leadership positions at all levels of education—from primary to tertiary or higher education and in research centers.

This occurs despite girls starting at an advantage over boys. Girls achieve more education than boys, get better grades, and drop out of school less often. Boys fail more in school, repeat grades, and some drop out. Girls repeat fewer grades than boys, thus completing secondary education in less time. This does not happen in all countries: in Afghanistan, for example, girls are not allowed to continue studying after age 12. In developed countries there are more women in university than men; but in vocational training it is the opposite. The university is the gateway to professions. It is possible that in the future the family structure will change with more professional women than men and with higher salaries for women.

At age 15—according to PISA, the OECD’s educational assessment program—girls achieve higher scores in reading. There are 87 boys for every 100 girls who reach a satisfactory reading level. That is despite girls suffering more bullying. In part, this is explained by girls spending more time on social networks. School leadership and administration fall more to men. Thus, for example, in secondary education 57% of the teaching staff are female, but directors are 20% less, i.e., only 37% are female leaders. In higher education (also called tertiary), 45% of the teaching staff are female, but only 30% are women in leadership roles. In the case of Education Ministers (and higher education ministers), only 27% are women.

Women already constitute the majority of teaching staff in the world. They are 93% in preschool, 68% in primary education, between 52% and 59% in secondary education (depending on levels), and 44% in higher education. In all these levels, those occupying leadership positions are 20% fewer. In the world’s top two hundred universities, rectors (presidents) are 27% women. In Europe they are even fewer: around 20% are women; in the United States they reach about one third.

UNESCO calculates the number of women who have occupied—the years 2010 to 2023—the position of Minister of Education (and/or Higher Education) in 211 education systems across all those years, i.e., across 1,412 education ministries worldwide. Women represented 27%, although this proportion is gradually increasing: rising from 23% in the early years to 30% from 2020 onward. Table 3 summarizes the variables that can explain this progress toward parity. If countries are classified by the level of democracy into three groups, non-democratic countries have only 16% female Ministers of Education, while fully democratic countries double that proportion (38%). Another variable is the countries’ economic development. Lower development levels have about 20% female ministers, while in more developed countries it is almost double (36%). Differences are extreme according to world regions, ranging from 7% female ministers of Education in North Africa and Western Asia to 41% in Europe and North America (i.e., the United States and Canada).

The discrimination by gender occurs, then, in the processes for occupying leadership and headship positions in the education sector. The quota system (typically 40% for women) helps progressively achieve gender parity. UNESCO contends that “getting women to become leaders is not merely a matter of justice, but also a strategic imperative for the transformation of the education sector” (p. 50). The important thing is to take into account where cuts and setbacks occur in the advancement of women, both in the health sector and in education.