Reforming the Gender-Related Development Index and the Gender Empowerment Measure: Implementing Some Specific Proposals

By Stephan Klasen, D. Schüler. 2011

170 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The HDI 2010: new controversies, old critiques (2011, background): “Hawken and Munck (2009) and Klasen and Schüler (2010) provide useful reviews.”
Measuring active and healthy ageing in Europe (2017, background): “On the other hand, it is simple and transparent and deals with the different issues associated with using an arithmetic or geometric average (Klasen and Schüler, 2011).”
Active Ageing Index 2012 Concept, Methodology and Final Results (2013, methodology): “The decision for creating a separate index for men and for women was also motivated by such practices in other contexts (see for example Klasen and Schüler 2011; and Permanyer 2011), also on the basis of discussions with the Expert Group and the initial analysis of individual indicators.”
A Critical Assessment of the UNDP’s Gender Inequality Index (2013, methodology): “9 In Klasen and Schüler (2011), the functional forms GRS and WD are labeled as “Gender Gap Measure” (GGM) and “capped GGM,” respectively.”
Globalization and gender equality in the course of development (2012, methodology): “…fostering gender equality (as measured by 5 For a critique of the well known UNDP gender-related indices, see Bardhan and Klasen, (1999) and Klasen and Schüler (2011). the SIGI and some of its sub-indices) are associated with female secondary schooling, fertility rates, child mortality,…”