Missing Women

Gender Inequality

The core characteristic of the capability approach is the focus on what people are effectively able to do and to be (their capabilities). Sen argues that the most important aspect is that people have the freedoms or opportunities to “lead the kinds of lives they want to lead” (Robeyns, 2005). Sen’s work regarding gender inequality relates to the capabilities approach as it uncovers the effects of the absence of equal capability sets and offers solutions to such disparities.

Types of Inequality

1. Mortality Inequality- Mostly observed in North Africa and Asia due to gender bias in health care and nutrition. This causes unusually high rates in mortality leading to a much higher presence of males in the total population.
2. Natality Inequality- Observed in East Asia, South Asia, and India. In male-dominated societies, parents prefer newborn boys over girls. With technological advancements and the ability to determine the sex of the child during pregnancy, sex-selective abortions are prevalent.
3. Basic Facility Inequality- Prevalent in Asia, Africa, and Latin America where girls are granted less opportunities for schooling than boys.
4. Special Opportunity Inequality- Differences in the opportunities of higher education and professional training available to boys and girls, even if basic facility inequality is not shown.
5. Professional Inequality- Occurs as women are not given equal opportunities for employment or promotions to higher levels.
6. Ownership Inequality- Experienced as men are given ownership rights to assets such as homes and land more than women. Due to their lack of property rights, women experience hardships in both economic and social activities.
7. Household Inequality- Experienced as men are viewed as the breadwinners and work outside of the house, leaving women to handle all household duties. When this occurs, women are only allowed to perform other work if and only if they can still manage all of their household tasks.

Missing Women

In 1992, Sen explored the existence of social inequality as he uncovers the fallacy that women make up the majority of the world’s population. This belief is attributed to the generalization of the situations in Europe and North America, where women outnumber men. The observed female to male ratios in these areas are approximately 1.05-1.06, or higher. However in South Asia, West Asia, and China the female to male ratios can be as low as 0.94 or lower. It is a fact that at birth boys outnumber girls by 5 % everywhere in the world. However, after birth biology alone favors females as “considerable research has shown that if men and women receive similar nutritional and medical attention and general health care, women tend to live noticeably longer than men” (Sen, 1992). Furthermore, studies show that the life expectancy at birth for females exceeds that for males by 4-10 years in developed countries. However, in developing countries, such as those in Asia and North Africa, mortality rates are much higher for women than men while life expectancy for women is much lower (Nathanson, p. 192, 1984). Since biology seems to favor women as they are more likely to resist infection from diseases, Sen proposes that the low female to male ratios in Asia and North America are the result of social factors which limit the capabilities of women.

Possible Explainations

Developed vs. Developing/ Undeveloped Countries

Sen acknowledges that “all the countries with large deficits of women are more or less poor, if we measure poverty by real incomes, and no sizeable country with a high gross national product per head has such a deficit” (Sen, 1992). But, he argues that this is not a good indicator as not all less-developed countries (characterized as having low standards of living, poverty, low HDI score, etc), experience a deficit in the female population. For example, Sub-Saharan Africa which has extreme poverty, hunger, and famine boasts a female to male ratio of approximately 1.02. Also, strong discrepancies in the female to male ratio exist within one country. For example in India, some of the richest states (Punjab and Haryana) have women to men ratios as low as 0.83, while some of the poorest states, namely Kerala, boast a ratio of 1.03 or higher.

Cultural Differences between East and West (Sexist Opinions)

A noted difference between East and Western cultures is that Eastern societies are viewed as being more sexist. Thus, one should expect to see a lower female to male ratio in Eastern countries. However, Sen points out that this thinking is flawed because of the situation in Japan, where the female to male ratio is comparable to the ratios of Europe and North America. Another reason why this explanation fails is that it does not consider other aspects of these Eastern and Western societies. Sen argues that some areas that rank low in regards to the female to male ratio (South Asia: India & Bangladesh = 0.94, Pakistan = 0.90) also are among the leaders for electing women political officials. He states that “each of the four large South Asian countries- India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka- either has had a woman as the elected head of government, or has had women leading the main opposition parties” (Sen, 1992). Sen also compares the ratios of women involvement in American and Indian government positions to disprove this simple assumption. “In the US House of Representatives the proportion of women is 6.4 percent, while in the present and the last lower houses of the Indian Parliament, women’s proportions have been respectively 5.3 and 7.9 percent” (Sen, 1992). In the higher government positions the ratio of American women involvement is only 2 % compared to about a 9-10 % ratio of Indian female involvement. This shows that cultural differences between societies can reflect different roles and views for men and women; however contrasting views of Eastern and Western societies based on sexist opinions cannot fully explain the problem of missing women.

Withholding of Female Capabilities

Sen discounts the two previous explanations for the cause of the “Missing Women” problem as they do not fully explain all cases. He attributes the problem to social preferences for men as the basic capabilities for females are withheld. He argues that the low female to male ratios of some areas (mainly Asia and North Africa) are the results of high female mortality rates due to the failure to give women equal “health care, admission to hospitals, and even feeding” (Sen, 1992, p.587) compared to the services offered to men. Also, other social factors such as withholding education for females and employment options outside of the home reduce the value of women, therefore leading to the preference for men and the low female to male ratios of certain regions.

Sen's Capabilities Approach | The Capabilities Approach | Critiques | Famine Analysis | Missing Women | Human Development Report