Humans have two distinct processes for grasping reality and acting on it.
The first is Affective thinking or emotional response, often activated by images and stories that evoke intuitive feelings within us.
The second is Deliberate thinking which is our capacity to reason, this process often takes longer and relates to how we interact with numbers and words.
Equality for Women = Prosperity for All draws strongly from this second line of thinking, which is not surprising given the book is a rather unconventional collaboration between a former World Bank economist and a novelist. López-Claros and Nakhjavani’s goal is to prove the equation set out in the title of the book. How they go about this is by first making the case that the exclusion of half the world’s population from easy access to education and entering the workforce has led to failing economic growth and subsequent poverty.
Criticised in the New York Times for being “guided by an economist’s sensibilities that views women primarily as human capital with earning potential, rather than as human beings”. The idea that such a “crass economic case in advocating for women’s rights is necessary” caused the reviewer to label the book “depressing”.
I wholeheartedly disagree. When confronted by people with differing perspectives from my own on women’s rights, appealing to their Affective thinking is often the fastest way to kill the conversation. How can we engage and shift perspectives if we cannot even converse? What is often more effective in these situations are facts and figures, or as Nobel Prize-Winning Economist and Philosopher Amartya Sen instructed, we should follow the numbers as “numbers tell us quietly of a terrible story of inequality and neglect”.
The case this book makes for population imbalance is a compelling one. Men make up a larger percentage of the world’s population despite the fact that women live longer and did not really serve as combat soliders in the two World Wars demands the question, how did this happen?
It turns out there are a few reasons, and they’re all depressing:
Sex-selective abortions, or ‘son preference’ and the dark consequence of this – femicide.
Health deprivation and neglect as a direct result of women’s role in society. For example, women are more likely to collect water for the family and therefore be exposed to infection and disease.
The lack of rights around sexuality and reproduction.
The lack of access to education in areas of nutrition, health and safety.
The consequences affect not just women but whole societies as populations where the sex ratio is unbalanced experience higher levels of violence against women. It turns out unattached single men pose serious threats. If they make up too much of the population, crime rates, levels of prostitution, drug use, smuggling and human trafficking all increase. This constellation of factors make authoritarian governments more appealing.
The book also delves into economics. When it comes to failing societies, often economists focus on the analysis of mindless regulation, rapid inflation, lack of policy and endemic corruption. Seldom discussed is the role of, and the policies concerning, women.
For example, there is a misconception that farm-based labour is conducted disproportionately by men. But an overwhelming body of data shows that women also take part in farm-based labour – it’s just that their contribution is categorised as an extension of ‘domestic duties’. What’s more ‘domestic duties’ are not counted in the calculation of the gross national product. The gross national product metric is calculated at a household level, which is skewed unwaveringly in favour of the male experience. A woman’s contribution to farm-based labour is rendered virtually invisible.
The authors make a point that we often underestimate the importance the law plays in influencing the lives of women and enhancing the economic oppression of them. Specifically in these key areas:
Laws which curtail job opportunities – such as which industries women can work in.
Laws that disadvantage married women – such as being unable to have independent access or ownership of property.
Laws which impose restrictions on women’s ability to travel without male supervision.
Laws that restrict women from obtaining official documents unless given permission or accompanied by a man.
These restrictions reduce a woman’s ability to financially contribute to her society which in term means she is viewed as being less valuable human capital.
This same pattern can be seen repeated in how females are denied access to education. When referring to education, the authors do not simply mean basic arithmetic but the use of the deductive method, the ability to exercise the imagination, and the capacity to evaluate what is true and false. Imagine lacking these skills. This illustrates just how significant education is as a factor in human potential.
Put simply - Two-thirds of the world's illiterate adults are women.
How the current cycle looks for a lot of women today:
Let's be clear about this – this cycle is not the result of poverty, this is an economic problem caused by a vicious cycle of distorted incentives. On a national scale, this cycle has been proven to lead to the following:
A far healthier cycle is this:
Countries that expand opportunities to women in work and education largely achieve greater prosperity and more moderate population growth.
To paraphrase Sen, through education women are able to access greater economic independence, they are more likely to decide on the allocation of assets which has an important implication on family welfare. And this in turn improves social security and stability. Stability stimulates economic growth and grants women greater political autonomy.
The harsh realities and ramifications of domestic violence and violence against women persecuted because of the existence of cultural taboos is not shied away from in this book. López-Claros, the economist out of the two authors, connects these crimes to the loss of human capital – a loss that has yet to be fully analysed. I agree with the New York Times reviewer when they argue this dry analysis is an “abrupt shift” from the brutal testimonies of first-hand violence recorded by Nakhjavani (the novelist of the pair). Regardless of whether you approve of this stylistic decision, or the differing writing sensibilities of the authors, you cannot argue with their conclusions. The following changes need to take place to ensure women are protected in all societies. These changes include:
Acceptance that the problem is deeply rooted.
Acceptance that harassment has an impact on women’s lives.
Government recognition of the cultural impunity men who commit such crimes enjoy.
The introduction of harsher, more effective punishments for sexual offenders and rapists.
While attitudes are often harder to change than laws, effectively implemented laws send a strong message about what a society deems acceptable behaviour.
This book isn’t just facts and figures. It lays out the practical steps that need to happen, that the women’s rights movement is working towards right now, in order to reach equality. These include positive incentives such as:
Gender quotas in Parliament, Corporate boards and local administration.
Government budgets which incentivise and prioritise the integration of women into the labour market.
Mandatory equal pay for equal work and penalising those guilty of violations.
These incentives need to be implemented internationally, nationally and regionally, but they can only be achieved if personal attitudes do not block and impede the attempts to introduce them. The implementation of these incentives requires a two-fold approach:
Enhancing the awareness of the women’s rights movement and why it is needed.
Allowing greater access to women so they can contribute to society at all levels.
This brings us full circle, back to how you convince people that change is needed. When sharing insights with others having the facts is crucial because facts are not easily refuted, and they can serve as a common ground from which you can build awareness and share more detailed knowledge. Through this education you can ultimately bring people to a stronger sense of mutual understanding.