The articles for this week reveal the limitations of quantitative indicators of gender equality. Hanny Cueva Beteta notes that the general indication used to measure gender equality, the presence of female politicians at the national level, may not accurately reflect gender equality in a given society. Cueva Beteta notes that in developing countries, the ability of female politicians to advocate for gender equality is limited by a variety of factors, such as the gaining of a parliamentary position due to family connections, the multiplicity of identities, and the elimination of feminist agendas, which are seen as an “electoral liability (Cueva Beteta 225).” Furthermore, as Melanie Hughes pointed out during seminar last week, states may require a quota of female representatives in order to obtain aid, even though their parliament has little power compared to the executive branch.
Fulvia Mecatti, Franca Crippa, and Patrizia Farina note that there are other indicators of gender equality or inequality that often go unevaluated, such as freedom of movement and dress. (Mecatti, Crippa, Farina 460). However, SDG 16.7.1 offers a solution to this. Instead of just evaluating the presence of women legislators at the national level, SDG 16.7.1 catalogues the prevalence of women in positions of authority at the local level in addition to national parliaments. While obtaining such data would be substantially more difficult than measuring the number of women in national parliaments, such an analysis could reveal a more nuanced picture of gender equality in developing nations. This type of analysis is familiar to me, as in my field of research, what appear to be general state or colonial policies very rarely affect the reality of life on the ground. Furthermore, while the employment of quantitative data to measure social conditions is relatively new to me, given the examples presented by Melanie Hughes and the articles, I believe that, with adequate sources, I could apply such a method to my own research.