Toplumsal Cinsiyet Eşitsizliği Endeksleri ve Epistemik Adalet: Avrupa Toplumsal Cinsiyet Eşitliği Enstitüsü Endeksi Üzerine Bir İnceleme

Year 2024, Issue: 1, 23 - 55, 24.12.2024

Gonca Oğuz Gök

https://doi.org/10.46655/federgi.1554240

Abstract

Yerel bilgiyi bölgesel/küresel bir platforma taşımak ve böylelikle yeni kavramlar sunma çabalarında uluslararası toplumsal cinsiyet eşitsizliği endeksleri ve göstergeleri, konu üzerine bilgi üretimi ve yayılmasında önemli bir referans haline gelmiştir. Bu endekslerin zamanla hem akademisyenler hem de politika yapıcılar tarafından toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliğini değerlendirmek için başvurulan kaynaklar olarak kullanımı artsa da aynı zamanda eksiklikleri ve iyileştirilmesi gereken alanlar konusunda sıkça eleştirilmektedirler. Bu çalışmada Avrupa toplumsal Cinsiyet Eşitliği Enstitüsü (EIGE) toplumsal cinsiyet eşitsizliği endeksi (GEI)’nin diğer uluslararası endekslerle karşılaştırması yapılacak ve toplumsal cinsiyete dayalı bilginin oluşumunda ve yayılımında nasıl bir epistemik adaletsizliğe neden olduğu sorusu ele alınacaktır. Bu amaçla eleştirel bir bakışla endeksin göstergeleri, metodolojisi ve kullanım alanları derinlemesine analiz edilecektir. Çalışma ile toplumsal cinsiyet eşitsizliği endeksleri konusunda akademik tartışmayı ilerletmeyi, endeks üretiminde kavramsallaştırma, veri üretimi/kullanımı ve ölçüm üzerine odaklanarak, endekslerle ilgili araştırmalardaki epistemik adaletsizlikleri görünür kılmayı ve dolayısıyla toplumsal aktivizm ve savunuculukta veri kullanımının önemini vurgulamayı amaçlıyoruz.

Keywords

Toplumsal Cinsiyet Eşitsizliği, Epistemik Adalet, Avrupa Birliği, Toplumsal Cinsiyet Eşitsizliği Endeksi

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışma TUBITAK 1001 Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Projelerini Destekleme Programı tarafından desteklenen "Sürdürülebilir Kalkınmada Toplumsal Cinsiyet Eşitliği Endeksinin Geliştirilmesi ve G20 Ülkeleri Analizi" Başlıklı 123K466 No'lu projeden üretilmiştir.

Supporting Institution

Tubitak

Project Number

123K466

Gender Inequality Indicies and Epistemic Justice: A Review of the European Institute for Gender Equality Index

Abstract

In efforts to bring local knowledge to a regional/global platform and introduce new concepts and definitions, international gender inequality indices and their selected indicators have become important references in the production and dissemination of knowledge related to gender inequality. Although the use of these indices by both academics and policymakers to assess gender inequality has increased over time, they are frequently criticized for their insufficiency in doing so and areas in need of improvement for better measurement. This study addresses the question of how the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) Gender Equality Index (GEI) contributes to epistemic injustice related to gender inequality. To this end, the indicators, methodology, and uses of the GEI index will be critically analyzed focusing on its conceptualization, indicators, data use and measurement. The study aims to advance critical academic discussions on gender inequality indices by highlighting the epistemic injustices in an effort to emphasize the importance of data use in social activism and advocacy.

Keywords

Gender Inequality, Epistemic Justice, European Union, Gender Inequality Index

Project Number

123K466

References

• Abou-Habib, Lina, Valeria Esquivel, Anne Marie Goetz, Joanne Sandler ve Caroline Sweetman. “Introduction: Gender, development, and Beijing +25,” Gender & Development 28, no. 2, (2020): 223-237.
• Arat, Zehra F. Kabasakal. “Feminisms, women's rights, and the UN: Would achieving gender equality empower women?” American Political Science Review 109 no.4, (2015): 674-689.
• Bardhan, Kalpana, and Stephan Klasen. “UNDP’s gender-related indices: A critical review,” World Development 27, no.6 (1999): 985-1010.
• Beetham, Gwendolyn, and Justina Demetriades. “Feminist research methodologies and development: Overview and practical application,” Gender & Development 15, no.2 (2007): 199-216.
• Beck, Erin. “What a feminist curiosity contributes to the study of development,” Studies in Comparative International Development 52, (2017): 139-154.
• Berenstain, Nora. “White feminist gaslighting,” Hypatia 35, no.4 (2020): 733-758.
• Beteta, Hanny Cueva. “What is missing in measures of women's empowerment?” Journal of Human Development 7, no. 2 (2006): 221-241.
• Bongaarts, John. “Population policy options in the developing world,” Science 263.5148 (1994): 771-776. Carastathis, Anna. “The concept of intersectionality in feminist theory,” Philosophy compass 9, no. 5 (2014): 304-314.
• Chant, Sylvia. “Re‐thinking the ‘feminization of poverty’ in relation to aggregate gender indices,” Journal of Human Development 7, no. 2 (2006): 201-220.
• Collins, Patricia Hill. Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2. Basım Routledge, 2000).
• Cornwall, Andrea, and Althea-Maria Rivas. “From ‘gender equality and ‘women’s empowerment’ to global justice: reclaiming a transformative agenda for gender and development.” Third World Quarterly 36, no.2 (2015): 396-415.
• Crenshaw, Kimberlé, “Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine,” in Feminist theory and antiracist politics (University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989, 139–167).
• di Bella, Enrico. “The Main Indicators of Gender (in) Equality.” Measuring Gender Equality (2023): 61.
• Dotson, Kristie. “Conceptualizing epistemic oppression.” Social Epistemology 28, no.2 (2014): 115-138.
• Ellsberg, Mary, Henrica AFM Jansen, Lori Heise, Charlotte H. Watts ve Claudia Garcia-Moreno. “Intimate partner violence and women’s physical and mental health in the WHO multi-country study on women's health and domestic violence: An observational study. The Lancet 371, no. 9619, (2008): 1165–1172.
• EIGE. Gender Equality Index Report (European Institute for Gender Equality, 2022), https://eige.europa.eu/gender-equality-index/2022 (Son erişim tarihi: 7.11.2024).
• EIGE. Gender Equality Index Report (European Institute for Gender Equality, 2023), https://eige.europa.eu/gender-equality-index/2023 (Son erişim tarihi: 7.11.2024).
• Folbre, Nancy. “Measuring care: Gender, empowerment, and the care economy,” Journal of Human Development 7, no. 2, (2006): 183-199.
• Frega, Roberto. “José Medina, The Epistemology of Resistance.” European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy 5, no. 1 (2013): 352.
• Fricker, Miranda. Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing (Oxford University Press, 2007)
• Fraser, Nancy. Justice interruptus: Critical reflections on the “postsocialist” condition (New York: Routledge, 1997).
• Harding, Sandra “Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is ‘strong objectivity”? L. Alcoff ve E. Potter (der.) içinde Feminist epistemologies (49–82) (Routledge, 1993).
• Hausmann, Ricardo. “The global gender gap report 2008.” World Economic Forum, 2008. https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-gender-gap-report-2006/ (Son erişim tarihi: 07.11.2024)
• Jaquette, Jane. S. Women/gender and development: “The growing gap between theory and practice”. Studies in Comparative International Development, 52, (2007): 242–260.
• Kardam, Nüket. “Social theory and women in development policy”. Women & Politics 7, no.4, (1987): 67–82.
• Klasen, Stephan. UNDP's gender-related measures: Some conceptual problems and possible solutions. Journal of Human Development 7, no.2, (2006): 243–274.
• Lombardo, Emanuale., & Verloo, Mieke. Institutionalizing intersectionality in the European Union? International Feminist Journal of Politics 11, (2009): 478–495.
• Medina, Jose. Misrecognition and epistemic injustice. Feminist Philosophy Quarterly 4, no.4 (2018b).
• Merry, Sally. “Engle. Measuring the world: Indicators, human rights, and global governance.” Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting, no.103, (2009): 239–243.
• Mohanty, Chandra Talpade “Under Western Eyes” revisited: Feminist solidarity through anticapitalist struggles”, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28, no.2, (2003): 499–535.
• OECD. SIGI 2019 global report: Transforming challenges into opportunities. Social Institutions and Gender Index (OECD Publishing, 2019). https://doi.org/10.1787/bc56d212-en (Son erişim tarihi: 07.11.2024)
• Permanyer, Inaki. “A critical assessment of the UNDP’s Gender Inequality Index”. Feminist Economics 19, no.2 (2013a): 1–32.
• Permanyer, Inaki. “Why call it “equality” when it should be “achievement”? A proposal to un-correct the “corrected gender gaps” in the EU Gender Equality Index”. Journal of European Social Policy 25, no.4 (2015): 414–430.
• Permanyer, Iñaki. “Are UNDP indices appropriate to capture gender inequalities in Europe?” Social Indicators Research 110, no.3 (2013b): 927-950.
• Schmid, Caitlin. B., & Elliot, Mark. "Why call it equality?" revisited: An extended critique of the EIGE Gender Equality Index. Social Indicators Research 168, no.1, (2023): 389–408.
• Schmid, Caitlin B, Rose Cook ve Laura Jones. “Measuring Gender Inequality in Great Britain: Proposal for a Subnational Gender Inequality Index,” Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 30, no 2, (2023): 580–606.
• Schüler, Dana. “The uses and misuses of the gender-related development index and gender empowerment measure: A review of the literature”. Journal of Human Development 7, no.2 (2006): 161–181.
• Sen, Amartya. Equality of what? The Tanner Lecture on Human Values. (Stanford University, 1979). https://ophi.org.uk/sites/default/files/Sen-1979_Equality-of-What.pdf (Son erişim tarihi: 07.11.2024)
• Spivak, Gayatri. C. “Can the subaltern speak?” In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture, (University of Illinois Press 1988), 271–313
• UNDP Human Development report 2010: The real wealth of nations: Pathways to human development, ( New York: UNDP, 2010)
• UNDP The Missing Piece: Valuing women’s unrecognized contribution to the economy, 2024, https://www.undp.org/latin-america/blog/missing-piece-valuing-womens-unrecognized-contribution economy#:~:text=Valued%20at%20an%20hourly%20minimum,GDP%2C%20amounting%20to%2011%20trillion. (Son erişim tarihi: 07.11.2024)
• UNDP (t.y.). Gender Inequality Index. https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/thematic-composite-indices/gender-inequality-index#/indicies/GII (Son erişim tarihi: 07.11.2024)
• UNDP (t.y.). Gender Social Norms Index. https://hdr.undp.org/gender-social-norms-index (Son erişim tarihi: 07.11.2024)
• Unterhalter, Elaine. “Fragmented frameworks? Researching women, gender, education, and development”. In Beyond Access Developing Gender Equality in Education, (2005): 13–35.
• Uyan Semerci, P. “Dev ve cüce aynı yolda: Yoksulluk ve pozitif özgürlükler”. In P. Uyan Semerci (Ed.), İnsan hakları ihlali olarak yoksulluk, (İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2010), 1-21.
• Verloo, Mieke. “Multiple inequalities, intersectionality and the European Union”. European Journal of Women's Studies 13, no.3 (2006): 211–228.
• Verloo, Mieke., & van der Vleuten, A. The discursive logic of ranking and benchmarking: Understanding gender equality measures in the European Union. (1. Basım Routledge, 2009)
• Walby, Sylvia. “The concept of intersectionality: A new approach to social structure?” Sociology 42, no.5 (2007): 1069–1086.
• Walby, Sylvia. Globalization and inequalities: Complexity and contested modernities, (SAGE Publications, 2009). World Economic Forum. Global gender gap report 2022. https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-gender-gap-report-2022 (Son erişim tarihi: 07.11.2024)
• Yuval-Davis, N. “Intersectionality and feminist politics”. European Journal of Women’s Studies13, no.3 (2006): 193–209.