The development status of women in South Africa: Patterns and progress in the provinces

Figures & data

Figure 1. The dimensions of unemployment status

Figure 2. Provincial standard HDI for 1996 and 2001

Figure 3. Provincial FHDI for 1996 and 2001

Figure 4. Provincial MHDI for 1996 and 2001

Figure 5. Provincial gender gaps per province for 1996 and 2001

Table 1: Changes in provincial gender-specific HDI gender parity ratios between 1996 and 2001

	EC	FS	GT	KZN	LP	MP	NC	NW	WC	RSA
Gender parity ratio changes	−3.97%	−3.04%	−2.56%	−3.65%	−2.09%	−3.50%	−1.47%	−2.22%	−1.02%	−2.79%

Table 2: Provincial female development status in 1996, per HDI and component areas

Sources: Authors' calculations; Strauss et al., 1996; ASSA, 2002; DoE, 2003; StatsSA, 1998, 2003; UNDP, 2003; Global Insight, 2004.

Table 3: Provincial female development status in 2001, per HDI and component areas

Sources: Authors' calculations; Strauss et al., 1996; ASSA, 2002; DoE, 2003; StatsSA, 1998, 2003; UNDP, 2003; Global Insight, 2004.

Table 4: Percentage changes between 1996 and 2001 in the absolute level of the provincial female development status, per HDI component area

^aThe differing bases of the percentage changes must be borne in mind when comparing the results.

Table 5: Percentage changes in the three provinces with the 1996 best and worst female development levels, per HDI component area

	Female life expectancy	Female illiteracy	Female primary school GER	Female secondary school GER	Female EAP	Female-headed households with zero income	Female unemployment
Best absolute status 1996	WC, LP, GT	WC, GT, FS	EC, KZN, MP	LP, MP, FS	GT, WC, FS	WC, NC, GT	WC, GT, NC
Change in index points 1996 − 2001	−8.15%	+0.04%	− 20.33%	− 15.01%	+14.16%	+ 70.86%	+ 25.47%
Worst absolute status 1996	KZN, EC, MP	KZN, MP, LP	NC, WC, GT	NC, WC, KZN	LP, EC, KZN	LP, EC, MP	LP, EC, NW
Change in index points 1996 − 2001	− 14.40%	− 3.44%	−6.14%	−3.3%	+ 18.73%	+47.15%	+8.59%
Note: Figures in bold denote the bigger change of the two groups, in each development area.

Table 6: Ratios of the three best-performing to the three worst-performing provinces' development levels

	Female life expectancy	Female illiteracy	Female primary school GER	Female secondary school GER	Female EAP	Female-headed households with zero income	Female unemployment	Mean result
1996	1.0928	2.9620	1.2481	1.3369	1.6401	1.9740	1.6478	1.7002
2001	1.2077	2.8592	1.0995	1.2112	1.5769	1.7055	1.4381	1.5854
% change	+10.51%	−3.47%	−11.91%	−9.4%	−3.85%	−13.60%	−12.73%	−6.75%
Performance gap	Widened	Narrowed	Narrowed	Narrowed	Narrowed	Narrowed	Narrowed	Narrowed

Table 7: Gender parity ratios in 1996, per gender-specific HDI and component area

Source: Authors' calculations based on Strauss et al., 1996; ASSA, 2002; DoE, 2003; StatsSA, 1998, 2003; UNDP, 2003; Global Insight, 2004.

Table 8: Gender parity ratios in 2001, per gender-specific HDI and component area

Table 9: Absolute changes in the gender parity ratios between 1996 and 2001, per gender-specific HDI and component area

^aThe distinction of most and least change is based on size of change regardless of direction of change.

Table 10: Changes in the provinces with the best and worst gender parity ratios in 1996, per HDI component area

	Gender-specific HDI	Life expectancy	Illiteracy	Primary school enrolments	Secondary school enrolments	EAP	Households with zero income	Unemployment
Best gender parity ratio 1996	EC, GT, FS	EC, FS, KZN	GT, WC, NW	EC, GT, NC	EC, MP, NW	LP, EC, KZN	GT, NC, WC	EC, KZN, WC
Absolute change 1996 − 2001	− 0.0316	− 0.0406	0.0694	− 0.0290	− 0.0987	0.0030	0.0751	0.0169
Worst gender parity ratio 1996	KZN, MP, LP	WC, GT, NC	LP, KZN, EC	LP, FS, MP	NC, GT, WC	NC, GT, NW	LP, MP, EC	LP, FS, MP
Absolute change 1996 − 2001	−0.0297	−0.0194	0.1073	−0.0122	−0.0092	0.0016	0.0333	0.0108
Note: Values in bold denote the bigger change of the two vertically read values.

Table 11: Ratios of the three best-performing to three worst-performing provinces' gender parity ratios

	Life expectancy	Female illiteracy	Female primary school enrolments	Female secondary school enrolments	Female EAP	Female-headed households with zero income	Female unemployment	Mean result
1996	1.0340	1.6997	1.0446	1.1326	1.2271	1.8767	1.2767	1.3273
2001	1.0199	1.6895	1.0333	1.0912	1.2285	1.7321	1.2676	1.2946
Change	−1.36%	−0.60%	−1.09%	−3.65%	0.11%	−7.70%	−0.72%	−2.47%
Performance gap	Narrowed	Narrowed	Narrowed	Narrowed	Widened	Narrowed	Narrowed	Narrowed

Table 12: Provinces with best and worst female development status in 1996, per HDI and component area

Table 13: Provinces with the best and the worst female development status in 2001, per HDI and component area

Strauss , J P , Van der Linde , H J , Plekker , S J and Strauss , J WW . 1996 . Education and Manpower Development , Bloemfontein : Research Institute for Educational Planning, University of the Free State .

 Google Scholar

ASSA (Actuarial Society of South Africa) . 2002 . AIDS model . www.assa.org.za Accessed 29 October 2010

 Google Scholar

DoE (Department of Education) . 2003 . Education Statistics in South Africa at a Glance in 2001 , Pretoria : DoE .

 Google Scholar

StatsSA (Statistics South Africa) . 1998 . Census 1996 , Pretoria : StatsSA .

 Google Scholar

StatsSA (Statistics South Africa) . 2003 . Census 2001 , Pretoria : StatsSA .

 Google Scholar

Global Insight Southern Africa . 2004 . Regional Economic Focus Data , Pretoria : Global Insight Southern Africa .

 Google Scholar