Exploring Gender-Based Disparities in Legal Protection, Education, Health, Political Empowerment, and Employment in Failing and Fragile States

Abstract

Gender inequalities in legal protection, education, health, employment, and political empowerment have been of special interest to researchers for many years. Hausmann, Tyson, and Zahidi (2010, p. 3) noted, “Although gender-based inequalities exist in the majority of the world's cultures, religions, nations, and income groups, there are differences in the way these disparities manifest themselves and how they evolve over time.” The degree of governmental stability is a salient aspect of the process through which gender-based disparities manifest. Although all citizens are doubtlessly affected when states fail, women are especially marginalized and experience governmental failure in a fundamentally different way compared to their male counterparts. Thus, the goal of the current study is to analyze the relationship between state failure and gender-based disparities. Findings reveal significant relationships between gender disparities in most areas, however the relationship between legal protections and state failure produces the most robust results.

KEYWORDS:

• discrimination
• gender
• state failure

Notes

In particular the tumultuous political histories in Nepal, Uganda, and Sri Lanka illustrate that governmental power can indeed be seized.

Afghanistan ranks 6th out of 177 nation-states on the Failed States Index, which ranks it among the most failed nations.

“0 = The laws are consonant with CEDAW and are well enforced by the government; such enforcement is a high priority of the government. 1 = The laws are consonant with CEDAW; these are mostly enforced, and the government appears to be fairly proactive in challenging cultural norms which harm women. 2 = The laws are consonant with CEDAW, but there is spotty enforcement; the government may or may not signal its interest in challenging cultural norms harmful to women. 3 = Laws are for the most part consonant with CEDAW, with little effective enforcement; improving the situation of women appears to be a low priority for the government. 4 = There is virtually no enforcement of laws consonant with CEDAW, or such laws do not even exist” (WomanStats Codebook, 2012, Section 3).

It is common for confusion to exist about the difference between generalized linear models (GzLMs) and general linear models (GLMs), particularly given the similarity in nomenclature and the point that all GLMs are a subset form of GzLMs. Given this confusion, a brief discussion of the similarities and differences between the model forms is merited.

	GLMs follow the form where Y is the predicted outcome, βp is the coefficient for variable P, and Xpi is the instance I of variable P. ε models error. For this model to be used, both Y and X must conform to certain restrictions. This increases the accuracy of β at the cost of raising the threshold for hypothesis testing.
	GzLMs follow the form with the added terms E() representing the distribution of Y and g−1() representing a link function.

There is significant overlap between GLM and GzLM models; therefore, when a GLM is used, often GzLMs are also used. Note that when the Y distribution is normal, E(Y) could be said to be (1)(Y), and when X is linear and well behaved, the link function g⁻¹() could be modeled as (1), and the general GzLM form is equivalent to the specific GLM form of the model as demonstrated: When one selects a GzLM with an identity link function over a GLM form, the requirements for hypothesis testing are different for a given independent/dependent variable pairing. In essence, the confidence interval is widened at the cost of allowing a reduction in accuracy of the exactness of the magnitude. The tradeoff has the desired benefit in that more focus is given to whether or not a significant relationship exists than exactly how strong the relationship is, which is appropriate for both the scope of the article and the nature of the data.

Some nations that have enacted a quota system typically call for 20% to 30% of the parliamentary seats to be held by women.