The Gender Empowerment Measure: Issues from West
Java, Indonesia
Peter Hancock, International Development Studies, Deakin University
Introduction
The Human development report 1999 (UNDP 1999) ranks
Indonesia as a country of poor gender equality, which is not
surprising for a developing nation. The 1999 gender-related
development index (GDI) and the gender empowerment
measure (GEM) rank Indonesia 88 and 71, respectively, out of
a possible 102 countries. The GDI uses a composite set of indices
related to human development which are then adjusted to
measure gender inequality, while the GEM measures gender
inequality in economic and political opportunities. In both
measures, Indonesian women rank poorly. This paper focuses
on the effectiveness of the criteria upon which the GEM is based.
It argues that local factors and the views of women involved in
the development process need to be absorbed into the indicators
which measure the GEM. The paper is based on research and
fieldwork among factory women in rural Indonesia, carried out
between 1997 and 1999. Three hundred and twenty-three
factory women and their mothers were surveyed to ascertain
how they and their communities measure the extent to which
young women are empowered by economic development. The
results show clearly that, at the local level, women measure
gender empowerment in completely different ways.
The GEM ranks nations according to the extent to which
gender equality has improved over time, through indicators
based on country data. Complex formulas are used to measure
economic and political power and the participation of women
compared with men. The following indicators are used by the
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to create a
composite GEM:
• seats held by women in parliament
• female administrators and managers
• female professional and technical workers
• women’s real GDP per capita.
On the basis of these indicators, Indonesian women are given
the relatively low rank of 71 in the 1999 GEM. However, the
indicators are very general and do not completely represent the
ways in which women may be empowered over time. For example,
the fact that women are highly represented in parliament does
not result in all women in that nation automatically becoming
empowered. Simply having more women in parliament over time
does not mean that gender equality has improved. This assumes
that the women in government are there to support the status of
other women. For example, China ranks 40 on the 1999 GEM
mainly because women make up 21 per cent of its legislature.
Indonesia ranks 71 predominantly because women constitute only
11 per cent of the legislature. Are Chinese women more
66
empowered than Indonesian women as a result? The assumption
that an increase in the number of women in parliament means
that gender empowerment has occurred, and that parliaments
in developing nations have power, is misplaced.
The first three indicators of the GEM are problematic
because most of the women who would be drawn into these
measurements are from different (usually elite) classes and ethnic
groups from the majority of women in the nations concerned.
They are not representative at all of working class, rural or the
most impoverished groups. They are not representative of
women where gender inequality is most prevalent and most
obvious, for example in the rural sectors of the economy and
sectors where women are invisible to data collected for the GEM,
such as factory workers. The final indicator of the GEM
(women’s real GDP per capita) has been analysed by McGillivray
and Pillarisetti (1998:200). They state that the measurement of
income does not address the realities of empiricism, and that
the income variable is included in the GEM calculations in an
unadjusted form, unlike all other UNDP calculations. This
indicator ignores empirical reality and does not take into account
the small nature of the manufacturing sector in developing
nations. Further, the income data used by the UNDP to calculate
the GEM are based on vital statistics which are prone to
inaccuracy (Bulmer 1993, Bulmer and Warwick 1993, Gulrajani
1994, Jones 1987).
McGillivray and Pillarisetti also point out that the GEM in
‘adopting an essentially arbitrary value for all countries effectively
prescribes a universal norm’. This defies the reality of the divide
between the developed and the developing world and the social,
cultural and economic individuality of each nation. For example,
the GEM formula gives equal weighting to all countries, without
regard to the accepted argument that gender inequality is more
widespread in developing nations. Further, the formula ignores
differences within nations, between ethnic groups, between rural
and urban women, and between classes. In all developing
countries these differences are usually quite significant.
McGillivray and Pillarisetti also point out that the indicator
which uses numbers of women in parliament ignores more basic
and important indicators, such as the right to vote which is
denied many women in developing nations.
As a result of extensive research among rural Indonesian
factory women, and on the basis of the ideas and culturally
sensitive attitudes of the women themselves, I suggest that other
more important indicators could be used to measure and define
gender empowerment. They should at least be considered by
anyone attempting to use the GEM to study the extent to which
Development Bulletin 51
economic or political development and power lead to gender
empowerment. These suggested indicators are:
• inclusion in household decision making processes;
• ability to solve problems (because of new
employment);
• mother–daughter comparisons (education levels,
marriage age);
• financial contributions to family;
• geography (highland or lowland dwellers); and
• the impact of the state and labour laws.
What is empowerment?
Empowerment is a problematic term. To empower someone
means to give them power or to do something to them to ensure
that they receive power. However, to receive power means that
you are taking it from someone else or that you will use it over
someone else. Either way, the ultimate result is that someone’s
life is negatively affected as a result. The GEM and the UNDP
need to ask: ‘What is empowerment?’
Afshar (1998:3) claims that empowerment will mean
different things at different times in history. It will be different
as a result of culture and local geography. She argues that
empowerment needs to be defined so that it is not perceived as
something which is ‘done to women or done for women’. It
should come from the women themselves and be something
they can own with pride. My research supports this claim. The
factory women I studied empowered themselves with very little
outside help. Nothing was done to them or for them. More
common were exploitation, harsh treatment and impediments
to empowerment. Further, because the empowerment comes
from within, whether at the individual, village or local cultural
level, it does not mean that someone has power over someone
else. It is sustainable but, at this time, it is also fragile.
The women experiences of the women I studied fitted well
with the arguments of the above authors. These women
empowered themselves as a result of increased income which
acted as a catalyst to increased access to decision making
processes at household and village levels. However, decision
making at the national level is open only to a very small elite, as
Indonesia is a highly centralised state with harsh traditions which
deny human agency and which do not have the capacity to
accommodate gender equality in anything but the most
superficial sense. My research showed clearly that empowerment
should develop from within individuals, households and
communities. From there it may move up into the national
structures of government, but this will depend upon many
factors associated with political and economic power and upon
the elite in Indonesia who rarely give away power unless they
are forced to, or because they see some benefit to themselves.
Contributions to development
In spite of the oppression and exploitation highlighted above,
the factory women manage to contribute to the development
of their family and community with their meagre wages and
March 2000
through their attitude to work. In so doing, the women empower
themselves and are not empowered through the actions of
politicians or of professionals and managers above them, as the
GEM saliently implies. The financial contributions made by
the women were a major primary source of improved status,
which empowered them to solve household problems and to
constructively contribute to household discussions. This
argument has been strongly reinforced by similar findings from
other research among women at the grassroots level in Mexico
and Bangladesh (see Osmani 1998, Rowlands 1998).
Before going to West Java I had assumed that the financial
contributions of female factory workers to their families would
be relatively insignificant. This expectation was based on the
literature and on the fact of the extremely low wages in Indonesia
per se (Wolf 1992, for example). However, after having surveyed
only a few women, I realised that their contributions to the
household were very important. Female factory wages were
extremely beneficial to the social, physical and spiritual well-
being of the families I studied. Usually, the small factory incomes
were budgeted to allow for the factory workers’ transport and
food costs, which were comparatively high, and occasionally
for a few luxury items. The remainder was spent on food,
clothing, education or medicine.
The sampled factory women contributed on average 38 per
cent of their incomes to their family every month, their average
monthly incomes being 142,000 rupiah (Rp) in 1997–98. Only
the equivalent of 17 per cent of this monthly income was
reimbursed to the women for their working costs (transport
and food). Working costs greater than this were usually met by
the women themselves from the remainder of their wages.
The research also found that the factory women make
substantial financial and unseen contributions to development,
such as giving monies to family members on a daily basis, over
and above the monthly contributions. Other unseen
contributions include improving the status of women, providing
a positive example to other women, contradicting the traditional
ethos that women are a financial burden to their family or
husbands, and in challenging notions of female workers
propagated by the state and investors. Unseen contributions,
combined with the significant financial ones made by the women
sampled, create a sophisticated and substantial system of social
security. This security is provided in spite of an oppressive and
exploitative state and the rarefying nature of global capitalism.
The women I studied provided evidence which strongly suggests
that the GEM indicators are not totally relevant to the lives of
many women in the Third World. The factory women were
doing more to empower themselves, using their small wages,
their experience and their new life choices and were not beholden
to women in higher levels of management or public service.
Some self-perceptions of empowerment
Despite the importance of their financial contributions to their
families, most of the women surveyed did not feel empowered
by money alone. When they conceptualised the paths to their
own empowerment, the women considered other factors, such
67
as generational and demographic differences from their mothers
and being included in decision making mechanisms, to have
been more important.
In gross terms, 40 per cent of the women studied said that
they felt their status had increased as a result of factory work
(status being defined by the women as increased household
ability to make decisions, solve problems and contribute
financially). The other 60 per cent believed that their household
status had not changed. Of those who claimed increased status,
roughly 45 per cent stated that this was predominantly due to
their new wage contributions to their family. The remaining 55
per cent thought that it was due to their not being at home all
the time and, therefore, not being confined to household duties
and under constant control.
At this point, it is easy to see why the young Sundanese
factory women are significantly more able than their mothers
to improve their status. I collected data on their mothers’
employment patterns. The small minority of mothers who did
work were mostly confined to two sectors: agriculture, or
household servitude. At the time, the average monthly income
for house servants in Banjaran was Rp40,000, and agricultural
wages for women averaged Rp50,000 per month. The average
monthly income of the factory women was Rp142,000 which,
in itself, is a small amount for hard work. However, compared
with their mothers’ vastly inferior average incomes, it gives the
factory women significantly more potential to improve status
through financial means.
Apart from wages and dislocation, women commonly
measured their improved status by the degree to which they
were included in family decision making processes, and by their
ability to make independent social and economic decisions and
to solve family problems. That is, by being away from home
and village and experiencing new and complex happenings in
the factories, including Western notions of production, foreign
managers, buyers and investors, they gained valuable and high
status experience which enabled them to solve household
problems. These are crucial indicators which need to be
incorporated into the GEM and considered by anyone interested
in gender empowerment.
Education and marriage
The women also measured improved status or empowerment
by making comparisons between their own education, marriage
and fertility levels and those of their mothers. It was evident
that the young factory women had significantly more education,
higher marriage ages and fewer children and were more able to
choose their own spouse.
The average age at first marriage (AAFM) was used by the
women to indicate the extent to which they had become
empowered as a result of factory work, improved education and
modern demographic norms. The AAFM of the married factory
women was 17.2 years. Their overall average age at the time of
the survey was 25.5 years, compared with an average age of
19.4 years for the cohort of unmarried factory women sampled.
68
The combined average age of married and unmarried factory
women sampled was 22 years.
The comparatively low AAFM of the mothers of the factory
women provides a brief insight into the recent history of
Sundanese women. The AAFM of the mothers was 14.3 years.
However, when these figures are broken down into a highland–
lowland distinction, significant patterns emerge. For example,
the AAFM of the mothers in lowland areas was 15.6 years,
compared with 13.3 years in highland areas. This distinction
between married and unmarried factory women, combined with
the highland–lowland distinction, provides an interesting insight
into the differences operating between the more traditional
highland areas and the lowland areas in the research site.
Conclusion
The GEM attempts to measure or trace the indicators of gender
equity in political and economic power. However, research
among factory women in rural Indonesia suggests that the GEM
should be changed to incorporate additional indicators. Until
that time, students and researchers need to take account of the
reality of the lives of women at the local level in developing
nations if they intend to use the GEM in their work.
References
Afshar, H. 1998, ‘Introduction’, in H. Afshar (ed.), Women and
empowerment: Illustrations from the Third World, Macmillan,
London, 1–10.
Bulmer, M. 1993, ‘Sampling’, in M. Bulmer and D. Warwick
(eds), Social research in developing countries, UCL Press,
London, 91–101.
Bulmer, M. and D. Warwick 1993, ‘Data collection’, in M.
Bulmer and D. Warwick (eds), Social research in developing
countries, UCL Press, London, 145–60.
Gulrajani, M. 1994, ‘Child labour and the export sector in the
Third World: A case study of the Indian carpet industry’,
Labour, Capital and Society, 27, 192–214.
Jones, G. 1987, ‘The 1985 intercensal survey of Indonesia: The
labour force’, Research Note No. 78, August, Department of
Demography, The Australian National University, Canberra.
McGillivray, M. and J. Pillarisetti 1998, ‘Human development
and gender empowerment: Methodological and measure-
ment issues’, Development Policy Review, 16(2), 197–203.
Osmani, L. 1998, ‘The Grameen Bank experiment:
Empowerment of women through credit’, in H. Afshar (ed.),
Women and empowerment: Illustrations from the Third World,
Macmillan, London, 67–85.
Rowlands, J. 1998, ‘A word of the times, but what does it mean?
Empowerment in the discourse and practice of development’,
in H. Afshar, (ed.), Women and empowerment: Illustrations
from the Third World, Macmillan, London, 11–34.
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) 1999, Human
development report 1999, Oxford University Press, New York.
Wolf, D. 1992, Factory daughters, University of California Press,
Berkeley.
Development Bulletin 51