How old will you be when the global gender gap closes?

With International Women’s Day happening earlier this week, it seems fitting to share a few recent studies on gender inequality and the value of women's work around the world.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) released the 10th edition of its Global Gender Gap Report late last year. The report tracks global gender-based disparities over time in four areas: Economic Participation and Opportunity, Educational Attainment, Health and Survival, and Political Empowerment. Of the 145 countries included in the 2015 edition, Canada ranked 30th and the United States 28th, compared to 14th and 23rd respectively out of 115 countries in 2006.

A decade of data offers some fascinating insights into the progress, or lack thereof, in closing these gaps. According to the report, the global economic gap has closed just 3% in the past ten years. At that rate of progress, it will take 118 years to close completely. Check out the Gender Gap Calculator to find out how old you’ll be at that point and to get a summary of your country’s gender gaps and progress towards closing them. The report also includes analysis of trends, provides an economic case for gender equality, and shares implications for business practices and public policy. The WEF argues that women have an important role to play in the workforce as we look for ways to navigate the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

For those looking for more on how to accelerate gender parity, EY’s Who Holds the Key to Closing the Skills Gap?  report explores five actions that could help to foster equality and close global skills gaps. Three of these actions are aligned with different stages in women’s careers (entrant, express, and experienced) and two are aligned with key forces that influence women’s careers (digital technology and the media). A new report from Oxfam Canada and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives also provides policy recommendations for building more equitable economic and political systems.

A fresh look at creativity, clusters, and competitiveness

Richard Florida and his colleagues at the Martin Prosperity Institute recently released an interesting study that blends Michael Porter’s industrial cluster theory and Florida’s research on creative and routine occupations to explore their impact on economic development.

In Creativity, Clusters and the Competitive Advantage of Cities, the authors identify four major industrial-occupational categories: creative occupations in traded industries (creative-in-traded), creative occupations in local industries (creative-in-local), routine occupations in traded industries (routine-in-traded), and routine occupations in local industries (routine-in-local). The study examines the shares of American employment in each category and analyzes their relationships with regional economic development indicators in more than 250 metro areas in the United States.

The study finds that employment in the creative-in-traded category is positively associated with higher levels of innovation and higher levels of economic output per capita. Metro areas with higher shares of this kind of employment see higher overall incomes and wages, with creative-in-traded industries having the highest wages of the four categories. According to the study, 46% of workers in traded industries, which compete based on creativity and innovation, are in creative jobs. This category tends to be clustered along the East and West Coasts of the US. It’s not all good news for metro areas with higher shares of creative-in-traded employment, though. There is a significant positive association between shares of creative-in-traded jobs and higher inequality, while the share of routine-in-traded jobs is negatively associated with inequality.

On the other end of the spectrum, routine-in-traded (largely in manufacturing) and routine-in-local employment is negatively associated with wages and innovation, and routine-in-local employment is negatively associated with economic output per capita. To counter this, the report argues that industry and governments must work to make routine jobs into more creative ones in order to increase competitiveness and economic sustainability.

Is your community leveraging equigenic environments?

Could green spaces close gaps in health between people of different incomes? According to a researcher from the University of Glasgow, that may be the case. A study of 34 European nations found that the gap in mental well-being between socioeconomic groups was 40% narrower among respondents with good access to green/recreational areas compared with those with poorer access. While it’s certainly not without flaws, the study raises some interesting questions about equigenic environments (places that can reduce health inequalities).  

Along similar lines, researchers at the European Centre for Environment and Human Health at the University of Exeter Medical School found that moving to a greener urban area can lead to lasting positive changes in mental well-being. Another University of Exeter study of more than 10,000 people found that, on average, respondents reported higher levels of well-being and lower levels of mental distress when living in greener urban areas. Across the Atlantic, a University of Wisconsin study of more than 2,500 residents of 229 cities and towns found that respondents claimed to be happier, on average, when more green space is located in their neighborhood.

As more people around the world move to cities, and more cities compete make themselves attractive to talented workers, urban green spaces are an important part of making sure cities are healthier, happier and more equal. There are economic and business benefits to green spaces too. For planners, as well as those involved in economic or community development, there is a wealth of information on designing cities that make the most of green spaces.