Gender equality models in the European Union

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the current situation of the European Union in terms of gender equality, researching the possible existence of models differentiated by groups of countries or conglomerates. For this, the indicator offered by the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) has been used, which includes six dimensions: work, money, knowledge, time, power and health.

Design/methodology/approach

The Gender Equality Index is compared with an alternative indicator that has been developed using the same dimensions but with a different methodology. Specifically, the DP2 distance measure has been applied, the use of which is common in studies focusing on well-being and quality of life. In addition, a cluster analysis has been carried out that allows classifying the EU member states and obtaining groupings of countries according to the proximity between them in terms of equality between men and women.

Findings

The results show that the most egalitarian countries are those of northern Europe, but without finding the typical north–south classification. Thus, in the group of the least equal are many eastern countries that have recently joined the EU, along with other southern countries that have been part of the EU since its creation, such as Italy. The classification of the countries resulting from applying one or the other methodology is not identical although there are hardly any significant changes. The groups obtained in the years for which information is available are also not altered, which reflects the structural nature of gender equality.

Originality/value

This paper shows a division into four groups of countries according to gender equality, using different indicators and methodologies. The typology of countries has hardly altered during the last decade.

Citation

López-Martínez, M., Riquelme Perea, P.J. and de Maya Matallana, M. (2022), "Gender equality models in the European Union", International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol. 42 No. 7/8, pp. 605-623. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-04-2021-0092