Gender parity: Driver of economic growth
The global gender gap score for 146 countries is 68.5%; compared to last year, the gender gap has been closed only by +.1 percentage points. Despite the efforts, the lack of widespread change has slowed the progress towards gender parity. If we progress at this rate, it will take the world 134 years to reach full gender parity, which roughly equals five generations.
Though the increase is only +.01 percentage points compared to last year, 97% of the 146 countries in the Global Gender Gap Index have closed more than 60% of their gender gaps. Iceland is the only country that has closed 90% of its gender gap. While Iceland tops the list of the top 10 countries, seven spots are taken by European economies in addition to Iceland. Eight top 10 countries have closed over 80% of their gender gap. The Global Gender Gap Index measures gender parity across four dimensions: Economic Participation and Opportunity, Educational Attainment, Health and Survival, and Political Empowerment. Among the 146 countries analysed, the Health and Survival gender gap closed by 96%, the Education Attainment gap closed by 94.9%, the Economic Participation and Opportunity gap closed by 60.5%, and Political Empowerment by 22.5%.
The parity in labour force participation stands at 66.7%. Though women's participation in the workforce is increasing globally, parity advances vary differently across sectors. Women's participation in leadership roles remains low across every industry and economy. Women account for 42% of the global market and represent 31.7% of senior leadership roles.
LinkedIn data shows that women's hiring into leadership had begun to deteriorate from 37.5% to 36.4%. In 2024, 60 national elections represented the most significant global population that voted in many major economies. Gender parity in parliamentary representation reached a record high of 33.3% in 2024 and improved over time. LinkedIn data also reflects that men have more extensive and vigorous networks than women. Stronger networks are indicative of accessibility to more opportunities and outreach.
16 Gender1
According to the World Economic Forum (WEF), women's participation in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) and non-STEM has increased. Yet, women remain underrepresented in STEM roles, comprising only 28.2% of STEM compared to 47.3% in non-stem sectors, as AI is increasingly used in businesses. Data shows that female talent in AI has doubled since 2016 — gender parity in the AI industry, education, professional services, manufacturing, technology and media have increased. According to Coursera, gender parity is the highest in collaboration and leadership skills, teaching and mentoring, empathy and active listening, leadership and social influence. Still, it is lower in AI and big data.
As men and women enter the workforce after graduation, their skill sets are still shaped and valued differently.
In conclusion, the scale and speed of progress are deeply insufficient to reach gender parity by 2030. The global community must recognise and accept that gender parity is difficult. All stakeholders, governments, businesses, academia and civic societies — must collectively participate and collaborate for broader engagement and strive to bring incremental change to accelerate progress towards gender equality in all sectors worldwide.
Striving for gender parity has longer-lasting implications in a highly competitive and dynamic business environment and is a cogent thought that must be ingrained in every human mind. The world must raise the required resources and adopt economic policies to bridge the gender gap. It is only possible when there is a fundamental change in mindset to recognise gender parity as a driver of high-quality growth.
The world must elevate to a condition of equitable and sustainable development, where we can make 50/50 a reality in the new paradigm of thinking. Gender equality leads to stronger, more resilient economies by promoting economic growth and labour productivity. It would be a sustainable and crucial step in working towards a society that considers an individual based on merit, not gender.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Observer
07-05-2025
- Observer
When AI dominates, do minds fade?
During my second reading of the influential book Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies, which explores the accelerating rise of artificial intelligence and the alarming possibilities of achieving superior synthetic cognition, I found myself reflecting on a more profound concern: not the ascent of machines, but the potential decline of human intelligence itself. As algorithms increasingly integrate into every dimension of life - including, soon, our biological systems - the question of the future of human cognition becomes not only philosophical but existential. While technological advancement is often praised for enhancing productivity and improving quality of life, there is growing unease that excessive reliance on AI systems may lead to a gradual deterioration in human intellectual capacity. This is not merely about the erosion of practical skills, but about the very architecture of intelligence itself. A 2023 report by the World Economic Forum projected that AI will directly impact around 83 million jobs by 2025, with algorithms replacing many roles once carried out by humans. Though this shift is often justified by gains in efficiency and reductions in error, a pressing question emerges: will this transformation result in the atrophy of human intellect due to increasing reliance on digital systems? To address this question objectively, we turn to a 2025 study published in 'Societies', which found that prolonged use of AI tools - particularly generative AI models that now rival traditional search engines - correlates with a measurable decline in memory and critical thinking skills. Those who regularly rely on digital tools for quick problem-solving, the study noted, tend to demonstrate diminished creativity and struggle with complex decision-making. This cognitive decline appears most pronounced in educational contexts. While AI-powered personalised learning platforms have been lauded for tailoring education to individual needs - something I've previously affirmed in academic articles - there's a darker undercurrent. Over time, this ease of access and consumption may produce addiction-like effects that dull the brain's analytical and reflective capabilities. Learning without effort, the study suggests, undermines the very mental muscles needed for critical and independent thinking. A 2024 report from the UK Parliament reinforces this concern. It found that students who depend heavily on AI tools for research and writing assignments exhibit lower levels of logical reasoning and idea generation compared to peers who employ traditional study methods. The researchers recommend striking a balance between leveraging advanced technologies and cultivating independent cognitive skills. The issue is not confined to educational outcomes; deeper consequences loom on the horizon. There is growing unease that excessive reliance on AI may lead to a gradual deterioration in human intellectual capacity. A 2023 study in 'Frontiers' warns that excessive dependence on AI may cause long-term changes in brain structure, particularly in areas responsible for memory and spatial reasoning. Reduced cognitive engagement can also impair the development of neural networks critical for innovation and analytical thought. From a genetic perspective, emerging hypotheses - though not yet definitive - suggest that prolonged mental inactivity could influence gene expression in neurons, ultimately impairing adaptability and mental growth across generations. These concerns are not alarmist exaggerations but existential challenges that demand urgent reassessment of our relationship with technology. To protect the integrity of human cognition, we must redesign our educational systems and daily habits in ways that uphold mental resilience. Among the actionable steps is a shift towards interactive and creative education models, those that stimulate critical thinking, encourage debate and maintain space for organic human engagement. Moderate, intentional use of AI must be emphasised, with conscious limits on digital immersion and reinforcement of non-digital experiences. I have personally experimented with hybrid teaching methods in university settings - integrating technology while preserving active discussion and inquiry - and witnessed clear improvements in student creativity and engagement. As I also discussed in my book Thus We Evolve - Arabic version, the development of a human being is rooted not only in cognition but in moral, linguistic and logical dimensions. Humanity is inherently ethical, rational and expressive, but these innate faculties require nurturing. Overuse of AI, if unchecked, risks stunting the emergence of these traits over time. Therefore, we must invest in revitalising moral education - especially in the face of globalised digital values - while strengthening language, communication and logical reasoning in an age increasingly shaped by the cold rationality of algorithms. To conclude, the challenge we face is not merely technological, but civilisational. Between the hammer of advancing AI and the anvil of intellectual complacency, we are forging the future of the human mind. We must ensure that what emerges is not an echo of machines, but a revitalised humanity worthy of the tools it has created.
Observer
08-04-2025
- Observer
Researchers eye exit from Trump's America
In the halls of US universities and research labs, one question has become increasingly common as President Donald Trump tightens his grip on the field: whether to move abroad. "Everybody is talking about it," JP Flores, a doctoral student in genetics at the University of North Carolina, said. The discussion was thrust into the spotlight after Yale philosophy professor Jason Stanley, a specialist in fascism, announced he was taking a new post in Canada over the Trump administration's "authoritarian" bent. "I made the decision when Columbia folded," he said. "I made it in a split second." Columbia University, which the Trump administration has threatened with major funding cuts, said it agreed to take steps to rein in pro-Palestinian protests, among other actions. "It is not the time to cower and fear," said Stanley, who added there was "absolutely no doubt that the United States is an authoritarian country." With similar threats lodged by Trump against other universities, many researchers are worried about the future of academic freedom in the United States. Coupled with the administration's broad cuts to federal funding, some fear the country's research field, once viewed as the envy of the world, may be losing its luster. More than 75 per cent of scientists are now considering departing the country over Trump's policies, according to a survey of over 1,600 people published in late March by the journal Nature. More than 75 per cent of scientists are now considering departing the country over Trump's policies. "The trend was particularly pronounced among early-career researchers," the journal said. "People are just so scared," Daniella Fodera, a Columbia PhD student whose research grant was cancelled, said. Amid the uncertainty, several academic institutions in recent weeks have announced a hiring freeze and a reduction in the number of graduate student positions. "That's definitely messing up the academic pipeline," said Fodera, a biomechanics student. Karen Sfanos, head of a research lab at Johns Hopkins University, said: "It's kind of a surreal time for scientists because we just don't know what's going to happen with funding." "There's not a lot of clarity, and things are changing day by day," she said, noting it is hitting the "youngest generation" relatively hard. Fodera, who studies uterine fibroids -- benign tumours affecting many women -- said she has begun to "actively look at positions in Europe and abroad for continuing my post-doctoral training." With mounting concerns among US researchers, several European and Canadian universities have launched initiatives to attract some of the talent, though they may not need to try too hard. "I know researchers already that have dual citizenship, or who have family in Canada, in France, in Germany, are saying, 'I think I'm going to go live in Germany for the next, you know, five years and do research there,'" said Gwen Nichols. The physician, a senior leader at a blood cancer research group, warned the possible exodus could make the United States "lose our dominance as the biopharmaceutical innovation leader of the world." "We'll see the problem 10 years from now, when we don't have the innovation we need," she added. Genetics researcher Flores agreed, saying "it has become quite clear that there's gonna be a major brain drain here in American research." One young climate researcher, who requested to remain anonymous, said she had started the process of attaining EU citizenship and that colleagues in Europe "have all been extremely sympathetic to the situation." But she noted that those with limited resources, like many recent graduates, would be the least likely to be taken on by European institutions and may decide to drop out of science altogether. "This is a generational loss for science across all disciplines," she warned.
Times of Oman
06-04-2025
- Times of Oman
What are nutria, and how could they possibly be a problem?
Brussels: The nutria, also known as a coypu or swamp beaver, is originally from South America. But the semi-aquatic mammal has managed to spread far beyond its native wetlands, infiltrating swamps and riverbanks across North America, Asia, Africa and Europe. It first came to Europe in the 19th century, introduced by entrepreneurs looking to capitalize on the success of Argentina's fur farming industry. Today, though the fur trade has dwindled since its 20th-century heyday, nutria have flourished. Local populations, descended from animals who escaped from farms or were simply allowed to run free, are now well established across most of the European continent. They've even been spotted as far afield as Ireland and Scandinavia. What does a nutria look like? With coarse, dark brown fur, webbed rear feet and large front teeth, a nutria could, at first glance, be mistaken for their distant cousin, the beaver. But with an adult weight between 4 and 9 kilograms (roughly 9 to 20 pounds) and a maximum length of 60 centimeters (23 inches), they are much smaller. Instead of the beaver's flat, paddle-like tail, the nutria's rear appendage is thin and rat-like. Their distinctive front teeth are colored orange because they contain oxidized iron, which also makes them stronger. Are nutria dangerous? Nutria may look harmless, paddling along a local creek and munching on aquatic plants, especially roots and stems, or treating themselves to the occasional snail or mussel. But their long, sharp incisors can cause serious damage, cutting to the bone. They're generally shy creatures, and most active at night, but can attack if curious humans or dogs get too close, potentially spreading parasites or bacterial diseases. They pose a greater danger to the natural environment and biodiversity. Nutria are agricultural pests, happy to munch on any and all nearby cereals, root crops and saplings. And they are aggressive eaters. One nutria can consume up to 25% of its body weight every day. Since they favor roots and stems, they tend to destroy more plants than they actually eat. Nutria burrows can make dikes, quays and levees vulnerable to collapse during floods, and their presence can disturb native ecosystems and endangered waterbird populations. Why are nutria such a problem in Europe? Unlike beavers, which are native to North America and Europe, nutria aren't endemic and are considered a nuisance on those continents. The European Union added the nutria — under its scientific name Myocastor coypus — to its list of invasive alien species of concern in 2016, which lays out "restrictions on keeping, importing, selling, breeding, growing and releasing [nutria] into the environment." With no natural predators in Europe, controlling the nutria population is a challenge. They live an average of six years in the wild, and they're quite fertile. They can breed throughout the year, and with multiple litters, a nutria mother can have an average of 15 young per year. The European nutria population has exploded in recent years, and not just because they feel at home. Nutria thrive in warmer temperatures, and with winters becoming milder due to climate change, they've been able to gain a pawhold further and further north. On the plus side, Europe's nutria boom is helping control the burgeoning population of the equally invasive muskrat. The animals compete for the same habitat, and the larger nutria usually wins out. What's being done to stop them? Many countries in Europe have introduced monitoring and management programmes, in an attempt to keep nutria populations in check and stop new communities from springing up. These involve traps and hunting, though the latter can be dangerous for humans and other animals in natural parks and urban areas.
