Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis article examines the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), which seeks to respond to the shortcomings of GDP and the main contemporary challenges to welfare. As a monetary indicator, the GPI is uniquely suited to evaluate the impact of policy proposals and its dashboard‐like features are able to track changes in contributing variables. While the GPI is currently not available for use in cross‐country analyses, it will be measurable using a standard methodology once certain data issues have been resolved and a consensus is reached on GPI 2.0. Currently, the main obstacles to its widespread use are lack of political leadership and institutional support.

ResumenSe examina el Índice de Progreso Real (IPR), un indicador monetario que, a diferencia del PIB, es idóneo para medir el desempeño económico, evaluar los efectos de las políticas y responder a las preocupaciones contemporáneas sobre el bienestar. Presenta funcionalidades de análisis evolutivo de variables, como el método del panel de control, pero la comparación entre países solo será posible cuando se resuelvan ciertos problemas de datos y se uniformice su metodología mediante la definición del IPR 2.0. Actualmente, los principales obstáculos que impiden su uso generalizado son la falta de voluntad política y de apoyo institucional.

RésuméL'indicateur de progrès véritable (IPV) a été conçu pour estimer les performances économiques, évaluer les effets des propositions politiques et aborder les préoccupations d'aujourd'hui en matière de bien‐être, ce que ne permet pas le PIB. Actuellement, l'IPV apparaît comme un tableau de bord pour suivre l'évolution des variables qui le composent, mais ne permet pas d'analyse transnationale. Il sera calculable selon une méthodologie normalisée lorsque certains problèmes de données auront été résolus et qu'un consensus sera réalisé sur l'IPV 2.0. Mais c'est surtout le manque de volonté politique et de soutien institutionnel qui fait principalement obstacle à la généralisation de son utilisation.

The 1980s witnessed the rise of feminist and Islamic fundamentalist movements in Turkey. In diametrically opposed ways, both movements pushed the debate over women's issues and rights in Turkey into the spotlight of public discussion. The feminist movement made visible, and condemned, acts of physical violence against women, problematized women's lack of substantive rights, and the articles of the Criminal Code that discriminate against women. For the Islamic fundamentalists, on the other hand, women's right to wear headscarves in educational institutions and government offices was a focal and continuous rallying point throughout the 1980s. Less prominent have been campaigns by Islamic groups to segregate men and women in public life, by calling for separate buses, hospitals for men and women. While the feminist movement remained an informally organized, non-parliamentary opposition group, Islamists gained ground within state institutions by virtue of being a vocal constituency of the conservative ruling party in power since 1983. Apparently in response to the heightened debate concerning women's status, in the latter half of the 1980s and especially in the past year the government put legal measures into effect, creating legal obligations at the international level and institutional structures at the governmental level to address issues concerning women.

Province-level census data for 1985 and 1990 from Turkey are used to examine the effect of the economic value of women on the 0-9 cohort population sex ratio. The sex ratio is interpreted as an indicator of the relative life chances of girls, reflecting their relative neglect in the household. The authors test two hypotheses: women's labor force participation lowers the sex ratio, and women's "gainful work outside" is more effective than the not directly renumerative work in an integrated family production system in lowering the sex ratio. (DSE/DÜI)