Introduction
The object of this study is analyzing arguments versus counterarguments on gender inequality issues. Gender discrimination in HR decision-making practices occurs from gender inequality, for instance, leadership, HR policies, strategies, culture, and organizational climate. Equally, gender institutional discrimination arises from HR policies ranging from selection and recruitment to role assignments, performance evaluation, termination, and training, as illustrated by Tovmasyan, and Diana (7).
Furthermore, assertive and task-oriented women are less likely to be hired in comparison to men. Women also face discrimination in applying for jobs if pregnant. To this end, a woman gets few working opportunities in comparison to men leading to under-representation in high management and leadership level in institutions. Tovmasyan and Diana (7) also indicate that women receive few training opportunities while men are awarded key assignments.
Theoretical Mechanisms
There are several empirical and theoretical studies analyzing the effects of gender inequality in education, economic performance, and earning. Klasen (285) demonstrates three arguments supporting the fact that gender inequality enhances financial performance. First, he contends that efficiency gain arises from the division of labor according to sex, where each gender specializes in activities they pose comparative advantage leading to improved economic performance. For instance, women have a comparative advantage from home production because of children bearing and rearing complimentary. However, the merit of this argument may fail due to a reduction in fertility, home activities taking less time, and employment, reducing gains perceived from such specializations.
Additionally, high women earning can reduce growth because it reduces investment on land and physical capital as women refrain from such investments (Balasubramanian et al. 2).
On the contrary, substantial articles argue the opposite, that gender inequality decreases economic performance. Gender gaps in education reduce human capital within the society harming financial performance. More specifically, the disparity restricts the pool of talents to draw qualified girls. Another way of looking at it is if boys and girls are imperfect substitutes in production. Within such a setup, there will be a decreasing marginal return in educating males and females and restrict girls’ education to a low level while boys to a high level, meaning that marginal return in educating women is higher in comparison to boys. Decreasing this gender inequality can boost economic performance.
A second argument for gender inequality is the fact that women lead to increased competitive advantage to countries exporting manufacturing products. For instance, East Asian nations compete globally by exploiting intensive female labor in their export-oriented manufacturing firms. The strategy has been adopted by South Asia, especially Bangladesh, as well as individual advancing nations. The growth of such industries requires the education of women and the elimination of employment barriers. Increasing women's education in such nations will assist in building capability by capitalizing on such opportunities (Klasen 285).
However, gender inequality can lead to poverty through depriving women of saving and bargaining powers within families. Earning, coupled with employment, assist in boosting bargaining power for women. The power not only impacts women but has also led to various growth-enhancing impacts. For instance, high saving ability because women differ from men in saving with women having good saving behaviors, productive investments, and reasonable repayment of credit. Conversely, less empowered women lack the capability of investing in education and health for their children, especially when they are single mothers. Consequently, this inhibits human capital for the next generation as well as economic growth. To this end, gender inequality leads to poverty by depriving women of saving and investment potentials in a family, which translates to an impoverished nation in the next generation (Kleven et al., 181-209).
Finally, another argument for gender inequality is good governance (Klasen 285). Promoting women's education leads to the creation of high capacity leaders. Women are less likely to engage in corruption and nepotism activities in governance. Excellent female education and employment are beneficial from this perspective. Most people that participate in crime and corruption are men. Women rarely engage in such activities because of their nature. Women prefer following the law and order of the land. They fear police harassment, interrogation, and dentition if found guilty. However, the evidence is suggestive and speculative to this effect. There is a need for ensuring gender balance to create a pool of good leaders in society.
Conversely, focusing on gender inequality increases human trafficking in a country. Whereas men are human trafficking victims, girls and women are the majority. Traffickers view women as easy and vulnerable targets because if weak defense mechanisms. However, empowering women through job options and good education ensure that they do not fall victim to traffickers. In this sense, gender equality helps in building nation stability and reduce poverty.
Conclusion
The economic growth of a country is significantly linked to the roles that women play in society. While gender equality enhances economic performance through specialization and decreases economic performance through a shortage of skilled personnel in the job market. Equally, gender inequality creates a competitive advantage to export manufacturing companies but can also lead to poverty by limiting women's empowerment to provide for their children. Finally, a focus on women's education can lead to good governance because women are less involved in crimes. However, gender inequality neglects women leading to increased human trafficking effects.
