"Why call it equality?" revisited: An extended critique of the EIGE Gender Equality Index

In this paper, we review the methodology of one of the most comprehensive indices of gender equality, the Gender Equality Index by the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE). Building on Permanyer’s (2015) critical analysis, we offer an extended critique of the EIGE’s current methodology, focusing on four interrelated issues: a) the lack of transparency around the methodological decisions and the concomitant implicit theorising, b) the continuing over-contribution of the correcting coefficient to the index such that it predominantly captures achievement levels rather than gender gaps, c) problems with the verification process and use of Principal Component Analysis, d) issues arising from the aggregation and weighting of index components. Our analysis shows that in addition to the use of a correcting coefficient, other methodological choices (such as the use of ratios and geometric means) result in an unjustified penalisation of lower-GDP countries, reinforcing biased assumptions about gender equality progress in more affluent countries vis-`a-vis lower-GDP countries. We call for greater transparency around theory, method and the relationship between the two while also proposing methodological improvements. These changes would bring the EIGE index closer to fulfilling its undoubted potential to provide a nuanced understanding of gender equality levels in the European Union and effectively inform policy development toward social change.