Feminism officially arrived at the Fraser Institute (FI). That appears to have been a factor that caused the down-grading of Canada’s rank in the FI’s Economic Freedom of the World, 2017 Annual Report.
The Fraser Institute announced: “Canada no longer among top 10 most economically free countries (Appeared in the Winnipeg Sun, October 6, 2017)”.
Gender disparity features prominently in the FI’s Economic Freedom of the World, 2017 Annual Report.
Gender Disparity Index
This year the index published in Economic Freedom of the World includes an adjustment for gender disparity to take into account the fact that in many nations women are not legally accorded the same level of economic freedom as men. There is a short description of the Gender Disparity Index and its use to make the adjustment in the summary of chapter 3 below…. (p. vi)
Chapter 3: Adjusting for Gender Disparity in Economic Freedom and Why It Matters
By Rosemarie Fike
The adjustment for gender disparity applied this year to the index published in Economic Freedom of the World takes into account the fact that in many nations women are not legally accorded the same level of economic freedom as men. The EFW index uses many objective measures that, on their own, implicitly assume that all members of society have equal access to economic institutions. This is not a reality for many women across the world. Formal legal restrictions to the economic rights of women in many countries prevent a significant portion of the population from engaging in mutually beneficial exchanges. The Gender Disparity Index employs 41 variables for 2015—fewer are available in earlier years—to measure legal discrimination against women; it is applied to Area 2, Legal System and Property Rights. The negative adjustment factor is smaller in economically free nations than in non-free nations. (pp. vii, viii)
Perish the thought that gender disparity may in fact be something that favours women and discriminates against men. However, it is clear that institutionalized observer bias in favour of women will prevent that idea from being examined objectively.
…. Up to 41 questions from the World Bank dataset related to the legal rights of women compared to those of men were used in the construction of the gender disparity measure. Her results are used to adjust the Area 2 ratings presented in this edition. We recognize that others may favor alternative methods of accounting for this factor. Again, we invite other researchers to develop alternative methods believed to be superior to the one used here. (p 6)
The term ‘gender disparity’ appears for a total of 219 times in the report, predominantly in Chapter 2, Country Data Tables, where, in the individual Summary Ratings it appears to be the main or perhaps only factor used to indicate the summary ratings of ‘Legal System and Property Rights’ with respect to how much gender disparity affects the attributes: Judicial independence; Impartial courts; Protection of property rights; Military interference in rule of law and politics; Integrity of the legal system; Legal enforcement of contracts; Regulatory restrictions on sale of real property; Reliability of police, and Business costs of crime.
Why single out gender disparity, and only that which is to the detriment of women? Why not emphasize other kinds of disparities, such as age, race, caste, ethnicity, ideology, religion, economic status (e. g.: wealth vs. poverty)? When imparting political spin, why stop with gender bias that favours women?
‘Legal System and Property Rights’ comprise one of five major categories of EFW Summary Ratings, 2000–2015. No doubt, gender disparity has had a large impact on the re-ranking of the EFW Summary Ratings for the individual countries and the featured down-ranking of the EFW Summary Rating for Canada (and all developed nations). There is even less doubt that applying gender disparity could have had a larger impact on the EFW Summary Ratings if gender disparity would have been determined for the other four major categories evaluated and discussed in the Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World, Annual Report. Is it perhaps possible that it was decided to forego the measuring and assessment of ‘gender disparity’ in those other four major categories because it would have provided a clear indication that ‘gender disparity’ is an aspect that disproportionately discriminates against men in those countries where feminism has made the largest gains?
It is too bad that we won’t learn about that by reading the Fraser Institute EFW report, unless the Fraser Institute examines the causes of ‘gender disparity’ reflected in outcomes such as the enormously large gender rift in job fatalities in favour of women, although that has without a doubt a large impact on aspects such as the UN World Happiness Index for as long as the reporting done measures primarily what ostensibly makes women happy men’s happiness not at all because it doesn’t count. Nevertheless, consider:
Annual Fatal Job Injuries by Sex (USA), (See Note 1 at and of posting.)
Don’t expect that sort of gender disparity reflected at any time soon in the FI’s EFW reports.
Now that feminism has officially arrived at the Fraser Institute, it will quite likely take a long time, perhaps many years, before pro-women observer bias will become purged from the Fraser Institute’s reports. In the meantime, it looks as if we can look forward to have the Fraser Institute, too, tell us what it takes to make women happy.
Note 1 — Data set for:
Annual Fatal Job Injuries by Sex (USA)
(The following data set is comma-delimited.)
,Female, ,Male
Year,N,%,N,%
1992,443,7.1,5,774,92.9
1993,489,7.7,5,842,92.3
1994,528,8.0,6,104,92.0
1995,539,8.6,5,736,91.4
1996,514,8.3,5,688,91.7
1997,477,7.6,5,761,92.4
1998,486,8.0,5,569,92.0
1999,442,7.3,5,612,92.7
2000,449,7.6,5,471,92.4
2001,473,8.0,5,442,92.0
2002,442,8.1,5,029,91.9
2003,446,8.0,5,129,92.0
2004,415,7.2,5,349,92.8
2005,406,7.1,5,328,92.9
2006,444,7.6,5,396,92.4
2007,429,7.6,5,228,92.4
2008,387,7.4,4,827,92.6
2009,335,7.4,4,216,92.6
2010,368,7.8,4,322,92.2
2011,385,8.2,4,308,91.8
2012,351,7.6,4,277,92.4
2013,319,7.0,4,265,93.0
2014,367,7.6,4,454,92.4
2015,344,7.1,4,492,92.9
Source: https://data.bls.gov/gqt/InitialPage
Selecting according to the following attributes,
| Profiles Type : | Fatal Injuries Numbers |
| Year : | [Your choice from the specified list] |
| Area Name : | All U.S. |
| Characteristic : | Occupation |
| Subcharacteristic : | [Your choice from the specified list] |
| Ownership : | All ownerships |
will produce the details for a single, specific subcharacteristic, plus the totals for all occupations for a single, selected year but not for a desired interval. There appears to be no possible way by which one can select other than the details for a single, selected occupation and year and other than to make numerous selections.
Therefore (unless you don’t deem the accuracy of the data set to be trustworthy) save yourself a lot of work and lost time by using the data set shown above.
