Pushing Forward Gender-Driven Growth
Remarks
Heidi Crebo-Rediker
Chief Economist
Peterson Institute
Washington, DC
June 24, 2013
Growth – the most pressing issue on the agenda of every economic policy-maker in the world today. How do we get it? How
do we sustain it? How do we make it inclusive? How do we ensure it generates jobs? Infrastructure investment,
eliminating trade barriers, investment in education and research, fostering entrepreneurship, better tax policy - there
may be no silver bullet, but we should explore all possible means of raising growth and perhaps the solution is right in
front of us. Recent studies suggest that if OECD countries saw full convergence of men and women in our labor force,
these countries would benefit from an overall increase of 12% in GDP over the next 20 years. Now the question is: how do
we get there?
Gender and its relevance to macroeconomic policy is a relatively new field. And while work has been done on the data and
analysis front in recent years, the topic is still in its early days. Tackling gender in the field of human rights and
development dates back decades. Good data and analysis led to mainstreaming policy at places like the UN, the World Bank
and the Regional Development Banks, the State Department and USAID, as with many donor governments around the world.
This provides the IMF with a tremendous opportunity to do the same exercise when it provides economic assessments of
countries around the world. The IMF has ramped up in recent years dialogue with member countries on issues like
inclusive growth and labor markets, and more and more research is pointing to women as key to economic growth. To the
extent that the IMF can "mainstream" gender might prove decisive to getting us there. IMF Managing Director, Christine
Lagarde says:"More women at work means good news for the global economy" – I couldn’t agree more.
The IMF is pushing forward the gender driven growth agenda in an important economy right now: Japan. Japan’s last
Article IV assessment highlighted the need to increase women’s participation in labor markets to stem demographic
decline and drive future growth. Christine Lagarde personally advocates on this issue. Full integration of women in the
Japanese economy is now gaining attention at the top level of government. Prime Minister Abe, who campaigned on
increasing women’s participation in Japan’s economy to drive future growth, has claimed "women are Japan’s most
underutilized resource." Prime Minister Abe has rightfully placed the issue of improving women’s participation in the
economy as a growth imperative squarely on top of the policy agenda, the third arrow of "Abenomics".
In preparing for this speech, I sat down with a friend – a former IMF Mission Chief - to brainstorm about how the IMF
could mainstream the issue of women as a driver of economic growth. Mainstreaming in other institutions took years to
achieve, the work is not done yet, and it required support at the top of organizations and member governments. The
mainstreaming of gender policies within institutions, programs, budgets and tax policies counts. This is really where
the rubber hits the road. And the leadership does need to come from the top. That is why President Obama created the
White House Council on Women in Girls early in his Administration, to place the issue at the highest level in the United
States Government.
While Japan could be a model, too many countries are not addressing this deficit. As you know, Article IVs are like
annual macroeconomic checkups for countries – yet – and I posed this to my friend from the IMF - we don’t often see
references to inclusion of women in the economy in many other country reports. Japan, and other countries like Italy,
where we see female labor participation rates well below other OECD peers, and where this issue actually was flagged as
labor reform objectives in the latest Article IVs, are not the only countries where women’s economic participation is
still too low. My friend responded candidly: IMF Mission Chiefs focus on other priorities and "are reluctant to push
this particular topic," because many senior economic policy-makers "really don’t want to engage on this one," and
because many Mission Chiefs see this as outside the mandate of the institution. The issue of further integrating women
in the economy comes rife with many social and cultural overtones, which may be particularly problematic in those
countries where women’s economic participation is still most limited, and so the reluctance to move away from the safety
of tried and true topics pushes this topic off the agenda. All the more reason we need to push this conversation.
Instead of focusing on the economic boost such integration would provide, the question of women in the economy is talked
about only as a "development" issue. Yes – gender equality is a core development issue in its own right. Yes - it is
also a "human rights" issue. We at the State Department are particularly aware of this imperative, as former Secretary
Clinton frequently and passionately argued that "women’s rights are human rights."
But the narrative of women as drivers of economic growth remains a difficult sell, often eliciting defensive comments
from senior economic policy-makers. I don’t need to tell you that that excluding half of your resources from the
economy, half of the world’s consumers (who actually control about 80 percent of household spending decisions) and half
of the world’s talent pool simply doesn’t make economic sense. Thankfully, more and more governments understand that the
inclusion of women in the economy is an economic imperative in and of itself, particularly in our current growth
challenged environment. But now some governments are looking to drive their own future growth and competitiveness by
supporting policies that will grow women’s participation in the labor force. They need all the help they can get. Those
agencies of government that often have the greatest impact – the ones that drive economic policy, budgets, taxing and
spending – must embrace these issues.
This is true for both advanced and emerging economies, although each has distinctive characteristics and challenges.
Research from our colleagues in the private sector has been illuminating. Goldman Sachs led some of the pioneering
research on this issue over the past decade and a paper in April of this year entitled "Women’s Work: Driving the
Economy," calculates how for advanced economies, demographic decline combined with increased numbers of educated and
highly skilled women in the labor force can boost competitiveness and generate growth with little incremental cost. It’s
low hanging fruit and can increase the tax base per retired person, increase the tax base relative to debt load, and
help address the issue of pension sustainability, amongst other things. In emerging economies, Goldman’s earlier
research showed that narrowing the gender gap in employment could push income per capita as much as 14% higher than
their baseline projections by 2020, and as much as 20% higher by 2030. This is especially true in emerging economies
with wide gender gaps, where the gender gap is reflective of systemic issues such as unequal access to education,
capital, jobs and markets to achieve balanced growth.
My purpose today is to highlight the cutting edge work under way to address this admittedly complex issue, in both
public and private sector institutions, and to make the case for broadening this excellent work. In doing so, I aim to
shed light on the barriers that exist - and to essentially lay down the challenge of integrating women more effectively
into all aspects of the economy to economic policymakers around the globe, and to those institutions that influence them
most. Ultimately, the case will be made, and won, when leading institutions, from the IMF to Peterson, as well as
private sector economists, engage to:
1) Systematically ensure the discussion of women’s economic participation becomes a standard and serious component of
economic assessment – and including it in discussions of policy where it makes sense, such as tax and financial policy,
budgeting and labor market reform, to name a few;
2) Improve the quantity and quality of data around women’s participation in the economy, demonstrating the obvious
benefits from growth and competitiveness perspectives;
3) Mainstream the promotion of structural reforms and policy improvements that can address the barriers that prevent
women’s economic inclusion to accelerate increased participation;
4) Challenge institutions and senior economic policymakers to make gender equality a top line public policy priority.
Much progress has indeed been made since 1995 in Beijing when then-First Lady Clinton convincingly made the case for
empowering women. At the State Department, former Secretary Clinton made clear that empowering women is not only the
right thing to do, but that it is the smart thing to do for economic growth. The Obama Administration, and the
Department of State under the direction of Secretary Kerry, continues to empower women from a development, human rights,
and economic perspective both here at home and around the world.
Of course we have not done this alone, and we are not alone in recognizing the significant economic force that women can
bring to bear on our economies. Much of our work to date has been with our multilateral partners. The World Bank, with
its long established tradition of looking at the microeconomic foundations of economic growth, has over the years
generated much of the necessary data we now use to analyze the role of gender in development. In fact, the World Bank
devoted its "2012 World Development Report" to an examination of gender equality and development. Of crucial importance,
in 2001 the bank adopted a gender mainstreaming strategy which was accelerated more recently through the promotion of a
"Gender Action Plan". Last year, more than 80 percent of all loans and grants funded "gender-informed" operations. All
Country Assistance Strategies are now "gender-informed" – meaning that each one systematically considers gender in its
design, implementation, expected impact and monitoring. And thanks to a notable Peterson Fellow and former head of the
World Bank, Bob Zoellick, who ushered through many of these initiatives, the concept that "gender equality is good
economics" is more broadly accepted around the world today.
The OECD, too, has provided a wealth of data and has been an exemplary partner, launching the OECD Gender Initiative in
2010 to examine existing barriers to gender equality in education, employment and entrepreneurship, with strong State
Department encouragement, including personal support from the Secretary. A culmination of much of its research was the
2012 "Closing the Gender Gap" analysis, which benchmarks national gender gaps in 135 countries over time. The study
showed a strong correlation between a country’s gender gap and its national competitiveness, amongst other things.
Likewise, the OECD’s "2012 Social Institutions and Gender Index", launched at the State Department last year, went even
further to examine the underlying institutional drivers of gender inequality in the economy – the thorny barriers that
dig deep into the discriminatory social and cultural space and limit progress, including inequality in the family,
limited female property rights, access to credit and political participation.
The World Economic Forum has similarly made valuable contributions to this discourse through its annual "Gender Gap
Report", which measures gaps between men and women in economic participation, as well as other metrics. And many
consulting firms, investment banks and corporations are exploring how women positively impact corporate culture, risk
taking, consumption and boardroom decision-making. The scope of our collective work and our efforts to address this gap
continue to expand, and we are hopeful. But we are not finished.
Today efforts to empower women in the economy are fast broadening and shaping the discourse beyond simply development to
the macro-economic, and a growing body of quantitative research is making the case that this is the next frontier. And
as Ambassador Melanne Verveer (the first U.S. Ambassador at Large for Global Women's Issues) aptly put it, "arguments
based on GDP growth more persuasively speak to policy makers." We cannot underestimate the importance of getting this
piece of the puzzle right; of establishing the positive narrative of women as drivers of economic growth. We find
ourselves with the opportunity today to properly assess women’s role in macroeconomics, translate that into
policymaking, and institutionalize it much in the same way we have done in the areas of development and human rights.
The IMF has published many papers over the years that have touched on these issues, but there is one I would like to
highlight. In 2006, Janet Stotsky (who is here today) published a survey at the IMF on the impact of gender on
macro-economic policy at a time when it was still a relatively unexplored issue – a testament to the early work the Fund
had done in this area. She pointed out the need to further study the design of IMF structural adjustment programs to
ensure the benefits of economic growth are equitably shared. She also pointed out that gender-based differences in
behavior can influence macro-economic variables, like consumption, savings and investment and that reducing gender
inequality could provide macroeconomic benefits. Stotsky highlighted that the IMF may be able to contribute to reducing
gender inequalities by advocating greater gender neutrality in fiscal – especially in tax – legislation and financial
sector legislation, and by ensuring that government budgets recognize the special needs of women and girls and the
disproportionate poverty of female-headed households. Christine Lagarde recently brought these issues to the forefront
of the IMF’s official voice: "We are all trying to remove obstacles and create opportunities that will allow women to
achieve their full potential, and in so doing lift us all to a higher economic growth plane." The extent to which
Christine Lagarde (and Minouche Shafik, Deputy Managing Director of the Fund, also here today) and their colleagues can
further engage and mainstream this issue will prove decisive. Having strong champions of closing this gender gap at the
top of the IMF may be just what will ensure that gender is no longer seen as out of place in the discussion of
macroeconomy.
It’s a difficult task to define and create the right conditions necessary to unlock the full potential of women in the
global economy. What is clear is that at the macro level, there is significant capacity for more work that can take us
beyond how women have impacted growth thus far, and address what holds them back from further impacting growth across
different economies.
Advanced Economies: The United States, Europe and Japan Experience
I’d like to focus on one key aspect of this issue: The differential participation of women and men in labor markets and
begin with how things look in advanced economies, given that this issue is coming to the fore as a result of lower trend
growth after the great recession as well as aging populations and other demographic shifts. The Economist in 2006 made,
in their words, a back of the envelope assessment that the increase in female employment in the advanced world "had been
the main driving force of growth in the past couple of decades. Those women have contributed more to global GDP growth
than have either new technology or the new giants, China and India." A remarkable statement. Since then, a multitude of
organizations have pieced together parts of the gender growth puzzle with the goal of quantifying the impact increased
numbers of women in the workforce had had on economic growth, and envisioning what advanced economies might look like,
given a different trajectory for female labor force participation rates.
According to a 2011 McKinsey report "Unlocking the Full Potential of Women in the U.S. Economy," there is about a 76%
participation rate of American women (compared with, for example, 87% in Sweden), defined as either currently employed
or actively seeking work. The report highlighted that between 1970 and 2009, we’ve seen a move from women holding 37% of
all jobs to nearly 48%, an addition of almost 38 million more workers.
The same report estimates that, without these women contributing to economic growth, the U.S. economy would have been
25% smaller in 2011 – an amount equal to the combined GDP of Illinois, California and New York. Closing the existing gap
between male and female employment rates in the United States moving forward could boost U.S. GDP by as much as 9%.
While the overall rate of female labor force participation in the United States is among the highest in the world, there
are actually some interstate variations. McKinsey estimates that if the United States raised female labor participation
rates to the average participation rate of the top 10 U.S. states, our economy would add 5.1 million women workers, the
equivalent of a 3-4% increase in GDP. So even here at home, we still have some way to go – and exciting potential still
to be unlocked.
The American labor force experience is highly correlated with higher educational achievements, and this is not unique to
the United States. The OECD considered the impact of increased female educational attainment on economic growth between
1960 and 2008 for 30 countries and found the increase in relative educational attainment of women had a positive and
significant impact on average GDP per capita. They concluded increases in educational attainment accounted for around
half of economic growth in OECD countries in the past 50 years.
Japan
Turning to Japan, I give enormous credit to Kathy Matsui, chief economist of Goldman Sachs in Asia, who pioneered
analysis of the potential growth impact of increased female labor force participation in Japan over a decade ago, and
has been beating the drum ever since. Matsui first published research on "Womenomics" in 1999, identifying the causal
link between Japanese women’s participation in the workforce and the opportunity women presented for driving potential
growth. This was significant, given the backdrop of Japan’s shrinking population, high fiscal debt, deflation and
increasing global competition. Given the high educational achievements of Japanese women, and the limited alternatives,
better inclusion of Japanese women could easily generate economic growth – as she noted, "it’s hard to run a marathon on
just one leg". Over the past decade the female employment rate rose to a record 60% in 2011, but compared to other
developed nations, Japan’s ratio still ranks among the lowest.
Why is this a critical challenge? Looking forward, Japan’s total population is projected to shrink by 30% by 2055 – the
sharpest among advanced economies. When Matsui published her "Womenomics 3.0" in 2010, she noted at the time, the number
of pets in Japan outnumbered children under the age of fifteen.
On this same subject, a recent IMF paper – "Can Women Save Japan?" sought to quantify the impact women could have for
Japan’s labor force. Female labor force participation is currently 24% percent lower than that of males. They estimated
that an increase in the female labor force participation rate to 70% would result in GDP per capita growth rates of 5%.
Japan last achieved 5% growth in per capita GDP in 1990. More ambitious increases in Japan’s female labor force
participation rates that might match Northern Europe averages could generate another 5% in GDP per capita growth. In
light of Japan’s aging population, lack of in-migration and consequential labor force decline, expanded inclusion of
women into the workforce is essential to slow the natural rate of decline in the size of Japan’s labor force. This is
true in other parts of Asia – Korea, for example, has a labor participation gender gap almost as large as Japan’s and
could show comparable increases.
Europe
Turning to Europe, some private estimates have shown that a reduction in the employment gap between men and women has
been an important driver of European economic growth in the last decade and that closing this gap could boost eurozone
GDP by as much as 13% overall. The OECD estimates that closing the gender difference in labor market participation rates
could add 11.2% to GDP in Germany, 9.4% in France and 22.5% in Italy. Even a gap reduced by 50% over the same time
period would lead to a 5.6%, 4.7% and 11.2% gain to GDP, respectively. Italy, in particular stands out here, as their
participation rates for women rank very low in the OECD, and I believe Minouche will touch on that later today. But
Germany too could see initiatives targeting increase in the female labor force pay dividends in the coming years as they
begin to grapple with their own demographic challenge. Scandinavia’s experience suggests that this type of outcome is
achievable, given the right policy environment and wider cultural acceptance of equal female employment. Particularly in
aging societies, closing this gap could help address pension sustainability as well as broaden the general tax base.
Given Europe’s current growth challenges, this seems to be an obvious opportunity.
Emerging Economies
Turning to emerging markets, let me highlight a few regional labor force participation rates to give a sense of the
opportunity. In 2011, the rate of female labor force participation for Latin American was 52%, for South Asia it was 35%
and for MENA it was 26%, which is the lowest level in the world. I also want to distinguish here between the emerging
markets and developing countries whose challenges with women in the economy span far beyond a mere growth challenge,
where safety, and health and basic education and human rights issues weigh large, and where fighting for fundamental
equality is of utmost concern.
One of the most compelling pieces of research on emerging markets was launched last year by Booz Allen entitled
"Empowering the Third Billion" - a country-by-country analysis addressing what will happen when an estimated 1 billion
women (The Third Billion) enter the global workforce over the next decade. This Third Billion could play as significant
a role as the worker inflow from the billion-plus populations of China and India, but the report also highlights the
lack of sufficient attention from governments, business leaders, and other key decision makers in many countries. Their
estimates confirm that there is significant untapped economic growth potential from women’s economic empowerment in
emerging economies and they rank countries on how effectively they are empowering women as economic agents in the
workforce.
Booz Allen also estimates the potential growth of emerging economies, and they highlight that we could see growth in the
U.A.E. boosted by 12% of GDP and Egypt boosted by 34% of GDP with equal labor force participation. And as with many
studies of emerging market economies and mobilizing women, the consequential benefit of equal labor force participation
would bring broader gains for all citizens in GDP per capita, health, early childhood development, security, and
freedom.
Earlier work by economist Sandra Lawson, entitled "Women Hold Up Half the Sky", looked at the BRICS and N11 (Next 11
after the BRICS) countries, and highlighted that in countries with younger populations, rising gender equality is
typically associated with the start of a period of rapid economic growth. The report also considered education and
correlated macroeconomic effects, such as more working women, stronger human capital and productivity, higher returns to
investment, more productive agriculture and concluded that education and economic growth go hand in hand. Conversely low
female education has been shown to be a contributing factor to slower economic growth. Lawson ran the BRICS and N11
countries through models of potential GDP per capita given increased women’s labor force participation, with the
sharpest improvement seen in India, with income per capital 10% higher by 2020 and 13% higher than her base case in
2030. In the N11 countries, the standouts were Egypt and Turkey, both at 14% higher than otherwise forecast. The BRICS
and N11 have been the prime engine of global growth over the past few years. Lawson demonstrates just how significant
the equalizing of labor force participation could be to drive future economic growth further within these countries,
with the obvious subsequent growth benefit for the global economy. We must ask ourselves: how can we afford not to work
towards this end?
What are the primary barriers?
Having just touched on the all important issue of education, I’d like to turn briefly to a few of the other primary –
and well established - policy remedies to women’s economic participation. In general, and most specifically geared to
advanced economies: policy makers who are looking to adjust access-to-work policies to level the playing field and
enhance flexibility must adopt nondiscrimination policies and access to flexible work arrangements, and facilitate the
transition from part-time work to full-time work. For example, in the Netherlands, the rapid increase in female labor
participation was the result of a breakdown in barriers between full-time and part-time work contracts in the early
1980s.
We also need to look to enhanced support for child care and elder care, including parental leave benefits. For example,
Sweden’s high female labor participation can be mostly attributed to a generous and flexible parental leave policy. We
need to review tax codes to identify and remove provisions that discriminate against second earners. Many countries
effectively impose a higher tax on the secondary earner in a family—usually women. In Canada, a decrease in the
secondary earner’s tax contributed significantly to the increase in Canadian women’s labor force participation rate
between 1995 and 2001.
The challenges for emerging market economies are markedly different. In emerging economies we look to policies that
introduce and enforce antidiscrimination laws, expand access to credit, bring informal participants into the formal
economy, and of course develop strong educational systems. Fostering entrepreneurship is key, and has been a priority
for the State Department, especially given the importance SMEs can and do play for driving both growth and employment.
This is not an exhaustive "to do" list, nor are these new solutions, but they are important solutions and necessary if
we are to begin to bridge the growth gap.
In Middle East and North African transition countries, women have played an important role in bringing about momentous
changes, notwithstanding their limited economic role. Supporting stable and democratic transitions in the Arab spring
countries is an important political as well as economic priority for the U.S. The successful transition of these
countries will require developing a vibrant and broad-based economy that generates good jobs. Just as women helped
initiate the Arab spring, so too must they play a key role in ensuring a successful and sustainable transition, but only
if they are integrated into the economy and their full potential is realized. Booz Allen analysis suggests that the
payoff from empowering women in MENA countries is the highest of any region, and therefore represents a clear
opportunity for U.S. and multilateral engagement and a model for bridging the gap.
Innovative institutional and policy incentives
The discourse of late has focused on either how far we have come, the potential we have yet to tap, or the challenges we
still face. But what about solutions and innovative approaches that have been pursued by the U.S. Government, by
international organizations, and others?
President Obama made it clear across our foreign policy that we are most effective when we lead by example. The White
House announced several commitments to increase economic opportunity for women and girls last year - now nearly all
implemented - at the Equal Futures Partnership, a multilateral initiative to break down barriers to women’s economic and
political 17
participation. He appointed the first-ever Ambassador at Large for Global Women’s Issues to ensure that advancing gender
equality would be fully integrated into the foreign policy of the United States.
The State Department, in particular, has embraced, under Secretaries Clinton and Kerry, a leadership role in promoting
the interests of women and girls around the world, where much of our attention on economic issues has gone to support
entrepreneurship and women in SMEs, through training, mentoring, providing credit, supporting access to markets and
technology, as well as tackling discriminatory laws and regulations, especially when it comes to property rights and
inheritance.
But we have also had great success using existing multilateral platforms to further mainstream gender as an economic
issue. For example, we worked closely with the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC) to elevate the importance
of women’s economic participation as an economic growth strategy and in 2010, this became a core component of the APEC
Leaders’ Growth Strategy. In 2011, the U.S. hosted the first APEC Women and the Economy Policy Dialogue, resulting in
all 21 Leaders adopting the San Francisco Declaration, committing to taking concrete actions to address barriers and
proactive steps to advance women’s economic participation. The APEC example is important, as it highlights how we can
continue to integrate and mainstream the issue of women as drivers of growth through new multilateral channels. It
illustrates how economies can begin incorporating women’s economic participation into national and regional growth
strategies, and provides an example that can be replicated in other regions of the world.
There are also good ideas for mainstreaming gender that have been around a while but could benefit from ramping up. For
example, the United Nations has championed gender budgeting for many years now - a mechanism that tries to
institutionalize gender issues in government planning, programming and budgeting, by identifying measures to address
gender gaps in government policies and reflecting them in the allocation of domestic plans and budgets. While many
countries have embarked on gender budgeting policies, from Nigeria to Indonesia to the EU, work on this discipline is
still considered somewhat outside mainstream economic research. Placing it squarely within the mainstream would help to
show that gender budgeting might actually be just good budgeting. We need to look at ways to further institutionalize
and implement these types of policies, and the IMF is well placed to do just that.
Incentivizing through tax policy can and does prove a powerful driver of behavior in both advanced and emerging
economies. For example in Nepal, which ranks high on measures of gender inequality, is paving the way on including women
in the economy through their tax system. OECD’s 2012 Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI) report singled out
Nepal for introducing a tax exemption to incentivize families to share property with their wives, daughters and sisters.
These types of changes can, in time, improve gender equality in Nepal with consequential benefits from increased
involvement of women in the labor force. The world of taxation is also core to the Fund’s work in countries around the
world.
And finally – we should keep a close eye on the evolving story about great potential that has yet to be realized in
Japan. Prime Minister Abe intends to launch his "third arrow" with policies aimed at restructuring the economy,
improving productivity and increasing labor-force participation by women, including a promise to create 250,000 day care
openings over the next few years, encouraging businesses to set a target of at least one female executive per company,
and extending childcare leave from 1.5 years to 3 years. I am extremely encouraged that Japan’s leadership has decided
to take this bold step forward.
Much good work has been done to further objectives of women, with the United States taking the lead on mainstreaming
this into our own work at home and around the world. We all have a lot of work still to do. I hope I was able to raise
awareness of the cutting edge work under way in the field of gender in the macro economy, make the case for broadening
this work, and shed some light on what still needs to be done. I would like to essentially lay down this challenge to
economic policymakers around the globe, and to those institutions that influence them most.
Christine Lagarde said just this month, the IMF does have expertise and can help, and where it doesn’t, it can reach out
to other institutions. She suggested the IMF could "seek out gender-smart fiscal policies by examining how taxes and
government spending affect gender equality and opportunities for women." She challenged governments to "dare to achieve
a more balanced world." We also support institutions like the IMF as they "dare" to continue and expand their good work
and make as relevant as possible the issue of inclusive growth, where gender is fully included, in the good work it
does.
Let me close by circling back to where I began: growth. At the most recent G8 meeting, Prime Minister David Cameron
captured the summit’s theme by stating that today’s greatest challenge is to "restore strong and sustainable growth to
the world economy." This year’s G20 places the challenge of addressing the growth environment in the global economy at
the top of its agenda. At the same time, the IMF just revised down, again, its global growth forecast for 2013.
Robert Gordon, in a widely cited argument from last year, raised questions about whether economic growth is even a
realistic goal for future generations - noting that global economic growth basically didn’t really exist before 1750,
and questioning whether perhaps we are looking at future devoid of growth at all. Gordon’s argument was that the history
of growth is both recent and, perhaps limited. Relatively recent industrial revolutions gave the world electricity, the
internal combustion engine, running water, indoor plumbing, communications, entertainment, chemicals and petroleum.
These in turn fostered more limited "one-off" growth drivers, including: The emancipating of females from the drudgery
of carrying tons of water per year and allowing them to join the labor force.
Gordon’s predictions of a future of stagnant global growth may or may not be proven correct. But, the inclusion of women
as a central driver of economic activity and growth, in both developed and developing economies around the globe, can
certainly make sure that we will all have to wait a lot longer to find out. Ignoring half of the world’s workforce, half
of the world’s economic power is to only achieve half of our potential. I hope when that topic of women and growth comes
up between the IMF Mission Chief and Minister of Finance, enabling women as a driver of economic growth will soon be as
meat and potatoes an economic issue as taxes and monetary policy.
ENDS