Home Business & Finance
One can compute the patriarchy rate in terms of male responses to the following five statements: (1) when a mother works for pay, her children suffer; (2) a university education is more important for a boy than a girl; (3) on the whole, men make better business executives than women; (4) being a housewife is as fulfilling as working for pay; and (5) women do not have the same rights as men.
The responses to these ‘patriarchy’ statements were coded as R- = 1 (strongly agree/agree) and Rf = 0 (disagree/strongly disagree), for male
respondents, i = 1, . . . , M and, for the К (=5) statements, k = 1, . . . , K.
For every respondent, define Sj = Then 0 < S, < К so that S, = s (s =
The value of S, is defined as a man’s patriarchy score-, men are “patriarchy- free” if Sj = 0 and are “patriarchal” if S, > 0, the strength of patriarchy being greater for higher values of St. This implies that z = 1 is the “patriarchy line”, with “patriarchal” men having scores at or above this line.18 The amount of patriarchy among the male adherents of a religion (or among the male citizens of a region) can be measured by defining a patriarchy rate, denoted PR, as the sum of the individual patriarchy scores of men belonging to a particular religion (or region), expressed as a proportion of the maximum patriarchy rate:
If every man in a religion (region) agreed with every one of the К statements, R* = 1 Vi,k, Sj = К Vi, and PR = 1. On the other hand, if nobody in a country agreed with any of the К statements, Rf = 0 Vi,k, St = 0 Vi, and PR = 0. Consequently, 0 < PR < 1.
Welfare equivalent patriarchy
The definition of the patriarchy rate in equation (6.9) leaves open the question of the distribution of the patriarchy scores (S;) among its respondents. Two religions (regions) could have the same patriarchy rate but with very different distributions of patriarchy scores. For example, if under an equal distribution of prejudice scores, S; = s for i = 1,. .., M, PR = s/K. But PR = s/K would also result if, for half of the M respondents, S; = 2s and, for the other half, S, = 0.
If one was averse to inequality one might regard the social loss, from a given patriarchy rate, to be smaller if the patriarchy scores were more or less evenly distributed over the respondents (low levels of patriarchy spread thin) compared to their being concentrated in a small part of the population (high and concentrated levels of patriarchy). In such a case, one would need to adjust the patriarchy rate of equation (6.9) by the amount of inequality in the distribution of the scores underlying this rate (the S;), to obtain the welfare equivalent patriarchy rate.
Sen (1976b) shows that if p is the mean level of achievement, and I is the degree of inequality in its distribution, then the level of social welfare, W, may be represented as W = p( 1 -1): “this has the intuitive interpretation that the size of the pie (p) is corrected downwards by the extent of inequality (1-1)" (p. 129). Pursuing this line of reasoning, Anand and Sen (1997) argue that a country’s achievement with respect to a particular outcome should not be judged exclusively by its mean level of achievement (e.g., by the average literacy rate for a country) but rather by the mean level adjusted to take account of intergroup or interpersonal differences in achievements. This methodology is employed here to adjust the mean patriarchy rates of each religion by the value of the Gini coefficient, computed from the underlying patriarchy scores of that religion’s male adherents, to arrive at the welfare equivalent rate.
Table 6.7 shows that 10.9% of male “no religion” respondents, compared to 1.5% of Muslim males and 2.3% of Hindu males, had a score of zero - meaning that they disagreed with all the five “patriarchy’ statements, (1) through (5), discussed earlier - while, at the other end of the scale, 18.4% of Muslims, compared to 5.6% of persons with no religion, had the maximum score of 5 - meaning that they agreed with all the five “patriarchy” statements.
The mean patriarchy rates (PR of equation (6.9)) in Table 6.7 show that men with no religion and Catholic men had the lowest PR - respectively, 41.3% and 42.3% - while Muslim and Hindu men had the highest
Table 6.7 Distribution of patriarchy scores and rates among male respondents to World Values Survey 6, by religion
Source: Own calculations, World Values Survey 6.
* = Mean Score x (1 - Gini); N = 33,015 men.
PR - respectively, 65.8% and 63.5%. Referring to equation (6.9), this means that Muslim men as a group “achieved” 65.8% while men with no religion “achieved” 41.3% of the maximum possible patriarchy. Considered over all the male respondents from the seven religions (including no religion), the PR of 50.6% meant that when men from all seven religions were considered in their entirety, they achieved 50.6% of the maximum possible patriarchy. When the mean scores were equity-adjusted, using Sen’s (1976b) welfare index based on the Gini coefficient, to obtain the welfare- equivalent patriarchy rate (WEPR), shown in the last column of Table 6.7, the ranking of scores by religion was unaltered, however; of course, the WEPR was less than the PR.
Tables 6.8 and 6.9 show, respectively, mean patriarchy rates by religiosity and region. Table 6.8 shows that there was barely any difference in the PR values between persons who had a religion but were not religious and those who were religious - 52.6% versus 53.8% - but the PR was considerably lower (41.3%) for persons who had no religion. Table 6.9 shows that the PR was highest in Islamic countries (67.5%), roughly equal in African, ex-Soviet Union, and Asian countries (respectively, 53.1%, 54.8%, and 52.9%), and lowest in Western (34%) and Latin American (38.7%) countries.
Source: Own calculations, World Values Survey 6. * = Mean Score x (1 - Gini); N = 31,998 men.
Table 6.9 Distribution of patriarchy scores and rates among male respondents to World Values Survey 6, by region
Source: Own calculations, World Values Survey 6.
= Mean Score x (1 - Gini); N = 35,712 men.