BDI paper maps well-being and gender gaps across Italian regions
A Banca d'Italia paper investigates the complex nexus between multidimensional well-being and gender equality across Italian regions from 2018-2023. It proposes a dual analytical framework using Istat's 'equitable and sustainable well-being' (BES) dataset.
North-South divide, fragmented equality
The paper proposes a dual analytical framework, constructing two distinct composite indicators from the Istat 'equitable and sustainable well-being' (BES) dataset.
One indicator measures overall regional well-being, while the other reflects pure gender equality, disentangled from achievement levels.
This analysis reveals a structural asymmetry: well-being follows a clear North-South divide across Italian regions, whereas gender equality exhibits a geographically fragmented pattern.
Using Principal Component Analysis (PCA), the researchers identify five distinct regional groups, highlighting multiple development pathways.
A dynamic analysis further shows that while well-being displays modest convergence over time, gender equality does not, indicating that gender gaps are not self-correcting.
This makes the dual approach essential for designing targeted, place-sensitive policies.
Beyond GDP: a multidimensional view
The research contributes to the global 'Beyond GDP' agenda, advocating for a multidimensional assessment of societal progress beyond a single economic metric.
Traditional gender-related indices, such as the Gender Development Index (GDI), often conflate well-being and gender equality, obscuring trade-offs and complicating interpretation.
The authors emphasize that treating achievement levels and gender gaps as distinct analytical objects is crucial for conceptual clarity.
Italy is a suitable empirical setting due to its long-standing territorial gaps and the comprehensive Istat BES dataset, which provides gender-disaggregated regional data for 2018-2023.
Beyond averages, into disparities
This dual approach is critical for designing effective, place-sensitive policies, as it clearly distinguishes between achievement levels and gender disparities.
It underscores that gender gaps are not self-correcting and require specific, targeted interventions rather than relying on overall progress.
The findings challenge the utility of unified indices that risk masking crucial asymmetries in development trajectories.