What are your thoughts about gender equality in research institutions?
What do you think about gender equality in medical or dental health research area?
Transcribed interview recordings were imported into Atlas.Ti and read and re-read to identify codes and categories using an inductive approach to code, analyze and report on [ 31 , 32 ]. This process helped gain familiarity with the data and achieve new insights by analyzing for recurring themes and issues that represented answers to the questions; and to draw conclusions from the responses.
A codebook was inductively developed from themes that had been generated and from analytical questions intended to elicit a thorough, nuanced exploration of gender equality in medical and dental research. Coding and analysis were led by the first author of this report. A second qualitative researcher was consulted for extra coding to ensure inter-coder reliability during the process. The adoption of this particular approach ensured the identification and description of new codes and subthemes within the transcripts and this procedure continued until the point of saturation was reached.
During this coding process, novel codes that emerged from the data were included to review the initial generated codebook. The transcripts were again re-read using the new codebook. This approach was employed to develop categories, which were then explored and used when discussing the pre-conceived topics. The concepts and categories of analysis were defined using the words of the participants. Data were organized into key themes and subthemes generated by the coding process, and excerpts and illustrative quotes of general insights and of deviant cases from the transcripts were selected to substantiate the presentation of the key findings in this report. The informants’ own words were also used to report the findings. Attention was paid to the researchers’ reflexive journals to ensure that informant biases were not introduced. The Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative research guidelines were considered.
Ethics approval was obtained from the Institute of Public Health, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria (IPH/OAU/12/1617). All informants signed an informed consent form.
Table 2 presents data on the sociodemographic profile of the 54 female and male medical and dental professionals who participated in the in-depth interviews. The sample presents 48% females and 52% males, with their ages ranging from 33 to 62 years (what of the age mean?). Participants were educated to postgraduate level and most of whom were married. The number of children of interviewees ranged from 1 to 5.
Characteristic | Male (n = 28) | Female (n = 26) |
---|---|---|
20–40 | 3 | 6 |
41–60 | 24 | 20 |
61–70 | 1 | - |
Single | - | 2 |
Married | 28 | 24 |
Dentists | 11 | 10 |
Medicine | 8 | 5 |
Surgery | 5 | 3 |
Basic sciences | 4 | 8 |
Professor | 3 | 3 |
Associate Professor | 4 | 2 |
Senior Lecturer | 16 | 13 |
Lecturer I | 3 | 6 |
Lecturer II | 2 | 2 |
0 | 5 | 9 |
1–4 | 16 | 16 |
5 | 7 | 1 |
An initial 44 (29 medical and 15 dental researchers; 30 females and 14 males) contacts were made. Of these, 12 (7 medical and 5 dental researchers; 10 women and 2 men) did not respond to contact made. One did not meet eligibility criteria, and eight (7 medical and 1 dental researchers; 4 females and 4 males) declined participation. The 21 consented respondents helped reach other participants through the snowballing process
Three core themes emerged from the data that each reflected participants’ perceptions on how female medical and dental researchers’ make decisions to navigate the constraints within the research institutions in which they work; and how they act to promote a supportive environment for their female peers. These themes were: (1) Ingrained patterns of institutionalized male dominance in research institutions; (2) Hopes for a changing narrative on gender equalities in research; and (3) Women driving the conscience for change. These themes, along with the subthemes and extracts are presented in Table 3 .
Key themes | Sub themes | Illustrative quotes |
---|---|---|
• Underrepresentation of women in medicine and dental specialties • Underrepresentation of women in managerial positions Institutionalization of patriarchy and androcentric values | . . . | |
• Increased public discussion Speaking and ‘acting up’ for gender equality | . , , , . , | |
• Female gender bias in grant opportunities Gender mainstreaming into research systems | . . , , . , |
Women felt under-represented and men overrepresented in most fields in the medical and dental fields. Women expressed an opinion that the medical and dental fields are male-dominated and that women need to compete more with lower status positions, as one participant expressed:
‘If you go to male -female enrollment in school, you will find out that the percentage is higher for males than females. Then, when you even come to the university, at least I can assert a guess that in my place, if we are like 35 doctors there will be like 7 females’ Dentist_male
Interviewees of both genders perceived that the number of women in the medical and dental profession is increasing, though they remain underrepresented in managerial positions in universities in Nigeria and are less likely to be promoted or elected to managerial positions. Women identified that they had had to put in a lot of effort to demonstrate that they were capable of doing just as well as or even better than men as indicated by the following extract:
It was not a small battle to convince learned people like professors, medical doctors saying a female can do this. Even up until now, we are yet to have our female first Vice Chancellor.’ Basic Sciences_Male
As per the participants’ opinions, gender inequality results in uneven power relations, entitlements, social values, responsibilities, and duties in patriarchal societies. The socialization process also affects how each gender perceives oneself and the power and influence they have. The majority of female researchers observed a male dominant culture in the medical and dental profession, which not only limits the opportunities for selection or nomination into leadership position, but also medical and dental specialization opportunities. As identified, men are perceived by female participants as afraid of women altering the status quo in academic and medical research:
‘Because of socialization the moment you are born, your parents tell you how to conform to gender expectations. Females are socialized not to do things that are tedious. This influences even professional. You see females being discouraged from being a surgeon and encouraged to be things like pediatric dentist, dentist.’ Medicine_Male
Participants of both genders voiced increasing public discussions on gender, gender equality, gender bias and discrimination; that is making it possible for a gradual shift in gender-biased practices in the medical and dental fields. These public discussions for change are happening by female professionals who speak up and advocate for evidence-based changes to gendered practice. The active drives for gender equality in the medical and dental fields is resulting in the rising enrolment of women in medical and dental schools, despite enrolment still being largely dominated by men. Participants opined that there is a growing awareness of opportunities for women to pursue careers in medicine and dentistry:
‘I will say that I think we have more of male researchers in medical and dental, but I think the trend is changing, there is also a male dominance in leading research but that is also changing because I think there is a lot of emphasis now on balancing the gender composition of researchers and also gender balance in recruitment. I think people are now thinking in that direction but before most of the research in medical and dental field include more of male than female as researchers and study participants. Dentist Male
There were testimonies of three female medical and dental professionals being the first to hold key managerial positions. For these women, breaking the gender barrier was an effort to create the needed pathway to make it easier for other women to come on board:
‘I was the first female consultant in the department, and the first female professor in the department’. You know most at times, if you are able to cross the first few hurdles, the rest becomes easier. So, maybe I’m the sacrificial lamb of the department. Surgeon_Female
Participants of both genders identified that the selection criteria for many grant opportunities were biased towards women; a number of male participants felt this skew opportunity for women gave women advantages. These biased opportunities were efforts by the granting agencies to drive gender equality in the medical and dental research fields. Male and female respondents, however, opined that the opportunities were not gender biased, while one female researcher commented that the opportunities open to women are not real opportunities, as women are often not able to make the best of these opportunities:
‘…an organization that gave gender differences in the cut-off age for application of grants–the cut-off age was lower for males than females. This was because the granting agency recognized that females start a lot later than males in their research career trajectory because of their social responsibility of caring for the babies and other unpaid care duties.’ Medicine_Female
Other opportunities for female researchers identified were gender mainstreaming into the composition of research teams not only for gender equality but also to improve the quality of the research outcomes, as diverse perspectives enhance the quality of the design and implementation of research. Gender mainstreaming was identified as important for many reasons, one of which for institutional building. Also, participants identified the need to build the capacity of women to be competitive, and for gender equality advocacy and sensitization of gender-blind research institutions.
To address barriers that prevent women from gaining access to tertiary education, professional research opportunities and promotion at the same rate as men. Few female and male participants identified the need for gender-sensitive policies that mainstream gender considerations in the appointments, recruitments, selection process of female medical and dental professionals into leadership roles; gender considerations in the access to grant opportunities; and opportunities for senior female mentoring of early career (female) researchers. Such policy drives and change can be achieved through the collaborative efforts of female medical and dental professionals. A few participants in this study proposed that gender study centers should be established within medical and dental institutions; and they be saddled to handle gender related issues:
‘The establishment of gender centers will probably promote gender equality generally. They can also generate research-based evidence that can address the ‘why’, ‘how’ and the value added by promoting gender equality.’ Medicine_female
Overall, participants in this study argued for institutional policies that help to drive gender sensitivity. Data pointed to policies needing to promote gender equity at the managerial and administrative levels while focusing on skills and expertise. The opportunities should be open equitably to everybody.
The current study identified a male dominance in the research outputs of medical and dental researchers in research institutions in Nigeria. This male dominance also reflects in the inequitable distribution of managerial positions of the institutions. The gendered operations of medical and dental research institutions is driven by the absorption of the societal patriarchal values. Individuals in this study expressed a paradigm shift driven by individual and collective bodies of women in academia driving a conscience for change. Other opportunities identified to drive the change process included enacting institutional policies that promote gender equality; establishing gender focused units in research institutions dedicated to implementing these policies; continued advocacy and awareness creation for the change to happen; mentorship by women for women and for men; and building the capacity for women to actively engage with others in the research enterprise.
A benefit of these findings is that they provide a contextual and rich foundation of evidence that supports prior research on the inequitable representation of women [ 4 , 33 , 34 ]. Moreover, a focus on medical and dental research institutions has allowed a deeper exploration of contextual professional factors that may promote gender inequality in a research setting.
Indeed, participants in this study perceived gender inequality as enacted through institutionalization of societal patriarchal and androcentric values that may make domestic responsibilities and career breaks for domestic reasons have far more reaching impact on women’s research outputs, and career progression; compared to their male counterparts. It is likely that poor environmental support for research in Nigerian institutions have more impact on women than men who are less able to access sponsored opportunities for capacity development due to the need to stay home even when these opportunities are presented [ 35 ]. For the same reasons, women may be less able to take up research grant opportunities even when grants are biased towards the selection of women, because of the care responsibilities they are encumbered with. These distractions from capacity building and empowerment opportunities during early career development years are challenging to catch up with in later years of a woman’s career, which thereby increases the gender competency gap. The failure to adjudge years of home management as human managerial skills, and poor accounting of home care as work skills continue to make women fall behind in the ratings for skills to handle managerial offices.
Though institutional policies and advocacies can help to bridge these gaps, they are unlikely to be eliminated. Gender equality policies are challenging to implement, but when implemented, significant progress can be made with gender mainstreaming [ 36 ]. Gender-sensitive institutional policies in medical and dental research institutions, implemented by established gender focal units, may help to drive the shift towards gender equality in research outputs and numbers of female appointments into senior cadres. These policies will need to promote a gender sensitive review of assessment criteria for appointment and promotion. Further research is necessary to better understand how home-management skills can be rated, groomed and adapted as administrative skills. Efforts in these directions may help to eliminate the managerial position gender equality gap. This may also facilitate men in taking on home care roles in the knowing that they will not be worse-off for doing so.
Furthermore, participants’ voices pointed to continued advocacy and awareness creation. One of the roles of the Medical Women’s Association of Nigeria is to advocate for favorable policies for women, and they have done so successfully for many issues related to clinical practice [ 37 ]. One of which is for paid maternity leave. They have, however, achieved little in driving equality in the field of research. Women in academia may need to form pressure groups to address the issues peculiar to their needs. Pressure groups also need to partner and engage with men to promote gender equality; and advocate for new masculinities and for human rights. Advocacy seeks to narrow the gap between what is known to be effective, acceptable, and efficient and what is practiced [ 38 ]. It involves a combination of individual and social actions designed to gain political commitment, social acceptance, and system support for a particular goal or program. Though it is an effective strategy for producing policy change, it can be difficult and complex for those with limited power and resources [ 38 ]. Future work is vital for understanding how gender equality in research institutions has contributed to the attainment of the sustainable goal more generally.
While advocacy may bring about change, slowly, the mentorship of women by women and men allies in the gender equality fight could bring about substantial change in the research context [ 39 ]. Female mentors promote aspirations of other females to pursue the same career pathways through a feeling of belonging and confidence. Participants in this study reported views on mentoring actions, though, as such, are unclearly defined. The suggested efforts of reaching out to other women in medical and dental research, by those who explained that they have made it to more senior positions, can be institutionalized by research organizations, or bodies, of female professionals. The mentorship process could also facilitate building the capacity of women to actively engage with others in research enterprise. However, mentorship is a non-formal educational system that should not replicate social norms, dominant values, or drivers that could otherwise entrench inequality and disempowerment of women by reproducing existing hierarchies and exclusions [ 40 ]. Training mentors on gender-sensitive mentorship strategies may help to avoid these possible risks.
One of the strengths of the study was the recruitment of study participants from Northern and Southern Nigeria thereby reflecting the views of male and female researchers from diverse cultural context in Nigeria. The study findings are therefore potentially comparable across research institutions in Nigeria. The study is, however, not without limitations. The data collected were limited to the perception of gender inequality in medical and dental research institutions and the coding and analysis of these data were conducted within this context. Additional themes and perspectives can be derived from the content-rich narratives of the participants; and this warrants further exploration as issues surrounding gender and cultural differences in light of gender equality in medical and dental research institutions are not fully understood. Differences in the perspectives of dental and medical researchers could also be examined separately, as the experiences of these two groups may differ.
Despite these potential limitations, results from the present study do provide insights that support a feminist institutionalist perspective that societal inequality is reproduced in political and social institutions such as higher institutions of learning [ 41 ]. Understanding how context specific institutional rules, processes and norms drives the enactment of gender inequality can help with the reform and improvement of institutional gender equality programs and strategies. This study is the first study to explore how and why gender inequality is enactment in medical and dental schools in Nigeria; and therefore, provides a framework to support possible gender reforms in these institutions.
In conclusion, medical and dental researchers perceive gender inequality as enacted in medical and dental research institutions in Nigeria through the entrenchment of societal, cultural and religious patriarchal values. These patriarchal values promote the low numbers of female medical and dental trainees, lower research outputs for female researchers when compared to that of male researchers, and fewer women in senior managerial positions. A lot still needs to be done to facilitate the creation of a supportive environment for female medical and dental researchers in Nigeria. This includes the development, monitoring and enforcing of newly created norms that assist in creating the needed support for gender equality. There is a necessity to establish a critical mass of gender experts in medical and dental research institutions who can design and promote effective mechanisms to promote gender equality practices in Nigeria.
Acknowledgments.
The authors acknowledge the contributions of the time and efforts of the participants to this study.
The authors received no specific funding for this work
PONE-D-22-27154A qualitative insight into researcher’s perceptions of gender inequality in medical and dental research institutions in Nigeria.PLOS ONE
Dear Dr. Folayan,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.
Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 18 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at gro.solp@enosolp . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.
Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.
If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .
We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.
Kind regards,
Claudia Noemi González Brambila, Ph.D.
Academic Editor
Journal Requirements:
When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.
1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf
2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section."
3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:
"MOF received funding to conduct the data collection and analysis"
At this time, please address the following queries:
a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.
b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”
c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.
d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”
Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.
4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:
"The authors acknowledge afworo that provided funding support for the data collection and analysis of this piece of work."
We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.
Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:
5. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability .
Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories . Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.
Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions . Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.
We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.
[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer's Responses to Questions
Comments to the Author
1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?
The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.
Reviewer #1: Partly
Reviewer #2: Yes
2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?
Reviewer #1: N/A
Reviewer #2: N/A
3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?
The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.
Reviewer #1: Yes
4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?
PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.
5. Review Comments to the Author
Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)
Reviewer #1: • Add more papers from 2017 to 2022 in the introduction section. It should be motivated for the reader and also add unique contribution.
• Address theoretical background of the study and also add theoretical implication (Support with theories).
• Author can mention objective of the study and research gap separately which enhance quality of paper.
• Add theoretical and managerial implications
• Explain conclusion, limitation and future scope separately.
• The language of the paper needs a careful editing.
• References must follow the style as per journal
Reviewer #2: Paper looks good and I strongly believe that this paper is contributiing to the body of Knowledge. Well done!! It is interesting well organized paper. It was pleasure to review it. Thank you for the opportunity.
6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.
If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.
[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]
While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at gro.solp@serugif . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.
17 Jan 2023
We will like to thank the reviewers and the editor for the thorough review of this manuscript. It has helped improved the quality of the research.
1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and
Response: this has been checked and revised accordingly
Response: This has been corrected. No grant was received for the study
3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:
a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.
Response: This has been corrected. The authors received no specific funding for this work
Response: this has been done
4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:
We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.
Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:
Response: The data needed for this study can all be found in the study result section
Reviewer #1: • Add more papers from 2017 to 2022 in the introduction section. It should be motivated for the reader and also add unique contribution.
Response: A literature search was carried out prior to this resubmission and this elicited 4 new relevant studies that have been included in the introduction section
Response: Done. The Feminist institutionalism analysis approach was used for this study. See lines 102-110
Response: The final paragraphs have now been dedicated to a focused discussion relating back to the study objectives and research questions
Response: Thank you for raising this useful point. Lines 425 to 442 expand on this issue
Response: We have included two paragraphs that discuss the strengths, limitations, and future scope of the study. See Lines 425 to 442. A paragraph has also been added to the conclusion section
Response: The entire paper has been edited for style and language
Response: The manuscript has been revised to adhere to the style of the journal
Reviewer #2: Paper looks good and I strongly believe that this paper is contributiing to the body of Knowledge. Well done!! It is interesting well organized paper. It was pleasure to review it. Thank you for the opportunity.
Response: thank you for this positive feedback.
Submitted filename: Reviewers response_Plos One 3.0.docx
16 Mar 2023
A qualitative insight into researchers' perceptions of gender inequality in medical and dental research institutions in Nigeria.
PONE-D-22-27154R1
We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.
Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.
An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ , click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at gro.solp@gnillibrohtua .
If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .
Additional Editor Comments (optional):
1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.
Reviewer #1: (No Response)
Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed
2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?
3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?
4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?
5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?
6. Review Comments to the Author
Reviewer #1: Good work. I can see you have incorporated all the comments. We can go ahead with the publication now.
Reviewer #2: (No Response)
7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.
Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .
Reviewer #1: Yes: Nishant Agrawal
Reviewer #2: Yes: BIBHAV ADHIKARI
28 Mar 2023
A qualitative insight into researchers’ perceptions of gender inequality in medical and dental research institutions in Nigeria.
Dear Dr. Folayan:
I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.
If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .
If we can help with anything else, please email us at gro.solp@enosolp .
Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.
PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff
on behalf of
Dr. Claudia Noemi González Brambila
Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .
Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.
David Bravo
Serie Documentos de Trabajo
Claudia Sanhueza
RES Working Papers
Interciencia
Patricio Meller
This work examines the role played by women in the labor market pertaining to Chilean university professionals. Over the last century the role of women has changed paradigm, from zero or low levels of participation to a generalized participation. This article analyzes the different stages of such participation and the current wage differential between men and women is estimated. For two cohorts of these professionals the wage gap is estimated using a new data base which allows to control variables such as personal characteristics, skills (via the use of university entrance point scores) and socioeconomic influence. The results indicate a gender wage differential of around 23%.
Teresa Correa
Journal of International Development
Francesca Capparucci
Claudia Sanhueza , David Bravo
This papers studies the presence of discrimination in terms of gender and socioeconomic level of the place of residence in Argentina. In order to assess the existence of discrimination in these dimensions, we submited approximately 2700 fictitious Curriculum Vitae (CV) for real job vacancies published daily in an important Argentine job-search website. A set of realistic and representative resumes without effectively using resumes that belong to actual job seekers, which were equivalent in terms of qualifications and employment experience were sent out, varying the gender and residential area. We estimated a binary choice model to identify differences in callbacks depending on gender and socioeconomic level of the place of residence. A simple descriptive analysis of our data and also our formal econometric estimations do not suggest evidence of discrimination based on gender. However, our results do suggest evidence of discrimination in terms of socioeconomic level of the place of residence which seems to be important in magnitude.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
BENICIO GONZALO ACOSTA ENRIQUEZ
Longitudinal and Life Course Studies 10(3) 375–397
Rosario Undurraga
Revista de la CEPAL
Emmanuelle Barozet
Valeria Vargas
CEPAL Review
Claudia Mora
… mss., Universidad de Chile, Departamento de …
Claudia Carolina Quiroz Sanhueza
Santiago Pérez Camarero
Applied Economics
Mauricio G. Villena
The World Bank Economic Review
Alejandra Cox
Gonzalo Plaza
World Development
Francisco B. Galarza
Bulletin of Latin American Research
CBPP Staff [1]
Over the last several months, groups of House Republicans and the Heritage Foundation have released policy agendas that, taken together, would create a harsher country with higher poverty and less opportunity, where millions of people would face higher costs for health care, child care, and housing, and millions more would lose health coverage — all while wealthy households and corporations benefit from an unfair tax code that provides them with outsized tax breaks. These skewed priorities would exacerbate inequities in income, wealth, health, and hardship across lines of race and ethnicity, widening already glaring differences that have their roots in racism and other forms of discrimination.
Looking at three proposals — the House Republican Study Committee’s (RSC) budget plan, the Republican House Budget Committee’s (HBC) budget resolution, and the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 agenda — brings the implications of influential conservative policymakers’ and a think tank’s broader fiscal policy agenda into sharper focus. That agenda features:
Policies that raise costs and take away health coverage, food assistance, and other help affording the basics from people when they need them. These policies will create significant economic and health insecurity for millions of people while increasing poverty, hardship, and the number of people lacking health coverage. They will shortchange children’s futures, make it harder for millions of seniors to afford prescription drugs, and take away help that households need to afford food, housing, and child care.
For example, the RSC budget calls for $4.5 trillion in cuts over ten years in Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace coverage, [2] cutting these health coverage funds by more than half. The HBC budget plan, meanwhile, calls for $2.2 trillion in cuts to health coverage — all from Medicaid, the associated committee report suggests. [3] This cut would amount to 30 percent on average over ten years, and 40 percent in 2034. Nearly 74 million people receive health coverage through Medicaid, so cuts of this magnitude would result in millions losing access to comprehensive coverage.
Similarly, the RSC budget calls for cutting average Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits by about 22 percent by rescinding the updated 2021 Thrifty Food Plan, which adjusted SNAP benefits to reflect the cost of a healthy diet based on today’s dietary guidelines and food consumption patterns. [4] This cut would affect 41 million people participating in SNAP, formerly known as food stamps. (HBC and Project 2025 also sharply criticize the Thrifty Food Plan increase but are not clear about rescinding it. [5] ) And Project 2025 calls for gutting summer food assistance programs that children in families with low incomes rely on when school is out, which could include the new Summer EBT program that is expected to provide grocery benefits to more than 21 million children this summer. [6]
The HBC budget plan cuts the “income security” category of programs by almost $1 trillion over ten years; the accompanying report targets SNAP, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (or TANF, which provides flexible funding that states use for a range of benefits and services to low-income families with children). If income security cuts are largely limited to these programs, benefits would be slashed by more than half by 2034. [7]
The RSC budget has very deep cuts in this part of the budget as well. It includes a cut that would convert Supplemental Security Income (SSI), a 50-year-old program that provided income assistance to 7.5 million low-income seniors and disabled people in 2022, to a block grant and end guaranteed cash aid through the program.
Many of the proposals in these agendas would shift large costs onto states, forcing them to either kick in far more money — a particular hardship for states with lower per capita incomes — or cut benefits and services to their residents.
Behind these eye-popping budget numbers are millions of real people who will see health coverage, food assistance, and other forms of support taken away. (See Figure 1.) This will make it even harder for them to afford the basics, leading to serious hardships such as homelessness or overcrowded living, food insecurity, hunger, and untreated health conditions.
It is also notable what is missing from these agendas. Despite rhetoric from some Republicans about the need to support families — and children in particular — these sweeping agendas do not call for new or increased investments to help families afford child care or rent, to expand the Child Tax Credit, or to bolster the EITC for workers without children. And they do nothing to ensure that all workers have access to paid family and medical leave so they can take time off to welcome a new child, attend to a health issue, or care for a family member who needs them.
These agendas, particularly Project 2025, cover multiple areas and this report does not analyze them in full. It provides key examples of fiscal, economic, and health policies within the agendas and, critically, how the plans have broad similarities. Key areas, such as the agendas’ impact on the functioning of the Justice Department, on abortion rights and reproductive freedom, on civil rights protections, and on the potential politicization of federal agencies and the civil service, are critically important but outside the scope of this analysis.
The three policy agendas all share a common thread — taking away help that families use to afford the basics such as food, child care, housing, and health care. The cuts would hit families with low and moderate incomes especially hard while leaving many high-income people largely unscathed. But because investing in areas such as health care and child care has long-term payoffs for the country and economy as a whole, ultimately everyone would lose.
As noted, HBC would cut Medicaid by $2.2 trillion over ten years; [14] RSC would cut Medicaid, CHIP, and ACA marketplace assistance by $4.5 trillion, likely by cutting Medicaid even more deeply than the HBC proposals and by making cuts to marketplace policies described below. [15] The size of the cuts in Project 2025 is less clear but also extremely large. (See Figure 2.)
The ACA’s changes to Medicaid and individual market coverage drove a precipitous decline in the uninsured rate. That is particularly true for people of color, who have historically experienced higher uninsured rates due to systemic racism, discrimination in employment and education, and other factors that diminish income and access to employer-based health insurance. Between 2013 and 2022, uninsured rates for people under age 65 dropped from 23.8 percent to 14.1 percent among American Indian and Alaska Native people, from 29.7 percent to 17.8 percent among Latino people, and from 18.7 percent to 9.9 percent among Black people. [16] Rolling back or eliminating key ACA improvements — including the Medicaid expansion — and gutting other key Medicaid and marketplace protections would disproportionately harm people of color.
Medicaid proposals in the three agendas include:
Both Project 2025 and the RSC budget would raise health insurance premiums for millions of people and weaken or eliminate the ACA’s most popular consumer and financial protections. Insurers in the individual market could charge higher premiums to people with pre-existing conditions and remove limits that protect people from very high out-of-pocket health care spending. The HBC and RSC proposals would also cut financial assistance for ACA marketplace coverage, [25] where more than 20 million people get their health coverage and more than 9 in 10 receive premium tax credits that reduce the cost of their premiums. [26] The agendas would also strip away anti-discrimination protections that apply to all health programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. While it is not presented as repealing the ACA, dismantling the ACA piecemeal like this would have a similar impact, with millions losing coverage.
Project 2025 and the RSC budget would:
Eviscerate federal protections for people with pre-existing conditions. The RSC and Project 2025 plans would roll back federal insurance protections for people in marketplace plans in favor of separating healthy people and those with pre-existing conditions into different markets that operate under different rules.
The RSC proposal would allow insurers to charge higher premiums for individual market coverage (both inside and outside the ACA marketplace) to people with pre-existing conditions and exclude certain benefits from plans they buy. [36] The proposal says people with chronic and complex conditions would get coverage through separate state-run high-risk pools, [37] but these existed prior to the ACA and had high premiums, gaps in benefits, and limited enrollment because of their cost. [38]
Project 2025 proposes “regulatory relief” that amounts to eliminating many critical federal health reforms; it doesn’t specify which ones but calls for the federal government to create a second insurance market not subject to ACA standards, [39] which would attract healthier enrollees, with the likely result that premiums for those with pre-existing conditions would become unaffordable. This would disproportionately harm Black people: due to racial inequities in social and economic factors — such as being likelier to live in communities with less access to health care or to have lower incomes that make it harder to afford healthy food — they have a higher prevalence of several common chronic conditions. [40]
Both the RSC plan and Project 2025 would increase the availability of health plans that are currently exempt from ACA standards and protections, such as short-term health plans. [41] This is another strategy to lead people with fewer health care needs away from the ACA marketplace’s comprehensive health plans, resulting in a sicker risk pool and higher premiums for those enrolled in marketplace plans. [42]
Both the RSC and HBC plans call for large cuts to the part of the budget that funds income and food assistance programs such as SNAP. The HBC plan, for example, calls for $962 billion in cuts over ten years to “income security” programs, and its accompanying report indicates that SNAP, TANF, and the tax refunds provided through the EITC and Child Tax Credit would be targeted for cuts. [44] If income security cuts are largely limited to these programs, benefits would be slashed by more than half by 2034. [45]
All three agendas — HBC, RSC, and Project 2025 — call explicitly for significant cuts to SNAP. This is the nation’s largest and most important anti-hunger program, providing families with funds on an electronic benefit card that they use to purchase food at the grocery store. Taken together, these cuts would reduce or take away entirely food assistance for millions of people.
More than 44 million people in the United States live in households that experience food insecurity. Due to past and ongoing racism and discrimination, households that are American Indian or Alaska Native, Black, Hispanic, or multiracial experience much higher than average levels of food insecurity. [46] SNAP is highly effective at reducing food insecurity, and there is emerging evidence that SNAP may mitigate racial inequities in food insecurity and poverty. [47] But the proposed cuts to SNAP could weaken its effectiveness and exacerbate these inequities.
The proposed cuts include the following:
Meeting one’s life-sustaining needs should not be contingent on meeting a work requirement. But both the RSC budget and Project 2025 call for expanding the number of SNAP enrollees whose benefits would be taken away if they aren’t able to meet rigid work requirements — a policy already in place for most adults aged 18 through 54 who don’t receive disability benefits and don’t live with children. [51]
Most SNAP participants who can work, do. [52] These requirements are premised on the false assumption that people who receive SNAP do not work and must be compelled to do so — an assumption rooted in a host of unfounded prejudices based on race, gender, disability status, and class. Rigorous studies have shown that the current work requirement policy is ineffective at increasing employment. Instead, it takes food assistance away from people with very low incomes and increases food insecurity and hardship. [53]
Policies that take food assistance away from people who don’t meet a rigid work requirement ignore the realities of the low-paid labor market, such as irregular hours and a lack of paid sick days that lead to frequent job loss; the impact of work-limiting health conditions and caregiving responsibilities on a participant’s ability to find and keep consistent work; and substantial ongoing labor market discrimination.
The report accompanying the HBC budget resolution also calls for expanding ineffective work requirements. [54]
The attacks on food and other assistance to low-income families aren’t limited to SNAP. For example:
Project 2025 calls for taking away housing assistance from people who can’t meet a work requirement or who reach an arbitrary time limit on how long they can receive assistance, even if they still need help to afford rent and avoid eviction. It would also end effective strategies for addressing homelessness that pair rental assistance with personalized supportive services, in favor of policies that research has found are less effective. [64] Like in other areas, these policies would disproportionately harm people of color, and especially Black people, who are far more likely than white people to experience homelessness and eviction. Discrimination was and is prevalent in housing as in other sectors, with one of the most consequential examples being federal “redlining” policies that made it far more difficult for Black people to become homeowners.
Project 2025 and the RSC budget would eliminate or weaken fair housing tools and enforcement, allowing for greater discrimination in housing that would exacerbate existing inequities. [65]
All three agendas would cut funding that goes to states and localities, both in “mandatory” programs such as Medicaid and SNAP and in “discretionary” programs funded through the annual appropriations process, from transportation to public health to child care (see next section). As discussed above, the HBC, Project 2025, and RSC plans include proposals explicitly designed to shift costs from the federal government to states, including block-granting Medicaid or cutting the share of the program funded by the federal government. [66] The RSC budget also proposes block-granting SNAP and combining child nutrition programs, including the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, Summer Food Service Program, and Special Milk Program, into a single block grant, likely with reduced funding. [67]
Under the RSC proposal, which would replace the long-standing Medicaid matching rate formula with a 50 percent rate for all states, the sharpest increases in Medicaid costs would generally occur in states whose residents have lower incomes and experience higher poverty rates — the states that can least afford the cost shift. [68] These states would experience the biggest cuts under the RSC proposal because, under current law, the federal government pays a larger share of Medicaid costs in states that have lower per capita incomes, recognizing the challenges these states face in financing health care costs. These are the same states that will struggle to make up for cuts in other areas, such as education or child care (discussed below), making it particularly hard for them to backfill for federal Medicaid funds, likely widening gaps between wealthier and poorer states in areas such as quality of education or health care access and coverage.
Finally, as noted, the RSC calls for converting the SSI program from one that now provides seniors and people with disabilities with federally funded cash assistance they can count on every month, to instead be a block grant to states, presumably with reduced funding. If funding proved inadequate, low-income seniors or people with disabilities would either receive less help or states would have to pick up the tab.
The federal budget funds a host of investments in people, communities, and the economy as well as core functions of government through programs and initiatives funded through the appropriations process. This part of the budget (whose amounts are set annually) funds efforts such as: medical and basic scientific research; the weather forecasting system; education from preschool through college; housing; child care; tax system customer service and enforcement of our tax laws; disease monitoring and response to public health crises; the processing of applications and benefits in Social Security; anti-fraud staff in Medicare; investments in roads, bridges, public transit, and ports; and environmental clean-up and enforcement.
This part of the budget is called “discretionary” to connote that the spending is not fixed in law and that Congress has the discretion to set funding levels each year. But these kinds of investments are not optional for the safety, well-being, and thriving of our country and its economy, now and into the future.
Moreover, many of these investments — some targeted and others more broad based — promote opportunity for people and communities that have been under-resourced for decades due to federal, state, and local policy, especially Black, Latino, and Indigenous communities, people with disabilities, and people with low incomes living in rural and urban communities alike. These include additional funding for schools that serve large numbers of children in low-income families, college financial aid that paves the way to higher education, and funds for child care and preschool and for affordable housing development and rental assistance. [69]
Despite these critical functions, both the RSC budget and the HBC budget resolution call for massive disinvestment in this part of the budget — non-defense discretionary spending. [70] Indeed, the HBC budget would cut this part of the budget by $3.1 trillion over the decade. The RSC budget would cut even more, $4.1 trillion over the decade, [71] by making the cuts occur immediately rather than phasing them in.
Under both plans, non-defense discretionary spending would fall from its current level of 3.3 percent of GDP to about 1.4 or 1.5 percent after a decade — levels not seen since the Coolidge Administration a century ago. The programs targeted for these cuts are almost entirely unspecified, but if veterans’ health care is shielded, then under either of these plans, by 2034 spending for the remaining programs would fall by half .
Even though the plans do not offer many specifics, the cuts are so large that there is simply no way that all critically important public services could be protected. The result would likely be damaging cuts in our education and child care investments that build the human capital of our future workforce and allow parents to work, our transportation infrastructure that is critical to moving goods and services and keeping people safe, and our weather forecasting system that is essential for basic safety and commerce. And it would mean cutting staffing for agencies that help people access Social Security, ensure that Medicare providers are providing good care and playing by the rules, and enforce environmental laws and mitigate hazardous conditions. All of these public services are critical to people, families, communities, and the basic functioning of society.
The cuts the three agendas do specify include, for example, Project 2025’s elimination of Head Start (discussed above), which is funded in this part of the budget. Other examples include the following:
This is a recipe not for a thriving nation but for one retreating from its basic obligations to keep people safe and healthy and our economy strong. The impacts will at first fall most heavily on low- and middle-income people, who are least able to rely on private resources to replace basic government functions. Ultimately, though, these investments are critical for our economy and nation as a whole.
At the same time that these policy agendas call for massive disinvestment in public services and taking health coverage, food assistance, and other forms of assistance away from people who face challenges affording the basics, all three plans double down on expensive tax cuts mostly benefiting wealthy people and corporations. Project 2025 even calls for tax increases on low- and middle-income people.
Due to racial barriers to economic opportunity, households of color are overrepresented among households with incomes in the low end of the distribution, while non-Hispanic white households are heavily overrepresented among households with incomes at the top of the distribution. [86] Each of the three proposals would disproportionately benefit high-income households and exacerbate racial inequities.
For example, each agenda would double down on the 2017 tax cuts, whose core provisions are tilted heavily toward high-income households. [87] (See Figure 6.)
All three agendas call for repealing the Inflation Reduction Act’s funding for the IRS. [97] This funding is helping the IRS dramatically improve its customer service, operate the direct file mechanism so people can file their taxes directly with the IRS for free, and modernize and dramatically improve its tax enforcement efforts, which are already paying off in cracking down on wealthy tax cheats. [98]
Notably missing from these policy agendas is a positive tax agenda that would reflect some of the populist rhetoric some Republicans are employing about the need to support families and workers. These agendas would roll back rather than continue the expanded premium tax credits that have dramatically reduced the cost of health coverage for millions of people and expanded coverage, [99] and they don’t include Child Tax Credit and EITC expansions that would help middle- and lower-income families raising children and workers in lower-paid jobs.
Moreover, even as Project 2025 would raise taxes on middle- and low-income households, these families would all see sharp reductions in basic public services they benefit from, from quality schools and universities, to medical breakthroughs, to Medicaid, which serves nearly 74 million people.
Immigrants and their families are important parts of our communities. They bring vitality to our neighborhoods, they do important and often difficult work, they are business owners, and they contribute to the fabric of our nation in countless ways. Immigration has boosted our nation’s labor force at a time when the native-born population is aging, providing critical energy to our economy and helping to improve the financing of Social Security and Medicare over the coming decades. A recent Congressional Budget Office report highlights these economic contributions, showing that over a ten-year period (2024-2034), increased immigration would result in a GDP increase of $8.9 trillion and a decrease in the federal deficit by $900 billion. [100] CBO projects that in 2034, GDP will be an estimated 3.2 percent higher than it would be without these immigrants. [101]
Despite these contributions, the HBC budget plan, the RSC budget, and Project 2025 all treat immigrants — including those with a lawful immigration status — and their families harshly, putting concrete, harmful policies behind the ugly anti-immigrant rhetoric too prevalent in our public discourse.
For example, all three plans would reinstate the Trump Administration’s harsh public charge immigration policy, which essentially sought to create a wealth test for lawful immigration, preventing people from immigrating to the U.S. if they are not already economically successful. [102] The rule included an income test that could have blocked up to 99.2 percent of the population of South Asia, 98.5 percent of the population of Sub-Saharan Africa, and 79.0 percent of the population of Latin America and the Caribbean from immigrating to the U.S. [103] The rule ignores the record of achievement and upward mobility that immigrants and their descendants have shown for generations in the U.S.
The public charge changes also created fear among immigrants and their families that receiving benefits that Congress has made them eligible for would hurt their ability to remain in the country or have family members come. When proposed during the Trump Administration, the policy was shown to have a chilling effect on families’ willingness to access food assistance and health coverage that they qualified for. That includes forgoing help that their children — often citizens — needed. [104]
Even harsher, the RSC budget calls for a radical departure to how we treat immigrants who have lawful status, proposing to deny all public benefits (the precise scope is not clear) to anyone who is not a citizen, including immigrants who have lawful immigration status. [105] We already bar most lawful permanent residents from accessing public benefits such as Medicaid and SNAP during their first five years with that status in the U.S. People who have no documented status are blocked entirely for almost all benefits (with narrow exceptions such as Medicaid payment to health providers when people need emergency services in life-threatening circumstances). [106] But this proposal would further restrict benefits for immigrants, leaving many without any supports if they fall on hard times.
Republican health coverage proposals would increase number of uninsured, raise people’s costs, more revenue is required to meet the nation’s commitments, needs, and challenges, house republican budget reflects disturbing vision for the country, the 2017 trump tax law was skewed to the rich, expensive, and failed to deliver on its promises, policy basics federal budget.
[1] This report’s authors: Sharon Parrott, Allison Orris, Claire Heyison, Sarah Lueck, Katie Bergh, Dorothy Rosenbaum, Joseph Llobrera, Catlin Nchako, Sonya Acosta, Will Fischer, David Reich, Richard Kogan, Samantha Jacoby, Chuck Marr, and Shelby Gonzales.
[2] See pp. 96 and 176 of Republican Study Committee, “Fiscal Sanity to Save America: Republican Study Committee FY 2025 Budget Proposal” (hereinafter RSC budget proposal), March 20, 2024, https://hern.house.gov/uploadedfiles/final_budget_including_letter_word_doc-final_as_of_march_25.pdf . For a detailed analysis of the agendas’ health proposals, see Allison Orris and Claire Heyison, “Republican Health Coverage Proposals Would Increase Number of Uninsured, Raise People’s Costs,” CBPP, September 3, 2024, https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/republican-health-coverage-proposals-would-increase-number-of-uninsured-raise .
[3] See pp. 11 and 44-45 of House of Representatives Committee on the Budget, “Concurrent Resolution on the Budget — Fiscal Year 2025, Report to Accompany H. Con. Res. 117” (hereinafter HBC report), report 118-568, June 27, 2024, https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/118th-congress/house-report/568/1?outputFormat=pdf&s=1&r=4&q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22HCR+117%22%7D . CBPP calculations relative to Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) February 2024 baseline, available at CBO, “The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2024-2034,” February 7, 2024, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59710 .
[4] See p. 42 of the RSC budget proposal.
[5] Heritage Foundation, “Mandate for Leadership” (hereinafter Project 2025), 2023, https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf , pp. 300-301; 118 th Congress, Second Session, “H. Con. Res. 117 [Report No. 118–568]” (hereinafter HBC budget proposal), Section 412, June 27, 2024, https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hconres117/BILLS-118hconres117rh.pdf .
[6] As with SNAP, the grocery benefits are distributed through a debit-style, electronic benefit transfer (EBT) card. For the proposal see pp. 303 of Project 2025.
[7] See pp. 11 and 52-53 of the HBC report. CBPP calculations are relative to CBO’s February 2024 baseline, and take into account that some of the total savings in the income security category reflect cuts to civil service retirement, which is another program the HBC report targets.
[8] The climate provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act are primarily in the form of tax credits.
[9] See p. 29 of the RSC budget proposal and pp. 71-72 of the HBC report.
[10] CBPP estimates based on CBO estimates. See Congressional Budget Office, “Budgetary Outcomes Under Alternative Assumptions About Spending and Revenues,” May 8, 2024, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60114 . We use the ten-year period 2026-2035 because extending the Trump tax cuts would reduce tax liability starting in 2026. And in 2025, when Congress will debate how to handle the scheduled expirations, it will be looking at the 2026-2035 ten-year budget window.
[11] Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, “TCJA Extension Could Add $4 to $5 Trillion to Deficits,” June 13, 2024, https://www.crfb.org/blogs/tcja-extension-could-add-4-5-trillion-deficits#appendix .
[12] See Section 302 of the HBC budget proposal.
[13] See pp. 145 and 680 of Project 2025, pp. 84-85 of the RSC budget proposal, and pp. 52-53 of the HBC report.
[14] See pp. 11 and 44-45 of the HBC report. CBPP calculations relative to CBO’s February 2024 baseline. While the cuts could also affect CHIP and ACA marketplace coverage, the accompanying report discusses cuts only to Medicaid.
[15] See pp. 96 and 176 of the RSC budget proposal.
[16] CBPP analysis of 2013 and 2022 American Community Survey data. The American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) category includes people who may be AIAN alone or in combination with other races and ethnicities. The Latino category includes people of any race. The Black and white categories include only people who identify as a single race and not Latino. (The use of “Latino” does not necessarily reflect how everyone who is part of this community would describe themselves. Elsewhere in this report we also use “Hispanic,” and “Latine” for gender inclusivity.)
[17] See p. 45 of the HBC report, pp. 95-96 of the RSC budget proposal, and p. 466 of Project 2025. For analysis of prior attempts to cap and block-grant Medicaid, see Aviva Aron-Dine, “Medicaid ‘Block Grant’ Guidance Will Likely Encourage States to Undermine Coverage,” CBPP, January 29, 2020, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/medicaid-block-grant-guidance-will-likely-encourage-states-to-undermine-coverage ; and Gideon Lukens and Allison Orris, “Changing Medicaid’s Funding Structure to a Per Capita Cap Would Shift Costs to States, Force Deep Cuts, and Leave Millions Uninsured,” CBPP, March 27, 2023, https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/changing-medicaids-funding-structure-to-a-per-capita-cap-would-shift-costs-to .
[18] See p. 45 of the HBC report, p. 96 of the RSC budget proposal, and pp. 467-469 of Project 2025.
[19] See p. 96 of the RSC budget proposal and p. 467 of Project 2025.
[20] See p. 45 of the HBC report, pp. 466-467 of Project 2025, and pp. 95-96 of the RSC budget proposal.
[21] Laura Harker, “Pain But No Gain: Arkansas’ Failed Medicaid Work-Reporting Requirements Should Not Be a Model,” CBPP, August 8, 2023, https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/pain-but-no-gain-arkansas-failed-medicaid-work-reporting-requirements-should-not-be ; Laura Harker, “6 Months Into Georgia Pathways Program, Over 400,000 People Still Lack Health Coverage; Expanding Medicaid Would Improve Access for Low-Income Georgians,” CBPP, January 25, 2024, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/6-months-into-georgia-pathways-program-over-400000-people-still-lack-health-coverage-expanding .
[22] See p. 45 of the HBC report, pp. 38 and 96 of the RSC budget proposal, and pp. 468-469 of Project 2025.
[23] See p. 468 of Project 2025.
[24] See pp. 95-96 of the RSC budget proposal and pp. 468-469 of Project 2025.
[25] See p. 4 of the HBC report and pp. 87-88 of the RSC budget proposal.
[26] Jared Ortaleza et al. , “Inflation Reduction Act Health Insurance Subsidies: What is Their Impact and What Would Happen if They Expire?” KFF, July 26, 2024, https://www.kff.org/affordable-care-act/issue-brief/inflation-reduction-act-health-insurance-subsidies-what-is-their-impact-and-what-would-happen-if-they-expire/ .
[27] See pp. 87-88 of the RSC budget proposal.
[28] See pp. 469-470 of Project 2025.
[29] The Heritage Foundation paper, and the Health Policy Consensus Group proposal it cites, propose converting the PTC into state block grants. These grants would be based on current subsidy levels. While the proposal does not specify how block grants would be adjusted over time, prior repeal plans set adjustments to increase funding cuts year over year. States would not be obligated to accept block grant funding and could instead choose to provide no or limited premium assistance for individual market coverage. See Edmund F. Haislmaier and Abigail Slagle, “Premiums, Choices, Deductibles, Care Access, and Government Dependence Under the Affordable Care Act: 2021 State-by-State Review,” Heritage Foundation, November 2, 2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/BG3668.pdf .
[30] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Health Insurance Marketplaces: 10 Years of Affordable Private Plan Options,” March 22, 2024, https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/00d1eccb776ac4abde9979aa793e2c7a/aspe-10-years-of-marketplace.pdf ; Ortaleza et al.
[31] See p. 4 of the HBC report and pp. 87-88 of the RSC budget proposal.
[32] Estimate is based on age-adjusted 2024 average benchmark premiums and 2023 poverty guidelines, which are used to determine premium tax credits for 2024 marketplace coverage. Gideon Lukens, “Health Insurance Costs Will Rise Steeply if Premium Tax Credit Improvements Expire,” CBPP, June 4, 2024, https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/health-insurance-costs-will-rise-steeply-if-premium-tax-credit-improvements-expire .
[33] Jessica Banthin, Michael Simpson, and Mohammed Akel, “The Impact of Enhanced Premium Tax Credits on Coverage by Race and Ethnicity,” Urban Institute, August 12, 2024, https://www.urban.org/research/publication/impact-enhanced-premium-tax-credits-coverage-race-and-ethnicity .
[34] The RSC proposal “adopts regulatory reforms developed by the RSC’s Health Care Task Force . . . and set forth in its report: A Framework for Personalized, Affordable Care. Republican Study Committee.” This report proposes eliminating the PTC and rolling back the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, and repurposing those funds for state “guaranteed coverage pools.” See p. 89 of the RSC budget proposal.
[35] KFF, “Health Insurance Marketplace Calculator,” updated October 27, 2023, https://www.kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/ .
[36] See pp. 89-90 of the RSC budget proposal.
[37] See p. 90 of the RSC budget proposal.
[38] Edwin Park, “Trump, House GOP High-Risk Pool Proposals a Failed Approach,” CBPP, November 17, 2016, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/trump-house-gop-high-risk-pool-proposals-a-failed-approach .
[39] See pp. 469-470 of Project 2025.
[40] Nambi Ndugga, Latoya Hill, and Samantha Artiga, “Key Data on Health and Health Care by Race and Ethnicity,” KFF, June 11, 2023, https://www.kff.org/key-data-on-health-and-health-care-by-race-and-ethnicity .
[41] See pp. 91-92 of the RSC budget proposal and pp. 468 and 470 of Project 2025.
[42] Sarah Lueck, “Commentary: Growing Evidence Shows Need for Stronger Rules for Short-Term Health Plans,” CBPP, October 23, 2020, https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/commentary-growing-evidence-shows-need-for-stronger-rules-for-short-term-health .
[43] See pp. 475 and 495-496 of Project 2025.
[44] See p. 12 of the HBC report.
[45] See pp. 11 and 52-53 of the HBC report. CBPP calculations are relative to CBO’s February 2024 baseline, and take into account that some of the total savings in the income security category reflect cuts to civil service retirement, which is another program the HBC report targets.
[46] Lauren Hall, “Food Insecurity Increased in 2022, With Severe Impact on Households With Children and Ongoing Racial Disparities,” CBPP, October 26, 2023, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/food-insecurity-increased-in-2022-with-severe-impact-on-households-with-children-and-ongoing .
[47] Laura Samuel et al. , “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Access and Racial Disparities in Food Insecurity,” JAMA Network Open, Vol. 6, No. 6, June 2023, https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.20196 ; Benjamin Glasner et al. , “The Effectiveness of the Food Stamp Program at Reducing Differences in the Intergenerational Persistence of Poverty,” Washington Center for Equitable Growth, May 2023, https://equitablegrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/053023-WP-The-Effectiveness-of-the-Food-Stamp-Program-at-Reducing-Racial-Differences-in-the-Intergenerational-Persistence-of-Poverty.pdf ; Alfonso Flores-Lagunes et al. , “Moving Policies toward Racial and Ethnic Equality: The Case of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 106, No. 2, May 2023, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12402 .
[48] See p. 42 of the RSC budget proposal.
[49] Joseph Llobrera, “Recent Increase in SNAP Purchasing Power Invests in Children’s Health and Well-Being,” CBPP, August 29, 2022, https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/recent-increase-in-snap-purchasing-power-invests-in-childrens-health-and ; Laura Wheaton and Danielle Kwon, “Effect of the Reevaluated Thrifty Food Plan and Emergency Allotments on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Benefits and Poverty,” Urban Institute, August 1, 2022, https://www.urban.org/research/publication/effect-reevaluated-thrifty-food-plan-and-emergency-allotments-supplemental .
[50] See pp. 300-301 of Project 2025 and Section 412 of the HBC budget proposal.
[51] Under the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 53- and 54-year-olds will become newly subject to this work requirement beginning October 1, 2024. See pp. 41-42 of the RSC budget proposal and pp. 299-300 of Project 2025.
[52] Joseph Llobrera, “Most Working-Age SNAP Participants Work But Job Instability Overstates Joblessness in Some Analyses,” CBPP, May 19, 2023, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/most-working-age-snap-participants-work-but-job-instability-overstates-joblessness-in-some .
[53] Tori Coan and Shawn Fremstad, “The Dismal Economics of SNAP’s Work-Hours Test and Time Limit,” Center for Economic and Policy Research, April 18, 2023, https://cepr.net/report/the-dismal-economics-of-snaps-work-hours-test-and-time-limit/ .
[54] See p. 52 of the HBC report.
[55] See pp. 42-43 of the RSC budget proposal and p. 300 of Project 2025.
[56] Project 2025 proposes providing summer meals to children in low-income families only if they are taking summer-school classes, which would substantially cut the Summer Food Service Program (which provides meals) and could mean eliminating the Summer EBT program (which provides grocery benefits to enable low-income households with children to purchase food). See p. 303 of Project 2025.
[57] Mark Nord and Kathleen Romig, “Hunger in the Summer: Seasonal food insecurity and the National School Lunch and Summer Food Service programs,” Journal of Children and Poverty, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2006, pp. 141-158, https://doi.org/10.1080/10796120600879582 ; Jin Huang, Ellen Barnidge, and Youngmi Kim, “Children Receiving Free or Reduced-Price School Lunch Have Higher Food Insufficiency Rates in Summer,” Journal of Nutrition, Vol. 145, No. 9, September 2015, pp. 2161-68, https://doi.org/10.3945/jn.115.214486 .
[58] Allyson Pérez and Crystal FitzSimons, “Community Eligibility: The Key to Hunger-Free Schools, School Year 2022-2023,” Food Research and Action Center, May 2023, https://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/cep-report-2023.pdf .
[59] See p. 303 of Project 2025 and p. 46 of the RSC budget proposal.
[60] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Head Start Program Facts: Fiscal Year 2022,” https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/data-ongoing-monitoring/article/head-start-program-facts-fiscal-year-2022 .
[62] Social Security Administration, “SSI Recipients by State and County, 2022,” https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_sc/2022/table01.html .
[63] RSC budget, p. 45.
[64] Project 2025, p. 509.
[65] Project 2025, p. 509, and RSC, p. 171.
[66] Another proposal, from the conservative Paragon Institute, would not only reduce the enhanced matching rate for the Medicaid expansion but also shift costs to some states by dropping the current Medicaid matching rate floor from 50 percent to 40 percent. The institute justifies its proposal by arguing that its policies would reorient spending in support of traditional populations, such as children and people with disabilities, but the proposal fails to acknowledge deep cuts states could make across their programs given the extreme cost shift to states they propose. Brian Blase and Drew Gonshorowski, “Medicaid Financing Reform: Stopping Discrimination Against the Most Vulnerable and Reducing Bias Favoring Wealthy States,” Paragon Health Institute, July 2024, https://paragoninstitute.org/medicaid/medicaid-financing-reform-stopping-discrimination-against-the-most-vulnerable-and-reducing-bias-favoring-wealthy-states/ .
[67] See pp. 41-42 and 46 of the RSC budget proposal.
[68] The RSC proposal would shrink the federal government’s commitment to sharing in Medicaid costs in the 40 states and the District of Columbia that would otherwise have a standard Medicaid matching rate over 50 percent in fiscal year 2025. U.S. territories presumably would face a cut as well, since their matching rates now exceed 50 percent. KFF, “Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) for Medicaid and Multiplier,” FY 2025, https://www.kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/federal-matching-rate-and-multiplier/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D .
[69] Also see Jabari Cook et al., “House Appropriations Bills Take Steps to Use the Federal Budget as a Tool for Antiracism,” CBPP, February 23, 2022, https://www.cbpp.org/research/house-appropriations-bills-take-steps-to-use-the-federal-budget-as-a-tool-for-antiracism .
[70] While Project 2025 includes a number of proposals for non-defense discretionary programs, it did not provide overall estimates for this budget category (unlike the HBC and RSC plans, which included full budget estimates).
[71] Cuts are measured from CBO’s February 2024 baseline but with the discretionary levels adjusted to reflect final appropriations for 2024 and the level of agreed-on adjustments to the 2025 non-defense discretionary cap that accompanied the enactment of that cap, which adds $652 billion in outlays over the decade. See the appendix of Richard Kogan et al., “More Revenue Is Required to Meet the Nation’s Commitments, Needs, and Challenges,” CBPP, June 17, 2024, https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/more-revenue-is-required-to-meet-the-nations-commitments-needs-and .
[72] Project 2025, Chapter 11, “Department of Education,” pp. 319-362.
[73] RSC budget, pp. 164-5.
[74] RSC budget, p. 163.
[75] RSC budget, p. 146; HBC report, p. 60.
[76] RSC budget, p. 155.
[77] Project 2025, Chapter 13, “Environmental Protection Agency,” pp. 417-448, and HBC report, p. 30.
[79] RSC budget, pp. 169-170.
[80] Project 2025, p. 365.
[81] HBC report, p. 35.
[82] RSC budget, p. 17; HBC report, p. 67; and Project 2025, p. 365. Note that the climate provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act are not funded by appropriations, but rather are in the form of tax incentives and mandatory spending.
[83] RSC budget, pp. 170-71.
[84] RSC budget, p. 151.
[85] RSC budget, pp. 171-172.
[86] For example, Latino and Black households represented 24 percent of all households in 2019, but they represented 32 percent of the least wealthy 60 percent of households and less than 1 percent of the wealthiest 1 percent. University of California at Berkeley, “Study: Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) Combined Extract Data 1989-2019,” https://sda.berkeley.edu/sdaweb/analysis/?dataset=scfcomb2019 .
[87] White households in the highest-earning 1 percent receive 23.7 percent of the law’s total tax cuts, far more than the 13.8 percentage share that the bottom 60 percent of households of all races receive. Chye-Ching Huang and Roderick Taylor, “How the Federal Tax Code Can Better Advance Racial Equity,” CBPP, July 25, 2019, https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/how-the-federal-tax-code-can-better-advance-racial-equity .
[88] See pp. 71-72 of the HBC report.
[89] See Section 302 of HBC budget proposal.
[90] See pp. 29-33 of the RSC budget proposal.
[91] See Chye-Ching Huang and Kathleen Bryant, “Indexing Capital Gains for Inflation Would Worsen Fiscal Challenges, Give Another Tax Cut to the Top,” CBPP, September 6, 2018, https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/indexing-capital-gains-for-inflation-would-worsen-fiscal-challenges-give .
[92] Chuck Marr, Samantha Jacoby, and George Fenton, “The Pass-Through Deduction Is Skewed to the Rich, Costly, and Failed to Deliver on Its Promises,” CBPP, June 6, 2024, https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-pass-through-deduction-is-skewed-to-the-rich-costly-and-failed-to-deliver .
[93] See p. 696 of Project 2025.
[94] Brendan Duke, “Project 2025’s Tax Plan Would Raise Taxes on the Middle Class and Cut Taxes for the Wealthy,” Center for American Progress, August 27, 2024, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/project-2025s-tax-plan-would-raise-taxes-on-the-middle-class-and-cut-taxes-for-the-wealthy/ .
[95] CBPP calculations based on CBO, “Increase the Corporate Income Tax Rate by 1 Percentage Point,” December 7, 2022, https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/58701 .
[96] See p. 698 of Project 2025.
[97] See p. 699 of Project 2025, p. 27 of the RSC budget proposal, and pp. 61 and 62 of the HBC report.
[98] Kayla Williams, “Tax Day Highlights IRS Progress and Need to Protect and Replenish Funding,” CBPP, April 10, 2024, https://www.cbpp.org/blog/tax-day-highlights-irs-progress-and-need-to-protect-and-replenish-funding .
[99] See pp. 87-88 of the RSC budget proposal, pp. 469-470 of Project 2025, and p. 4 of the HBC report.
[100] Congressional Budget Office, “An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2024 to 2034,” June 18, 2024, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60039 .
[101] Congressional Budget Office, “Effects of the Immigration Surge on the Federal Budget and the Economy,” July 2024, https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2024-07/60165-Immigration.pdf .
[102] See p. 145 of Project 2025, pp. 84-85 of the RSC budget proposal, and p. 52 of the HBC report.
[103] Danilo Trisi, “Trump Administration’s Overbroad Public Charge Definition Could Deny Those Without Substantial Means a Chance to Come to or Stay in the U.S.,” CBPP, May 30, 2019, https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/trump-administrations-overbroad-public-charge-definition-could-deny .
[104] Hamutal Bernstein et al. , “Amid Confusion over the Public Charge Rule, Immigrant Families Continued Avoiding Public Benefits in 2019,” Urban Institute, May 2020, https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/102221/amid-confusion-over-the-public-charge-rule-immigrant-families-continued-avoiding-public-benefits-in-2019_3.pdf .
[105] See p. 49 of the RSC budget proposal.
[106] Project 2025 also includes a range of harsh immigration policy measures, such as ending lawful immigration statuses for certain victims of trafficking and domestic violence, but those policies are beyond the scope of this analysis.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Gender inequality is a persistent global issue that affects individuals, communities, and societies. Despite significant progress in recent decades, disparities in access to opportunities, resources, and rights continue to hinder social, economic, and political development. This project proposal aims to address gender inequality by examining the role of law and society in promoting gender ...
The proposed project aims to put into practise a broad range of tactics to lessen gender-based prejudice and support gender equality and empowerment. By addressing various aspects of society, including education, workplace, and social norms, the project envisions several key expected outcomes: Increased Access to Quality Education: Enhanced enrollment and retention rates of girls and
Introduction. The persistent gender inequalities that currently exist across the developed and developing world are receiving increasing attention from economists, policymakers, and the general public [e.g., 1-3].Economic studies have indicated that women's education and entry into the workforce contributes to social and economic well-being [e.g., 4, 5], while their exclusion from the ...
paper empirically analyzes the advancement of gender equality in th e South African. workplace as of 2020. It also provides an overview of different legislative mechanisms. implemented by the ...
Introduction. Although the world has seen great strides toward gender/sex equality, a wide gap still remains and unfortunately may be widening. The World Economic Forum (WEF, Citation 2017) annually evaluates the world's progress toward gender inequality in economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival, and political empowerment.
what extent is poor governance linked to gender inequality in Sub-Saharan Africa? By reporting findings of Worldwide Governance Indicators and Global Gender Gap Index, the results revealed that generally Saudi Arabian poor governance was associated with having gender inequalities in the country. As for Sub-Saharan African region, the results
"workplace gender inequality," "gender discrimination," and "gender bi as." We limited our search mostly to articles published in peer-reviewed journals between 2000 and 20 21.
1. INTRODUCTION. Gender discrimination refers to the unequal treatment. of members of one gender against members of another. one. From a sociological point of view, gender. discrimination means ...
OF GENDER INEQUALITY 7 3. UNDP'S GENDER INDEXES: A BRIEF HISTORY 9 3.1 The Gender-related Development Index and Gender Empowerment Measure 9 3.2 The Gender Inequality Index 12 3.3 The Gender Development Index 12 3.4 Other gender-equality measures 13 4. EVALUATIONS OF THE GII AND PROPOSALS FOR REFORM 14 5. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR
Gender Equality:The equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities of women, men, girls and boys, and equal power to shape their own lives and contribute to society.†. Gender Equity:Included in the broader idea of gender equality, fairness and justice regarding benefits and needs of women/girls and men/boys.†.
Background Gender inequality and violence are not mutually exclusive phenomena but complex loops affecting each other. Women in Nepal face several inequalities and violence. The causes are diverse, but most of these results are due to socially assigned lower positioning of women. The hierarchies based on power make women face subordination and violence in Nepal. The study aims to explore ...
Guide to Integrating Gender in your ProposalG. Objective: To assess the potential impact (both intended and unintended) and opportunities of policies, programs and initiatives on diverse groups of people, taking into account gender and other identity factors.1. f gender integration approaches and outcomesIDRC believes that projects should ...
The primary objectives of this project are as follows: Raise awareness: Increase awareness about the importance of gender equality in workplace environments, highlighting the benefits of diversity and inclusion for both organizations and society as a whole. Identify and eliminate biases: Identify and eliminate unconscious biases and stereotypes that perpetuate gender inequality in the ...
gender determines power and resources for females and males (FAO 2013). ACIAR is committed to mainstreaming gender in its research: Mainstreaming a gender perspective is the process of assessing the implications for women and men of any planned action, including legislation, policies or programmes, in all areas and at all levels.
Women and girls experience the greatest impacts of climate change, which amplifies existing gender inequalities and poses unique threats to their livelihoods, health, and safety. Across the world, women depend more on, yet have less access to, natural resources. In many regions, women bear a disproportionate responsibility for securing food ...
Introduction. The workplace has sometimes been referred to as an inhospitable place for women due to the multiple forms of gender inequalities present (e.g., Abrams, 1991).Some examples of how workplace discrimination negatively affects women's earnings and opportunities are the gender wage gap (e.g., Peterson and Morgan, 1995), the dearth of women in leadership (Eagly and Carli, 2007), and ...
The present paper constitutes the final dissertation of the Teacher Training Master's Degree from Universitat Jaume I, shaped as a short article. Our main objectives were (1) to provide the theoretical framework needed in order to adopt a gender perspective and to include gender issues in the foreign language classroom and (2) to present a ...
Gender Inclusion at Workplace: A System atic Review and. Bibliometric Analysis. Poonam Gautam *, Ajay Solkhe ** and Shivangi Singh ***. University School of Management. Kurukshetra University ...
An understanding of the degree to which gender inequalities persist, and in particular the denial of gender inequality, forms a key aspect of sexist attitudes, such as those captured by the modern sexism scale (Swim et al., 1995). Indeed, there are a number of very real consequences of failing to acknowledge the persistence of gender inequality.
This sample size was adjudged to be adequate to generate rich information; and allow for saturation to occur. With a non-response rate of 20%, it was anticipated that the final sample size for the in-depth interview will be 43. ... Hopes for a changing narrative on gender inequality in research . Participants of both genders voiced increasing ...
Regar ding gender gr oup differ ences t hese can be found for m ar k et and non- m ar ket act ivit ies and for t y pe of j obs. Ther e ar e gender differ ences for com par at ive advant ages due t o: differ ences in gender r oles in hom e pr oduct ion, differ ences in par ent al inv est m ent s in skills ( Becker , 1991) and t he t r ansm ...
Gender and Social Inclusion Strategy: (1) social-emotional learning, (2) engagement with male caregivers, (3) school-related gender-based violence prevention, and (4) student-centered teaching practices (including tackling boys underachievement). Research shows that the active role of male caregivers positively correlates with better.
This Women's Health Week, Dr Lesley Braun, Director of Research and Education at Blackmores Institute, shares with Body+Soul the importance of acknowledging ongoing gender bias in women's ...
There is a growing body of research addressing the influence of childhood adversity and early victimization on mental health problems in persons deprived of liberty (Wolff et al., 2022; Zhang & Zheng, 2018).For example, research in this field has revealed high rates of mental health problems and trauma-related symptomatology, primarily depressive disorders, PTSD, and substance use (Karlsson ...
Medicaid Cuts Would Take Away Health Coverage From Millions of People. As noted, HBC would cut Medicaid by $2.2 trillion over ten years; [14] RSC would cut Medicaid, CHIP, and ACA marketplace assistance by $4.5 trillion, likely by cutting Medicaid even more deeply than the HBC proposals and by making cuts to marketplace policies described below. [15] The size of the cuts in Project 2025 is ...