Christian Arndt; Juergen Volkert

Gender Inequality in Germany

Quantitative Analyses from a Capability Perspective

Key words: Gender Inequality, Lone Mothers and Lone Fathers, Poverty,
Capabilities, Amartya Sen

Paper to be presented at the 6th Human Development and Capability Association

(HDCA) Conference at the University of Groningen, NL, August 29 September 1, 2006
Preliminary version, August 2006.
Please do not quote without authors permission. Comments are very welcome.
Contact:
Christian Arndt, Research fellow, Institute for Applied Economic Research Tuebingen (IAW), Ob dem
Himmelreich 1, D-72074 Tuebingen, Germany, Tel: 0049-7071-9896-34; Fax: 0049-7071-9896-99; e-mail:
christian.arndt@iaw.edu
Professor Dr. Juergen Volkert, Professor of Economics and Ethics, Pforzheim University, Tiefenbronner Strasse
65,

D-75175

Pforzheim,

Germany,

juergen.volkert@hs-pforzheim.de

Tel.:

0049-7071-255113;

Fax:

0049-7071-255114;

e-mail:

Christian Arndt, Juergen Volkert

1.

-2-

Capability gender inequality

in Germany

Introduction and outline

Amartya Sen (1999, p. 109) has argued, that we cannot analyze gender inequality primarily in terms
of income differences. He stressed that there is a need for more information to specify inequalities
that exist within economic affluence. He requested information concerning other types of deprivation
to directly assess inequality and poverty and to relate the extent of relative deprivation of women to
the existing inequalities in opportunities (in earning outside income, in being enrolled in schools and
so on).
Sens thesis has been addressed in a study by Arndt and Volkert (2006a) on capabilities, poverty and
wealth on behalf of the German Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs that has adopted Sens
approach as a conceptual framework for realising subsequent poverty and wealth reports. The authors
have presented a first operational framework of indicators for different dimensions of poverty (and
wealth) that is based on the German Socio-Economic Panel Study (GSOEP), a wide-ranging
representative longitudinal micro-data panel (see the Appendix). Among other things, they highlight
Sens argument by showing that women are confronted with slightly higher income poverty rates
compared to men, but are much worse off with respect to lacks of education and with respect to other
capability determinants, especially access to labor markets (Arndt and Volkert, 2006b).
This result raises the following two questions: First, in how far is it possible to assess the ,,real
degree of financial poverty of women? Aggregated gender-specific results may hide intra-household
inequalities as well as possible differences among various types of households, e.g. lone mothers, or
single women. In order to answer this first question we will have a closer look on some specific
household types. This will allow us to distinguish poverty outcomes of male and female persons, at
least to quite some policy-relevant extent.
Second, are gender inequalities that can be measured in non-financial dimensions of welfare be traced
back to a general gender-effect? Or can these differences be attributed to characteristics which are
specific for women that live alone, with or without children, insufficient external child-care, etc.
Our objective is to examine the differences among the determinants of the capabilities of women,
(single-) mothers and men (Agarwal, Humphries and Robeyns, 2005) in financial and non-financial
dimensions, and to show that descriptive and policy issues can be addressed through this broader
picture on inequality and poverty in terms of capability deprivation (Sen 1999, p. 109). In contrast to
some part of the gender-specific literature we do not stress the importance of regarding gender-specific
utility-functions nor the necessity to analyze intra-household distributions that lies beyond the scope of
this paper. Instead, for sake of comparison between gender-specific situations, we apply a variety of
identical financial and non-financial indicators for men and women in a symmetric way, and show,

Christian Arndt, Juergen Volkert

-3-

Capability gender inequality

in Germany

that still remarkable differences between gender and household specific situations can be brought to
the surface. Among them we analyze the situation of lone mothers and fathers, which commonly are
regarded as key issues of gender-based poverty analyses (Abelda et al., 2005).
Having this in mind, we pick up the mentioned indicator set that is sketched in the appendix and
enables the measurement of various dichotomous outcomes of financial and non-financial poverty
which are interpreted as determinants of human capabilities. We depart from one and two-way
descriptive statistics of family-specific determinants and poverty outcomes. Furthermore, we are able
control for various possibly important right-hand side variables, e.g. age, employment situation,
income etc., all of them based on the GSOEP. We allow these determinants to be correlated with
sexes, and thus amplify the analysis by estimating multivariate nonlinear probit models in order to
explain poverty outcomes and to elaborate and test for underlying partial effects for household types
as well as various control variables. Finally we test for gender-specific differences within certain
household-types.

2.

Adequacy of Sens capability approach for gender analyses with quantitative data

A general capability framework will perceive poverty as capability or functioning deprivation or as

the inability to realize a set of basic functionings or capabilities. A functioning is an achievement
that a person manages to do or be. These beings and doings can vary from being adequately
nourished, being in good health over to complex achievements like having self-respect and
appear in public without shame, taking part in the life of the community etc. The various
combinations of functionings (beings and doings) that a person can achieve are called capabilities.
The freedom that is needed to achieve such well-being is central for the CA, for example in ethical and
political analysis (Sen, 1992: 39-40).
The capability approach acknowledges human diversity, such as race, age, ethnicity, gender, sexuality,
and geographical location as well as whether people are handicapped, pregnant, or have caring
responsibilities (Robeyns 2003). So one possibility of this approach could be to address possible
gender-specific differences in utility functions and allow gender-specific influences of personal,
social, and environmental characteristics. By conceptualizing gender inequality in the space of
functionings and capabilities, there is more scope to account for human diversity, including the
diversity stemming from peoples gender.
Another important feature of the CA for gender analyses of which we will take advantage is that it
focuses not only on the financial dimension of poverty (or well-being): a supposedly big part of

Christian Arndt, Juergen Volkert

-4-

Capability gender inequality

in Germany

unequal endowments with regard to capability determinants may be hidden when only equivalence
scales are used to scrutinize individual human opportunities, because in most cases these scales
attribute the same share of income to all household members. But even if this distribution hypothesis
should hold, income as only variable cannot adequately explain the full range of opportunities.
How can the CA thus enhance a feasible and gender-specific empirical analysis of gender differences?
Firstly, better results with regard to the also gender-specific driving forces of capabilities can be
achieved, if not only income, but also further dimensions of the CA are analyzed: the so called
personal conversion factors (e.g. individual qualification, the level of professional education) and the
instrumental freedoms (e.g. political freedoms and participation, social opportunities and economic
facilities). International studies have shown, that inequality between men and women increases, if not
only income but also other determinants of capabilities are regarded (Sen, 1999, p. 109). Secondly, it
will be necessary to disaggregate each of these results in order to highlight group-specific problems to
convert financial means like income into capabilities (e.g. age, gender, handicaps, migration).
Thus, it would be eligible to shed some more light to questions like, if, on the one hand, improvements
in the field of education for women are more urgent for policy than household-oriented financial
redistribution. On the other, we would want to know if possible female deprivation within economic
facilities signals that only improving education will not be enough, but public policy will at the same
time have to ensure other determinants of capabilities like better labor market access and working
conditions for women.

3.

Choice of GSOEP data and indicators for capability determinants

The GSOEP is a wide-ranging representative longitudinal micro-data panel that includes 12,000
private households and about 22,000 persons in Germany (total population in Germany: about 80
mio). In principal, it covers almost all relevant CA-dimensions since more than 20 years. Nevertheless,
there remain some specific limitations of GSOEP with respect to a full coverage of the CA in the case
of some important dimensions of capabilities, first of all with respect to the measurement of political
freedoms and political participation (see Arndt/Volkert 2006 for a brief discussion). The GSOEP
micro-data thus allow identifying determinants of capabilities from a microeconomic perspective for
households and individuals. In general, the GSOEP seems to be a suitable database for our purpose as
long as it is combined with an adequate indicator system. In the following we will present some
poverty dimensions and corresponding feasible indicators that can be measured in a satisfactory way
and are important with respect to the CA at the same time.

Christian Arndt, Juergen Volkert

-5-

Capability gender inequality

in Germany

In order to identify and analyse poverty as capability deprivation or capability failure and to draw
conclusions for public policies, it would be desirable to address and measure a persons capability set
directly. However, because of the difficulty to measure the full bundle of capabilities a person can
choose from (irrespective whether he or she actually does or does not) we have to base the
measurement on financial means, personal conversion factors and instrumental freedoms, mostly by
the assessment of functionings. Further relevant indicators that intend to catch the main aspects of CA
with respect to the specific German social policy issues are still being developed. For the subsequent
analysis we have selected indicators from the list in appendix that seem to be important for a
discussion of gender inequalities, cover the main aspects of the CA, and are available in GSOEP.
However, not all determinants of capabilities can already be assessed in a complete and satisfying
way. Quite a number of further elaboration and extensions of GSOEP are desirable. We are aware that
further research will be necessary to try to narrow the gap between measurable functionings and the
finally desirable capabilities from theory.
One feature of our concept is to distinguish individual financial potentials, personal conversion
factors and instrumental freedoms (Robeyns 2005; Sen 1999). Together, individual financial
potentials and personal conversion factors make up a group of capability determinants that we call
individual potentials. A characteristic of these individual potentials, like income, health or education,
is that they can be transferred to other countries and societies. Instrumental freedoms are important,
because they comprise the social end environmental conversion factors that are more directly
influenced by society and state.
Not withstanding the broad scope of the CA, we start with indicators with regard to the financial
dimension. We have selected very low current income (at-risk-of poverty threshold ),1 persistent low
income2 as well as very high debts as important indicators of financial poverty.3
Most important with regard to personal conversion factors, also in the case of a developed country in
the 21st century are abilities to be in good health and to be well educated which in turn are very
valuable capabilities as such. However, they are also of instrumental importance for other
(determinants of) capabilities that are used in our analysis. We consider a person as being confronted
with a bad health if he or she reports a very bad or bad health status along with impairments of
everyday life (that are caused by the bad health status). We categorize people as not sufficiently
educated if they are early school leavers or may have left secondary education without further

2
3

A person is identified as income poor if its net equivalent household income (new OECD-scale) is smaller
than 60 % of respective median household equivalence incomes (= E.U.s official at-risk-of poverty
threshold).
Currently income poor and income poor in at least two of the three preceding years.
A persons suffers from severe debts if it is living in a household that has to serve debts and has a disposable
income (after debt service) smaller than the official socio-economic financial minimum. This official socioeconomic financial minimum is 930 , for 1. Person, + 350 , for a 2. Person, + 195 per each further person

Christian Arndt, Juergen Volkert

-6-

Capability gender inequality

in Germany

occupational training or apprenticeship. Furthermore we report ,very restricted personal conversion

factors, which are composed by various sub-indicators (again, see the appendix).
Instrumental freedoms, inter alia, comprise of economic facilities, social opportunities, protective
security, ecological security, political freedoms and participation and transparency guarantees (Sen
1999; UNEP/iisdn 2004). A comprehensive gender-oriented analysis of all instrumental freedoms lies
beyond the scope of this paper. Instead, we focus on deprived economic facilities (e.g. unemployment,
working poor, low-wage jobs) and in particular on low wages. We have decided in favour of this focus
as economic facilities and low wages are reported to be among the most problematic issues among
instrumental freedoms with respect to gender inequalities (Weber 2006).
To the group that suffers from a low monthly wage we count every person that has a regular monthly
net income (in the year before the interview) which is below the mentioned at-risk-of poverty
threshold. Such a definition of low wages also recognizes the lower levels of monthly incomes and
seems to be suitable to identify the dependency (of women) from the income of a partner as well as the
risks associated to these dependencies in case of unemployment of the partner or separation and
divorce. Thus, we take account of the (gender-) specific dependencies and risks assiociated with parttime jobs. This seems to be adequate because it would be too heroic to assume that full-time jobs and
adequate child-care will be immediately available for mothers as soon as they are in need of.

4.

First descriptive gender-specific results

First we want to explore the relevance of Sens argument in the case of Germany, using the CAframework. Figure 1 shows from a general aggregated perspective that, on the one hand, women are
confronted with only slightly higher income poverty rates (13.2 % versus 10.9 %) compared to men as
well as confronted with almost similar shares of households with extreme debt burdens (6.6 % to 6.3
%). To a large extent this is due to the fact that income is measured at household levels and is
weighted by a function of the number of household members. This weighted net income is attributed
equally to each household member and hence obscures intra-household inequalities in couplehouseholds. On the other hand aggregated figures show, that women are much worse off with respect
to lacks of education (women 16.7% vs. 8.1%), political participation (women: 16.8% vs. men:
10.1%) and particularly economic facilities (women: 27.9 % vs. men: 16.6 %).

-7-

Christian Arndt, Juergen Volkert

Figure 1:

Capability gender inequality

in Germany

Lack of individual potentials and instrumental freedoms among men and women in
Germany

Income poverty
30%
Environmental protection

25%

Extreme Debts

20%
15%
Social protection

10%

Bad Health

5%
Men

0%

Women
Social opportunities

Disabilities

Economic opportunities

Lack of Education
Low political interest

Data: SOEP 2004, authors calculations.

These results indicate shortcomings of poverty assessments, that only focus on income from an
aggregate perspective. Hence Sens CA should play a significant role also for a developed country like
Germany, in order to help to take into account the full scope of poverty in various dimensions. A
similar result has been reported for Ireland by Cantillon and Nolan (2001).
Furthermore, Sens thesis that non-financial inequalities may be more pronounced than financial is
already confirmed with respect to very extensive individual potentials and instrumental freedoms in
Germany on the aggregate level given the definition of our poverty bounds. An analog analysis with
respect to well-being shows that the shares of men in Germany who benefit from extensive individual
potentials and instrumental freedoms in Germany are almost for all dimensions except disabilities4
higher than the female shares.5 This indicates that, at least at an aggregate level, inequality between
women and men is more pronounced within a CA-perspective (for poverty and wealth) than a focus on
income inequality alone might have suggested.

4
5

Slightly more women (87,8 %) than men (85 %) in Germany report that they do not suffer from any severe
disability in the same data. See for example Arndt/Volkert (2006a).
Differences between female and male high income and financial wealth are less pronounced than other
determinants of capabilities, notably in the fields of health status, education, social opportunities (particularly
access to privileged health care) and economic facilities.

Christian Arndt, Juergen Volkert

-8-

Capability gender inequality

in Germany

Finally we want to remark that significantly more women show low political interest and not
depicted in figure 1 less women are intensively participating in politics.6 We will not further
intensify the analysis of this dimension because of the already mentioned shortcomings of the GSOEP
data, but stress at the same time the challenge for public policy to strengthen female political interest
and participation in order to increase the probability to overcome existing gender inequalities within
the political competition.

5.

Descriptive gender differences in financial individual potentials

In this section we will try to deepen our initial descriptive analysis and ask, whether we may find
gender-specific differences when we disaggregate poverty figures according to gender, household type
and number of children. First, we regard individual financial potentials. For non-financial individual
potentials and instrumental freedoms we refer to the next section.
First we split up couple and single households. When we look at single households we are able to
attribute the financial situation of the entire household to the sex of the single adult head of the
household. We will look more closely at single women (without children), lone mothers with one
child, and lone mothers with at least two children and finally also at such households where single
women live together with their children and their own parents (various generations). We compare
these to the same types of household that are headed by a single man. Further we examine households
that are headed by couples and differentiate these by the number of children (see table 1). For an
alternative typology which emphasizes the marital status of lone mothers in the case of Russia see
Kanji (2005).
By doing this we can analyze the situation of lone mothers, lone fathers as well determine possible
gender influences within these groups. Further we can capture effects of the number of children, both
for single parents and couples. Table 1 shows the number of reports we can refer to in the data and the
shares of these subpopulations with regard to the total population aged 16 and more, that we have
projected to the German population by taking into account the stratification of GSOEP. Even in the
case of the smallest group (lone fathers with more than one child) we still find far more than 100
persons and conclude that we will have reliable results.

A look at suitable cross-section date (so called ALLBUS) confirms that also differences can be found with
regard to the degree of political participation of men and women in Germany.

-9-

Christian Arndt, Juergen Volkert

Table 1:

Capability gender inequality

in Germany

Combinations of sex and household type deprivation in financial dimensions

Number of
persons in
GSOEP 04

Total

Income poor
(<60 % median)

Persistently
income poor

Highly indebted

as weighted shares among all older than 16 years

women

13.1 %

5.7 %

men

11.1 %

4.8 %

7.1 %

single mothers + child

single mothers + children
single women
women with other
generations
single fathers + child
single fathers + children
single men
man with other
generations
couples with child
couples with children
couples without children
Total

7.3 %

457
297
1,666

2.5 %
1.4 %
12.8 %

25.7 %
35.8 %
16.0 %

12.8 %
15.7 %
9.3 %

14.1 %
25.5 %
4.4 %

358

1.6 %

23.6 %

7.8 %

12.4 %

216
132
1,225

1.0 %
0.6 %
8.8 %

15.2 %
25.4 %
18.4 %

9.2 %
19.2 %
8.7 %

10.5 %
10.6 %
7.3 %

270

1.1 %

19.3 %

8.4 %

13.3 %

4,012
5,902
7,355
21,890

16.0 %
21.2 %
33.0 %
100.0 %

8.6 %
13.3 %
6.8 %

2.9 %
4.9 %
2.6 %

8.8 %
10.8 %
3.3 %

Data: SOEP 2004, authors calculations.

For the indicators of low income and extreme indebtedness we find the highest shares in the case of
households that are headed by women.7 Worst off among them result single mothers with at least two
children, followed by single mothers with one child. But also households that are headed by single
men show only slightly lower degrees of deprivation in the case of most financial sub-dimensions.
Furthermore, in the case of single households with children we find in general a more severe situation
for single households when the number of children is higher. Finally, comparing male and female
headed households we suppose substantial genders differences that we will want to test later on.
We suppose an influence that is caused by the number of children also in the case of couples: couples
with at least two children show the highest shares among all couples (see table 1). Vice versa, with
exception of high indebtedness, couples without children are best off with regard to each of our
selected financial dimensions.
To summ up, we suppose that financial problems are much more frequent in households headed by
single persons and increase with the number of children, too, and are finally higher in the case of
households with children that are headed by a single mother in relation to those, that are headed by a
single father. Comparing the financial situation of single women and men we cannot find clear
implications.

Table 1 takes up our first findings and states, that also for persistent poorness (currently poor and poor in at
least three of the four foregoing years) and indebtedness no big differences can be found between the two
sexes.

Christian Arndt, Juergen Volkert

6.

- 10 -

Capability gender inequality

in Germany

Descriptive gender differences in personal conversion factors and instrumental freedoms

Like for financial means we will have a closer look at various combinations of household-type, sex
and number of children for personal conversion factors and instrumental freedoms, notably economic
facilities. Here, we can measure gender specific differences even in the case of couple households.
In the case of the synthetic indicator personal conversion factors (bad health or low education) the
highest shares can be found in the case of single women without children and women living in
households that consist of several generations (each with shares higher than one third of the respective
subpopulation). Single women with one child as well as women in couples without children follow
with shares between 25% and 30%. Woman in couples with children and lone mothers with more than
one child show slightly lower levels than women on average (24.7%). So we find no clear hypothesis
of influences of household-type and number of children. Especially in the case of single women
without children we must suppose, that results, up to now, might be biased by the age of the
interviewed.
In contrast, men in general show lower degrees of individual deprivation, but some groups also suffer
in an especially severe way: as already in the case of women, single men with at most one child and
men living in couples without children or together with various generations suffer from levels that are
well above the average for males (19.0%).
In all household types women show more frequently low educational levels. The descriptive analysis
of individual health presents a mixed picture. Shares for men who suffer from health problems are
similar or higher in the majority of household categories except single persons and persons living with
various generations.
The aggregated differences between women and men (24.7 % - 19.0 % = 5.7%) seem to be mainly
driven by remarkable differences in the case of single persons (17,1 %) and persons living together
with various generations (14,9 %). With regard to the other household types we find lower differences.
With regard to the subindicator lack of professional education we also find considerable differences
between women and men in general. But in this case, the gender-specific differences seem to be more
equally distributed among the different household types (with exception of couples with more than one
child).

- 11 -

Christian Arndt, Juergen Volkert

Table 2:

Capability gender inequality

in Germany

Combinations of sex and household type deprivation in selected non-financial

dimensions
Personal conversion factors

Instrumental freedoms

Low nonfinancial
individual
potentials

Lack of
professional
education

women

24.7 %

16.1 %

3.4 %

28.6 %

37.7 %

men

19.0 %
28.6 %
15.7 %
36.5 %
15.9 %

8.1 %
20.2 %
14.5 %
21.4 %
11.1 %

2.9 %
2.7 %
1.2 %
6.3 %
1.0 %

16.2 %
39.3 %
58.4 %
13.7 %
35.9 %

11.6 %
30.1 %
46.3 %
20.0 %
45.4 %

10.8 %

9.0 %

0.3 %

44.7 %

60.5 %

27.8 %

17.2 %

4.0 %

21.6 %

24.1 %

37.6 %

28.0 %

8.0 %

34.8 %

46.7 %

24.1 %
9.8 %
19.4 %
14.9 %
11.5 %
25.4 %
22.7 %

13.2 %
9.4 %
8.0 %
6.9 %
8.3 %
8.1 %
11.6 %

2.9 %
0.0 %
3.3 %
2.5 %
0.8 %
4.4 %
3.6 %

36.6 %
38.9 %
23.1 %
14.9 %
18.6 %
8.6 %
28.1 %

34.8 %
45.1 %
12.4 %
9.5 %
11.0 %
9.6 %
16.8 %

single mothers + child

single mothers + children
single women
women in Couple + Child
women in Couple +
Children
women in couple, no
children
women with other
generations
single fathers + child
Single fathers+ children
single men
men in Couple + Child
men in Couple + Children
men in couple, no children
men with various gen.

Bad health

Restricted
economic
facilities

Low wage8

as weighted shares among all older than 16 years

Differences between the sexes in corresponding sub-groups

Single parent + child
Single parent + children
Singles persons
persons in Couple + Child
persons in Couple +
Children
persons in couple, no
children
persons with various gen.

4,50%
5,90%
17,10%
1,00%

7,00%
5,10%
13,40%
4,20%

-0,20%
1,20%
3,00%
-1,50%

2,70%
19,50%
-9,40%
21,00%

-4,70%
1,20%
7,60%
35,90%

-0,70%

0,70%

-0,50%

26,10%

49,50%

2,40%

9,10%

-0,40%

13,00%

14,50%

14,90%

16,40%

4,40%

6,70%

29,90%

Data: SOEP 2004, authors calculations.

With respect to a bad health status only small differences exist on the aggregate level. But looking at
the different household types shows again, that single persons, couples without children and once
more persons living in households together with various generations are more severely affected than
the respective gender-specific average. Furthermore, for two of the three subgroups we find low
absolute differences but considerable relative gender-specific differences (single persons and persons
in various generations). But these differences might be overlaid by sampling error.
Differences between men and woman on an aggregate level have been very high in the case of
economic facilities as well as in the case of the selected sub-indicator low wages. Analyzing the
subgroups we also find relatively high shares for the case of single mothers and mothers in couples

Low wage: as % of all persons older than 16 years that belong to the labor force.

Christian Arndt, Juergen Volkert

- 12 -

Capability gender inequality

in Germany

with more than one child. In contrast, men in couples with more than one child seem to be not so
severely affected.
The highest gender-specific differences in low wage reception appear in the case of couples, especially
with children, but also in the case of households consisting of various generations. But, regardless of
the household type, women are confronted with the worst economic opportunities in almost any
household type according to our indicators. The only exception is single women without children, and,
at least to some degree, lone mothers. For lone fathers the situation seems equally severe as for lone
mothers. In all other household types considerable differences exist among men and women.
Summarizing the descriptive part of the analysis, very substantial gender-specific differences appear in
the case of financial means as well as in the case of personal conversion factors economic facilities if
we compare combinations of household situations, sex and number of children. In the next chapter we
undertake a multivariate analysis in order to control for factors that may influence the outcomes of our
indicators, like age, income, professional status and education. Additionally, we will test for genderspecific differences.

7.

What effects can be attributed to gender, household type, and number of children

7.1

Financial individual potentials

The (differences in) shares that we have analyzed so far may be influenced by further (third) variables.
Hence, we wish to find out more about partial effects of these variables. We use a probit model to
regress the probability of being poor on various right-hand side variables and to estimate such partial
effects.
Table 3 shows the marginal effects for the selected indicators of individual financial potentials. In bold
figures we have depicted the main estimation results for the selected household criteria. These effects
have to be interpreted as partial absolute differences in the probability to be ,,poor for the subgroup
compared c. p. in relation to couples without children. We have selected ,couples without children as
our reference group, because this group has been less affected by low financial capabilities as has been
shown in the bivariate analysis in part 4 and, additionally, both sexes are quite evenly represented in
this group. Hence, we can switch off possible gender effects in doing this comparison to a large
extend. Table 3 also shows further results with regard to the numerous controls that we have
considered. Unfortunately, we will not be able to discuss them in greater detail and hence write them
in normal figures.

- 13 -

Christian Arndt, Juergen Volkert

Table 3:

Capability gender inequality

in Germany

Lack of determinants of financial individual potentials in

Germany (2004). Maximum likelihood probit estimates,
marginal effects.

COEFFICIENT
East-Germany

Single mother + child

[vs.couples, no children]

Single mother + children

Single woman
Woman with other
generations

Income poor
(<60 % median)
0.04***
(0.00)
0.13***
(0.02)
0.20***
(0.04)
0.09***
(0.01)

Persistently income
poor
0.02***
(0.00)
0.07***
(0.02)
0.10***
(0.03)
0.05***
(0.01)

0.07***

0.04***

(0.02)
0.01
(0.02)
0.01
(0.03)
0.07***
(0.01)
0.06**
(0.02)
-0.00
(0.01)
0.02***
(0.01)
0.02***
(0.01)
-0.02***
(0.00)
-0.02***
(0.01)
0.06***

(0.01)
0.02
(0.01)
0.03
(0.02)
0.04***
(0.01)
0.04**
(0.02)
0.00
(0.00)
0.01***
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
-0.01**
(0.00)
-0.00*
(0.00)
0.03***
(0.00)
0.01***
(0.00)
0.07***
(0.01)

Highly indebted

0.05***
(0.01)
0.08***
(0.02)
0.11***
(0.03)
0.03***
(0.01)
0.05**

(0.02)
0.01
(0.02)
Single father+ children
0.02
(0.03)
Single man
0.03***
(0.01)
Man with various gen.
0.04**
(0.02)
Couple + Child
0.02***
(0.01)
Couple + Children
0.03***
(0.01)
Age 16-29
-0.00
[vs. Age 30-44]
(0.00)
Age 45-64
-0.03***
(0.00)
Age 65+
-0.05***
(0.00)
Secondary School Degree
0.04***
(0.01)
[vs. technical/upper]
(0.01)
Intermediate School Degree
0.03***
0.02***
(0.01)
(0.01)
Other Degree
0.12***
0.03***
(0.02)
(0.01)
No School Degree Yet
0.01
-0.00
(0.04)
(0.03)
Dropout, No School Degree
0.23***
0.13***
0.03**
(0.03)
(0.03)
(0.02)
Regular Part-Time Employment
0.04***
0.02***
0.01**
[vs. Full-Time]
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.01)
Other gainfully empl. stat.
0.11***
0.05***
0.02**
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.01)
Not Employed
0.08***
0.03**
0.09
(0.03)
(0.01)
(0.06)
Civil servant
-0.05***
-0.01***
-0.04***
[vs. self employed]
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
Employee
-0.05***
-0.01***
-0.03***
(0.01)
(0.00)
(0.00)
Worker
-0.03***
-0.00
-0.01
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.01)
Pensioner
-0.05***
-0.01
-0.06***
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.02)
Unemployed (not employer)
0.03
0.03
-0.04**
(0.03)
(0.02)
(0.02)
Nationalized
0.00
-0.00
0.02**
[vs. German born]
(0.01)
(0.00)
(0.01)
Foreign
0.04***
0.01***
0.02***
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.01)
Observations
16825
16733
16653
Robust standard errors in parentheses. ***Significant at the 1 % level; **significant at the 5 %
level; *significant at the 10 % level. Data: GSOEP 2004, authors calculations.
Single father + child

Christian Arndt, Juergen Volkert

- 14 -

Capability gender inequality

in Germany

First of all, we find quite similar results for all three different financial indicators: All types of
households that are headed by a single woman show significantly higher probabilities to be poor
relative to the reference group. This is the case for all three indicators. Single mothers with one and
more children show the highest probabilities to be income poor (+13 % and +20 %) and to be
permanently poor (+7 % and +10 %) relative to couples without children.9 This is a result that
confirms the hypotheses established by Strantz (2006) based on descriptive analyses of data stemming
from the German ,Mikrozensus.
In the case of single fathers we cannot find such significant differences compared to couples without
children. Significantly worse off relative to couples without children are only single men and men
living together with various generations.
In the case of couples, we find that having only one child still not makes a difference in income
poverty, compared to having no child. But with more than one child we find strong effects in the case
of all three financial indicators: couples with more than one child result to suffer from a significantly
higher risk to be poor and highly indebted than couples without children. This might to some degree
be due to inconsistencies in the German tax and transfer system with respect to families a topic that
we cannot analyse sufficiently within the scope of this paper.
We also have tested the hypothesis that there exist no gender-specific differences within the various
household types. These differences have to be interpreted as differences in percentage-points, relative
to the probability, that couples without children face.10
Table 4:

Test of eifference in marginal effects on determinants of financial

individual potentials between women and men within different
household-types in Germany (2004).
Test of gender-specific
Income poor
Persistently
Highly indebted
differences in corresponding
(<60 % median)
income poor
sub-groups
Single parent + child
***
**
**
Single parent + children
***
*
**
Singles persons
*
Persons with various gen.
Robust standard errors in parentheses. ***Significant at the 1 % level; **significant at the 5 %
level; *significant at the 10 % level. Data: GSOEP 2004, authors calculations.

With respect to income poverty we find significant differences between men and women in the case of
single parenthood (see table 4). In the case of single persons and contemporaneous income poverty

9
10

For example, we estimate that, a single mother with one child faces a probability to be poor, that is 13 %
points higher compared to a person (male or female) that is living in a couple without children.
This means, these differences are similar to interaction terms between household type and sex, but not
exactly the same. An explicit analysis of interaction terms has to be postponed to further research.

Christian Arndt, Juergen Volkert

- 15 -

Capability gender inequality

in Germany

gender also make a difference in probabilities, at least significant at the 10% level. Gender-differences
with respect to persons living together with other generations are not significant.
Gender-specific differences with regard to persistent poverty are in general less significant. Even in
the case of single persons we cannot find significant differences between men and women. This result
also applies to the case of highly indebted persons, where we can find significant differences only in
the case of single parents.
This means, that we can find weak evidence of gender-specific differences in single households and
hence no strong overall gender effect with respect to every case of the selected financial dimensions in
each type of households. But it has become clear, that as soon as children have to be taken into
account, significant differences show up between lone mothers and lone fathers, not only with regard
to income, but also with regard to persistent low income situations and high debts.
In line with our first descriptive results we have found, that the risk of financial problems is
significantly severe in households that are headed only by single persons, or such, where a third
generation also is there. The number of children affects the financial situation, but in the case of
couples, only if at least two children live in the household. Further we have shown, that in the case of
lone parents the probability to be affected by financial problems in Germany is significantly higher in
the case of households, that are headed by lone mothers than in households that are headed by lone
fathers. For single women these differences compared to men is only weak as single men also bear
significantly higher financial risks.
Further it is very important to control for further determinants, that are supposed to be correlated with
sexes and hence can overlay results of the gender-analysis. These controls shall only be discussed in
brevity: Relative to the age-group between 30 and 44 years, older people have a significantly lower
probability to be poor. Younger people (aged 16-29) are more often income poor. Also, our schooling
variable is highly significant in most cases: especially school drop outs face much higher probabilities
to suffer from low capabilities in each of the selected financial sub dimensions. Further, part-time
work has a significant influence on our results. These are supposed to be highly correlated with sex,
and hence have to be controlled for in an multivariate analysis. Also, the employment status has
significant influences on the economic situation. Finally, foreigners face higher financial risks in the
case of all three selected estimators.

Christian Arndt, Juergen Volkert

7.2

- 16 -

Capability gender inequality

in Germany

Personal Conversion Factors

In the case of personal conversion factors we find structural differences between the two
subindicators, lack of professional education and severely bad health (see table 5). With exception of
single mothers with at least two children, women in general suffer significantly from higher shares of
insufficient educational background than men or women living as couple without children, although
educational differences have been reported to become less pronounced in recent years in Germany
(Ammermller/Weber 2005). For women that are living together with other generations as (+8%) and
that are single mothers with one child (+6%) we find the highest differences in comparison to the
reference group, couples without children.
For men, in contrast, we find far fewer significant results: only single men, and men in couples with
children have at least slightly significant lower probabilities to suffer from lacks of education, than
couples without children.
Significant differences between men and women within the household groups (see table 6) only show
up for single persons and couples with children. In the case of single parents we cannot find significant
differences.11
In the case of insufficient health status we only find two significant, but especially interesting, results:
firstly, women in households living with various generations show significant higher probabilities for
suffering from severe health conditions. But, secondly, women in couples with at least two children
are significantly less confronted to severe health conditions compared to couples without children.
Similarly, McMunn et al. (2006) have recently found that women who occupied multiple roles
(working and children) report relatively good health at an age of 54. Nevertheless, compared to the
relative situation of men we cannot find any significant differences (see table 6).
With regard to the combined indicator ,Lack of Personal Conversion Factors we find significant
higher probabilities in the case of single women without children, lone mothers and mothers living in
couples, respectively with only one child as also in the case of women living in households together
with various generations. But compared to men in the same situation (see table 6) only single women,
mothers in couples and women living in households together with various generations are significantly
worse off.
Summarizing, we find a strong probability difference to be deprived from low non-financial individual
potentials for lone parents in general (men and women) without gender-differences in this group. But

11

Especially in the case of lone fathers a large 95-% confidence interval [-0,02; 0,06] may be also a problem
because of small degrees of freedom, at least in tendency.

- 17 -

Christian Arndt, Juergen Volkert

Capability gender inequality

in Germany

considerable gender-specific differences, that are not influenced by further (gender-specific) variables,
can be found for single persons and couples with only one child.
Table: 5:

Lack of Determinants of Personal Conversion Factors and Instrumental Freedoms in

Germany (2004). Maximum Likelihood Probit Estimates, Marginal Effects.
Personal conversion factors

Low non-financial Lack of professional

education
individual potentials

COEFFICIENT
East-Germany
Single mother + child

[vs.couples, no children]

Single mother + children

Single woman

Woman in Couple + Child

Woman in Couple + Children
Woman with other generations
Single father + child
Single father + children
Single man
Man in Couple + Child
Man in Couple + Children
Man with various gen.
Age 16-29
Age 45-64

[vs. Age 30-44]

Age 65+
Regular Part-Time Employment
[vs. Full-Time]
Other gainfully empl. stat.
Not Employed
Civil servant
[vs. self employed]
Employee
Worker
Pensioner
Unemployed (not employer)
Nationalized
Foreign

[vs. German born]

Secondary School Degree

[Technical/Upper]
Intermediate School Degree
Other Degree
No School Degree Yet
Dropout, No School Degree
Income poor

[vs.non-poor]
OECD2-wght. Inc.(in thousand EURO)
Observations

-0.09***
(0.01)
0.05**
(0.02)
-0.01
(0.02)
0.02**
(0.01)
0.03**
(0.01)
-0.03**
(0.01)
0.07***
(0.02)
0.06*
(0.04)
-0.00
(0.05)
-0.01
(0.01)
-0.02*
(0.01)
-0.03***
(0.01)
-0.00
(0.02)
-0.02**
(0.01)
0.07***
(0.01)
0.10***
(0.02)
0.02*
(0.01)
0.06***
(0.02)
0.10***
(0.03)
-0.01
(0.02)
-0.03*
(0.01)
0.13***
(0.02)
0.17***
(0.04)
0.06
(0.04)
0.01
(0.01)
0.08***
(0.01)
0.04***
(0.01)
-0.06***
(0.01)
16766

-0.05***
(0.00)
0.06***
(0.02)
0.02
(0.02)
0.03***
(0.01)
0.03***
(0.01)
0.00
(0.01)
0.08***
(0.02)
0.02
(0.02)
0.02
(0.03)
-0.02***
(0.01)
-0.01*
(0.01)
-0.01*
(0.01)
-0.00
(0.01)
0.01
(0.01)
0.02***
(0.01)
0.07***
(0.01)
0.01
(0.01)
0.01
(0.01)
-0.01
(0.02)
-0.05***
(0.01)
-0.03***
(0.01)
0.09***
(0.02)
0.09***
(0.03)
0.11***
(0.04)
-0.00
(0.01)
0.06***
(0.01)
0.02**
(0.01)
-0.05***
(0.01)
16811

Instrumental Freedoms

Bad health

-0.00
(0.00)
-0.00
(0.00)
-0.00
(0.01)
0.00
(0.00)
-0.00
(0.00)
-0.01**
(0.00)
0.02**
(0.01)
-0.00
(0.01)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
-0.00
(0.00)
0.01
(0.01)

-0.01***
(0.00)
0.01**
(0.00)
0.01***
(0.01)
-0.00
(0.00)
0.01*
(0.01)
0.05**
(0.02)
0.01
(0.01)
-0.01
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
-0.01
(0.01)
-0.01*
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00*
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.01
(0.01)
0.01
(0.01)
-0.00
(0.00)
-0.00**
(0.00)
16686

Restricted economic
facilities

Low wage12

-0.00
(0.00)
-0.00
(0.00)
-0.00
(0.00)
-0.01***
(0.00)
0.01**
(0.00)
0.02***
(0.00)
0.04**
(0.02)
0.00
(0.01)
-0.01*
(0.00)
-0.01***
(0.00)
-0.01***
(0.00)
-0.01***
(0.00)
-0.00
(0.01)

0.01
(0.01)
-0.02
(0.02)
-0.02
(0.01)
-0.02*
(0.01)
0.06***
(0.01)
0.10***
(0.02)
0.08**
(0.04)
0.00
(0.03)
-0.04
(0.04)
-0.05***
(0.01)
-0.05***
(0.01)
-0.05***
(0.01)
-0.05***
(0.01)

0.01***
(0.00)
0.00*
(0.00)
-0.01***
(0.00)
0.26***
(0.03)
0.68***
(0.03)
-0.02*
(0.01)
-0.02***
(0.00)
-0.01***
(0.00)
-0.00
(0.00)
-0.10***
(0.03)
0.28
(0.18)
-0.00
(0.00)
-0.00
(0.00)
0.01***
(0.00)
0.01**
(0.00)
0.02**
(0.01)
0.05
(0.05)
0.03**
(0.01)
0.97***
(0.02)
-0.00**
(0.00)
16825

0.05***
(0.01)
0.01
(0.01)
0.03
(0.04)
0.46***
(0.02)
0.90***
(0.01)
-0.10***
(0.00)
-0.09***
(0.01)
-0.04***
(0.01)
-0.07***
(0.00)
-0.01
(0.01)
-0.01
(0.01)
0.06***
(0.01)
0.02**
(0.01)
0.05**
(0.02)
0.10**
(0.04)
0.16***
(0.03)
-0.02**
(0.01)
10387

Robust standard errors in parentheses. ***Significant at the 1 % level; **significant at the 5 % level; *significant at the 10 % level. Data: GSOEP
2004, authors calculations.

- 18 -

Christian Arndt, Juergen Volkert

Table 6:

Capability gender inequality

in Germany

Test of Difference in Marginal Effects on Determinants of Personal Conversion

Factors and Instrumental Freedoms between women and men within different
household-types in Germany (2004).

Test of gender-specific
differences in
corresponding sub-groups

Low nonfinancial
individual
potentials

Lack of
professional
education

Bad health

Low economic
facilities

Low wage13

Single parent + child

Single parent + children
Singles persons
**
***
***
Parent in Couple + Child
***
***
***
***
Parent in Couple +
*
***
***
Children
persons with various gen.
**
***
***
Robust standard errors in parentheses. ***Significant at the 1 % level; **significant at the 5 % level; *significant at the 10 %
level. Data: GSOEP 2004, authors calculations.

With respect to ,economic facilities and ,low wages we find quite different results in comparison to
our first descriptive results:
Firstly, in contrast to our first hypotheses, we do not find significant differences compared to the
reference group in the case of single mothers. Secondly, as already hypothesised, the most serious
problems are not found in the case of lone mothers but in the case of mothers that are living in couples
with children or women together in one household with other generations. As already mentioned in
section 3, by construction of our indicator, we especially take account of the (gender-) specific
dependencies and risks associated with part-time jobs, because we consciously did not correct for the
amount of monthly working hours. But, in accordance to the notion of capabilities as opposed to
funcionings, this indicator takes into account that full-time jobs and adequate child-care will not be
immediately available for mothers as soon as they should be in need of.14 Thirdly, we find, that men
are significantly less confronted with insufficient economic facilities in all categories exept lone
fathers with one child and those living together with other generations.
Similar to the analysis of the financial situation, it is also very important to control for further
determinants in the case of personal conversion factors and instrumental freedoms. Their partial
influences again shall be discussed only in brevity: compared to persons aged between 30 and 44
younger people have significant smaller risks to be confronted with bad non-financial personal
potentials. In contrast, older persons are more likely to be influenced by a lack of personal education
and bad health. But in the case of economic facilities younger persons suffer significantly more often
from low wages older persons generally less.

12
13
14

Low wage: as % of all persons older than 16 years that belong to the labor force.
Low wage: as % of all persons older than 16 years that belong to the labor force.
However, even if we would assume an immediate availability of full-time jobs and perfect corresponding
child-care in Germany, we would have to define low wages on an hourly base. Even then, 18.9 % of women
and only 12.8 % of men would be depending on these low wages.

Christian Arndt, Juergen Volkert

- 19 -

Capability gender inequality

in Germany

With regard to the employment status it is necessary to comment, that persons that do not belong to
the labour force, suffer in a significantly more severe way from a bad health status and from low nonfinancial individual potentials than full-time employees. Further, part-time employment induces low
wages. This result is not astonishing, because it is partly due to the construction of our low wage
indicator. But part-time work is supposed to be highly correlated with sex and hence needs to be
controlled for in our analysis.
Furthermore, we have also controlled for possible correlations between gender and professional
careers. For example workers and pensioners systematically have higher probabilities of suffering
from low levels education, civil servants and employees show significant lower probabilities.
Foreigners are much more often confronted with a lack of professional education, which, in turn,
supposedly is also highly correlated with gender issues. Finally, dropouts show significantly higher
probabilities to suffer from low economic opportunities as well as from low wages.
In the case of these non-financial indicators we have also controlled for the financial situation: people
who are income poor (which is correlated with sexes, as we have already shown) have significantly
higher probabilities to suffer from a lack of non-financial potentials (with exception of health) and low
economic opportunities. Furthermore, when the weighted household net income grows these
probabilities decrease significantly.

8.

Conclusion and outlook

First, we tried to assess the ,,real degree of financial poverty of women, because aggregated genderspecific results may hide intra-household inequalities as well as possible differences among various
types of households, e.g. lone mothers, or single women and had a closer look on some specific
household types. By doing this we were able to analyze the situation of lone mothers, lone fathers as
well determine possible gender influences within these groups. Further we could capture effects of the
number of children, both for single parents and couples. Second, we tried to find out, if gender
inequalities that can be measured in non-financial dimensions of welfare can be traced back to a
general gender-effect or if some of these differences can be attributed to characteristics which are
specific for women that live alone, with or without children, insufficient external child-care, etc.
We applied a selection of identical financial and non-financial indicators for men and women in a
symmetric way, and showed that remarkable differences between gender and household specific
situations can be brought to the surface. The first descriptive results as well as the multivariate
analysis indicate that shortcomings and limitations of income focused poverty assessments highlighted
by Sens CA play a significant role in affluent countries like Germany. Compared to men, women are

Christian Arndt, Juergen Volkert

- 20 -

Capability gender inequality

in Germany

even worse off with respect to personal conversion factors like education and instrumental freedoms
like economic facilities than only a financial poverty analysis on aggregated level might have
suggested.
Moreover, descriptive analyses have shown that we need to distinguish the circumstances in which
women tend to have more problems than men. We underlined these results by estimating multivariate
nonlinear probit models in which we allowed various right-hand side variables, e.g. age, employment
situation, income etc., to be correlated with sexes, and tested for underlying partial effects for
household types as well as various control variables.
For example, single mothers in Germany have significantly higher financial poverty risks than single
fathers who do not bear significantly higher risks than our reference group, couples without children.
This may be due to traditional patterns according to which the father can choose to care for the child
or not and will opt for this alternative only when it is financially viable. On the other side, women
may be expected to stay with children irrespective of their financial situation. Clearly, these
hypotheses deserve further research.
We found a strong probability difference to be deprived from low non-financial individual potentials
for lone parents in general (men and women). Although we found no significant gender-differences in
this group single mothers with only one child deserve special attention. But considerable and
significant gender-specific differences that are not caused by further (gender-related) variables can
be found in the case of single persons and couples with only one child.
However, not single mothers, but women in couples with one or more children bear a significantly
higher risk of deprived from economic facilities and of working in low wage jobs. This causes a high
dependency on the partners income which may turn into the already mentioned financial risks in the
case of separation or divorce.
Moreover, we have seen that not only mothers with children but also single women and women and
women living in households with various generations deserve special attention (even controlling for
age) as their overall risks tend to be sometimes extremely higher.
Regarding the necessity to redesign public policies, it is obvious that improvements in the field of
education for women in general still are at least as urgent as household-oriented financial
redistribution. However, the even more pronounced female deprivation within economic facilities
signals that improving education will not be enough. Instead, public policy will have to ensure better
labor market access and working conditions not only for lone mothers but also for mothers living in
couples, because these groups are especially affected from low opportunities in the labor markets
even with the same educational level.

Christian Arndt, Juergen Volkert

- 21 -

Capability gender inequality

in Germany

Our research at this point of time can be extended in various ways: Our hitherto attempts to dissecting
gender-differences from influences that stem from other gender-related situations can be further
intensified by regarding gender-specific interactions for various control variables. Further, based on
our indicator system, we similarly can analyze gender-specifics of very high degrees of capabilities.
Moreover, from a more data oriented point of view, we could benefit still much more from the timedimension of this panel data in order to widen the amount of underlying data as well as to take a more
closely look at the dynamics of poverty than we did already up to now.
Finally we hope, that using our indicator system for this analysis as well as for further research can
help to stimulate a public discussion on the choice of main indicators for determinants of capabilities
which is necessary, in order to implement CA indicator sets into official wealth reports.

References:
Agarwal, Bina; Humphries, Jane; Robeyns, Ingrid (ed.) (2005): Amartya Senss work and ideas. A
Gender Perspective, Routledge, London.
Albelda, Randy; Himmelweit, Susan, Humphries, Jane (2005): Dilemmas of lone motherhood,
Routledge, New York.
Ammermller, Andreas; Weber, Andrea Maria (2005): Educational Attainment and Returns to
Education in Germany - An Analysis by Subject of Degree, Gender and Region ZEW,
Discussion Paper No. 06-17.
Arndt, Christian; Volkert, Jrgen (2006a): Amartya Sens Capability-Approach ein neues Konzept
der deutschen Armuts- und Reichtumsberichterstattung, (Amartya Sens Capability Approach
a new concept for official German poverty and wealth reports), in: Deutsches Institut fr
Wirtschaftsforschung, Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung, No. 1 / 2006, 7-29.
Arndt, Christian; Volkert, Jrgen (2006b): Assessing Capability Determinants in Germany. Concept
and First Empirical Results. Paper to be preseted at the 6th Human Development and
Capability Association (HDCA) Conference at the University of Groningen, NL, August 29
September 1, 2006.
Cantillon, Sara; Nolan, Brian (2001): Poverty within Households: Measuring Gender Differences
Using Nonmonetary Indicators, in: Feminist Economics, 7(1), 5-23.
Kanji, Shireen (2005): The Route Matters: Poverty and Inequality among Lone-Mother Households in
Russia, in: Albelda, Randy; Himmelweit, Susan, Humphries, Jane (ed.): Dilemmas of lone
motherhood, 207-225.
Robeyns, Ingrid (2003): Sens capability approach and gender inequality: selecting relevant
capabilities, in: Feminist economics, 9(2-3), 61-92.
Robeyns, Ingrid (2005): The Capability Approach. A Theoretical Survey, in: Journal of Human
Development. 6 (1), 93-114.
Sen, Amartya (1999): Development as Freedom, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Christian Arndt, Juergen Volkert

- 22 -

Capability gender inequality

in Germany

Strantz, Cosima (2006): Zur Armutssituation von Familien in Deutschland, (On the poverty situation
of families in Germany), in: Statistisches Monatsheft Baden-Wrttemberg 3/2006, 14-16.
Volkert, Jrgen (2005). Das Capability-Konzept als Basis der deutschen Armuts- und
Reichtumsberichterstattung, in: J. Volkert (ed.)(2005): Armut und Reichtum an
Verwirklichungschancen, (The Capability Approach as a basis for German poverty and wealth
reporting, in: J. Volkert (ed.): Poverty and wealth a capability analysis), Wiesbaden: VS
Verlag, 119 - 147.
Weber, Diana 2006. Work-Family Balance: The Effects of Organizational Initiatives on Creating a
Family-Supportive Work Environment. IAW-Report 34 (1), 103-154.

- 23 -

Christian Arndt, Juergen Volkert

Capability gender inequality

in Germany

Appendix : Table of Indicators

Indicators for lack of
determinants of
capabilities
Financial Poverty
Income Poverty
Extreme Debts
Health Impairments
Current health status
Impairments of everyday
life

Disability
Lack of Education
Lack of Social
Opportunities
Insufficient access to
education
Insufficient access to health
care
Insufficient access to
decent housing
Lack of economic
facilities
Persons living in jobless
households
Long-term unemploeyed
Low wages
Working Poor

(SOEP 2002, exceptions indicated)

(% shares of all respondents > 16 years, unless otherwise specified)
Income Poverty OR Extreme Debts
Net equivalent income of households (new OECD-scale) < 60 % of respective median
household equivalence incomes (= E.U.s official at-risk-of poverty threshold).
Persons in housholds, having to serve debts with a disposable income (after debt
service) < official socio-economic financial minimum (= 930 , for 1. Person, + 350 ,
for a 2. Person, + 195 per further persons.
Current personal health status AND resulting in impairments of everyday life
Health status subjectively reported as bad or very bad
Severe, frequent or permanent impairments related to at least three of the folowing five
activities:
- going a staircase up- or downstairs,
- exhausting activities
- on the workplace or everyday activities (quantitatively OR qualitatively) impaired by
physical health conditions
- on the workplace or everyday activities (quantitatively OR qualitatively) impaired by
mental health conditions
- reduced social contacts due to physical or mental health problems
Disability with an officially confirmed grade of 50 (maximum: 100)
Early school leaver or secondary education without further occupational training or
apprenticeship
Insufficient access to education OR insufficient access to health care OR
insufficient access to decent housing
Share of young (16 to 24 year old) early school leavers as % of all young, 16 to 24 year
old people.
Persons, who have not consulted a doctor although they have suffered health
impairments in the last three months.
Persons, whose housing is subjectively characterized as in urgent need of complete
renovation or being in danger of breaking down OR overcrowded OR lacking
socially necessary amenities.
Persons, living in jobless households OR being long-term unempoyed OR Working
Poor OR working for low wage.
Persons (excluding pensioners and students) in households without any member in the
labor force (% of all persons excluding students and pensioners)
Persons, having been unemployed for at least 12 months on December 2003 (% of all
persons).
Regular monthly net income before the interview below the at-risk-of poverty
threshold (60% of median equivalence income) as % of all persons > 16 years in the
labor force.
Persons, living in a household with at least one person in the labor force with a
disposable net equivalence income below the at-risk-of poverty threshold (60% of
median equivalence income) as % of all persons in households with at least one
member in the labor force.
Dependence on social assistance OR dangerous environment
Share of all Persons depending on minimum social and unemployment assistance
(Sozialhilfe Sozialgeld, Arbeitslosengeld II)
(Share of all) persons, who subjectively classify their neighborhood as very insecure
Problems with Polluted Air OR Noise

Protective security
Dependence on social
assistance
Dangerous environment
Lack of ecological
Security
Polluted Air Persons, who subjectively feel to be strongly impaired by air pollution in their housing
environment
Noise Persons, who subjectively feel to be strongly impaired by noise in their neighborhood
Absolutely no political interest
Lack of Political
Participation

Christian Arndt, Juergen Volkert

- 24 -

Capability gender inequality

in Germany