GGGR 2025

Global Gender Gap Report 202514Performance by income level Range of scores, Global Gender Gap Index 2025, by income group FIGURE 1.3 0.743 0.696 0.660 0.6640.7 0.60.80.91.0 0.5 High-income Upper-middle-income Lower-middle-income Low-incomeGender parity score (0-1, 1=parity) Population-weighted average Source World Economic Forum, Global Gender Gap Index 2025.NoteBlue diamonds correspond to population-weighted averages, by income group.1.3 The sample included in this year’s Global Gender Gap Index combines a mix of high-income (51), upper-middle-income (41), lower-middle-income (40) and lower-income economies (16). Regional representation tends to be highly concentrated across these groups, with Europe having the highest representation in the high-income group (60.8%), a majority of upper-middle-income economies located in Latin America and the Caribbean (34.1%), and Sub-Saharan Africa with a large footprint in both lower-middle-income (40%) and low-income (93.8%) economic groups.When aggregated, the average population-weighted scores show all income groups have closed more than two-thirds of their gender gap. The index looks only at gender gaps in outcomes and not at the overall levels of resources and opportunities in an economy. It finds a slight correlation between the current income levels of the economies covered and their gender gaps, with richer economies being slightly more gender equal. High-income economies register the highest collective score, at 74.3%. The group stands at some distance from the remaining three, which score similarly – with the upper-middle income group at 69.6%, lower-middle-income at 66.0%, and low-income at 66.4% (Figure 1.3). Variation in scores within income groups is most pronounced among high-income countries, where parity scores range from 63.7% in Oman to 92.6% in Iceland a difference of 28.9 percentage points. Smaller variations are observed among upper-middle- and lower-middle-income groups, at 23.0 and 21.7 percentage points, respectively, between the top and bottom of the ranges.With fewer economies represented, the low-income group shows the least variation, at 19.2 percentage points. While Figure 1.3 displays a positive association between higher income and gender parity scores, it is relevant to note that economies in lower-income categories have also achieved high levels of parity. While resources matter, it is not richer countries alone that can afford to invest in gender parity and economies can integrate parity into their growth strategies at all levels of development. Historically, those who have done well at developing and integrating their full human capital tend to have more sustainable and prosperous economies as a result. Leveraging the full base of talent and diverse ideas in an economy can unlock creativity and drive innovation, growth and productivity. All individual performances within each income group are ranked and presented in Table 1.2.