This article aims to examine whether the exact shape of the gender Kuznets curve (GKC) is linear or non-linear. However, according to the GKC hypothesis, the proportion of female workers is impacted non-linearly by economic progress. Therefore, to ascertain whether the evidence supports a quadratic or a cubic GKC, this study develops a comprehensive panel index based on the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) for seventeen G20 economies.
Design/Methodology/Approach–Findings
The evidence is examined by the co-integration method used in the autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) bounds testing approach to find long-run dynamics between variables. After implementing these methods, it is noticeable that GKC is S-shaped for China, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, inverted S-shaped for Australia, N-shaped for the USA and South Africa, U-shaped for France and Canada, and inverted U-shaped for Argentina and the UK, and finally, Brazil and Korea have indefinite shapes.
Research Implications
The study, after analysing the shape of the curves in G20 economies, concludes that it is not possible to regard gender equality as the inevitable outcome of progress. To promote levels of gender equality, governmental measures are necessary, especially during downturns in female employment.
Originality
This is a comprehensive attempt to examine the exact shape of the GKC in G20 economies.
AljadaniA., ToumiH., ToumiS., HsiniM., & JallalB. (2021). Investigation of the N-shaped environmental Kuznets curve for COVID-19 mitigation in the KSA. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 29681–29700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12713-3
2.
AllardA., TakmanJ., UddinG. S., & AhmedA. (2018). The N-shaped environmental Kuznets curve: An empirical evaluation using a panel quantile regression approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 5848–5861, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0907-0
3.
AvikS., MuhammadS., & DanielB. (2018). N-shaped environmental Kuznets curve: A note on validation and falsification[MPRA Paper No. 99313]. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/99313/
4.
BandieraO., & NatrajA. (2013). Does gender inequality hinder development and economic growth? Evidence and policy implications[Policy Research Working Paper No. 6369]. The World Bank.
5.
BhowmikD. (2020). Impact of gender development index on human development index and gross domestic product per capita. Vidyasagar University Journal of Commerce, 25, 41–56.
6.
BhuwaniaP., MukherjiA., & SwaminathanH. (2024). Women’s education through empowerment: Evidence from a community-based program. World Development Perspectives, 33, 100508.
7.
BilgiliF., KhanM., & AwanA. (2023). Is there a gender dimension of the environmental Kuznets curve? Evidence from Asian countries. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25(3), 2387–2418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02139-3
8.
BoserupE. (1970). Woman’s role in economic development. St. Martin’s Press.
9.
ChurchillS. A., NuhuA. S., & LopezK. (2018). Persistence of gender inequality: The role of ethnic division. Applied Economics, 51(8). https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2018.1513635
10.
DilaraK., EsraO., & HakanY. (2013). The ARDL test of Gender Kuznets Curve for G7 countries[Working Papers 1305]. Izmir University of Economics.
11.
EastinJ., & PrakashA. (2013). Economic development and gender equality: Is there a gender Kuznets curve?World Politics, 65(1), 156–186. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42002201
12.
Esteve-VolartB. (2004). Gender discrimination and growth: Theory and evidence from India[LSE STICERD Research Paper No. DEDPS42]. London School of Economics and Political Science.
13.
FerrantG., & NowackaK. (2015). Measuring the drivers of gender inequality and their impact on development: The role of discriminatory social institutions. Gender and Development, 23(2), 319–332
14.
FerrantyG. (2010). The gender inequalities index (GII) as a new way to understand gender inequality issues in developing countries. Centre d’Economie de la Sorbonne Universit_e Paris I Panth_eon Sorbonne.
15.
GrossmanG., & KruegerA. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement. https://doi.org/10.3386/w3914
16.
GrossmanG. M., & KruegerA. B. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 353–377. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118443
17.
GuptaM., & DeviA. (2024). Dynamics of linkages between gender equity and economic growth: A case of selected economies. In Gender issues in government and management (pp. 1–28). IGI Global.
18.
GuptaM., & KaurP. (2009). Role of women in the economy of vulnerable households with special reference to dairying: A case study of milk producers in Bichpuri block of Agra. Indian Journal of Agricultural Marketing, 22(2), 145–151.
19.
GuptaM., & SharmaP. (2011). A study of factors enabling female entrepreneurs. International Journal of Management Research, 2(1), 71–79.
20.
GuptaM., & SharmaP. (2012). Women in the labour market—A special emphasis on factors leading to gender division. ACADEMICIA: An International Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 2(11), 171–179.
21.
HananS. (2020). The existence of modified environmental Kuznets curve for gender inequality in the MENA economies: Panel data model. In Sustainable development and social responsibility—Volume 1 (pp. 239–245). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32922-8_23
22.
Human Development Report. (2022). Gender development index (GDI). https://hdr.undp.org/gender-development-index#/indicies/GDI
23.
IdreesS., & SiddiquiD. A. (2017). Does gender inequality hinder development? Evidence from Pakistan. International Journal of Gender Studies in Developing Societies, 2(1), 1–13.
24.
ILO. (2024). Introduction to the WCMS. https://www.ilo.org>documents>wcms_713375
25.
IqbalA., HassanbS., MahmoodH., & TanveerM. (2022). Gender equality, education and economic development and religious tensions: A spatial analysis approach. Heliyon, 8(11), E11394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11394
26.
KennedyT., SmythR., ValadkhaniA., & ChenG. (2017). Refitting the Kuznets curve using a gender-specific threshold model. Applied Economics, 49(19), 1847–1854. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2016.1226495
27.
KhanA. Q., SaleemN., & FatimaS. T. (2018). Financial development, income inequality, and CO2 emissions in Asian countries using STIRPAT model. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 25(7), 6308–6319.
28.
KuznetsS. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. The American Economic Review, 45(1), 1–28. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1811581
29.
LiaqatS., BashirY., KhalilA., & KhanW. (2024). Does gender Kuznets curve exist in South Asian countries? Role of gender equality and economic development. IRASD Journal of Economics, 6(1), 45–65. https://doi.org/10.52131/joe.2024.0601.0193
30.
MacKinnonJ. G. (1996). Numerical distribution functions for unit root and cointegration tests. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 11(6), 601–618.
31.
MalghanD., & SwaminathanH. (2021). The gender gaps in sanitation and their implications for women’s development. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 48(6), 1279–1299.
32.
Martínez-NavarroD., Amate-FortesI., & Guarnido-RuedaA. (2020). Inequality and development: Is the Kuznets curve in effect today?Economia Politica, 37, 703–735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40888-020-00190-9
33.
NairA., & MaitiS. (2025). Revisiting Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) and renewable energy consumption in India. Asian Journal of Economics, Business and Accounting, 25(1), 387–396. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajeba/2025/v25i11658
34.
NarayanP. K. (2005). The saving and investment nexus for China: Evidence from cointegration tests. Applied Economics, 37(17), 1979–1990.
35.
ObiageliO. Q., AguC. S., NonsoO. S., ChikodiliE., & CynthiaC. C. (2022). Underscoring the relationship between education for women and national development in Nigeria. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221102429, https://journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo
36.
OlofinO. P., AiyegbusiO. O., & AdebayoA. A. (2019). Analysis of foreign direct investment and economic growth in Nigeria: Application of spatial econometrics and fully modified ordinary least squares (FMOLS). Foreign Trade Review, 54, 159–176.
37.
OnafoworaO. A., & OwoyeO. (2014). Bounds testing approach to the analysis of the environment Kuznets curve hypothesis. Energy Economics, 44, 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2014.03.025
38.
PalD., & MitraS. K. (2017). The environmental Kuznets curve for carbon dioxide in India and China: Growth and pollution at a crossroads. Journal of Policy Modeling, 39(2), 371–385.
39.
PesaranB., & PesaranM. (2009). Time series econometrics: Using Microflt 5.0. Oxford University Press.
40.
PesaranM., & PesaranB. (1997). Microflt 4.0. Oxford University Press.
41.
PesaranM., & ShinY. (1999). An autoregressive distributed lag modelling approach to cointegration analysis. In StromS. (Ed.), Econometrics and economic theory in the 20th century: The Ragnar Frisch centennial symposium (pp. 371–413). Cambridge University Press.
42.
PikettyT. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century(A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Belknap Press.
43.
RuitersM., & CharterisA. (2020). Gender equality in labour force participation, economic growth and development in South Africa. Development Southern Africa, 997–1011. https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2020.1772042
44.
SahooK., & SethiN. (2017). Impact of foreign capital on economic development in India: An econometric investigation. Global Business Review, 18(3), 766–780.
45.
SalimE. (2015). Kuznet’s hypothesis and gender inequality. Paper presented at the Allied Social Science Associations Conference. American Economic Association.
46.
SamC. Y., McNownR., & GohS. K. (2019, August). An augmented autoregressive distributed lag bounds test for co-integration. Economic Modelling, 80, 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2018.11.001
47.
SangajiJ., & KurniaA. S. (2018). Macroeconomic determinants of gender inequality index in eight ASEAN countries. In E3S web of conferences (Vol. 73, p. 11002). EDP Sciences.
48.
ShahbazM., & SinhaA. (2019). Environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: A literature survey. Journal of Economic Studies, 46(1), 106–168.
49.
SharmaM., GuptaM., & SharmaR. L. (2022). Role of socio-economic factors on women’s decision to avail microfinance: A study of Jammu region. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 26(1), 1–6.
50.
SharmaM., GuptaM., SharmaR. L., & SharmaA. K. (2021). Prospects and challenges of microfinance as a tool in poverty reduction. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 25(6), 1–6.
51.
SinhaA., ShahbazM., & BalsalobreD. (2018). Data selection and environmental Kuznets curve models—Environmental Kuznets curve models, data choice, data sources, missing data, balanced and unbalanced panels. In Environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) (pp. 65–83). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816797-7.00007-2
52.
StephanK., & LamannaF. (2009). The impact of gender inequality in education and employment on economic growth: New evidence for a panel of countries. Feminist Economics, 15(3), 91–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545700902893106
53.
WangM., & WongM. C. S. (2011). FDI, education, and economic growth: Quality matters. Atlantic Economic Journal, 39, 103–115.
54.
YadavN., GuptaM., SharmaV., YadavD. K., & SharmaA. K. (2024). How can the G-20 enhance its accountability and effectiveness? A comparative analysis of existing and proposed mechanisms. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 28(S3), 1–11.
55.
YetkinerH., & Kılınç OnaterY. (2013). Does gender inequality affect economic development? Evidence from a dynamic panel data analysis. Theoretical and Applied Economics, 20(1), 1–18.
