Report on the Socioeconomic Drivers of Gender Segregation in Education and the Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

New research analyzing data from 37 Western countries reveals that gender segregation in higher education, a significant barrier to achieving Sustainable Development Goal 5 (Gender Equality), originates in childhood social dynamics. This report outlines how family income and parenting styles contribute to this segregation, creating a “gender equality paradox” that complicates progress towards SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 5, SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

The Paradox of Progress: Gender Segregation and its Impact on SDGs

Stagnation Despite Advances Towards Gender Equality

Despite societal progress in gender equality, gender segregation in higher education has remained persistently high over the last two decades. The Duncan segregation index, a measure of this disparity, remains around 0.30 in Western countries. This indicates that 30% of students would need to change their field of study to achieve gender balance, highlighting a significant challenge to meeting Target 4.5 of SDG 4, which aims to eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training.

The Counterintuitive Link Between Prosperity and Segregation

Analysis reveals a “gender equality paradox”: the most prosperous and gender-egalitarian societies exhibit the highest levels of educational gender segregation. This phenomenon directly undermines the objectives of SDG 5.

• In countries with higher gender equality, such as Finland, women are significantly less likely to pursue degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) compared to their male counterparts.
• During 2000–2021, a Finnish female graduate was four times less likely than a male graduate to have studied STEM, whereas in Spain, with a lower gender equality score, the ratio was three to one.

This suggests that economic prosperity and the removal of formal barriers, while crucial, are insufficient to achieve the full participation of women in all economic and scientific fields as envisioned by SDG 5 and SDG 8.

Childhood Origins of Educational Segregation: A Life-Course Perspective

The Mirroring Effect of Childhood Friendships

The roots of educational segregation can be traced back to early childhood social environments. Data from over half a million adolescents show a direct correlation between the gender segregation of childhood friendships and later educational choices.

• In Finland, where female STEM graduation rates are low, 11-year-olds report that only 16% of their close friends are of the opposite sex.
• In Portugal, where female STEM graduation is higher, children report that 39% of their friends are of the opposite sex.

These early social patterns establish gender-typical norms and interests, creating pathways that limit future educational and career choices, thereby hindering the long-term goals of SDG 4 and SDG 5.

Longitudinal Evidence and Peer Influence

Longitudinal data from the United Kingdom confirms that children with fewer opposite-sex friends at age 7 are more likely to select gender-dominated subjects in high school. This occurs even after controlling for cognitive ability and family background. Peer influence within these same-gender groups creates a self-reinforcing cycle, steering individuals toward stereotypical fields and away from choices that may better match their innate abilities.

Socioeconomic Drivers of Childhood Segregation: An Obstacle for SDG 10

The Influence of Family Income

The research demonstrates a strong link between family income and childhood social segregation, highlighting an intersection between SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 5. In 34 of the 37 countries studied, children from higher-income families report having fewer opposite-sex friends. This suggests that economic advantage, rather than parental attitudes towards equality, is a key driver of the social patterns that perpetuate gender segregation.

Mechanisms of Prosperity-Driven Segregation

Two primary mechanisms explain how economic prosperity inadvertently fosters gender segregation in childhood:

1. Structured Socialization: Affluent families are more likely to enroll children in organized after-school activities (e.g., dance, sports clubs) which are often gender-segregated. In contrast, children from less affluent families spend more time in unsupervised, mixed-gender neighborhood play, which provides more opportunities for cross-gender interaction.
2. Emotional Development: Children from higher-income families tend to exhibit better emotional regulation. This may lead them to remain content within their same-sex friendship groups for longer, delaying the natural transition toward mixed-gender social circles that typically occurs in early adolescence.

These mechanisms show how advantages linked to higher socioeconomic status can paradoxically reinforce gender norms, creating barriers to achieving the equality targets of SDG 5 and SDG 10.

Policy Implications for Achieving Sustainable Development Goals

Rethinking Policies for Gender Balance

The findings indicate that current policy approaches, which focus primarily on removing formal barriers and promoting egalitarian values in adolescence and adulthood, are insufficient to dismantle gender segregation in education and the workforce. To make meaningful progress on SDG 4, SDG 5, and SDG 8, a more nuanced, life-course approach is required.

Recommendations for Integrated Interventions

Policies must address the root causes of segregation in early childhood. The following interventions are recommended to ensure children’s social environments do not limit their future potential:

• Develop and promote mixed-gender activities in community programs, schools, and after-school clubs.
• Launch parental guidance campaigns to raise awareness about the impact of structured, gender-segregated activities and encourage the creation of inclusive social opportunities.
• Implement early counter-stereotyping initiatives in educational settings that allow children with non-stereotypical interests to connect with like-minded peers.

By addressing the social dynamics of childhood, policymakers can more effectively counteract the forces that drive educational and occupational segregation, thereby advancing the interconnected goals of quality education, gender equality, decent work, and reduced inequalities for all.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

SDG 4: Quality Education

• The article’s central theme is gender segregation in higher education. It directly discusses disparities in educational choices, specifically the underrepresentation of women in STEM fields. This connects to the goal of ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education for all. The analysis of why “women have a lower propensity to graduate in STEM” in certain countries is a core issue related to the quality and equity of educational systems.

SDG 5: Gender Equality

• This is the most prominent SDG in the article. The entire discussion revolves around the “gender equality paradox,” where societies with greater overall gender equality exhibit stronger gender segregation in education. The article investigates the root causes of this segregation, linking it to childhood friendships and societal norms, which are fundamental aspects of achieving gender equality and empowering all women and girls.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• The article connects gender segregation to economic status, thereby addressing inequality within countries. It finds that “children from higher-income families report fewer opposite-sex friends,” and that affluent parenting styles might “inadvertently contribute to the persistence of educational gender segregation.” This highlights how economic prosperity and family income can intersect with gender to create and sustain inequalities in educational and career opportunities.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

SDG 4: Quality Education

1. Target 4.5: By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education.
   • The article directly addresses this target by analyzing the persistent “gender segregation in higher education.” The finding that in Western countries, “30% of students would need to switch majors to achieve equal gender distribution” quantifies the failure to eliminate gender disparities in educational fields.
2. Target 4.7: By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including… gender equality.
   • The article’s conclusion, which calls for “early counter-stereotyping initiatives” and parental guidance to create inclusive activities, aligns with this target. It suggests that current educational and social pathways are failing to instill values that counteract gender stereotypes, leading to segregated outcomes.

SDG 5: Gender Equality

1. Target 5.5: Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life.
   • The underrepresentation of women in STEM, a key focus of the article, directly impacts their future participation in critical and often high-paying sectors of the economy. The educational choices shaped in childhood, as the article argues, limit the pipeline of women entering these fields, thus hindering their full participation in economic life.
2. Target 5.c: Adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls at all levels.
   • The article concludes by proposing specific policy interventions, such as “encouraging mixed-gender activities in after-school and community programmes” and “parental guidance campaigns.” This directly relates to the need for sound policies that go beyond formal equality to address the nuanced, root causes of gender segregation.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

1. Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… sex… or economic or other status.
   • The research demonstrates how family income (economic status) shapes childhood social environments, which in turn steers individuals towards gender-typical educational paths. The finding that “children in the top income quintile are 36% less likely to have mixed-gender friendship groups” shows how economic status can inadvertently lead to social and subsequent economic exclusion based on gender.
2. Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome…
   • The “gender equality paradox” is a perfect example of an inequality of outcome. Despite formal equal opportunities in prosperous nations, the outcome is greater gender segregation in education. The article’s analysis suggests that current systems are not ensuring true equality of opportunity because they overlook the powerful influence of early childhood social dynamics.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Duncan Segregation Index: This is explicitly mentioned and defined as a measure of gender segregation in higher education. The article states it “measures the minimum proportion of graduates of either gender who would need to change fields to achieve equal gender distribution.” This is a direct indicator for Target 4.5.
2. Female propensity to graduate in STEM: The article defines this as “the ratio between the share of female graduates in STEM and the share of male graduates in STEM.” This is a specific, measurable indicator of gender disparity in a key educational and economic field, relevant to Target 4.5 and Target 5.5.
3. Gender Inequality Index: The article explicitly uses this index, noting that it “captures disparities in reproductive health, empowerment, and labour market participation.” It serves as a high-level indicator of overall progress towards SDG 5.
4. Share of opposite-sex friends in childhood: This is a novel indicator proposed by the research, measured as “the ratio of opposite-sex friends to total friends.” It is used to measure social segregation in childhood, which the article links to later educational segregation, making it a potential leading indicator for Targets 4.5 and 10.2.
5. Family income level: The article uses income quintiles to analyze how economic status affects social segregation. This serves as an indicator for Target 10.2, helping to measure how economic inequality impacts social inclusion and opportunity.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: cepr.org