R O M A N I A Gender assessment R O M A N I A Gender assessment This report was prepared by a team comprised of Farima Alidadi (Consultant), Paola Buitrago-Hernandez (Consultant), and Natsuko Kiso Nozaki (Consultant) and led by Miriam Muller (Social Scientist, Poverty Global Practice, Task Team Leader). The report was edited by John Burgess (Consultant). The team received valuable comments from Yeon Soo Kim (Economist), Ana Maria Munoz Boudet (Senior Social Scientist), Sandor Karacsony (Senior Economist) and Aphichoke Kotikula (Senior Economist) and worked under the guidance of Luis-Felipe Lopez-Calva (Practice Manager Poverty Global Practice) and Tatiana Proskuryakova (Country Manager Romania). © 2018 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington, D.C. 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S Executive Summary 5 Section 1: Demography 11 Section 2: Human Capital Endowments 15 Health 15 Education 19 Section 3: Economic Opportunities 25 Labor Force Participation 26 Employment 28 Unemployment 32 Entrepreneurship 32 Provision of Care 32 Access to Productive Inputs 35 Section 4: Gender, Ethnicity, and Poverty 39 Section 5: Voice and Agency 43 Government’s Commitment to Gender Equality: The Legal and Institutional Framework 43 Political participation 45 Perceptions and Attitudes towards Gender Equality and the Role of Women 47 Domestic and Gender-Based Violence 50 Conclusions 51 References 53 4 5 Executive Summary This Country Gender Assessment presents a broad picture of the main gen- der disparities in Romania. It defines gender equality in terms of access to opportunities, that is, equality in rights, resources, and voice among women and men (World Bank 2007). Gender equality is a core development objective in its own right, and it is also smart economics. Greater gender equality pays off by helping advance a host of development goals, such as improvements in children’s health and edu- cation and better labor outcomes for adults, at the same time boosting overall economic growth (Morrison, Raju, and Sinha 2007 and World Bank 2011). For example, gender gaps in the Romanian labor market may be harming ag- gregate productivity due to inefficient use of female potential. These gaps are estimated to potentially lower gross income per capita by 11.53 percent in the short run and 12.63 percent in the long run (Cuberes and Teignier 2016).1 The report builds on the framework provided by the World Develop- ment Report 2012: Gender Equality and Development (World Bank 2011 and WDR 2012) and the World Bank’s Gender Strategy (FY16–23), titled “Gender Equality, Poverty Reduction, and Inclusive Growth” (World Bank 2015). According to the WDR 2012, gender equality is a result of gains in three domains: (1) human endowments, notably health and education, (2) economic opportunity, as measured by participation in economic activities and access to and control of key productive assets, and (3) voice and agency, as expressed in political participation, freedom from gender-based violence, and the ability to make key decisions. These three outcome dimensions are shaped by inter- actions among households, markets, formal institutions such as schools and government ministries, and informal institutions such as gender roles, beliefs, 1 About 58 percent of this loss in GDP per capita derives from distortions in occu- pations held by women relative to men. The remaining 42 percent corresponds to the costs associated with gaps in labor force participation. The model estimation implies that two factors lead to the income loss. First, a misallocation of entrepre- neurial talent reduces the productivity of the economy. Second, women’s lower par- ticipation in the market leads to the underutilization of the available human capital. 6 R O M A N I A Gender assessment Figure 1: Gender Equality Framework Developed for the WDR 2012 Poli cies GENDER EQUALITY Informal Institutions Economic Oportunities Markets Households Agency Endowments Formal Institutions GROWTH and social norms. The framework shows that economic ally representative survey produced by the National In- opportunities, endowments, and agency mutually rein- stitute of Statistics of Romania. It collects information on force or block progress. household consumption and other aspects of living stan- dards, and allows for disaggregation by ethnicity and by This report underlines the importance of understand- urban/rural location. This survey is also used by the World ing and analyzing the intersection of gender with oth- Bank’s Global Poverty Monitoring program to study pov- er identities. The intersectionality approach holds that a erty and shared prosperity trends, based on consumption. combination of identities produces different experienc- A second source of data is the latest Life in Transition Sur- es and relations when comparing different groups, and vey III (LiTS), round 2015-2016, which was conducted in therefore affects wellbeing outcomes (Tas, Reimao, and 34 European and nearby countries3 and is representative Orlando 2013). Hence, the intersection of gender, age, at the country level and for population over the age of 18. ethnicity, and place of residence can bring significantly This survey captures information on quality of life as well worse outcomes than the effects of gender alone. as views on gender values, and allows for comparison with Data from three major surveys form the basis of anal- peer countries in the EU. A third source of information, to ysis, with supplementary input from other sources. complement the analysis of the situation of Roma minori- The assessment relies, to a great extent, on the Romania ties, is the EU Minorities and Discrimination Survey 2016 Household Budget Survey (HBS) 2016,2 which is a nation- (EU-MIDIS II). This survey collected information from 2 This is the harmonized ECAGEN version which, for poverty calculation purposes, provides information on consumption. 3 LITS III (2016) was implemented in 31 Central and Eastern European and Central Asian countries and Turkey, countries in which the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) invests. The countries were Albania, Armenia, Azer- Executive Summary 7 respondents of different ethnic minority groups in all 28 the country remains below EU averages of life expectan- EU member states.4 cy for both genders, though its figures have risen (WDI). Romania’s old-age dependency ratio is projected to grow For the purposes of presenting comparisons with EU re- substantially, imposing great costs in labor resources and gional averages or with peer countries in the region, data from the following complementary sources were used: the the long-term care that often falls onto the shoulders of Eurostat statistics, the World Bank’s World Development women (see section on Demography). Moreover, Roma- Indicators (WDI), Global FINDEX, and the World Bank nia’s maternal mortality rate remains one of the highest 2014 report “Diagnostics and Policy Advice for Support- among EU member states, at almost four times the EU’s ing Roma Inclusion in Romania.” Finally, information average. These numbers are even worse for the country’s on the institutional environment is mostly based on the Roma ethnic group, in which maternal mortality stands Women, Business, and the Law database. more than 15 times higher than in the non-Roma popula- tion (World Bank 2014). After reviewing the state of equality between women and men in Romania in endowments, economic oppor- Romania also faces challenges with regards to gender tunities, and voice and agency, the assessment finds that equality in education enrollment and attainment. For the country has made substantial progress in some ar- example, Romanian men are particularly behind women eas. For example, women in Romania participate more in in tertiary enrollment and performance (WDI and Eu- the traditionally male-dominated fields of science, math, rostat). In terms of performance, the percentage of male and computing (Eurostat 2016), unlike in many other low-performing students exceeds that of women particu- EU countries. They represent a higher share of graduates larly in reading and, to a lesser extent, in science. Enroll- in engineering and manufacturing than the EU average. ment and attainment rates are especially low among Roma Furthermore, on health, Romania has shown significant and rural women. Gender gaps in attainment are largest improvements over the past 20 years, as reflected in in- among rural older men and women (World Bank 2014). creased life expectancy of both women and men. Furthermore, a significant share of Romanian young In addition to its improvements in human endow- women are neither in employment nor in education ments, Romania has advanced its legal and institutional and training, the so-called “NEET” group. These gender framework. Recently, the government moved to increase gaps are significant, especially when compared to other use of data to track and report gender-based violence. In EU countries (Eurostat). Further, there are disparities by addition, Romania has enacted key laws5 and regulations location. For example, NEET rates in rural areas are al- on gender including Law No. 202/2002 (“Equality Oppor- most three times the levels in cities. tunities of Women and Men”) and generous leave benefits Besides these challenges in endowments, Romania (see section on Voice and Agency). struggles in economic opportunities for women. Fe- However, Romania still lags behind EU countries in male participation in the Romanian labor force remains other areas of gender equality, with many of these limited, with fewer women reporting being economically gaps driven by rural and ethnic inequalities. For one, active (employed or unemployed) than men. This gen- baijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyz Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Mongolia, Monte- negro, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkey, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. For the sake of comparison with more prosperous neighbors, two Western European comparator countries were included, Germany and Italy.  4 This report does not present detailed figures from the EUSILC and EU-LFS surveys (harmonized surveys on income, socio-eco- nomic status and labor market for the EU), other than what is made publicly available by Eurostat. 5 While we have information regarding the focus and intent of Romania’s gender laws, we do not have enough details on their implementation. Thus, in this assessment, we have not included material regarding the actual impact of the laws. 8 R O M A N I A Gender assessment der gap in labor participation exceeds the EU’s (Eurostat Finally, societal norms seem to be important drivers of 2016). Furthermore, Roma women are even more disad- women’s limited participation in labor markets. More vantaged in the labor market: only a small share of women than half of respondents in the most recent Eurobarom- over the age of 16 describe their current main activity as eter survey (2017) on gender equality6 believe that men “employed” (FRA and EU-MIDIS II 2016). According to a should take responsibility for earning money and women World Bank study on labor market exclusion in Romania, should take care of the home and children. There is also low education, care responsibilities, health limitations, low support from both sexes for the idea that women should work experience, and lack of recent experience are some do most of the household chores even if the husband is of the main barriers limiting female and other vulnerable not working. Similar traditional opinions are expressed groups’ presence in the workforce (World Bank 2017b). on the participation of women in politics. Romania has high rates of gender-based violence. Large In addition, issues related to time use and household shares of women in Romania have experienced physi- responsibilities appear to be drivers of low levels of la- cal and/or sexual violence and harassment and only a bor force participation. Women spend two more hours few of them reported these incidents to the police (FRA per day than men on household and family care, while 2014). Alarmingly, compared to other EU countries few- men engage in paid work for one more hour per day than er respondents in Romania condemn domestic violence women, on average (Romania National Institute of Sta- against women. Many Romanians believe that domestic tistics 2013). More women than men reported household violence is a private matter that should be handled within duties as one of the main reasons for not looking for a job the family (European Commission 2016b). (LITS 2016). Lastly, high incidences of teenage pregnancy and child Responsibility for caring for small children and aged marriage, especially in Roma communities, signal oth- adults usually falls on women in Romania, where lack er challenges for Romania. The country’s adolescent fer- of formal care makes informal care at home the most tility rate is almost twice the ECA average and more than common option. Based on data from the 2016 LITS sur- three times the EU average (WDI). The rate stands at sim- vey, at least one person in a typical Romanian household ilar levels of countries that belong to lower income groups needs looking after due to age or disability, including such as Rwanda, Haiti, Morocco, Vietnam, and Burundi. children under the age of six and seniors over the age Among Roma women, adolescent fertility and child mar- of 75. Compared to the EU, fewer children are in formal riage rates are higher than in the non-Roma population, childcare arrangements in Romania. In addition, chil- which presents challenges to human capital in terms of dren between the ages of four and six (the starting age of school dropouts, increased maternal health risks, and compulsory education) are less likely to be in early child- constraints on employment (World Bank 2014). hood education and care (ECEC) compared to the EU’s In short, Romania has made progress towards greater average. Concerning the elderly, Romania has the ECA equality between women and men but specific chal- region’s third-highest share of people living in households lenges persist, in part because aggregate levels can hide that have seniors over the age of 65 (LITS 2016). Cost and substantial heterogeneity within the country. Belonging shortage of institutionalized services are some of the rea- to the Roma population and living in rural areas of the sons why households (and women, in particular) typically country are strongly associated with poor showings in a take care of the elderly. number of welfare outcomes. Yet being Roma alone places 6 This survey, sponsored by the European Commission, explores citizens’ opinions about gender equality, with a focus on gender equality in politics and at work, and the gender pay gap, in general and in companies where respondents work. It was carried out in the 28 member states of the European Union in June 2017. A total of 28,093 respondents from different social and demograph- ic groups were interviewed face-to-face at home in their mother tongues. Executive Summary 9 one at a disadvantage in many human development indi- forward, addressing these challenges, especially with a fo- cators, including health, education, and employment. For cus on how aggregate levels can mask heterogeneity, will instance, Roma women fare worse on reproductive and be critical in achieving gender equality. Roma and rural sexual health compared to non-Roma and maternal mor- women fare significantly worse in many indicators, and tality is more than 15 times higher among Roma women ensuring their social inclusion should be at the top of the than non-Roma (World Bank 2014). Roma women marry gender agenda. and have children at younger ages than non-Roma wom- This report is organized into five sections. Section 1 en. In addition, there are significant gender gaps between provides an overview of demographics. Section 2 analyzes Roma and non-Roma in school enrollment, completion, gender disparities in endowments such as health and ed- and attainment of all levels of education. Finally, Roma ucation. Section 3 examines gender and ethnic dispari- women face more limitations than non-Roma women with ties in poverty. Section 4 focuses on gender gaps in the regards to the labor market. Similarly, rural communities labor market, entrepreneurship, and access to productive fall behind urban areas in terms of poverty reduction, em- inputs. Section 5 discusses the Romanian government’s ployment, health and education, access to services, and commitment to gender equality, women’s agency, and fac- infrastructure (European Commission 2017). For exam- tors that may shape the process in which men and wom- ple, limited access to modern contraceptives and lower en use their endowments and economic opportunities to educational attainment and labor force participation rates achieve desired outcomes. The report ends with conclu- are especially challenging for rural communities. Moving sions and policy recommendations. 10 11 Section 1: Demography Changes in Romania’s population pyramid impose risks in terms of labor resources and adequate provision of long-term care—the population has shrunk by six percent since 2007, and it is also ageing. By 2020 the work- ing-age population is projected to further decline by around four percent, and the elderly are likely to increase by 13 percent by 2060 (EC 2017). With a total population of over 19.6 million people, of whom 51.2 percent are women and 48.9 percent are men, Romania has striking sex imbalances among its senior population (Figure 2). In 2016, 23.8 percent of the population was 65-plus years old, with twice as many elderly women as men. Of the seniors over 65, 22.5 percent are over 80 years of age. Moreover, the old-age dependency ratio, now estimated at 25.9 percent, is predicted to grow substantially over the next few decades, reaching 53.9 percent by 2050 (WDI 2016). While Romania’s overall population is aging, the Roma minority, which makes up 3.4 percent of the total population (HBS 2016), is comparably much younger. The average age of Roma women is 29 years compared to 43 among the non-Roma. For Roma men, the average is 28 against 40 for non-Ro- ma. According to the HBS (2016) household survey, about 33 percent of the Romanian Roma population is under 15 years of age, compared to 15 percent for the population as a whole. Thus, as Romania’s general population contin- ues to age, the Roma will play an increasingly larger role in shaping the future demographic composition of the country. Life expectancy of the general population has increased over the past de- cade, but lags behind the EU’s levels, and has remained almost unchanged among men, causing a wider gender gap. Compared with the EU average, Romania lags by 7.1 years for men and 5.2 years for women (Figure 3). The male disadvantage of 7.3 fewer years of life than women has been fluctuating slightly but in 2015, it returned to the level of 2001, 71.4 years versus 78.7 years 12 R O M A N I A Gender assessment Figure 2: Population Pyramid, 2016 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 Age Group 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80+ (1.000.000) (800.000) (600.000) (400.000) (200.000) 0 200.000 400.000 600.000 800.000 1.000.000 Women Men Source: Romania HBS 2016. (see section on Health for more details on factors behind one of the highest in the EU: about 500 people leave the life expectancy differences between men and women). country every day. Their main destinations include Italy In contrast, the male disadvantage in the EU region de- (47 percent), Spain (22 percent), Germany (6 percent), creased during the last decade. and the UK (6 percent). In terms of characteristics, 46 percent of Romanian emigrants are between the ages of Life expectancy of Roma is on average six years low- 20 to 34, 16 percent are over 45, while 51 percent are male. er than non-Roma in the country (World Bank 2014). External migration rates are higher in remote and dense- Much of this can be attributed to higher rates of infectious ly populated areas outside of dynamic urban centers. In and chronic disease in Roma communities. 2011, more than a third of Romanians aged 25 to 29 lived Romania’s changing demographic composition is abroad. Matching levels in countries such as India and Po- also influenced by high outward migration, especially land, Romania’s diaspora population grew between 2000 among men. Since 1990, about three million Romanians and 2015 at an average annual rate of 7.3 percent (UN have moved abroad, a flow that greatly exceeds the 1.8 2015b). million in-country migrants who have relocated to urban Lack of job opportunities in sectors traditionally held areas (World Bank, 2017). Romania’s emigration rate is by men, such as heavy industry, agriculture, and trans- Section 1: Demography 13 Figure 3: Life Expectancy at Birth (Years) by Gender, 1997-2015 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 EU (male) Romania (male) EU (female) Romania (female) Source: WDI. port, have helped drive the high rates of external migra- Georgia at 45.4 percent and Armenia at 37 percent (LiTS tion by men, while women have tended to migrate in- III 2016). ternally. Women make up 57 percent of people relocating Roma tend to marry and have children at younger ages from one part of the country to another, and have filled than the national population. Approximately 28 percent jobs offered by the new economy in the light industries of the Roma population between the ages of 15 and 19 are and services sectors. married, compared to only two percent of the non-Roma Back home, the majority of households in Romania are population of these ages (World Bank 2014). More strik- headed by males and have no children, but are home ing, about 63 percent of the Roma population between the to many seniors (Figure 4). Like in many countries in ages of 20 and 24 are married, compared to just 17 percent the ECA region, 68.3 percent of the population live in of the general Romanian population. These differences are male-headed households while only 31.7 percent live in also reflected in the age at which Roma girls have their female-headed households (LiTS 2016). In addition, as in first child: 10 percent for girls aged 12-15 and 48 percent most “transition” countries7 included in the LiTS III sur- for the 16-18 age bracket. vey, 72 percent live in households with no children. Only 27.8 percent report having children among their depen- dents (LiTS III 2016). In contrast, Romania has the ECA region’s third-highest share (35.4 percent) of people living in households with seniors aged 65-plus, exceeded only by 7 “Transition” countries means post-communist countries of Eastern Europe that have transitioned to market economies, accord- ing to the definition originally proposed by the EBRD. 14 R O M A N I A Gender assessment Figure 4: Household Composition Structure in Romania Single adult (aged 18-64) Single adult (aged 65+) 8,7 10,4 Two adults (aged 18-64) and no children Two adults (only one is aged 65+) and no children 2,7 6,3 Two adults (both are aged 65+) and no children 14,6 21,1 Other with no children Single adult (aged 18-64) and children (aged 0-17) 1,7 5,8 Two adults (aged 18-64) and children (aged 0-17) 21,5 7,2 Two adults (aged 18-64), children and at least one elderly (aged 65+) Other with children (aged 0-17) Note: Children are defined as people aged 0-17. “Other with/without children” includes any combination of three or more adults with/without children, where adults are people aged 18-plus. Source: LITS III 2016. 15 Section 2: Human Capital Endowments HEALTH Investments in health are important because they affect the ability of indi- viduals to reach their full potential in society. For boys and girls alike, child- hood investments in health have particular impact on outcomes throughout their lives. For example, less healthy children are more likely to develop ill- nesses that will lower their attainment in education. Poor health in adulthood can hurt economic outcomes by such affects as health-related absence from work and lower work hours and earnings (World Bank 2011). Improvements in health thus help women and men live longer and more productive and ful- filling lives. Romania has achieved improvements in health outcomes in areas such as maternal mortality and increased life expectancy for men and women, but the country still faces many health-related challenges, especially among rural households and the Roma population. Romanian women have higher rates of maternal mortality, breast and cervical cancer, and adolescent fertili- ty, compared to EU averages. These conditions are even more severe among Roma women and women living in rural areas. Men face different health prob- lems, typically related to risky behavior including alcohol consumption and smoking. Risky behavior appears to be a contributing factor in Romanian men’s shorter life expectancy. For instance, 36.9 percent of Romanian men age 15- plus smoke cigarettes at least once a week compared to 22.7 percent of Roma- nian women. There are also gender differences in alcohol consumption—27.7 percent of males report consuming alcohol every week compared to 5.3 per- cent of women. The Ministry of Health has attributed low life expectancy to 16 R O M A N I A Gender assessment risky behaviors in the population. Other risks include un- cent of women in rural areas had heard about the test. The healthy diet, use of illicit drugs, and low physical activity main reasons that urban women gave for not participating (WHO 2017). in it were lack of time (38.1 percent) and “other reasons” (35.7 percent), while in rural areas, the main reason was Romanian women face a particular risk from cervical lack of financial resources (49.2 percent). cancer. The country has the highest incidence and mor- tality of cervical cancer in the EU, exacting a severe toll Roma face poorer overall health and lower coverage on women’s health. In 2012, incidence and mortality rates of health insurance compared to the rest of the pop- of the cancer reached 34.9 percent and 14.2 percent, re- ulation. Approximately 45 percent of the ethnic group spectively, compared to the EU’s rates of 11.3 percent and indicated that health problems limit their daily activities, 3.7 percent (European Cancer Observatory 2012). Cervi- compared to 20 percent of the general population (World cal cancer ranks as the leading cause of cancer deaths in Bank 2014). Romas’ poorer health has been linked to the women between the ages of 15 and 44 years in Romania socio-economic conditions in which they grow up and (HPV Information Centre 2017). There are many reasons live, which expose them to greater risk factors in compar- behind these high rates, including late diagnosis due to ison with non-Roma: Roma engage in unhealthy behav- factors such as limited screening opportunities, and low iors such as smoking, poor diet, and early pregnancies at vaccination rates (Arbyn et al. 2011). In 2014, about half higher rates than the non-Roma population (World Bank of Romanian women between the ages of 20 and 69 in cit- 2014). In addition, the EU-MIDIS II 2016 survey shows ies reported never having had a smear test (Eurostat). This that only 54 percent of Roma are covered by the nation- share was even higher among women living in towns and al basic health insurance scheme or other insurance. This suburbs (62.5 percent) and rural areas (73.3 percent). In percentage has not improved since the previous survey in 2008, the government introduced an HPV vaccine cam- 2011. Romania still ranks with Bulgaria as having the EU’s paign targeting girls between the ages of 10 and 11, but lowest health insurance coverage among Roma. only 2.5 percent of the 110,000 eligible girls were vaccinat- Overall use of contraceptives has risen in recent years ed. Reasons for the low take-up include fear of risks asso- in Romania, coming in line with EU levels, while use ciated with the vaccine and mothers’ negative perception of modern contraceptives has also increased. In 1994, of it (Craciun et al. 2012). 60.5 percent of Romanian women aged 15-49 who were Minority women and women from low socio-economic married or in a union used some type of contraceptive, backgrounds in rural areas are particularly vulnerable compared to 69 percent in the EU. By 2015, the Roma- to cervical cancer. A qualitative study found that Roma nian number had risen to 69 percent, while the EU’s held women’s participation in the national screening program roughly steady at 69.2 percent (UN 2015). In 2015, the av- for cervical cancer in 2012 was lower in rural than in ur- erage use of modern contraceptives in Romania and the ban areas (Andreassen et al. 2017). Some have attributed EU was 53.7 percent and 58.8 percent, respectively, among low screening coverage among Roma women to barriers that group of women. In recent years, male condoms and such as lack of knowledge, different health beliefs, and low oral hormonal pills have become the top modern meth- levels of education. However, the authors of the qualitative ods of contraception in the country (Figure 5). Periodic study argued that the main barrier was the screening sys- abstinence has remained the major traditional method of contraception. tem itself, which they said was not tailored to the targeted audience. Another study on the national screening pro- Romania’s maternal mortality rate (MMR) declined gram found significant differences between women in ru- steadily from 1997 to 2007, but stagnated after that and ral and urban areas in terms of knowledge and acceptance remains one of the highest among EU member states at of the Pap smear (Grigore et al. 2017). The authors noted 31 per 100,000 live births in 2014 (Figure 6). In 2014, that 97.5 percent of women in urban areas and 92 per- Romania’s MMR was almost four times the EU’s average. Section 2: Human Capital Endowments 17 Figure 5: Prevalence of Modern and Traditional Romania’s levels were comparable to rates in countries Contraceptive Use among Married or In-Union Wom- such as Tajikistan (32 per 100,000 live births), Egypt (33), en Ages 15-49, in Romania and EU and Sri Lanka (30) (WHO 2015 and Vlădescu et al. 2016). Underutilization of prenatal care and assistance during Romania, 1994 delivery may be associated with the high maternal mor- 1,6 tality. About 94 percent of women in Romania had at least one antenatal visit and 76 percent had at least four such 3,5 visits (UNICEF, 2015). However, a recent study on pre- natal care utilization among pregnant Romanian women found that 78 percent of study participants did not fully 4,4 utilize the available services. Those who received inade- 35,5 quate care were likely to be less than 25 years of age, Roma, 4,7 unmarried, uneducated, living in rural areas, and of low socio-economic status (Stativa et al. 2014). The share of births attended by skilled health staff has been relatively 8,8 stable over the past years at a near-universal figure of 98.5 Romania, 2015 percent (WDI). 4,2 4,8 Low usage of prenatal care and other health services is even more common among Roma women. Roma preg- nant women reported an average number of three pre- 17,2 10,4 natal consultations, while non-Roma reported five. This gap was driven, at least in part, by a higher share of Roma women who did not receive any medical check-ups at all, 6,7 13 percent. Maternal mortality is over 15 times higher among Roma women than non-Roma. This reflects struc- tural obstacles that Roma women face such as exclusion 24,1 from the health insurance system due to their absence from the formal labor market (see section on economic opportunities) and various discriminatory practices that Withdrawal they face when trying to access healthcare (World Bank 2014). Periodic Abstinence Finally, Romania’s adolescent fertility rate (births per IUD 1,000 women aged 15-19) is about 34, the second-high- est in the EU region (after Bulgaria) and comparable Male Condom to levels in countries such as Rwanda, Haiti, Morocco, Vietnam, and Burundi that belong to a lower income Pill group. These rates are especially high among the Roma Female Sterilization population. Ten percent of Roma girls have their first child when they are aged 12 to 15 and 48 percent become Source: UN 2015. first-time mothers between the ages of 16 and 18 (World Bank 2014). Teenage pregnancy is an integral indicator of young women’s agency. It not only reflects social norms 18 R O M A N I A Gender assessment Figure 6: Maternal Mortality Rates, 1997-2015 70 60 Modeled Estimate per 100,000 Live Births 50 40 30 20 10 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 EU (male) Romania (male) Source: World Bank and WDI. and expectations around women’s role in society but can Figure 7: Fertility Rate, 2015 signal lack of capacity to effectively access and use contra- ceptives based on gendered power dynamics within cou- 90 ples (Heilborn and Cabral 2011 and Jorgensen et al. 1980). 80 Live births per 1,000 women In addition, it has consequences for women’s personal 70 development and ability to make and implement choices 60 (Azevedo et al. 2012 and Kruger and Berthelon 2012). 50 Fertility rates vary significantly by age and degree of ur- 40 banization. In Romania, fertility rates are higher among 30 women in rural areas, and for women aged 20 to 24 com- 20 pared to adolescent women (Figure 7). For example, in 10 2015, the fertility rate for women aged 20 to 24 was 79.4 0 live births per 1,000 women in rural areas and 47.8 in ur- Urban Rural Total ban areas. The adolescent fertility rate in rural areas was also higher at 43.3 live births compared to 22.6 in urban Age of mother 15-19 years areas. Moreover, rural women were getting married at ear- lier ages compared to women living in cities—at age 26 Age of mother 20-24 years on average versus age 29 (National Institute of Statistics). Source: Romania National Institute of Statistics. Section 2: Human Capital Endowments 19 Figure 8: School Net Enrollment in 2015 (Percent) 100,0 97,6 97,6 95,0 93,0 92,2 90,0 86,6 87,2 84,1 83,8 85,5 80,0 75,0 Romania Romania Romania Romania EU EU EU EU Primary Secondary Note: Net enrollment for Primary and Secondary, gross enrollment for Tertiary. Source: World Bank and WDI. E D U C AT I O N still very low compared to EU countries (Figure 8), and a Investments in education impact the ability of men and higher percentage of women than men between the ages women to reach their full potential in society (World of 15 and 24 are neither in employment nor in education Bank 2011). Investments in education affect women’s and training (NEET). Finally, as in health, women living success in such activities as earning wages and managing in rural households rank behind the general population in firms and farms. Gender differences in education have terms of educational enrollment and attainment. greatly contributed to the wage and productivity gap be- A look at enrollment in basic education by ethnicity tween men and women. Furthermore, children born to shows disparities between Roma and non-Roma, and more-educated mothers are less likely to die in infancy gender differences within the Roma population (Fig- and more likely to be immunized and have higher birth ure 9). Inequalities across ethnic groups start early with weights. Thus, educating both boys and girls and men and very few Roma children between the ages of three and six women is critical for tapping into human capital. years making it into the school system compared to their On education, Romania has achieved some laudable non-Roma peers. Among those who do, the majority are advancements including high rates of females studying boys. Most Roma households report they don’t send chil- subjects traditionally dominated by men, such as sci- dren to preschool because home care is available and/or ence and math. Yet Romania still falls behind the EU because the kindergarten is too expensive. Only 38 per- in many education indicators. Women have higher en- cent of Roma children between the ages of four and six, rollments in tertiary schools than men and make up more (the starting age of compulsory education) in Romania tertiary graduates in the fields of education and training, take part in early childhood education, compared to 86 health, social sciences, and humanities (European Com- percent of the general population (FRA and EU-MIDIS mission 2012). However, gender issues persist in other II 2016). Among Roma children aged seven to 15 years, measures of education. For example, primary and sec- the proportion of girls who make it into school is slight- ondary enrollment rates for boys and girls in Romania are ly higher than that of boys. In the next age group, 16-19, 20 R O M A N I A Gender assessment Figure 9: Enrollment Rates by Ethnicity, Sex, and Age Group 100 98,6 98,0 90,2 85,8 84,7 79,2 80 60 40 34,7 27,8 18,0 20 12,9 11,1 0,0 0 Ages 3-6 Ages 7-15 Ages 16-19 Ages 3-6 Ages 7-15 Ages 16-19 Non-roma Roma Women Men Source: Romania HBS 2016. however, that pattern is reversed: there are more Roma age of male students who are low performers exceeds that males than females in school. This age group also shows of females particularly in reading and to a lesser degree the biggest gap in enrollment between Roma and non-Ro- in science (Figure 10). Data from the PISA 2015 assess- ma (Romania HBS 2016). Overall, disparities in enroll- ment shows that almost 25 percent of young Romanians ment and attainment between Roma and non-Roma re- around the age of 15—compared to 12.3 percent in the sult in large gaps in their education levels as adults. EU—lack the foundational cognitive skills required for In addition, drop-out rates are much higher among the lifelong learning and productive employment.8 In science, Roma population. Seventeen percent of Roma students Romanian girls perform six percentage points higher than drop out of primary education, and Roma students in boys, which differs with the OECD where boys perform lower secondary education are six times more likely than better by 3.5 points. In reading, the country follows the non-Roma students from similar socioeconomic back- same trend as the OECD with girls outperforming boys grounds to drop out of school (Gatti et al. 2016). Reasons by 18 points. for these high rates include cost of education, feelings of Concerning accumulation of skills, Romania has the being sufficiently educated, marriage, and need to make EU’s third-highest level of “early leavers” (18.5 percent an income. A survey on this topic also found that Roma compared to 10.7 percent in the EU), many of whom are in Romania are vulnerable to leaving school early due to from rural areas and ethnic groups (Figure 11). Much of poverty, cultural factors, and spatial segregation. Romania’s high numbers of early leavers9 is driven by lo- Beyond mere access to education, learning and the ac- cation and ethnicity rather than by sex (the percentages of cumulation of skills matter. Among Romanian youth early leavers are similar among men and women). For in- age 15-plus who make it to secondary education, a high stance, 6.2 percent of early leavers were in cities, 17.4 per- share do not possess adequate basic skills. The percent- cent in towns and suburbs, and 26.6 percent in rural areas 8 European Commission 2016. Refers to the percentage of low performers (below Level 2) in science, reading, and math. 9 “Early leavers” are people aged 18-24 who have completed at most a lower secondary education and are not in further education or training. Section 2: Human Capital Endowments 21 Figure 10: Share of Men and Women Age 15-plus by Proficiency Levels in PISA. High (Level 5 and Above) and Low Achievers (Below Level 2) 50 40 30 20 10 0 Low High Low High Low High Math Reading Science Female 2015 Male 2015 Source: PISA 2015. (Eurostat 2017). As in other EU countries, the majority of enrolled than men. Despite a slight increase from 2007, early leavers in Romania are Roma (FRA and EU-MIDIS tertiary attainment in Romania is one of the lowest in the II 2016). Roma make up 77 percent of early leavers in Ro- EU (Figure 12). Moreover, as is true in the EU at large, a mania, 90 percent in Portugal, 68 percent in Hungary, 90 higher share of Romanian women (59 percent) is enrolled percent in Portugal, and 57 percent in the Czech Republic. in tertiary than men (48 percent). In addition to Romania’s high share of early leavers, Moreover, despite higher tertiary school enrollments coupled with a high share of people outside the labor among females, sex segregation by fields of education market have resulted in an increasing rate of female persists among tertiary graduates. Almost all tertiary youth who are neither in employment nor in education and training (NEET). There are significant gender gaps graduates in the fields of education and training and at among Romania’s NEETs (Figure 12), especially when least 60 percent of graduates in health, social sciences, and compared to other EU countries. In 2016, 21 percent of humanities are women, a trend that has been constant for females and 14 percent of males between the ages of 15-24 the past 10 years. Interestingly though, Romanian wom- were NEETs (Eurostat). As with early leavers, NEETs are en represent the majority of graduates in the traditionally more common in rural areas than cities, and the gender male fields of science, math, and computing, and they ac- disparities are found in both areas.10 count for 35 percent of graduates in engineering and man- Furthermore, Romania lags behind in tertiary enroll- ufacturing, a figure eight percentage points higher than ment compared to the EU average, but more women are the EU average (Eurostat), as shown in Figure 13.11 10 Furthermore, there are also substantial differences in NEET rates between cities and rural areas throughout the EU (Figure 19). In Romania, the share of NEETs between the ages of 15 and 24 was almost three times higher in rural areas (21.2 percent) than in cities (8.6 percent) (Eurostat 2016). The rate of NEETs in suburbs and towns, at 19.7 percent, was also much higher than the rate in cities. 11 The fields of science, math and computing, together with engineering and manufacturing, account for 29 percent of all graduates from tertiary schools in Romania. 22 R O M A N I A Gender assessment Figure 11: Young People Aged 15-24 Who Are Neither in Employment Nor in Education and Training (NEETs)—Romania and EU Peer Countries (Percentage) 25 20 15 10 5 0 Bulgaria Romania Croatia Slovakia EU28 Hungary Poland Slovenia Total Males Females Source: Eurostat 2016. Figure 12: Enrollment in Tertiary Education (Percent, Gross) 100 80 60 40 20 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Romania, female Romania, male EU, female EU, male Source: World Bank and WDI. Section 2: Human Capital Endowments 23 Figure 13: Female Tertiary Graduates as a Percentage of Total Graduates 100 80 60 40 20 0 Education Health and Social science, Humanities Science, math Services Agriculture, Engin., manuf. and training welfare business, law and art and computing veterinary and construction Romania EU28 Source: Eurostat 2016. Concerns about the overall quality of education and cent attend some kind of school at that age (HBS 2016). achievement in Romania have become more pressing In surveys, Roma express an aspiration to achieve tertiary among the Roma population. School and classroom-lev- education only half as often as their non-Roma peers. This el segregation have undermined both teaching and learn- may be influenced by discouraging prospects on the job ing. Recent studies suggest that segregation affects be- market, as well as experience of discrimination (World tween 31 and 60 percent of the schools in areas that have Bank 2014). high shares of Roma population (World Bank 2014, FRA, As with Roma communities, analysis by location shows and EU-MIDIS II 2016). Functional literacy among Roma women is higher than among Roma men (79 percent ver- that rural communities—and especially the women liv- sus 70 percent). Among Roma youth (ages 16-24), func- ing there—are at a disadvantage in education, both in tional literacy rates are improving compared to the gen- terms of enrollment and attainment (Figure 14). Roma- eral Roma adult population. Thus, the overall functional nians living in rural areas are much less likely to attain literacy rate among Roma youth is 80 percent, but a five secondary or tertiary education than people in urban ar- percentage point gap between women and men remains, eas. Almost half of rural men and women make it only to with 83 percent for men and 78 percent for women (World lower secondary. There are also differences among men Bank 2014). Enrollment in education among Roma in the and women in these geographic areas. More rural women 18-25 age group is extremely low for both men and wom- than men have only lower secondary education, but this is en (less than 1 percent for each sex), and shows a severe due to a higher share of rural men with upper secondary gap when compared with the non-Roma: about 40 per- schooling (Eurostat 2016). 24 R O M A N I A Gender assessment Figure 14: Educational Attainment by Age, Sex, and Urban/Rural Location, 2016 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 Lower secondary or less Upper secondary Tertiary Source: Eurostat. 25 Section 3: Economic Opportunities Romanian women’s inability to fully participate in the labor market can stifle economic growth. Gender gaps in the labor market are likely to result in lower aggregate productivity due to inefficient use of female potential. In Romania, these gaps have been estimated to cause potential economic losses of 11.53 percent in gross income per capita in the short run and 12.63 percent in the long run (Cuberes and Teignier 2016).12 As the World Development Report 2012 notes, “gender segregation in access to economic opportunities in turn reinforces gender differences in time use and in access to inputs, and perpetuates market and institutional failures.” Romania has made progress in creating greater economic opportunities for women. However, compared to the EU, the country still faces several challenges in this task. For instance, Romania has high female participation in jobs typically dominated by men and has achieved decreasing unemploy- ment among both men and women in recent years, which reflect advances in economic opportunities. Yet issues such as lower labor force participation for women than men, a widening gender gap in employment, and high burden on females for providing care at home all indicate that the country needs to make further improvements to ensure equality in economic opportunities for women. 12 About 58 percent of this loss in GDP per capita derives from distortions in occu- pations held by women relative to men. The remaining 42 percent corresponds to the costs associated with gaps in labor force participation. The model estimation implies that two factors lead to the income loss. First, a misallocation of entrepre- neurial talent affects the productivity of the economy. Second, women’s lower par- ticipation in the market leads to the underutilization of the available human capital. 26 R O M A N I A Gender assessment Figure 15: Labor Force Participation, by Age Group and Sex 100 8,3 26,7 25,2 80 44,9 43,8 66,1 65,6 60 78,2 82,9 86,5 40 91,7 73,3 74,8 55,1 56,2 20 33,9 34,4 21,8 17,1 13,5 0 Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 15-24 25-49 55-64 65-74 15-64 Economically active Economically inactive Source: Eurostat 2016. L A B O R F O R C E PA R T I C I PAT I O N Gender gaps in labor market indicators are present in Female participation in the Romanian labor force re- both urban and rural areas, particularly in employment mains limited: only 56.2 percent of women report being and economic inactivity (Figure 16). The gap in labor economically active (employed or unemployed) com- force participation is wider in rural areas, where the dif- pared to 74.8 percent of men (Eurostat 2016). Eco- 13 ference in the rates for men and women is 22.5 percentage nomic inactivity in Romania is one of the highest in the points (79.7 percent of men and 57.2 percent of women EU (Eurostat) and is almost twice as high among women take part in the market). This compares to a 17-point dif- as men (Figure 15). The gender gap in participation (18.6 ference in urban areas (77.6 percent for men and 60.2 per- percentage points) is higher than the 13 point gap in the cent for women). Overall, women are significantly more EU. In the 2007-2017 period, differences with respect to likely than men to be outside the labor force, a pattern that the region were driven by Romanian female participation is particularly strong among women living in rural areas rates that were constant-over-time lower than EU levels (Romania HBS 2016). , and the stabilization of participation rates among Ro- Men and women have notably different reasons for not manian men at EU levels (WDI). The gender gap in par- looking for a job (Figure 17). While 29 percent of women ticipation differs across age groups (Figure 16). It is at its report “looking after the family/house” as their main rea- maximum during the late productive years (the 55-64 age son, that figure drops to 10 percent among men. In con- group), with lower levels in the peak productive age group trast, among men, more than fifty percent do not look for (25-49) and retirement age (65-74) (Eurostat 2016). a job due to “retirement.” 13 Note that according to the Romania HBS 2016, labor force participation rates are 58.9 percent for women and 78.7 percent for men in the 15-64 age group. Data from Eurostat are presented for comparison purposes with the EU regional average. Section 3: Economic Opportunities 27 Figure 16: Labor Force Participation Status, by Sex and Urban/Rural Location (Percent of People Aged 15-64) 80 75,8 72,5 70 54,8 56,8 60 50 42,8 39,8 40 30 20,3 22,4 20 10 3,9 2,4 5,1 3,5 0 Men Women Men Women Rural Urban Employed Unemployed Out of labor force Source: Romania HBS 2016. Figure 17: Reasons for Not Looking for a Job, Percentage of People Aged 18-64 Other reasons Have already found a job that will commence in the near future Doesn’t want to work No need to work Retired Student Waiting for an answer No suitable jobs available Long term sick/ disabled Temporarily sick/ injured Looking after the family/ house 0 20 40 60 Men Women Source: LiTS III 2016. 28 R O M A N I A Gender assessment Figure 18: Self-Declared Current Main Activity Status, Percentage of Persons Aged 16-Plus in Romanian Roma Households 70 59 60 50 42 40 40 28 30 22 20 13 13 13 12 12 10 11 10 4 6 4 5 3 2 0 Women Men Total Employed Unemployed Not working to disability Domestic work Retired Other inactive Source: FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016, Roma. Roma are one of the most disadvantaged groups in the est category of self-reported activity after “inactivity” (see labor market, and there are substantial gender gaps details in Box 3). within this ethnic group. Participation among work- ing-age Roma has consistently been lower than that of EMPLOYMENT non-Roma, reflecting a combination of barriers for the Similar to the labor force participation patterns among minority group. Indeed, according to the EU-MIDIS II men and women, there is a growing gender gap in em- 2016 survey, only three in ten Romanian Roma aged 16 ployment, which increased from 13.2 percentage points and older reported being employed. In addition, while to 16.4 points in the 2008-2016 period and moved away 42 percent of Roma men of this age described their cur- from the EU trend (Figure 19). This gap is explained by rent main activity as “employed,” only 13 percent of Roma an increased employment rate among men (six percentage women did (Figure 18). The discrepancies by sex are more point growth in the 2008-2016 period) and a stagnated rate pronounced in Romania than in the other EU countries among women—only one point growth in the past nine surveyed where, on average, the employment rate for Roma men is 34 percent and 16 percent for Roma wom- years. Furthermore, the gap in employment between men en.14 The gender gaps in Romania are explained in part and women is pronounced among certain groups: those in by higher numbers of women reporting domestic work as the “peak” productive age 25-49 years (a 15.9 point gap), their main activity (59 percent of women over the age of 16 people aged 55-64 years (19.4 points), and those with one compared to 22 percent of men). This is the second-high- or two children (21.3 and 25.1 points, respectively.)15 14 FRA, EU-MIDIS II 2016, Roma. The study surveyed Roma in 11 EU countries: Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Spain. 15 According to the Romania HBS 2016, the employment rate for women aged 15-64 is 94.9 percent and for men in this age group 94.2 percent. Data from Eurostat are presented to compare with regional EU averages. Section 3: Economic Opportunities 29 Figure 19: Evolution of the Gender Gap in the Em- children under the age of six, the lower the share of em- ployment Rate (Percentage Points Difference) ployed women. As the age of children increases, the share of working women increases with it. Data indicate this 18 pattern has not improved over the years (Eurostat). Mar- ital status influences employment differently as well: em- 16 ployment among married and cohabiting men between Percentage points the ages of 25 and 49 is higher than among their single 14 counterparts (94 and 81 percent, respectively). However, this trend reverses by gender, with single women having 12 higher employment than married women, 76.4 and 72.2 10 percent, respectively (HBS 2016). As with fields of education, there are interesting pat- 8 terns in the distribution by sex across sectors of em- 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 ployment in Romania (Figure 20). For example, the pro- fessional, scientific, and technical sector, traditionally one EU28 Romania of the most “male” fields of work, is now among the top four sectors employing women: 60 percent of its workers Source: Eurostat 2016. are women. Sex segregation persists, however, with the country following old patterns of female domination of health and social work and education, and male domina- Differences in participation and employment between tion continuing in construction and transportation and women and men are partly due to competing demands storage. on women’s time and on care burden. Data on time use reveals that, regardless of the day of the week, women In addition, more women tend to work in the public on average spend two more hours per day than men in sector than men (Figure 21). According to the LITS III household and family care while men engage in paid work 2016 survey, the main work places for women were me- one more hour per day than women (Romania Nation- dium enterprises in the private sector (33.4 percent) and al Institute of Statistics 2013). In addition, employment public sector institutions, including in education and ad- is highly influenced by the presence of young children ministration (20 percent). While almost half of the men in the household (Table 1). The higher the number of also reported working in medium enterprises in the pri- Table 1: Employment Rate for Persons Aged 25-49 Years, With and Without Children (Percent) Without children One child <6 Two children <6 One child 6-11 Year Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women 2012 81.4 73.4 89.0 70.0 87.9 66.8 89.8 71.8 2013 81.3 73.8 87.7 66.8 85.2 64.7 89.2 70.6 2014 82.4 74.3 88.8 70.3 86.7 64.0 89.9 71.4 2015 82.5 74.0 90.0 68.8 90.0 64.9 89.8 72.9 2016 83.0 75.0 91.3 70.0 87.2 62.1 91.1 72.2 Source: Eurostat 2016. 30 R O M A N I A Gender assessment Figure 20: Male and Female Shares of Employment by Sector (Percent) Construction 6 94 Transportation and storage 15 95 Public administration and defense 37 63 Information and communication 37 63 Agriculture, forestry and fishing 41 59 Manufacturing 42 58 Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles 56 44 Professional, scientific and technical activities 56 44 Accommodation and food service 60 40 Education 77 23 Human health and social work 80 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 Men Women Source: Eurostat 2016. Figure 21: Type of Place of Work for People Aged 18-64 Who Worked in the Last 12 Months (Percentage) 50 40 30 20 10 0 Female Male Public sector (education, administration) International organizations (NGOs, etc) State-owned enterprise Self employed Private Sector - large enterprise (>100 people) Bank Private Sector - medium enterprise (>5 &<100 people) Foreign firm Private Sector - small enterprise (<5 people) Source: LITS III 2016. Section 3: Economic Opportunities 31 Figure 22: Type of Employment among People Aged 15-64, by Sex and Urban/Rural Location (Percentage) Women 74,5 7,4 18,0 Total Men 70,8 2,2 26,6 Women 51,3 15,8 32,8 Rural Men 54,2 4,1 41,5 Women 93,3 6,1 Urban Men 87,8 11,5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Paid employee Non-paid employee/ fam Employer Self-employed Other not classifiabl Source: Romania HBS, 2016. vate sector (45.5 percent), the share of men working in and employment. For example, cultural norms including the public sector was much lower (10.5 percent) than expectations that women will stay at home and take care women’s. Instead, after medium enterprises in the private of children, and high incidences of child marriage among sector, the next biggest place of employment for men (18.2 Roma families are associated with lower labor-force partic- percent) was large enterprises in the private sector. ipation rates.16 These norms, along with obstacles for wom- en in general in the labor market, make it even more diffi- Rural areas remain particularly behind in employ- cult for Roma women to participate (World Bank 2014). In ment and quality of jobs. The gender gap in employment addition, Roma communities in rural areas (and especially is larger in rural than urban areas (Figure 16) and rural their women) have trouble accessing public employment women are more likely to have an unpaid job than rural services (PES) due to reasons that include distance. On men and urban women (Figure 22). While the difference average, rural people live more than 10 kilometers from in the employment rate between men and women in ur- the closest PES centers, compared to three kilometers for ban areas is 15.7 percentage points, the difference is al- urban residents (Gatti et al. 2016). This helps explain why most 21 points in rural areas (Romania HBS 2016). At the 80 percent of the unemployed Roma in rural Romania are same time, family workers account for 16 percent of total not registered with PES. Female Roma job seekers living in employment among rural women, whereas in urban areas rural areas are especially vulnerable, as they face issues of this share is less than 1 percent. In the case of rural men, child-care and household responsibilities in addition to the only 4 percent are in unpaid employment, and less than 1 distance and travel costs. percent of urban men are (HBS, 2013). As its society ages, Romania falls far short of the EU in As with people living in rural areas, Roma men and wom- terms of life-long training for adults over the age of 45, en face special challenges in labor force participation highlighting the need for more skilled adults in the la- 16 Roma households are usually twice the size of non-Roma households, and Roma women begin household and childcare respon- sibilities at an early age. 32 R O M A N I A Gender assessment bor market. The participation rate in Romania in formal The percentage of firms with female participation in or informal education and training among people between ownership increased in recent years, but is still low. The the ages of 45 and 54 was just 0.6 percent for women and percentage of firms with majority female ownership regis- 0.5 percent for men (Eurostat). These figures are well below tered an important rise from 26 percent in 2005 to 48 per- the EU rates of 10.5 percent and 7.7 percent, respectively. cent in 2009 but has remained constant at that level, as the most recent measure for 2013 shows. Only 12.5 percent of UNEMPLOYMENT firms are owned by women and only 20.1 percent have a Romania has achieved a constant reduction in unem- woman in top management, which is slightly higher than ployment over the past years, resulting in lower unem- the average for upper-middle income countries, 20.7 per- ployment for women than men and rates that are lower cent (Enterprise Surveys 2013 and WDI 2017). than the EU average for both sexes. Five percent of wom- en in Romania are unemployed compared to 6.6 percent PROVISION OF CARE of men. The EU average is reversed: 8.4 percent for wom- If more women are to enter the labor market, Romania en and 6.6 for men (Eurostat).17 must create the necessary framework for the reconcilia- tion of work and family life. Policies that allow for more Unemployment in Romania is higher in rural areas, equal sharing of care responsibilities between women and and is particularly higher among Roma men than men can support the economic independence and well- Roma women. In rural areas, 5.1 percent of men are un- being of both men and women. As a recent report by the employed compared to 3.5 percent of rural women (Ro- EU pointed out, the lack of affordable child and long-term mania HBS 2016). In urban areas, unemployment rates care and after-school facilities has contributed to the stub- are 3.9 percent for men and 2.4 percent for women. In bornly lower employment rate among women since 2008 Roma communities, 13 percent of women and 16.3 per- (European Commission 2017). cent of men are unemployed (World Bank 2014). The high rates of unemployment and unstable employment Care needs are large in Romania. The LITS survey rates do not reflect preference: the majority of both Roma (2016) shows that about one fifth of the population in Ro- and non-Roma men and women express a desire for sta- mania (21.2 percent) report a need for some type of care ble jobs (World Bank 2014). in their household, meaning it has at least one person who requires being looked after due to age (children under six ENTREPRENEURSHIP years, or seniors older than 75 ) or disability (Figure 24). While overall entrepreneurship rates are low in Roma- Currently, formal childcare and eldercare arrange- nia like in other countries in the Europe and Central ments are scarce in Romania compared to other coun- Asia region, men are still more likely than women to tries in the ECA region and most care is provided by attempt to go into business for themselves. In Romania, household members (LiTS). This is especially true for el- the percent of men trying to operate a business is 9.1 com- dercare, where almost all households state that it is house- pared to 5.6 percent of women (LITS III 2016). These rates hold members who take care of seniors. Only 1 percent reflect overall low incidence of entrepreneurship in the use institutional care for eldercare. In the case of child- country. Among those who attempted to start a business, care, only 30 percent report having any type of institution- approximately 77 percent of men and 82 percent of wom- al arrangements (Figure 25). en succeeded. For those whose businesses did not succeed, bureaucracy and lack of capital were some of the main ob- stacles that both men and women cited (Figure 23). 17 Figures from Eurostat are presented to compare with the EU regional average. According to the Romania HBS 2016 survey, unemployment among people aged 15-64 is 5.0 percent for women and 5.7 percent for men. Section 3: Economic Opportunities 33 Figure 23: Problems and Outcomes in Setting Up a Business in Romania 1000 Men 1000 Women Attempted: Not Attempted: Attempted: Not Attempted: 91 909 56 944 Not Succeeded: Succeeded: Not Succeeded: Succeeded: 21 70 11 46 Did not have Did not have enough capital: enough capital: 91 6 Too much Too much bureaucracy/red bureaucracy/red tape: 5 tape: 2 Other: Other: 2 2 Source: LiTS III 2016. Figure 24: Care Needs in Romanian Households CHILDCARE AND PRESCHOOL Romania’s Early Childhood Education and Care (EEC) 100 services consist of ante-preschool facilities for children 78,8 zero to three years of age (crèches) and kindergartens 80 Percent population for children between the ages of three and six (Euro- 60 pean Parliament 2013). These facilities were created to “ease mothers’ participation in the workforce and in social 40 21,2 and cultural life” (PERFAR 2014). The crèches offer spe- 20 13,8 cialized social services for children under the age of three. 6,5 4,5 They also provide food, medical, and hygienic care, and 0 the care-takers are usually medical and child-care profes- Child Elderly Disabled Any type No care care care care of care need sionals. Kindergartens are part of the educational system for children ages three and older. Source: LiTS III 2016. 34 R O M A N I A Gender assessment Figure 25: Childcare Types: Percent of Population Living in Households with Childcare Needs 6,3 Only household members 3,4 Only institutional care (private) 15,6 Only institutional care (public) 67,1 Instituional care and/or other type of care 7,7 Other Source: LiTS III 2016. Figure 26: Proportion of Children Cared for under Formal Arrangements, 2015: Romania and EU Peer Countries Less than 3 years From 3 years to minimum compulsory school age Slovakia **Romania** Poland Poland **Romania** EU28 Bulgaria Slovakia Hungary Bulgaria EU28 Hungary Slovenia Slovenia 0 10 20 30 40 0 50 100 From 1 to 29 hours 30 hours or over From 1 to 29 hours 30 hours or over Source: Eurostat. Section 3: Economic Opportunities 35 Yet the most recent data from Eurostat indicate that and a national shortage of formal services, the country has only 9.4 percent (versus the EU average of 15.6 per- an acute and ever-growing need for long-term care ser- cent) of children younger than three years have a for- vices. Though the country has some institutional care and mal childcare arrangement, one of the lowest rates in nursing homes, home care is the most common option for the EU region (Figure 26). Among children under three, the dependent elderly, partly because of the comfort the 4.2 percent receive care for less than 30 hours a week, and family provides and costs that are lower than institutional- 5.2 percent receive it for 30 hours or more per week. The ized care’s (ENEPRI 2010). However, the responsibility for situation for older children (three years up to age six) im- caring for the elderly usually falls to a household’s women. proves but is still deficient compared to the region: 51 per- Further, due to limited accessibility and financial resourc- cent of children in that age group receive up to 30 hours es, inequalities occur in geographical distribution and the of childcare per week but only 7.3 percent receive care for number of services available (ENEPRI 2010). at least 30 hours a week. The EU average is 49.4 percent of children in formal care arrangements for at least 30 ACCESS TO PRODUCTIVE hours per week. Childcare services bring special benefits INPUTS to members of the household, most likely women in par- Lack of access to productive inputs—land, dwellings, ticular.18 and credit—constrains women’s economic opportuni- ties, particularly as entrepreneurs. Generally speaking, There are many reasons why childcare services are little a positive correlation exists between asset ownership and used in Romania, including low availability, lack of af- women’s empowerment (LITS 2016).19 In Romania’s case, fordable prices (despite government subsidies), and low however, its results are puzzling: even though the coun- government spending on children and families (SIGI try stands out for having one of the ECA’s highest levels 2017). In Romania, more than half of children under of women owning assets (69 percent, with no major dif- the age of three are cared for informally (RAND Europe ference compared to men), this does not translate into a 2014). Grandparents, friends, and neighbors play a sig- higher percentage of female entrepreneurs: only 4.6 per- nificant role in Romania’s high rates of informal care for cent of Romanian women are entrepreneurs, compared to children of this age. Romania is one of only two EU coun- 7 percent of men. tries (Greece is the other) where grandparents care for more than 10 percent of children under the age of three. One of the explanations is entrepreneurial role models In addition, high childcare costs influence mothers’ labor that reflect a masculine bias concerning participation decisions. Use of formal care is also lower among disad- in business. These gender norms can make women feel vantaged groups, including rural and Roma communities excluded from the field of entrepreneurship, and sully (RAND Europe 2014 and UNICEF). their own perceptions about their entrepreneurial abilities and the perceptions of stakeholders whose support is cru- LONG-TERM CARE FOR THE ELDERLY cial to business creation and growth. Stereotypes and the Romania has a pressing shortage of formal long-term lower exposure of women to women role models might care (LTC) arrangements for elderly people, and conse- explain why they report less interest in entrepreneurial quently, women family members often step up to do the careers and feel less able to become successful entrepre- job. With a population that is both shrinking and aging, neurs (EIGE 2016b). One other possible reason may be 18 Depending on age, formal childcare refers to child care at a day-care center organized/controlled by a public or private structure; child care at a center outside school hours; education at pre-school or equivalent; and attendance at compulsory education. 19 LiTS (2016) constructs a Women’s empowerment index based on women’s ability to make decisions or presence of shared re- sponsibilities in the following matters: i) Managing day-to-day spending and paying bills; 2) Making large household purchases (e.g. cars, major appliances); 3) The way the children are raised; 4) Social life and leisure activities; 5) Savings, investment and borrowing; and 6) Looking after the children. 36 R O M A N I A Gender assessment Figure 27: Asset Ownership by Men and Women in Romania 100 80 60 40 20 0 owns at least owns all does not owns at owns all does not one dwelling dwellings own any least one lands jointly own any solely jointly dwelling land solely land ROU - men ROU - women Region - men Region - women Note: Region refers to the average of the ECA region. Source: LiTS 2016. women’s limited access to business networks. As the IFC to marriage remains under the ownership of the individ- 2016 found, “one of the biggest challenges to women en- ual spouse. The default marital property regime is partial trepreneurs in Romania is their inability to benefit from community of property, and thus, any assets acquired business referrals and connections to avail themselves of during the marriage are the joint property of both spouses valuable market information in the same way their male and can only be sold with their joint consent (SIGI). counterparts do. They also seem to be more reliant on (but Access to financial markets is low for both men and also less able to access) peer support in order to address women. Around half of the Romanian population aged some of their challenges.” 15 and higher owns a bank account, but the share is higher Female ownership of assets consists mainly of dwellings for men than women (Figure 28). The shares of those who rather than land and there are no gender differences borrow from a financial institution or borrow to start or with regards to whether the ownership is joint or sole. expand a business are very low among both sexes. The law Land ownership is very low for both men and women in in Romania prohibits lenders from discriminating on the Romania (Figure 27). In the case of ownership of dwell- basis of gender in access to credit (WBL).20 While there ing, the country performs better than the ECA region. The are no reports of women experiencing discrimination in Romanian Constitution states that women and men have getting credit, it is difficult for people on low incomes to the same right to own and access land and other property. obtain credit because of the high interest rates charged by The Civil Code guarantees that all property obtained prior banks (SIGI 2014). 20 The law is Ordinance No. 137 of August 31, 2000 on Preventing and Sanctioning all Forms of Discrimination, Articles 2, 3(c) and 10(d). Section 3: Economic Opportunities 37 Figure 28: Financial Inclusion Indicators, Romania 2017 70 60 50 40 30 62,4 53,6 20 10 15,1 14,8 17,4 14,6 0 Account, female Account, male Borrowed from Borrowed from Borrowed to start, Borrowed to start, (% age 15+) (% age 15+) a financial a financial operate, or expand operate, or expand institution, female institution, male a farm or business, a farm or business, (% age 15+) (% age 15+) female (% age 15+) male (% age 15+) Source: Global Financial Inclusion database. 38 39 Section 4: Gender, Ethnicity, and Poverty Romania remains the EU country that has by far the largest share of poor people measured by the $5.50/day poverty line (2011 PPP), with more men than women living in poverty and with disproportionately higher poverty rates among Roma people and rural residents. The latest figures from the World Bank’s Poverty and Equity databank indicate that 18.5 percent of the Romanian population lives on less than $5.50 a day, more than double the 8.7 percent rate of Bulgaria (World Bank Global Poverty Monitor).21 In the case of Romania, the poverty estimates presented in this report are based on con- sumption data from the HBS 2016. Using this survey to calculate poverty rates by sex finds that 18 percent of women live in poverty, compared to 19.1 percent of men (Table 2). Taking into account the shares of women and men in the total population, this means that for every 100 men living in poverty, there are fewer women, 94 of them, in a similar situation. World Bank poverty estimates indicate that Roma men and women are both particularly disadvantaged compared to their non-Roma counter- parts. About 80 percent of the Romanian Roma population (78.9 percent) lives in poverty, almost five times the share of non-Roma. Furthermore, while the poverty gap ratio for the Roma—that is, the “depth” of poverty, a calcula- tion of how far on average the poor are from that poverty line—is 27 percent, the figure is just 3.7 for non-Roma. The high poverty rate of the Roma popu- lation is coupled with high unemployment, low education (more than half of adult Roma have not completed the minimum compulsory level of education), and low coverage of social health insurance—51 percent of Roma compared to 21 Poverty is defined as existence below the per capita household income or consump- tion level that marks the poverty threshold. 40 R O M A N I A Gender assessment Table 2: Poverty Headcount, by Sex and Ethnicity, US$5.50/day (2011 PPP)   All Non-Roma Roma Urban Rural   Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Below pov- erty line 19.1 18.0 16.9 15.9 78.6 79.2 11.3 10.3 26.6 26.0 (percent) Poverty gap ratio 4.6 4.4 3.8 3.58 26.7 27.3 2.5 2.3 6.7 6.5 (percent) Note: Poverty rates are based on per capita household consumption. The larger the poverty gap, the poorer on average are people below the poverty line and the more resources are needed to lift everyone out of poverty. Source: World Bank staff calculations based on Romania HBS 2016. 85 percent of the non-Roma population (Vlădescu et al. sured in relation to per capita household income (or con- 2016). All of these factors make it harder for Roma people sumption), the poverty rates of men and women cannot to overcome poverty. be used to understand gender differences in poverty or the poverty rates of male and female-headed households.22 An Poverty rates are also high among Romanians living in alternative proposed operational definition of the house- rural areas, and the share of rural men living in pov- hold (see World Bank 2018) combines (1) the presence/ erty is slightly higher than of rural women. Half of the absence and sex of earners23 aged 15-plus in the house- Romanian population lives in rural areas, which remain hold, based on their employment status and whether they far behind urban areas in terms of poverty reduction, have paid/unpaid employment (male earner, female earn- employment, education, and access to services and in- er, dual earner, no earner), and (2) the presence of depen- frastructure (European Commission 2017). The share of dents younger than 18 or older than 64.24 rural people with consumption below the US$5.50 a day The presence of dependents (most likely seniors) in a threshold stands at 26.3 percent, 2.6 times higher than the household makes a difference in terms of poverty rates, urban rate of 10.8 percent. and so does the number of earners in the household, Applying an alternative household composition typol- stressing the importance of providing the necessary ogy based on the employment status and demographic conditions to allow women and men to fully participate composition of households provides more detail about in the labor market. The gaps in poverty rates between gender and poverty (Figure 29). Since poverty is mea- presence and absence of dependents are particularly large 22 A number of studies have contested the use of headship as a relevant analytical category, for reasons that include the lack of comparable definitions of the terms “household” and “head of household;” the ambiguity in the term “head of household” when the assignment of headship is left to the judgement of household members; and the fact that the term “head of household” does not reflect internal conflicts in the allocation of resources. See Buvinic and Gupta 1997, Quisumbing et al. 2001, and Budlender 2008. 23 Note that the harmonized version of the Romania HBS 2016 survey does not report income at the individual level. For this reason, the definition of earner is based on the employment status and whether employment is paid. This classification does not capture income coming from other sources such as pensions and inheritances. 24 Due to data limitations, this classification does not capture individuals age 15-plus who are outside the labor force or retired but receive a monetary income. Section 4: Gender, Ethnicity, and Poverty 41 Figure 29: Poverty Rates of Households by Demographic and Employment Composition 35 31,7 29,3 30 25 20 17,3 15,5 15 11,6 10 6,8 3,8 3,0 5 0 HH with no HH with one HH with male HH with male HH with HH with HH with head HH with head earners earner single earner single earner female single female single couple earner, couple earner, (0.5%) (32.8%) with and no earner with earner and no with no dependents dependents dependents dependents dependents dependents (12.6%) (10.1%) (5.2%) (4.9%) (14.9%) (9.4%) Note: Poverty based on per capita household consumption. A household with no earners refers to a household where all members age 15-plus report being unemployed or in unpaid employment. Earner is defined as a person with paid employment (as employee, employer, or self-employed). Dependent refers to a person younger than 18 or older than 64. Numbers in parenthesis indicate share of typology in the total number of households. Source: World Bank staff calculations based on Romania HBS 2016. in households with a male single earner, which are the resented among poor households. They make up 33 most common type of household in Romania. Analysis of percent of total households, yet their share among poor poverty by employment status of the household shows that households is a higher 46 percent. Households that have households with a male single earner and dependents, and two earners—with or without dependents—are less likely households with no earners fare worst (31.7 and 29.3 per- to be poor than their single-earner counterparts. These findings make clear that, given the current demographic cent, respectively, live in poverty), followed by households circumstances facing the country, Romania cannot afford with a single female earner and dependents. to underutilize the substantial share of women whose life- In addition, households with only one earner fare worse time productivity in the labor market is reduced by having than those with two or more earners, and are over-rep- to provide informal care in the home. 42 43 Section 5: Voice and Agency Agency is an individual’s ability to make choices to achieve desired out- comes. Amartya Sen defines an agent as “someone who acts and brings about change” (Sen 1999). Agency matters both in its own right and its instrumen- tally in development. The WDR 2012 on Gender Equality and Development put dedicated emphasis on agency and its instrumental value to achieve gender equality in a number of other dimensions: It affects one’s ability to accumulate endowments such as land or property, education, or health—and to act on economic opportunities. Romania has taken important steps to promote women’s agency, but many challenges remain. For example, the share of women in the national par- liament has increased in recent years, and in 2018, Romania elected its first female prime minister. In addition, more women are represented in minis- terial-level positions. However, continuing under-representation at the local level, societal norms on the traditional role of women, and high levels of gen- der-based violence hinder further progress in agency. GOVERNMENT’S COMMITMENT TO G E N D E R E Q U A L I T Y: T H E L E G A L A N D INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK Law No. 202/2002 on “Equal Opportunities of Women and Men,” Roma- nia’s main law governing gender equality, was adopted during the country’s entrance into the European Union in 2007 (EIGE 2017). The law provides for equality between men and women in areas such as labor, access to edu- cation, health, culture, and information. It created the National Agency for Equal Opportunities between Women and Men (NAEOWM) (2005-2010) and the National Commission for Equal Opportunities between Women and Men (CONES) (2006-2010). In 2010, the Directorate for Equal Opportunities be- 44 R O M A N I A Gender assessment tween Women and Men (DEOWM) replaced NAEOWM a national ID card, traveling outside the home and and was created under the Ministry of Labor, Family, and country, obtaining a job, choosing where to live, and Social Protection to develop and coordinate the imple- being head of the household (WBL). Likewise, there mentation of policies on gender equality (EIGE 2018). are no restrictions for married and unmarried wom- In addition, Romania has the National Anti-Discrimina- en on signing a contract, registering a business, and tion Council, which works on matters of gender equality opening a bank account. Regarding marital responsi- (SIGI 2017). In 2014, the Department for Equal Oppor- bility, a woman can convey citizenship to a non-citizen tunities between Women and Men was established with- spouse in the same way as a man, and under Article in the Ministry of Labor. The department is responsible 325 of the Civil Code, spouses must jointly financially for “drawing up, coordinating and applying government maintain the family. strategies and policy in the field of equal opportunities be- • Articles 345 and 346 of the Civil Code state that tween men and women, and exercising state competencies both husband and wife must agree on who admin- in strategy and regulation for the field of equal opportuni- isters marital property (WBL). Article 44(1) of the ties between men and women.” constitution grants married and unmarried men and The Romanian government has taken other steps to women equal ownership rights to property. Also, sons promote equality between women and men. In 2015, the and daughters, as well as surviving spouses, have equal government announced it would organize training to cre- inheritance rights based on Articles 260, 963, and Ar- ate two new professions: Expert in Gender Equality and ticles 970-975 of the Civil Code. Gender Equality Technician. These new roles would im- • Romanian law does not differentiate the evidentiary plement local and national strategies to promote gender value of a woman’s testimony from that of a man in equality and eliminate domestic violence. By 2020, 70 per- court (WBL). However, out of the nine constitution- cent of Romania’s 1,680 public institutions are scheduled al court justices, only two are women and currently, to have these experts or technicians (HeForShe 2016). As there is no female chief justice. of 2017, Romania had trained 1,100 gender equality ex- • Ordinance No. 137 on Preventing and Sanctioning perts and 4,000 technicians (ANES 2017). Furthermore, all Forms of Discrimination prohibits discrimina- an integrated system to track, report, and prevent violence tion by lenders on the basis of gender in access to against women was launched in 2015. credit (WBL). However, the law does not prohibit dis- Romania has also integrated gender into the law. The fol- crimination on the basis of marital status in access to lowing are some important examples of some important credit. laws and regulation: • Article 41 of the Constitution states that all employ- • Article 16 of the 1991 Constitution recognizes that ees have the right to social protection. This covers all citizens are equal before the law and public au- working conditions for women and pay. The article thorities. While this nondiscrimination clause does provides that women “shall get equal wages” (Roma- not mention gender, it states that Romanian men and nia Chamber of Deputies). But based on Law No. 263, women have equal opportunities to occupy public po- women can retire and receive benefits at an earlier age sitions. Yet it does not create quotas for women rep- than men—63 versus 65 (WBL). There are no restric- resentatives in parliament, local government, national tions regarding the types of jobs that women can hold. elections, local elections, or corporate boards (WBL). Employment discrimination based on gender is pro- hibited under Article 5 of the Labor Code. • Married and unmarried women have the same rights as married and unmarried men. This applies In addition, Romania has passed legislation aimed at to such things as applying for a passport, obtaining reducing gender-based violence, such as Law No. 217 Section 5: Voice and Agency 45 on Preventing and Fighting against Domestic Violence percent rate by the employer (WBL), as required by Law in 2003 (WBL). This law defines domestic violence as No. 210.27 Dismissal is prohibited during pregnancy under “any physical or verbal action deliberately perpetrated Article 21(1) of Governmental Emergency Ordinance No. by a family member against another member of the same 96/2003 (European Commission 2016). After maternity family that causes a physical, psychological, sexual suffer- leave, mothers are guaranteed the right to return to their ing or a material prejudice” (UN Women 2016). Any act jobs under Article 10(8) of the Gender Equality Law (Eu- that hinders a woman’s ability to exercise her fundamental ropean Commission 2016).28 rights and liberties is also considered domestic violence (Ibid). However, the government has faced challenges in P O L I T I C A L PA R T I C I PAT I O N implementing the law. For example, a report by the Coun- The share of women in national parliament rose sig- cil of Europe (2016) stated that many police officers view nificantly in Romania from 13.7 percent in 2016 to 20.7 domestic violence as a “family matter” and are hesitant percent in 2017 (Figure 30). In addition, in 2018, Viorica to intervene. But the government has taken other actions Dancila became the country’s first female prime minister. to protect women, which include criminalizing rape and Romania is close to reaching the world’s average share of addressing sexual harassment in legislation (WBL). Fur- women in parliament, but it still falls behind the perfor- thermore, in 2016, the Romanian government signed and mance of the EU (Figure 31). As of 2017, women held 30.4 ratified the Istanbul Convention, the Council of Europe percent of seats in EU parliaments, almost ten percentage agreement on preventing and combating violence against points more than the average in Romania (WDI). women and domestic violence (Council of Europe 2016). But Romanian women are still underrepresented at the Finally, Romania stands out in terms of generous leave local level, as in the EU (Table 3). In 2017, Romanian benefits. It has laws that mandate paid and unpaid ma- women accounted for only 4.5 percent of mayors and oth- ternity, paternity, and parental leave.25 For instance, under er municipal council leadership positions, and the share Emergency Ordinance No. 158, pregnant women can take of female members of municipal councils was only 12.4 up to 126 days of paid maternity leave, with 85 percent percent (EIGE 2017). It is worth noting that Romania has of the wage covered by the government.26 Fathers, mean- no quotas to promote women’s participation in politics at while, can take up to 15 days, with wages paid at a 100 both the national and local levels. 25 WBL defines parental leave as leave for both mothers and fathers, regardless of unequal distribution of benefits between the two parents. Maternity leave refers to leave only for mothers, while paternity leave is only available to fathers. 26 A study by the European Parliament (2015) found that Eastern European countries have a higher average duration of maternity leave (27 weeks) than non-Eastern European countries (20.4 weeks). Romania’s length of 126 days or 18 weeks is slightly lower than the EU average of 21.8 weeks (OECD 2017). Other EU member states that have the same length include Malta, Lithuania, Denmark, and Cyprus. Among the countries with the longest maternity leaves in the EU are Bulgaria (58.6 weeks), Greece (43 weeks), and the United Kingdom (39 weeks), while Germany (14 weeks) and Sweden (12.9 weeks) are among the countries with the lowest. The duration of paternity leave also varies. Romania’s duration of about one week is close to the EU average of 1.4 weeks but less than in countries such as Belgium (two weeks), Lithuania (four weeks), and Portugal (five weeks). Some countries, such as Germany, Austria, and Slovakia, do not have paternity leave but some of those do have parental leave provisions that fathers can invoke. 27 Article 1 of Law No. 210/1999 provides that fathers will be paid in full for five days of leave. If the father completes a class on parenting, he is also entitled to be paid in full for ten extra days of leave. 28 During parental leave, the jobs of employed parents are protected. 46 R O M A N I A Gender assessment Figure 30: Share of Women in Parliament 35 Proportion of Seats Held by Women 30 25 (percent) 20 15 10 5 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2014 2015 2016 2017 Romania World European Union Source: World Bank Gender Statistics. Figure 31: Share of Women in Ministerial-Level Positions in the EU, 2016 60 Proportion of Women in Ministerial 50 Level Positions (percent) 40 30 20 10 0 EUU ROU AUT BEL BGR HRV CYP CZE DNK EST FIN FRA DEU GRC IRL ITA LVA LTU LUX MLT NLD POL PRT SVK SVN ESP SWE GBR Source: World Bank Gender Statistics. Section 5: Voice and Agency 47 Figure 32: Perceptions Regarding Women’s Skills to Participate in Politics: “Women do not have the necessary qualities and skills to fill positions of responsibility in politics.” 100 90 80 70 60 Percent 50 40 30 20 10 0 RO HU IT LV SK HR BG CZ CY AT MT EE LT PL SI EU 28 IE BE PT EL DE FI ES UK LU DK FR SE NL Total 'Agree' Total 'Disagree' Don't know Source: European Commission 2017b. Table 3: Distribution of Positions P E R C E P T I O N S A N D AT T I T U D E S at the Local Level, by Sex T O WA R D S G E N D E R E Q U A L I T Y AND THE ROLE OF WOMEN Mayor or other leader Mayor or other leader The most recent Eurobarometer survey (2017) on gen- of municipal councils of municipal councils der equality29 reveals strong gender norms and stereo- (percent female) (percent male) types in Romania against participation of women in Romania 4.5 95.5 politics. The survey found that among the 28 EU member states, Romania and Hungary had the strongest tendency EU 14.9 85.1 toward gender stereotypes related to women in politics. For example, 41 percent of respondents from these two Members of municipal Members of municipal countries agree with the statement that “women do not councils councils have the necessary qualities and skills to fill positions of (percent female) (percent male) responsibility in politics” (Figure 32). In Sweden, in con- Romania 12.4 87.6 trast, only three percent of respondents agreed with that EU 32.1 67.9 statement. Also, 54 percent of Romanians believe that the current number of women in political decision-mak- Source: EIGE 2017. ing positions is about right, and 12 percent believe there 29 This survey, sponsored by the European Commission, explores citizens’ opinions about gender equality, with a focus on gender equality in politics and at work, and the gender pay gap, both in general and in companies where respondents work. It was carried out in all 28 EU member states in June 2017. A total of 28,093 respondents from different social and demographic groups were interviewed face-to-face at home in their mother tongues. 48 R O M A N I A Gender assessment Figure 33: Norms and Perceptions Regarding Decision-Making in Romania My opinions are taken into account in decisions 93,2 made by the household 92,9 DISAGREE: Men make better political 44,4 leaders than women do 50,5 It is better for everyone involved if the man earns the money 51,6 and the woman takes careof the home and children 54,8 It is important that my son achieves 86,2 university education 85,9 It is important that my daughter achieves 85,5 university education 84,8 A woman should do most of the household chores even 31,9 if the husband is not working 26,8 Men make better political leaders 55,6 than women do 49,5 Womwn are as competent as men to be 90,4 bisiness executives 93,0 0 20 40 60 80 100 % population agreeing or having a say in decision Male Female Source: LiTS 2016. should be fewer women in politics (European Commis- survey asked respondents for their opinions on appropri- sion 2017b). ate roles and responsibilities for men and women in the household as well as about women taking part in econom- The media tends to type-cast women politicians in lim- ic life and decision making. As seen in Figure 33, men ited roles. For example, one study on women’s leadership and women tend to agree about women’s traditional role in Romania (Mitu et al. 2014) found that the media tends in society. Both sexes feel that it is men who should take to associate female politicians with home-related issues responsibility for earning money and women who should such as health care and education. This could undermine take care of the home and children. There is also support perceptions of their leadership, while associating men among both sexes for the idea that women should do most with issues that are of significant concern for voters, such of the household chores even if the husband is not work- as the economy and foreign affairs. ing. Interestingly, even when both sexes support tradition- From a broader perspective, traditional views of gen- al gender roles, a big share of female respondents still be- der roles are still prevalent in Romania. The LiTS (2016) lieve that their opinions on household decision-making, Section 5: Voice and Agency 49 like those of men, matter. The same occurs with regards to Figure 34: Perceptions and Attitudes in Romania perceptions about the importance of higher education for towards the Role of Women, over Time daughters (and sons): the shares of women and men who agree are both large. Men make better business executives The traditional social perception of women as mothers, than women. wives, housekeepers, or the “guardians” of the family 40 30,9 29,7 inevitably impacts attitudes towards women in poli- 30 24,8 23,8 Percent tics. While there is agreement from both men and women with the statement that women are as competent as men 20 to be business executives, that is not the case for attitudes 10 towards women regarding politics. For example, 53 per- cent of men and 45 percent of women believe that men 0 are better political leaders than women. In Europe as a 2005-2009 2010-2014 whole, less than 20 percent of men and women agree with this view. In addition, the Eurobarometer 2017 survey on When jobs are scarce, men should Gender Equality found that only 28 percent of respon- have more right to a job than women. dents in Romania believed that more women should be 50 37,4 39,8 in political decision-making positions while 54 percent in 40 33,7 34,9 the EU believe there should be more women (European Percent 30 Commission 2017b). It is interesting that a lower share of Romanian respondents agrees that “promoting gender 20 equality is important to ensure a fair and democratic so- 10 ciety”–83 percent in Romania versus 91 percent in the EU (European Commission 2017b). 0 1995-1999 2010-2014 Yet perceptions towards the role of women have changed over time. On some issues, the evolution of On the whole, men make better gender-related beliefs is encouraging. For example, data political leaders than women. from the World Values Survey found that Romanian re- 35 29,7 spondents who agreed with the statement “men make 30 25,6 24,8 better business executives than women” decreased from 25 Percent 30.9 percent during the 2005 to 2009 wave to 23.8 in the 20 15 12,9 2010 to 2014 wave (Figure 34). However, in other areas, including politics, views on women’s role in decision mak- 10 ing have not improved. On the contrary, the percentage 5 of respondents believing that men make better political 0 1995-1999 2010-2014 leaders than women approximately doubled from 12.9 percent during the 1995-1999 wave to 24.8 percent in the Agree Disagree 2010-2014 wave (World Values Survey). Similarly, over the years, higher numbers of people have come to agree Source: World Values Survey that when jobs are scarce, men should have more rights to them than women. 50 R O M A N I A Gender assessment DOMESTIC AND (2016) found that 36 percent of respondents in Roma- GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE nia believe that domestic violence against women is very Gender-based violence is a major issue of concern common and 48 percent believe it is fairly common. across the European Union, and Romania is no excep- Other attitudes on gender-based violence reveal dispar- tion. According to the European Union Agency for Fun- ities between Romania and the EU, and suggest that Ro- damental Rights (FRA) database, 32 percent of Romanian mania needs to do more work on the issue. For example, women have experienced sexual harassment. In addition, compared to the EU, fewer respondents in Romania to the 30 percent have experienced physical and/or sexual vio- 2016 Eurobarometer believe that violence against women lence since the age of 15 and only 23 percent reported the is unacceptable and should always be punishable (74 per- most serious incident to the police. The EIGE (2014) es- cent compared to 96 percent). Nineteen percent believe timates that gender-based violence in Romania carries an that it is unacceptable but should not always be punish- economic cost of about 10.3 billion euros each year.30 able by law (European Commission 2016b). Furthermore, Table 4: Women Who have Experienced Physi- while a small proportion (15 percent) of respondents in cal and/or Sexual Violence by a Partner and/or a the EU believe that domestic violence is a private matter Non-Partner since the Age of 15 that should be handled within the family, there is a pattern among several Eastern European countries, including Ro- Country Percent mania (32 percent), to view domestic violence as a private Denmark 52 matter. As a result, women may be less inclined to report cases of violence to authorities. Views like these hamper Finland 47 Romania’s ability to reduce violence against women. UK 44 France 44 However, the country deserves recognition for its adop- tion of legal and institutional measures to combat vi- Germany 35 olence against women. For example, Law No. 217/2003 Slovakia 34 on Preventing and Fighting against Domestic Violence EU 33 was amended in 2012 to provide for restraining orders. It Lithuania 31 also includes various definitions of violence such as ver- Romania 30 bal, psychological, physical, sexual, economic, and social Hungary 28 (EIGE 2016). The law criminalizes marital rape and the Criminal Code contains other provisions and criminal Bulgaria 28 penalties for sexual harassment (WBL). In 2012, the Ro- Slovenia 22 manian government published a national strategy for pre- Poland 19 venting and combating domestic violence, and signed and ratified the Istanbul Convention, the Council of Europe Source: FRA database 2014. agreement on combating violence against women and do- The Romanian population, in general, acknowledges mestic violence in general (EIGE 2016). the prevalence of this kind of violence. Eurobarometer 30 The study calculated cost of gender-based and intimate partner violence by lost economic output, provision of services (such as health, legal, and social), and personal (physical and emotional) impact on the victim. 51 Conclusions This Country Gender Assessment reviewed the state of equality between women and men in Romania in endowments, economic opportunities, and voice and agency. It found that Romania has made substantive progress on including gender equality both institutionally and legally into its policy agen- da. Certain indicators of gender equality have improved, while others remain stuck, indicating a need for further effort. Amid progress on sexual and reproductive health, Romania’s maternal mortality rate declined steadily from 1997 to 2007 but it has held steady in the past ten years. It remains one of the highest amongst EU member states at almost four times the grouping’s average. While there are no major differences between men and women in terms of enrollment rates in primary or secondary education, the rates are still low in comparison to EU averages. Furthermore, Romania has the EU’s third-highest share of “early leavers” (young people aged 18-24 who have com- pleted at most a lower secondary education and are not in further education or training). The share of women enrolled in tertiary education is higher than men’s, but Romania lags behind the EU in overall tertiary attainment. It nota- ble that girls are outperforming boys in reading and science. And Romanian women have become strongly engaged in the traditionally male-dominated fields of science, math, and computing, and make up comparably high shares of graduates in engineering and manufacturing. In terms of economic opportunities, female participation in the Romanian labor force remains limited. The gender gap in labor force participation in Romania is much larger than in the EU. Women and men who do not engage in paid work do so for different reasons: issues related to care and family duties are among the most prominent for women while men’s explanations center more around external constraints related to the supply side of jobs. Romania has the ECA region’s third-highest share of population living in households with seniors over the age of 65, which highlights the need for formal long-term care for elderly people. Regarding women’s voice and agency, Romanian women hold fewer seats in parliament than the EU average. Perception surveys suggest that gen- 52 R O M A N I A Gender assessment der norms and stereotypes with regards to participation Rural areas remain far behind urban areas in terms of of women in politics may be holding back their partic- poverty reduction, employment, education, and access ipation. Remarkably, there is considerable support from to services and infrastructure. Besides ethnicity, location both sexes for the idea that women should do most of of residence plays an important role in determining wel- the household chores even if the husband is not working. fare outcomes among women in Romania. Fertility rates Moreover, many people of both sexes believe that men are higher for women in rural areas, and rural women also make better political leaders than women and that men marry earlier than urban women. Access to modern con- should have more rights to jobs when they are scarce. Fur- traceptives is lower among rural women, and they are dis- thermore, gender-based violence remains a major chal- advantaged in prenatal care and qualified birth assistance lenge for Romania, with almost one in three women hav- as well. Rural women are more prone to certain health-re- ing experienced physical and/or sexual violence since the lated problems, notably cervical cancer, and they receive age of 15 and only few of those having reported the worst less preventive care. incident to the police. Finally, the adolescent fertility rate With regards to education, Romania’s high percentage is much higher than ECA and EU averages and stands at of early leavers is driven by location, with shares of ear- levels similar to those of poorer countries such as Rwanda, ly leavers more than four times higher in rural areas Haiti, Morocco, Vietnam, and Burundi. than in urban. Access to tertiary education is limited in It is important to note that aggregate national results rural areas. Labor force participation is lower among ru- may obscure substantial variations in development out- ral women compared to urban. In addition, educational comes among women and other groups in Romania. Be- attainment of adults is higher in rural areas than in cities, longing to the Roma population and living in rural areas which could contribute to the gaps in labor market out- of the country are strongly associated with poor outcomes comes among adults. along several welfare dimensions. Yet being Roma alone In summary, Romania is lagging behind the EU av- is enough to place a person at a strong disadvantage in erages on a number of aggregate indicators related to many human development indicators including educa- gender equality. For instance, with regards to endow- tion, health, and employment. ments, Romania is faring worse in maternal mortality Roma women fare worse on reproductive and sexual and overall educational achievement. While high shares health compared to non-Roma, and maternal mortal- of women have entered non-traditional sectors of educa- ity is more than 15 times higher among Roma women tion and the economy, women still remain disadvantaged than non-Roma. Roma face significant gender gaps with in the labor market, even more than their European peers. non-Roma concerning school enrollment, completion, In terms of voice and agency, political representation of and attainment of all levels of education. Furthermore, women is comparably low, and gender-based violence as Roma women are more disadvantaged in the labor mar- well as teenage pregnancy rates are serious issues of con- kets compared to their non-Roma female peers. Finally, cern. Moreover, these gender disparities are strongly in- family formation patterns differ, with Roma women mar- tertwined with ethnicity and location of residence. Roma rying earlier: Almost one in three Roma women is mar- women and rural women are more disadvantaged in al- ried by the age of 19, compared to one in fifty among the most all dimensions of gender equality. Similarly, strong non-Roma population. In addition, about 33 percent of discrepancies in outcomes occur between rural and urban Roma women and only 17 percent of the general Roma- women. Better understanding of the drivers of these deep- nian population are married by the age of 24. Age at first ened discrepancies will be crucial to crafting policies that birth follows a similar trend: 10 percent of Roma girls will improve gender relations for all Romanians, regard- have their first child when they are between the ages of 12- less of ethnicity or place of residence. 15, and close to half of them are mothers by the age of 18. 53 References Alexe, Iris, István Horváth, Ruxandra Noica, and Marieta Radu. 2012. “Social Impact of Emigration and Rural-Urban Migration in Central and Eastern Europe.” Cologne, Germany: GVG. Andreassen, Trude, Elisabete Weiderpass, Florian Nicula, Ofelia Suteu, An- dreea Itu, Minodora Bumbu, Aida Tincu, Giske Ursin, and Kare Moen. 2017. “Controversies about cervical cancer screening: A qualitative study of Roma women’s (non)participation in cervical cancer screening in Ro- mania.” Social Science & Medicine 183: 48-55. Andrén, Daniela, and Monica Roman. 2014. “Should I Stay or Should I Go? Romanian Migrants during Transition and Enlargements.” Bonn, Germa- ny: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA). ANES (National Agency for Equal Opportunities between Women and Men). 2017. “Gender equality week in Bucharest in the context of Romania’s jour- ney in implementing the HeforShe commitments.” Bucharest, Romania: ANES. Arbyn, Marc, Jerome Antoine, Zdravka Gardeva Valerianova, Margit Magi, Ai- vars Stengrevics, Giedre Smailyte, Oferlia Suteu, and Andrea Micheli. 2011. “Trends in cervical cancer incidence and mortality in the Baltic countries, Bulgaria and Romania.” International Journal of Cancer 128(8): 1899-1907. Azevedo, J., M. Favara, S. Haddock, L. Lopez-Calva, M. Muller, and E. Perova. 2013. “Teenage Pregnancy and Opportunities in Latin America and the Caribbean: On Early Child Bearing, Poverty and Economic Achievement.” Washington, DC: World Bank. Baetica, Radu. 2015. “Marriages and births in Romania: Romania between modernism and traditionalism.” Bucharest, Romania: National Institute of Statistics. BEEPS (Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey database). London: European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and World Bank (accessed November 2017). http://ebrd- beeps.com/data/) 54 R O M A N I A Gender assessment Budlender, Debbie. 2008. “The Debate about Household Headship.” Social Dy- namics 29 (2): 48-72. Castiglioni, Maria, Mihaela Hărăguş, Cristina Faludi, and Paul Teodor Hărăguş. 2016. “Is the Family System in Romania Similar to those of Southern Euro- pean Countries?” Comparative Population Studies 41 (1): 57-86. Chant, Sylvia. 2003. “Dangerous Equations? How Female-headed Households Became the Poorest of the Poor: Causes, Consequences and Cautions.” IDS Bulletin 35 (4) 19-26. –––––––.2008. “The Feminization of Poverty and the ‘Feminization’ of An- ti-Poverty Programmes: Room for Revision?” Journal of Development Studies 44 (2): 165-197. Council of Europe. 2016. “Romania ratifies the Istanbul Convention.” Stras- bourg, France: Council of Europe. Craciun, Catrinel, and Adriana Baban. 2012. “‘Who will take the blame?’ Un- derstanding the reasons why Romanian mothers decline HPV vaccination for their daughters.” Vaccine 30 (48): 6789-6793. Cuberes, David, and Marc Teignier. 2016. “Aggregate Effects of Gender Gaps in the Labor Market: A Quantitative Estimate.” Journal of Human Capital 10 (1): 1–32. EBRD (European Bank for Reconstruction and Development). 2016. “Life in Transition Survey.” London: EBRD. European Cancer Observatory database, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France. (accessed January 2018), http://eco.iarc.fr/Default. aspx) European Commission. 2012. “The current situation of gender equality in Ro- mania: Country Profile.” Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. –––––––. 2016. “European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination: Country report, Romania.” Brussels, Belgium: Euro- pean Commission. –––––––. 2016b. “Special Eurobarometer 449: Gender-based violence.” Brus- sels, Belgium. –––––––.2017. “Country Report Romania 2017.” European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. http://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/2017-europe- an-semester-country-report-romania-en.pdf –––––––. 2017b. “Special Eurobarometer 465: Gender Equality 2017.” Brus- sels, Belgium: European Commission. References 55 EIGE (European Institute for Gender Equality). 2014. “Estimating the costs of gender-based violence in the European Union.” Vilnius, Lithuania: EIGE. –––––––. 2016. “Combating Violence Against Women: Romania.” Vilnius, Lithuania: EIGE. –––––––. 2016b. “Gender in Entrepreneurship.” Vilnius, Lithuania: EIGE –––––––. 2017. “Romania.” Vilnius, Lithuania: EIGE –––––––. 2018. “Activity of Directorate of equal opportunities between wom- en and men (Ministry of Labor, Family and Social Protection) (former Na- tional Agency for Equal Opportunities between women and men-ANES).” Vilnius, Lithuania: EIGE, http://eige.europa.eu/men-and-gender-equal- ity/methods-and-tools/romania/activity-directorate-equal-opportuni- ties-between-women-and-men-ministry-labor-family-and-social-protec- tion-former. European Parliament. 2013. “Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care: Annex Report Country and Case Studies.” Brussels, Belgium: European Union. –––––––. 2015. “Maternity, paternity, and parental leave: Data related to du- ration and compensation rates in the European Union.” Brussels, Belgium: European Union. FRA (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights). 2014. “Violence against Women: An EU-Wide Survey, Main Results.” Brussels, Belgium: FRA. –––––––. 2016. “Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Sur- vey Roma—Selected findings.” FRA, Brussels, Belgium. Eurostat database. European Commission, Luxembourg (accessed December 2017), http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat. Fong, Monica, and Michael Lokhin. 2000. “Childcare and Women’s Labor Force Participation in Romania.” Washington, DC: World Bank Gatti, Roberta, Sandor Karacsony, Kosuke Anan, Celine Ferré, and Carmen de Paz Nieves. 2016. Being Fair, Faring Better: Promoting Equality of Opportu- nity for Marginalized Roma. Washington, DC: World Bank. Gender Statistics database. Washington, DC: World Bank (accessed Decem- ber 2017), https://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/gender-statistics. Grigore, Mihaela, Razvan Popovici, Anda Pristavu, Ana Maria Grigore, Mio- ara Matei, and Dumitru Gafitanu. 2017. “Perception and use of Pap smear screening among rural and urban women in Romania.” European Journal of Public Health 27(6): 1084-1088. 56 R O M A N I A Gender assessment HeForShe. 2016. “Head of State IMPACT Champion Klaus Werner Iohannis.” New York, New York: UN Women. Heilborn, M.L., and C. Cabral. 2011. “A New Look at Teenage Pregnancy in Brazil.” International Scholarly Research Network ISRN Obstetrics and Gynecology Volume 2011. Hoem, Jan M., Cornelia Muresan, and Mihaela Haragus. 2013. “Recent Fea- tures of Cohabitational and Marital Fertility in Romania.” Institut National d’Etudes Démographiques 68 (4) : 579-605. HPV Information Centre. 2017. “Human Papillomavirus and Related Diseases Report.” Barcelona, Spain: HPV Information Centre. IFC (International Financial Cooperation). 2016. “Profit with Purpose-Mak- ing Banking on Women Impactful: Learnings from BLC Bank Lebanon, Garanti Bank Romani, Garanti Bank Turkey.” Washington, DC: World Bank. INS (National Institute of Statistics of Romania). 2013. “Household Budget Survey.” Bucharest, Romania: INS. Jorgensen, S., S. King, and B. Torrey. 1980: “Dyadic and social network influ- ences on adolescent exposure to pregnancy risk.” Journal of Marriage and the Family; 42: 141-155. Kruger, D.I., M. Berthelon, and R.R. Soares. 2010. “Allocation of children’s time along gender lines: Work, school, and domestic work in Brazil.” In Child Labor and the Transition between School and Work, Research in La- bor Economics Vol. 31. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. Mitu, Bianca Marina, and Cristina Gabriella Serbanescu. 2014. “Women and Leadership in Post-Communist Romania.” Journal of Research in Gender Studies 4 (1): 633-639. Morrison, Andrew, Dhushyanth Raju, and Nistha Sinha. 2007. “Gender Equal- ity, Poverty and Economic Growth.” Policy Research Working Paper 4349, Washington, DC: World Bank. OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) data- base. Paris, France: OECD (accessed January 2018), http://www.oecd.org/ els/family/database.htm. PERFAR (Population Europe Resource Finder & Archive). 2014. “Family Pol- icies: Romania 2014.” Brussels, Belgium: PERFAR. Popa, Daniela. 2010. “The long-term care system for the elderly in Romania.” ENEPRI Research Report No. 85. June, 2010. References 57 President of Romania. 2015. “The speech addressed by the President of Roma- nia, H.E. Mr. Klaus Iohannis, at the Summit for Gender Equality.” Bucha- rest, Romania. RAND Europe. 2014. “Use of childcare in the EU Member States and progress towards the Barcelona targets.” Brussels, Belgium: European Union. Romania Chamber of Deputies. “Constitution of Romania.” http://www.cdep. ro/pls/dic/site.page?den=act2_2&par1=2#t2c1s0sba16 Romanian Ministry of Health (MoH), United Nations Population Fund (UNF- PA), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), United States Agency for International Development (USAID), JSI Research and Training Institute (JSI R&T), Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), World Health Organization (WHO), and Institute for Mother and Child Care “Alfred Rusescu” (IMCC). 2005. “Reproductive Health Survey: Romania 2004.” Romania National Institute of Statistics. 2013. “Time use in Romania.” Press release available at http://www.insse.ro/cms/files/statistici/comunicate/com_anuale/util_timpul/ utilizarea_timpului_e13.pdf Sen, Amartya. 1999: Development as Freedom. New York, New York: Alfred A. Knopf. SIGI (Social Institutions and Gender Index) database, OECD, Paris, France (accessed December 2017), https://www.genderindex.org/country/roma- nia/. Stativa, Ecaterina, Adrian V. Rus, Nicolae Suciu, Jacquelyn S. Pennings, Max E. Butterfield, Reggies Wenyika, and Rebecca Webster. 2014. “Characteristics and prenatal care utilization of Romanian pregnant women.” The European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care 19 (3): 220-226. Steinberg, C., and M. Nakane. 2012. “Can Women Save Japan?” IMF Working Paper 12/48. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund. Tas, Emcet O., Maira Emy Reimao, and Maria Beatriz Orlando. 2013. “Gender, ethnicity and cumulative disadvantage in education: Evidence from Latin American and African censuses.” Washington, DC: World Bank. UN (United Nations). 2015. “Trends in Contraceptive Use Worldwide 2015.” New York, New York: UN –––––––.2015b. “International Migration Report 2015: Highlights.” New York, New York: UN. UN Women (United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empower- ment of Women). 2015. “Statement by H.E. Mr. Klaus Iohannis, President 58 R O M A N I A Gender assessment of Romania, Global Leaders’ Meeting on Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment: A Commitment to Action.” New York, New York: UN Women –––––––.2016. “Law No. 217/2003 on the Preventing and Fighting against Family Violence.” New York, New York: UN Women, http://evaw-glob- al-database.unwomen.org/en/countries/europe/romania/2003/law-no- 217-2003-on-the-preventing-and-fighting-against-family-violence. UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund) database, New York, New York: UNICEF. (accessed December 2017), https://www.unicef.org/infobycoun- try/romania_statistics.html. –––––––. “Romania: Early education.” UNICEF, New York, New York. (ac- cessed December 2017), https://www.unicef.org/romania/children_1599. html. Van Belle, Janna. 2016. “Paternity and parental leave policies across the Euro- pean Union.” Cambridge, UK: RAND Europe. Vlădescu, Cristian, Silvia Gabriela Scîntee, Victor Olsavszky, Cristina Hernán- dez-Quevedo, and Anna Sagan. 2016. “Romania: Health System Review.” Health Systems in Transition 18(4). Copenhagen, Denmark: European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. Voinea, Liviu, and Lucian Liviu Albu. 2011. “Informal economy and its impact on the labor market.” Bucharest, Romania: BNS. WBL (Women, Business, and the Law) database. Washington, DC: World Bank. (accessed December 2017 at http://wbl.worldbank.org/. WDI (World Development Indicators) database, Washington, DC: World Bank. (accessed December 2017 at http://data.worldbank.org/data-cata- log/world-development-indicators WHO (World Health Organization). 2015. “Trends in Maternal Mortality: 1990 to 2015.” Geneva, Switzerland: WHO. –––––––. 2017. “WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2017: Mon- itoring tobacco use and prevention policies.” Geneva, Switzerland: WHO. World Bank. 2007.  Global Monitoring Report 2007. “Millennium Develop- ment Goals: Confronting the challenges of gender equality and fragile states.” Global Monitoring Report. Washington, DC: World Bank.  –––––––.2011. “World Development Report 2012: Gender and Development.” Washington, DC: World Bank. –––––––. 2014. “Diagnostics and policy advice for supporting Roma inclusion in Romania.” Washington, DC: World Bank. References 59 –––––––. 2015. World Bank Group Gender Strategy (FY16-23): Gender Equality, Poverty Reduction and Inclusive Growth. World Bank, Washing- ton, DC. –––––––. 2017. Magnet Cities: Migration and Commuting in Romania. Wash- ington, DC: World Bank. –––––––. 2017b. “Portraits of Labor Market Exclusion 2.0.” Country Policy Paper for Romania. Washington, DC: World Bank. –––––––. 2018. “Gender differences in poverty and household composition through the life-cycle: A global perspective.” Policy research working paper No. 8360. Washington, DC: World Bank. WEF (World Economic Forum). 2017. “The Global Gender Gap Report 2017.” Geneva, Switzerland: WEF. World Values Survey database, Vienna, Austria: World Values Survey Associ- ation. (accessed April 2018 at http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs.jsp) 60 THE WORLD BANK 1 8 1 8 H S T R E E T, N W, WA S H I N G T O N , D C 2 0 4 3 3 , U S A . www.worldbank.org