← Back to ResearchGEVI Research Series · G20 Countries · Paper 14

Saudi ArabiaEconomic Visibility

Shape. The strongest dimension is D2 Job quality and seniority (0.900); the weakest is D4 Institutional visibility (0.360). A Shapley attribution of the 48.2-point gap to full parity assigns the largest share, 14.5 points (30%), to D1 Labour participation.

51.8GEVI / 100 · Partial band

Evidence. Of 13 inputs, 12 are grade A, 0 are grade B and 1 is grade C (imputed), a blind-spot ratio of 0.08. The imputed inputs are placeholders and widen the interval.

AuthorSujoy Maitra
ORCID iD Logo0009-0009-1319-3706
PaperMCWP-2026-66
Publication Date29 Sept 2026
DOI
LABOUR GATESSAUDI ARABIA
Saudi Arabia labour gatesThree reported rounded parity calculations form D1: I1 0.403, I2 0.600, I3 0.353. Reported D1 dimension score 0.4522. The S4 labour access scenario yields +6.6 GEVI points.لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول اللهSAUDI ARABIALABOUR PARTICIPATION · D1 INPUTSI1 Labour force participation0.403I2 Youth NEET0.600I3 Youth unemployment0.353D1 0.4522S4 labour access scenario · +6.6 points
S4 LABOUR ACCESS SCENARIO +6.6 POINTS
GEVI score51.8
Rank18 / 19
Blind-spot ratio0.08

Reported research measures. Animation reveals the graphic; it does not represent change over time.

01

Abstract

Result. Saudi Arabia scores 51.8 out of 100 on the Gender Economic Visibility Index, in the Partial band. The 90% uncertainty interval from 10,000 joint Monte Carlo draws is 48.1 to 56.1 (median 51.8). Its point rank is 18 of 19, and across the same draws the rank has a median of 18 with a 5th to 95th percentile range of 18 to 18.

Shape. The strongest dimension is D2 Job quality and seniority (0.900); the weakest is D4 Institutional visibility (0.360). A Shapley attribution of the 48.2-point gap to full parity assigns the largest share, 14.5 points (30%), to D1 Labour participation.

Evidence. Of 13 inputs, 12 are grade A, 0 are grade B and 1 is grade C (imputed), a blind-spot ratio of 0.08. The imputed inputs are placeholders and widen the interval.

Download full paper PDF
02

Inputs and parity calculations

Inputs and parity scores

ID table
IDIndicatorRawScoreGradeSD
I1Labour force participationwomen 33.6, men 83.3 (2025)0.4034A0.02
I2Youth NEETwomen 21.0, men 12.6 (2024)0.6000A0.02
I3Youth unemploymentwomen 19.7, men 6.96 (2025)0.3533A0.02
I4Non-vulnerable employmentwomen 4.13, men 1.14 (2025)0.9698A0.02
I5Senior and middle managementnot available0.7460C0.12
I6Wage and salaried employmentwomen 93.2, men 94.7 (2025)0.9842A0.02
I7Firm ownership4.85% (2022)0.0970A0.02
I8WBL legal frameworks56.2 (2025)0.5620A0.02
I9WBL enforcement51 (2026)0.5100A0.02
I10WBL supportive frameworks72 (2026)0.7200A0.02
I11Women ministers0.0% (2024)0.0000A0.02
I12Women MPs19.9% (2026)0.3980A0.02
I13Data availability10 of 12 rows0.8333A0.02

The labour, management, enterprise and legal inputs (I1 to I11) come from the World Bank Gender Data Landscape for this economy (April 2026 edition, including Women, Business and the Law 2026). The parliamentary share (I12) comes from the Inter-Parliamentary Union monthly ranking as of 1 August 2026.

Step 1: Indicator calculations

GEVI has three layers: 13 indicators, 5 dimensions and one composite. Each indicator is converted to a parity score, each dimension is the simple mean of its indicators, and the composite is a weighted geometric mean of the dimensions. Three principles govern the design: parity scores avoid arbitrary goalposts; substitutability is allowed within a dimension but not across dimensions; and every input carries an evidence grade that sets its uncertainty.

ID table
IDCalculationScore
I1min(33.6 / 83.3, 1) = 0.4030.403
I2min(12.6 / 21.0, 1) = 0.6000.600
I3min(6.96 / 19.7, 1) = 0.3530.353
I4min((100 - 4.13) / (100 - 1.14), 1) = min(95.9 / 98.9, 1) = 0.9700.970
I5imputed series median 0.7460.746
I6min(93.2 / 94.7, 1) = 0.9840.984
I7min(4.85 / 50, 1) = 0.0970.097
I856.2 / 100 = 0.5620.562
I951 / 100 = 0.5100.510
I1072 / 100 = 0.7200.720
I11min(0.0 / 50, 1) = 0.0000.000
I12min(19.9 / 50, 1) = 0.3980.398
I1310 / 12 = 0.8330.833

Step 2: Dimension scores

Dim table
DimCalculationScore
D10.403 + 0.600 + 0.353 = 1.357; / 30.4522
D20.970 + 0.746 + 0.984 = 2.700; / 30.9000
D30.097 + 0.562 + 0.510 = 1.169; / 30.3897
D40.720 + 0.000 = 0.720; / 20.3600
D50.398 + 0.833 = 1.231; / 20.6157

The base weights (0.25, 0.20, 0.20, 0.15, 0.20) reflect the emphasis on labour participation and on statistical voice. They are a prior, not an estimate, which is why the paper tests seven weighting schemes, including data-driven entropy and principal-component weights computed from the 15-economy dimension matrix.

03

Aggregation, uncertainty and sensitivity

Step 3: Aggregation trace

Term table
TermCalculationValue
D10.4522 ^ 0.250.82004
D20.9000 ^ 0.200.97914
D30.3897 ^ 0.200.82821
D40.3600 ^ 0.150.85792
D50.6157 ^ 0.200.90755
Product0.8200 x 0.9791 x 0.8282 x 0.8579 x 0.90750.51777
GEVI100 x product51.78

Check in logs: sum of w ln D = -0.65823; exp = 0.51777; times 100 = 51.78.

Step 4: Uncertainty and sensitivity

For each of 10,000 draws the model samples all 13 indicator scores from truncated normal distributions and the five dimension weights from a Dirichlet distribution, then recomputes the index. The same seed (2026) is used for every economy, which means all economies share the same weight draws. That is intentional: weight uncertainty is common to the whole series, so rank comparisons are made under identical weights in each draw.

Each input has a grade with a standard deviation applied to its score: A = 0.02, B = 0.06, C = 0.12. The standard deviations are judgemental settings that express how much a reader should trust a value; they are not estimated from replications. Section 7.5 shows the effect of changing the settings that matter most.

Robustness. Across seven weighting schemes the rank runs from 18 to 18; across ten alternative specifications (benchmark, parity cap and imputation rule) it runs from 18 to 18. The score changes by at most 3.5 points across those specifications.

p1 table
p1p5p10p25p50p75p90p95p99MeanSD
46.7348.0948.8350.1551.7553.4855.1256.1558.3551.902.48

Weight uncertainty explains 73.5% of the output variance; the grade C (imputed) inputs explain 3.3%. Weights and measured inputs, not imputation, drive the spread.

04

Gaps, scenarios and priorities

Step 5: Where the gap is

The gap to full parity is 48.2 points. Because the geometric mean is non-additive, the contribution of one dimension depends on the state of the others. Shapley values average each dimension’s marginal contribution over all 5! orderings of the dimensions, so they sum exactly to the gap. v(S) is the GEVI obtained when the dimensions in S are set to 1.

Dim table
DimShapley pointsShare of gapShortfall of score (x100)
D114.5130.1%54.8
D313.7928.6%61.0
D411.2323.3%64.0
D57.1314.8%38.4
D21.563.2%10.0

Scenario simulation and pathways

Levers. The largest single-lever scenario among S1 to S6 is "S4 Labour access: halve the gap to parity", worth +6.6 points. A greedy pathway of +0.10 steps on measured indicators reaches the next threshold, 65 points, after 15 steps; at an illustrative improvement of 0.02 a year on every measured indicator it takes 8 years.

Scenario table
ScenarioGEVIGainp5Medianp95
S1 Data coverage to 9 of 12 rows51.8+0.048.251.856.1
S2 Institutions: supportive frameworks 50%, ministers 15%54.6+2.850.954.458.4
S3 Legal: legal and enforcement scores +0.1053.4+1.749.953.457.6
S4 Labour access: halve the gap to parity58.4+6.653.958.563.2
S5 Politics: women 15% of parliament51.8+0.048.251.856.1
S6 Enterprise: management and firm ownership to 0.7556.6+4.852.956.660.8
S7 Combined S1 to S668.6+16.965.568.471.6
S8 Series best-in-class on every measured indicator95.1+43.392.294.195.5

The pathway adds 0.10 to one measured indicator at a time, always choosing the step that raises GEVI most, until the composite reaches the next threshold above the current score (50, 65, 80, 90 or 95) or no measured indicator can rise further. It is an ordering of priorities, not a forecast.

Step table
StepIDIndicatorScore changeGEVI after
1I10WBL supportive frameworks0.72 to 0.8252.8
2I1Labour force participation0.40 to 0.5053.7
3I10WBL supportive frameworks0.82 to 0.9254.7
4I1Labour force participation0.50 to 0.6055.6
5I7Firm ownership0.10 to 0.2056.5
6I12Women MPs0.40 to 0.5057.4
7I1Labour force participation0.60 to 0.7058.3
8I11Women ministers0.00 to 0.1059.2
9I7Firm ownership0.20 to 0.3060.1
10I1Labour force participation0.70 to 0.8061.0
11I12Women MPs0.50 to 0.6061.9
12I7Firm ownership0.30 to 0.4062.8
13I11Women ministers0.10 to 0.2063.7
14I1Labour force participation0.80 to 0.9064.6
15I12Women MPs0.60 to 0.7065.4

Priorities

I11 Women ministers. Publish an annual appointments series by sex for ministerial and board posts.

I7 Firm ownership. Record owner sex on business registrations and refresh the enterprise survey.

I3 Youth unemployment. Diagnose whether the youth unemployment gap is demand-side or a matching problem using survey microdata.

Restore a fiscal indicator. Add a sex field to wage-tax and taxpayer records and publish an annual gender tax profile, so that D4 can include a direct measure of visibility in the tax system.

05

Practical use and data strategy

How to use this data

Data product table
Data productPrimary userDecision it informsCadence
Ministerial and board appointments by sexCabinet office, public service commissionA measured record of decision-making representationAnnual
Firm ownership by owner sex from the business registerCompany registry, revenue authority, small-business agencyWhether women-owned firms use incentives at the same rateAnnual
Youth unemployment by sex, education and regionLabour ministry, statistics officeWhether to fund job creation or placement supportEach survey round
Sex-disaggregated taxpayer and wage-tax statisticsRevenue authority, treasuryWho is in the formal tax base and who receives refunds and creditsAnnual

Saudi Arabia’s use case is to turn parity gaps into named data products with named owners, so that each year’s re-run of the index shows which product moved which indicator.

Data strategy

Data product table
Data productOwnerIndicatorsEffect
Sex field on wage-tax returns and taxpayer registrationsRevenue authorityAdds a fiscal indicator (I14, proposed)Restores the fiscal indicator the index was designed to have
Keep the core 12-row table current and add a fiscal (taxpayer) rowNational statistics office and revenue authorityI13 and a proposed I14Coverage is already 10 of 12; the gain is a new fiscal indicator, not more rows

Scope and limitations

Weights are a prior. The weights express a view, not an estimate. Chapter 7 shows their effect, but no data can identify the right weights.

Uncertainty settings are judgemental. The standard deviations 0.02, 0.06 and 0.12 are settings, not measurements. If they were larger the intervals would widen.

Source heterogeneity. Inputs come from different years and sources; older values carry a wider standard deviation, but a level shift caused by definitions is not modelled.

No causal claim. The scenarios show what the index would do if an indicator changed. They do not show that a policy would change the indicator.

Fiscal indicator absent. No sex-disaggregated taxpayer statistic was found, so the index does not yet measure visibility in the tax system directly.