International Rankings, Domestic Institutions, and Gender Policy: Comparative Evidence from Denmark and Uzbekistan
Keywords:
gender policy, international rankings, governance by indicators, norm diffusion, Denmark, UzbekistanAbstract
International rankings have become influential instruments of global governance, shaping state behavior through reputational pressure, benchmarking, and norm diffusion. Gender equality indices such as the Global Gender Gap Index and the Gender Inequality Index increasingly affect domestic policy agendas and international legitimacy strategies. This article examines how international gender rankings influence national gender policy in two structurally different states: Denmark and Uzbekistan. Using a qualitative comparative case study design grounded in governance by indicators and constructivist international relations theory, the article argues that rankings influence domestic gender policy through distinct mechanisms shaped by institutional context. In Denmark, rankings function primarily as instruments of policy reinforcement within an established gender equality regime. In Uzbekistan, they operate mainly as tools of international legitimation and external signaling within a transitional reform environment. The study demonstrates that the impact of rankings depends not only on external pressure but also on domestic institutional capacity and the presence of actors capable of translating indicators into sustained policy change. The findings contribute to debates on global governance and indicator-based governance.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 The author(s)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
Broome, A., & Quirk, J. (2015). Governing the world at a distance: The practice of global benchmarking. Review of International Studies, 41(5), 819–841. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210515000340
Davis, K. E., Kingsbury, B., & Merry, S. E. (2012). Governance by indicators: Global power through quantification and rankings. Oxford University Press.
Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1086/517897
Eurostat. (2023). Gender pay gap statistics. European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat
Kandiyoti, D. (2007). The politics of gender and the Soviet paradox: Neither colonized, nor modern? Central Asian Survey, 26(4), 601–623. https://doi.org/10.1080/02634930701695242
Kelley, J. G., & Simmons, B. A. (2015). Politics by number: Indicators as social pressure in international relations. American Journal of Political Science, 59(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12119
Matveeva, A. (2018). Women and gender relations in Central Asia. Chatham House.
Merry, S. E. (2011). Measuring the world: Indicators, human rights, and global governance. Current Anthropology, 52(S3), S83–S95. https://doi.org/10.1086/657241
Merry, S. E. (2016). The seductions of quantification: Measuring human rights, gender violence, and sex trafficking. University of Chicago Press.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2023). Human Development Report 2023/2024: Gender equality datasets. https://hdr.undp.org
World Bank. (2024). Gender Data Portal: Uzbekistan country profile. https://genderdata.worldbank.org
World Economic Forum. (2024). Global Gender Gap Report 2024. https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-gender-gap-report-2024/