Reviewing the literature, it is clear that gender inequality has no positive effects on social development outcomes.

On growth, the net impact of gender inequality is quite ambiguous; it can be a great hindrance to growth or only circumstantially support it. Wages and income are rapidly affected and can change aggregate demand. These differences in wages and income regulate the incentive systems which plan investment in human capital, which in turn affects growth.

Gender gaps in education, on the other side are unfavorable to long term growth, due to the large positive externalities generated by female education, enhanced parental human capital dissemination and reduced fertility.

Gender inequality in health and life expectancy impede long term growth and efficiency due to reduced working lives and lower productivity levels. These health and education impacts are the obstacle produced by gender inequality to social development.

On social development, gender inequality is generally harmful, as equality improves societal health and education outcomes, as well as generating large externalities for society as a whole.

The economic effects of gender inequality are now well recognized, despite the lack of a precise and broad body of research and literature.

Chapters Two and Three emphasize the significance of gender equality in education and health as both are essential determinants of growth and social development. It is vital to continue this target to obtain the gains from improved female education while exercising concern not to overlook men’s own gender particular problems.

Gender equality is definitely a dominant economic tool for economic and social development, requiring the foundation of opportunities for both sexes to maintain long-term growth, economic efficiency, social development and good governance.

Ceteris paribus, there is enough evidence to believe that in the long-run, achievement of the goal of gender-equal opportunities in labor, health and education is far more efficient than the pervasive gender inequality we see today. The policy issue now will be to convert equality of opportunities into equal outcomes. The complexity of gender inequality does indeed stress that there may be a ‘market failure’ in achieving gender-equitable outcomes, but there is insufficient evidence to state whether or not forced outcomes will yield net productivity gains compared with the gender inequality existing conditions.

Gender gaps in health and life expectancy harm a nation’s long term growth and productivity, and in employment they have negative effects on aggregate demand and short run output. Furthermore, female capital per worker has been shown to have a higher return than male capital per worker, and practical application of neoclassical theory shows that a higher steady-state output and growth rate will correspond with capital investment that is skewed towards the female. The benefits and costs to economic growth imposed by gender inequality are clearly skewed so that a reduction in gender inequality is a more favorable outcome to reach a higher long-term growth path, as the circumstantial and exceptional studies are somewhat more myopic and set over a certain period.

Gender inequality may also promote growth in that it is a second-best solution for a male dominated political conflict and civil unrest which arises out of inequality. Having women bear the greater share of a nation’s income inequality, as they have historically done in patriarchal societies, may be a preferred option to society as a whole bearing this burden. It will decrease the likelihood of militant groups forming, and conflict then erupting over income inequality, which would create a far greater obstacle to growth.