Key findings

Across the UK, no local authority has achieved full equality between women and men.

Substantial disparities exist across localities with men on average showing higher outcomes in Paid Work, Money and Power & Participation. Conversely, women’s outcomes are higher in Education and Health, and they spend more time on Unpaid Work, including childcare and domestic work.

The most gender-equal local authorities are concentrated in London and the North West. However, the dynamics differ significantly between these localities, illustrating that a narrow gender gap in and of itself is not necessarily a good thing – rather, it depends on the outcomes for both women and men. Considering gender gaps in conjunction with women’s and men’s local outcomes exposes different ‘types of gender equality’, explained in more detail below.

In London, areas like Kingston upon Thames and Hammersmith and Fulham showcase high outcomes for both women and men, reflecting shared progress. They therefore fall into the category of places we describe as ‘Prime parity’: those where both levels of equality between women and men and the outcomes seen for them are particularly high.

Conversely, in the North West, areas such as Blackpool, Manchester and the Wirral achieve high gender equality but only because women and men there have similarly poor outcomes – hence they are in our category of places experiencing ‘Equal erosion’.

Finally, we find high levels of gender equality alongside average outcomes for women and men in South Ribble, Worthing and the Wyre, examples of ‘Partial progress’.

The local authorities with the lowest gender equality also turn out to be areas where both women’s and men’s outcomes fall below the national average. These areas exemplify a type of gender equality we term ‘Deep disparities’: where both gender equality and socioeconomic outcomes are low.

Spread across the four nations, many of these bottom-ranking local authorities share economic challenges following the decline of their traditional industries, such as manufacturing, agriculture or fishing. The patterns exposed by the GEIUK highlight a pressing need for targeted, place-based interventions that simultaneously raise gender equality levels while improving the structural and economic conditions in an area.

The GEIUK reveals four distinct ‘types of gender equality’ existing across UK local authorities that emerge when analysing the GEIUK measures in combination. They underscore the diverse ways in which gender equality manifests within the socioeconomic landscapes of different regions.

The four types of gender equality comprise:

• Prime Parity: This type represents local authorities where both women and men experience the highest socioeconomic outcomes alongside the highest levels of gender equality. Concentrated in the East of England (e.g. St Albans), London (e.g. Wandsworth) and the South East (e.g. Guildford), these areas benefit from robust local productivity and high economic activity among women and men, paired with low levels of deprivation. This type highlights the potential for aligning gender equality with prosperity for both genders.

• Equal Erosion: While the second type also shows higher levels of gender equality, these sit alongside poor outcomes for both women and men. Predominantly found in the North West (e.g. Rochdale), Wales (e.g. Merthyr Tydfil) and the West Midlands (e.g. Birmingham), these areas face higher levels of deprivation and lower local productivity. This type illustrates that a narrow gender gap can also emerge from shared challenges.

• Partial Progress: This type describes local authorities where women and men achieve moderate outcomes and exhibit moderate levels of gender equality. This is the most widespread type, with significant representation across all four nations. However, it is particularly concentrated in Scotland (e.g. Midlothian), the South East (e.g. Canterbury) and the South West (e.g. South Somerset). These areas typically show average productivity, economic activity rates and deprivation levels, pointing to opportunities for further progress.

• Deep disparities: The final type represents local authorities where both women and men fare poorly, while the gender gap remains significant. Concentrated in Northern Ireland (e.g. Derry City and Strabane), Wales (e.g. Merthyr Tydfil) and Yorkshire and the Humber (e.g. Bradford), these regions face the highest levels of deprivation, low economic activity of both genders and, in turn, low local productivity. This type highlights regions where government intervention and investment are urgently needed to equitably improve the living standards of both women and men.

The four types illustrate the complexity of gender equality across the UK. A narrow gender gap can result from either shared prosperity or shared deprivation. These findings emphasise the importance of adopting a dual strategy: advancing gender equality while improving overall socioeconomic conditions for both women and men through interventions tailored to the local context.

The GEIUK shows that gender equality is not a zero-sum game: it flourishes where women and men do well. Conversely, lower outcomes for women and men often coincide with lower gender equality. Importantly, no type of gender equality exists that combines high outcomes for both women and men with large gender gaps.

The GEIUK provides evidence of a positive association between gender equality and greater local productivity and economic activity, highlighting the wider socioeconomic benefits of gender equality.

Interestingly, it finds no linear relationship between gender equality and deprivation. Instead, the four types of gender equality indicate that this relationship is more complex.

Highlighting where gender and geographical inequalities exist and how they may limit growth offers early insights into untapped productivity potential across the UK. Moving forward, integrating gender equality into regional development strategies will be crucial to ensuring that economic gains are equitably distributed across the UK’s diverse local areas.

Gender inequalities are especially large in the domain of Unpaid Work (e.g. childcare and domestic tasks), where women show greater involvement, and Power & Participation (e.g. political voice, business leadership and civic engagement), where they are trailing behind men.

In contrast, gender inequalities in the domains of Health, Money, Education and Paid Work tend to be narrower. This pattern reflects a ‘stalled revolution’: although women have made significant strides in education and the labour market, deeply rooted gender inequalities persist in care responsibilities and leadership roles.

In addition to its links with gender equality, we find that men’s greater involvement in Unpaid Work is positively associated with higher socioeconomic outcomes for men. Within the framework of the GEIUK, this indicates that childcare and domestic work contribute to men's overall socioeconomic outcomes.

In contrast, the association is negligible for women, suggesting that childcare and domestic work have little impact on women’s socioeconomic status, though it does negatively affect gender equality.

While these findings reveal meaningful patterns, they do not establish causality and should be understood as significant relationships that merit further investigation into the dynamics at play.

The GEIUK provides evidence of a great divergence in outcomes that confirms the North-South divide, as shown in the maps of the Women’s Outcomes Measure and Men’s Outcomes Measure.

Women and men tend to exhibit above-average outcomes in the South of England, while those in the North of England and Wales more often fall behind. Patterns in Northern Ireland and Scotland are more mixed, with the gap between local and national outcomes often larger for men than for women. Further, men’s higher outcomes are more geographically concentrated in the South than women’s outcomes.