Submitted:
14 November 2024
Posted:
18 November 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
1.1. Gender Norms, Attitudes & Financial Perceptions
1.2. Finance in the Context of Mexico

1.3. Girl Rising
1.3.1. GR Partners
2. Methods
2.1. Study Design
2.2. Study Sample
2.3. Instruments and Measures
2.3.1. Gender Equitable Attitudes and Norms
2.3.2. Gender-Based Financial Perceptions
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
4.1. Limitations
4.2. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgements
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A: Definitions of the gender equitable attitudes and norms sub-domains
- Roles: Expectations of what an individual is supposed to or required to do based on familial, cultural, and/or social norms.Privileges: Advantages that members of one gender face over the other gender.
- Restrictions: Disadvantages that members of one gender face over the other gender.
- Attributes: A direct comparison between boys and girls in which boys are considered to be more superior to girls.
- Violence: Experiences of social norms regarding physical and/or sexual abuse of girls and women.
| 1 | Financial inclusion refers to “The access and usage of a portfolio of financial products and services for the population, under an appropriate regulatory framework that protects the interests of users and promotes its financial capabilities” (The Global Partnership for Financial Inclusion, 2012) |
| 2 | Credit Suisse Financial Education Initiative - https://www.credit-suisse.com/media/assets/about-us/docs/our-company/corporate-responsibility/economy-society/fei-financial-education-fact-sheet.pdf
|
| 3 | Aflatoun International - https://aflatoun.org
|
| 4 | Glasswing International - https://glasswing.org/es/
|
| 5 | CIAM Cancún - https://www.ciamcancun.org/
|
References
- OECD, OECD/INFE 2020 International Survey of Adult Financial Literacy, 2020. Available online: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/finance-and-investment/oecd-infe-2020-international-survey-of-adult-financial-literacy_145f5607-en (accessed on 29 October 2024).
- A. Lusardi, O.S. Mitchell, The Economic Importance of Financial Literacy: Theory and Evidence, Journal of Economic Literature 52 (2014) 5–44. [CrossRef]
- OECD, Promoting Financial Inclusion through Financial Education, OECD (2013). https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/promoting-financial-inclusion-through-financial-education_5k3xz6m88smp-en.html (accessed , 2024). 29 October.
- A. Lusardi, F.-A. Messy, The importance of financial literacy and its impact on financial wellbeing, Journal of Financial Literacy and Wellbeing 1 (2023) 1–11. [CrossRef]
- Mitchell, A. Lusardi, Financial Literacy and Economic Outcomes: Evidence and Policy Implications, The Journal of Retirement 3 (2015) 107–114. [CrossRef]
- Save the Children, How Harmful Gender Norms Create an Unequal World for Children, Save the Children (n.d.). Available online: https://www.savethechildren.org/us/charity-stories/how-gender-norms-impact-boys-and-girls (accessed on 29 October 2024).
- UNFPA, UNICEF, Technical Note on Gender Norms, United Nations Population Fund (2020). Available online: https://www.unfpa.org/resources/technical-note-gender-norms (accessed on 29 October 2024).
- R. Fonseca, K.J. R. Fonseca, K.J. Mullen, G. Zamarro, J. Zissimopoulos, What Explains the Gender Gap in Financial Literacy? The Role of Household Decision Making, The Journal of Consumer Affairs 46 (2012) 90–106. [CrossRef]
- H.E. Peters, S. Adelstein, R. Abare, Gender Norms and Women’s Economic Empowerment in Low-Income Countries: What We Learned by Reviewing the Evidence, Urban Institute (2019). Available online: https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/gender-norms-and-womens-economic-empowerment-low-income-countries-what-we-learned-reviewing-evidence.
- C. Boggio, F. Coda Moscarola, A. Gallice, What is good for the goose is good for the gander?, Economics of Education Review 75 (2020) 101952. [CrossRef]
- B. Greimel-Fuhrmann1, M. Silgoner, Analyzing the Gender Gap in Financial Literacy, International Journal for Infonomics (IJI) 11 (2018). [CrossRef]
- A. Lusardi, Financial literacy and the need for financial education: evidence and implications, Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics 155 (2019). [CrossRef]
- L. Klapper, A. Lusardi, P. van Oudheusden, Financial Literacy Around the World: Insights From The Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services Global Financial Literacy Survey, Global Financial Literacy Excellence Center (2015). https://gflec.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Finlit_paper_16_F2_singles.pdf.
- OECD, Women and Financial Education: Evidence, Policy Responses and Guidance, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2013. [CrossRef]
- J. Billimoria, Why young people are key to achieving the SDGs, World Economic Forum (2016). Available online: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/09/why-young-people-are-key-to-achieving-the-sdgs/ (accessed on 29 October 2024).
- The Global Goals, Goal 4: Quality education, The Global Goals (2021). Available online: https://www.globalgoals.org/goals/4-quality-education/ (accessed on 29 October 2024).
- A.-E. Hietanen, S. Pick, Gender Stereotypes, Sexuality, and Culture in Mexico, in: Psychology of Gender Through the Lens of Culture, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2015: pp. 285–305. [CrossRef]
- OECD, The Pursuit of Gender Equality: An Uphill Battle, OECD Web Archive (2017). Available online: https://web-archive.oecd.org/2018-07-18/451014-Gender2017-MEX-en (accessed on 29 October 2024).
- A. Mungaray, N. Gonzalez Arzabal, G. Osorio Novela, Financial education and its effect on income in Mexico, Problemas Del Desarrollo. Revista Latinoamericana de Economía 52 (2021). [CrossRef]
- Maravalle, A.G. Pandiella, Expanding access to finance to boost growth and reduce inequalities in Mexico, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1717, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2022. [CrossRef]
- A.V. Amezcua, J.A.H. Everardo, Financial Literacy and Mathematics: A Study among Young Mexican High School Students, Revista Mexicana de Economía y Finanzas 12 (2016) 1–22. https://www.redalyc.org/journal/4237/423750525001/html/.
- E.O. Arceo-Gómez, F.A. Villagómez, Financial literacy among Mexican high school teenagers, International Review of Economics Education 24 (2017) 1–17. [CrossRef]
- A.B. Valencia Álvarez, J.R. Valenzuela González, Financial Literacy: Gaps Found Between Mexican Public and Private, Middle, and High-School Students, in: Research Anthology on Personal Finance and Improving Financial Literacy, IGI Global, 2021: pp. 518–543. [CrossRef]
- J. Antonio López Cabrera, How Mexico is Tackling Financial Inclusion, Baker Institute (2023). Available online: https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/how-mexico-tackling-financial-inclusion (accessed on 29 October 2024).
- P. Achyut, N. Bhatla, S. Khandekar, S. Maitra, R.K. Verma, Building Support for Gender Equality Young Adolescents in School: Findings from Mumbai, India., ICRW, New Delhi, 2011. Available online: https://www.icrw.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/GEMS-Building-Support-for-Gender-Equality-Adolescents.pdf (accessed on 29 October 2024).
- UNICEF, Evaluation of Empowering Young Girls and Women in Maharashtra, India, UNICEF Evaluation (2014). Available online: https://www.unicef.org/evaluation/reports#/detail/103/evaluation-of-empowering-young-girls-and-women-in-maharashtra-india (accessed on 29 October 2024).
- G. Nanda, Compendium of Gender Scales, FHI 360/C-Change, Washington, DC, 2011. Available online: https://objects.scraper.bibcitation.com/user-pdfs/2024-10-29/2400ec7a-a696-48a7-9329-b10d90d91ea9.pdf (accessed on 29 October 2024).
- D. Gould, Using vignettes to collect data for nursing research studies: how valid are the findings?, Journal of Clinical Nursing 5 (1996) 207–212. [CrossRef]
- Silva, A.S.; Campos-Silva, W.L.; Gouvea, M.A.; Farina, M.C. Vignettes: a data collection technique to handle the differential operation of items in surveys, BBR. Brazilian Business Review 2019, 16, 16–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- P. Profeta, Gender Equality in Decision-Making Positions: The Efficiency Gains, Intereconomics 52 (2017) 34–37. [CrossRef]
- S. Sundarasen, U. Rajagopalan, M. Kanapathy, K. Kamaludin, Women’s financial literacy: A bibliometric study on current research and future directions, Heliyon 9 (2023) e21379. [CrossRef]
| Overall % (N) or Mean (SD) N = 979 |
Boys % (N) N = 385 |
Girls % (N) N = 580 |
|
| Grade*** | |||
| 1st grade of secondary school | 18.5% (180) | 22.3% (86) | 16.1% (93) |
| 2nd grade of secondary school | 15.1% (147) | 19.7% (76) | 12.1% (70) |
| 3rd grade of secondary school | 13.6% (133) | 23.6% (91) | 7.3% (42) |
| 1-2 semesters of high school | 30.1% (293) | 19.7% (76) | 36.4% (210) |
| 3-4 semesters of high school | 22.8% (222) | 14.5% (56) | 28.1% (162) |
| Age*** | |||
| Range: 11 – 19 years | 14.62 (± 1.54) | 14.26 (± 1.53) | 14.85 (± 1.51) |
| School*** | |||
| Octavio Paz (Tijuana) | 21.8% (212) | 28.2% (108) | 17.6% (102) |
| Telesecundaria General (León) | 25.4% (247) | 37.3% (143) | 18.0% (104) |
| Conalep (Cancún) | 52.9% (515) | 34.5% (132) | 64.4% (372) |
| Sibling type (participants selected all options that applied) | |||
| Older brothers | 39.4% (386) | 143 (37.1%) | 237 (40.9%) |
| Younger brothers* | 33.0% (323) | 146 (37.9%) | 174 (30.0%) |
| Older sisters | 33.4% (327) | 126 (32.7%) | 193 (33.3%) |
| Younger sisters | 32.1% (314) | 128 (33.2%) | 184 (31.7%) |
| Do not have any brothers or sisters | 7.2% (70) | 29 (7.5%) | 41 (7.1%) |
| Household composition (participants selected all options that applied) | |||
| Male parent/guardian* | 66.2% (648) | 276 (71.7%) | 365 (62.9%) |
| Female parent/guardian | 87.9% (861) | 332 (86.2%) | 517 (89.1%) |
| Brothers/Sisters | 63.7% (624) | 231 (60.0%) | 383 (66.0%) |
| Grandparents | 13.1% (128) | 50 (13.0%) | 77 (13.3%) |
| Aunts/Uncles | 6.0% (59) | 22 (5.7%) | 36 (6.2%) |
| Cousins | 3.8% (37) | 13 (3.4%) | 23 (4.0%) |
| Others | 1.8% (18) | 7 (1.8%) | 10 (1.7%) |
| Gender Equitable Attitudes and Norms Subdomains | Overall Mean (SD) |
Boys Mean (SD) |
Girls Mean (SD) |
|
Gender equitable attitudes and norms scale α = 0.863, Mean = 4.24 (± 0.589) |
N = 963 | N = 383 | N = 580 |
| Sub-domain: Roles/privileges/restrictions*** | |||
| Boys should be fed before girls during meals.† | 4.30 (± 0.927) | 4.17 (± 1.064) | 4.39 (± 0.814) |
| Boys should get health services more than girls.† | 4.36 (± 0.882) | 4.17 (± 1.010) | 4.48 (± 0.761) |
| Boys should go to school more than girls.† | 4.39 (± 0.868) | 4.22 (± 0.977) | 4.50 (± 0.770) |
| When a man/husband/father and woman/wife/mother disagree about the number of children to have, the husband’s opinion matters more.† | 4.39 (± 0.870) | 4.09 (± 0.975) | 4.58 (± 0.734) |
| A man/husband/father should have final say in all family matters.† | 4.21 (± 1.041) | 3.86 (±1.187) | 4.45 (± 0.858) |
| Girls need their parents’ protection more than boys.† | 3.26 (± 1.193) | 3.00 (± 1.264) | 3.42 (± 1.114) |
| Girls and boys should share household tasks equally. | 4.43 (± 1.002) | 4.13 (± 1.220) | 4.63 (± 0.767) |
| Girls can be as good at being a leader as boys. | 4.31 (± 1.053) | 3.91 (± 1.242) | 4.57 (± 0.805) |
| Subdomainα = 0.789, Mean = 4.21 (± 0.622) | |||
| Sub-domain: Attributes*** | |||
| Boys are better at math and science than girls.† | 4.08 (± 1.028) | 3.78 (± 1.056) | 4.28 (± 0.958) |
| Boys are naturally better at sports than girls.† | 3.72 (± 1.223) | 3.18 (± 1.313) | 4.07 (± 1.014) |
| Boys are naturally smarter than girls.† | 4.19 (± 0.959) | 3.83 (± 1.052) | 4.42 (± 0.812) |
| Subdomainα = 0.8, Mean = 3.99 (± 0.904) | |||
| Sub-domain: Violence*** | |||
| There are times when a husband or boy needs to hit his wife or girlfriend.† | 4.77 (± 0.566) | 4.67 (± 0.671) | 4.83 (± 0.474) |
| Girls like to be teased by boys.† | 4.45 (± 0.873) | 4.3 (± 0.926) | 4.55 (± 0.820) |
| Subdomainα = 0.58, Mean = 4.61 (± 0.612) | |||
|
Questions |
Overall Mean (SD) or % (N) N = 961 |
Boys Mean (SD) or % (N) N = 375 |
Girls Mean (SD) or % (N) N = 574 |
| 5-point Likert scale items (Strongly Disagree - Strongly Agree)*** | |||
| Elizabeth should not have access to her own money because it is not a woman’s place to be involved in family finances.† | 4.42 (± 0.945) | 4.24 (± 1.053) | 4.53 (± 0.855) |
| Elizabeth should not have access to her own money because she does not have the same abilities to work with money like David does.† | 4.43 (± 0.911) | 4.26 (± 1.004) | 4.53 (± 0.835) |
| Elizabeth should have access to her own money because she earned it. | 4.53 (± 0.791) | 4.41 (± 0.878) | 4.61 (± 0.725) |
| Do you agree that David should take care of all the family finances? Choose Yes or No** | |||
| Yes | 10.5% (101) | 14.5% (54) | 8.2% (47) |
| No | 89.3% (846) | 85.5% (319) | 91.8% (527) |
| In a relationship, whose job is it to manage the finances? Please select ONLY ONE option*** | |||
| It is the man’s job to manage the finances | 5.3% (51) | 8.9% (33) | 3.2% (18) |
| It is the woman’s job to manage the finances | 3.0% (29) | 4.0% (15) | 2.5% (14) |
| It is the man and woman’s job together to manage the finances | 89.3% (862) | 87.1% (323) | 94.4% (539) |
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | |||||
| Gender Equitable Attitudes (overall) | Roles / Privileges / Restrictions | Attributes | Violence | |||||
| Adjusted Beta | 95% CI | Adjusted Beta | 95% CI | Adjusted Beta | 95% CI | Adjusted Beta | 95% CI | |
| Elizabeth should not have access to her own money because it is not a woman’s place to be involved in family finances. + |
0.183*** |
(0.068, 0.163) |
0.182*** |
(0.069, 0.168) |
0.136** |
(0.052, 0.207) |
0.122** |
(0.019, 0.135) |
| Elizabeth should not have access to her own money because she does not have the same abilities to work with money like David does+ |
0.177*** |
(0.066, 0.165) |
0.165*** |
(0.060, 0.161) |
0.165*** |
(0.082, 0.246) |
0.106* |
(0.009, 0.131) |
| Elizabeth should have access to her own money because she earned it. | 0.093** | (0.026, 0.117) | 0.102*** | (0.035, 0.126) | 0.047 | (–0.019, 0.129) | 0.115** | (0.036, 0.145) |
| Do you agree that David should take care of all the family finances? | ||||||||
| No | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) |
| Yes | –0.117*** | (–0.349, –0.118) | –0.099*** | (–0.319, –0.085) | –0.099** | (–0.494, –0.112) | –0.095** | (–0.331, –0.053) |
| In a relationship, whose job is it to manage the finances? | ||||||||
| Man’s job | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) |
| Woman’s job | 0.081* | (0.053, 0.481) | 0.123*** | (0.194, 0.632) | –0.037 | (–0.172, 0.551) | –0.052 | (–0.449, 0.084) |
| Man and woman’s job together | 0.087* | (0.035, 0.326) | 0.103** | (0.069, 0.373) | 0.062 | (–0.044, 0.445) | 0.003 | (–0.173, 0.184) |
| Age | –0.023 | (–0.054, 0.037) | –0.078 | (–0.078, 0.017) | 0.024 | (–0.061, 0.089) | 0.118 | (–0.010, 0.101) |
| Gender | ||||||||
| Boys | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) |
| Girls | 0.240*** | (0.218, 0.347) | 0.188*** | (0.164, 0.299) | 0.283*** | (0.406, 0.622) | 0.083 | (0.021, 0.182) |
| Grade | ||||||||
| 1st grade - secondary school | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) |
| 2nd grade - secondary school | 0.102** | (0.043, 0.281) | 0.115** | (0.067, 0.316) | 0.098 | (0.044, 0.442) | –0.038 | (–0.210, 0.083) |
| 3rd grade - secondary school | 0.064 | (–0.037, 0.252) | 0.070 | (–0.027, 0.275) | 0.102 | (0.026, 0.499) | –0.091 | (–0.336, 0.017) |
| 1-2 semesters - high school | –0.061 | (–0.588, 0.434) | 0.066 | (–0.456, 0.628) | –0.229 | (–1.307, 0.428) | –0.136 | (–0.822, 0.468) |
| 3-4 semesters - high school | –0.045 | (–0.581, 0.460) | 0.072 | (–0.450, 0.654) | –0.190 | (–1.281, 0.484) | –0.138 | (–0.851, 0.461) |
| School | ||||||||
| Octavio Paz | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) |
| Telesecundaria General | –0.035 | (–0.143, 0.050) | –0.063 | (–0.188, 0.013) | 0.013 | (–0.135, 0.186) | 0.049 | (–0.051, 0.187) |
| Conalep | 0.324 | (–0.132, 0.882) | 0.266 | (–0.217, 0.859) | 0.403 | (–0.142, 1.580) | 0.116 | (–0.501, 0.779) |
| Younger Brother | ||||||||
| No | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) |
| Yes | –0.017 | (–0.083, 0.042) | –0.014 | (–0.083, 0.048) | –0.020 | (–0.143, 0.068) | 0.000 | (–0.078, 0.079) |
| Male Parent/ Guardian | ||||||||
| No | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) | (Ref) |
| Yes | 0.042 | (–0.013, 0.117) | 0.032 | (–0.027, 0.109) | 0.055 | (–0.005, 0.212) | 0.078 | (0.020, 0.181) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).