Why female-led nations fare better under Covid

It’s been observed that countries led by female politicians have done better at implementing social distancing rules under Covid-19. Examples include Angela Merkel of Germany, Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand, Mette Frederiksen of Denmark and Sanna Marin of Finland.

There is some controversy regarding the appropriate response and the degree of policy stringency required. It is also the case that only a few nations are governed by women. Extrapolating from small numbers is fraught with risks.

But leaving those caveats aside, why were female leaders so much more proactive in implementing social distancing?

Evolutionary theory may provide an answer. Evidence suggests women necessarily tend to be more nurturing, circumspect and risk-averse than men. An obvious consequence is that men tend to be hyper-competitive and over-confident. Faced with the risk of large-scale loss of lives, female leaders moved more swiftly to implement social distancing to minimise the risk. It might not be an exaggeration to suggest nations which struggled the most in charting a consistent course (notably Britain, the United States,

Brazil and India) are led by competitive and over-confident men.

Evolutionary theory teaches us that a primary human drive is to pass on our genes to successive generations. Given the amount of parental investment required of men is much less than women, males can have many more offspring than females. If a male can out-compete other males in having a greater number of sexual partners, he can have more progeny. Males have more incentive to compete, which in turn necessitates more risk-taking, as there is always the possibility of injury or loss of life in such competitions for mates.

In the animal kingdom, males are generally showier, more aggressive and more territorial. The level of male aggression is higher among polygamous animals as opposed to those that are monogamous. Males are also physically larger than females in polygamous societies than in monogamous ones. Bull elephant seals are much larger than females and often engage in brutal battles for control of female harems.

Closer to home, economists Lise Vesterlund and Muriel Niederle show that women often tend to avoid competing with men, even where there are no differences in their respective performance or ability. It is equally true that men tend to be over-confident and over-estimate their chances of success and therefore tend to compete “too much”.

There is literature that looks at gender differences in risk aversion. Catherine Eckel and Philip Grossman say results from studies looking at decisions made in abstract lottery choice tests or in the context of financial decision-making show women as more risk-averse. One example is retirement savings. The same insight comes through in actual investment behaviour. Brad Barber and Terrance Odean studied 35,000 investment accounts by gender and found women outperformed men, mostly because men tend to be over-confident and trade more. Women had turnover rates of 54 per cent while men had 77 per cent; the accounts with higher turnover performed worse.

There is also evidence to suggest riskaverse women are less likely to generate asset bubbles (such as tech stock bubbles or housing bubbles) of the type that fuelled the 2008-9 global financial crisis.

Such gender differences tend to be compounded in times of stress.

Existing evidence suggests such riskaversion is behind the gender wage-gap, at least partly due to female reluctance to negotiate salaries. Linda Babcock and Sara Laschever point out in their book, women don’t ask. This may result in small differences between male and female salaries at the outset, but when bonuses, outside offers and merit increases are based on existing salary, small differences in the beginning translate into large differentials a few years on.

There is one caveat. Women who go to single-sex schools and those who grow up in matrilineal societies, such as the Khasi in India, exhibit similar risk-taking and competitive tendencies as men.

The bottom line is, in trying times — be it a pandemic or a global financial crisis, when risk minimisation becomes important — being led by women may be beneficial for corporations and countries.

This reinforces calls for greater diversity, in the boardroom as well as in government, for more reflective and deliberative policy-making.