Summary
Contrary to the usual story that wealth automatically helps close gender gaps, this new study finds that as countries get richer, the gender gap in STEM graduation actually gets wider—with men increasingly outnumbering women in science, tech, engineering, and math degrees in more affluent societies.What the study is about
The paper is:Uunk, W., & Li, M. (2026). Does Societal Affluence Increase the Gender Gap in STEM Graduation? A Longitudinal Assessment. Sex Roles.
It tests a puzzling pattern that has been noticed in earlier work: in many wealthy, gender-equal countries, women still (and sometimes even more strongly) avoid STEM fields relative to men. This is sometimes called the "gender-equality paradox" in STEM. The authors ask: is it really about gender equality measures, or is societal affluence (overall economic development and resources) the key driver?
Main findings
- Societal affluence is positively associated with the gender gap in STEM graduation. As countries become wealthier, the proportion of men vs. women graduating in STEM increases in favor of men. In other tests, the gap grows rather than shrinks with affluence.
- This pattern holds across both emerging and advanced countries, not just in the wealthiest nations.
- The relationship is longitudinal: when they look at changes over time within countries, increases in affluence are associated with increases in the gender gap in STEM graduation, not decreases.
Why might this happen? (Theoretical explanations)
The discussion in the article (and related work by the same team) points to several possible mechanisms:1. Resources and choice freedom
In more affluent societies, students face fewer economic constraints and can more freely follow personal interests rather than "safe" or high-earning choices. If gendered interests and stereotypes persist, richer environments may let those preferences show more strongly—leading women to opt out of STEM more often, even when they could enter it.2. Cultural and stereotypical pressures
Affluence doesn't automatically erase cultural beliefs about what men and women "should" do. In some contexts, higher living standards and social security may reduce the pressure to enter traditionally male, high-paying STEM fields for women, while men may still feel more pressure or expectation to pursue them.3. Institutional and welfare contexts
The authors' broader project also looks at how welfare provision, inequality, and economic security interact with affluence. It's possible that in certain affluent, high-security contexts, gendered study choices become more pronounced because financial necessity is less of a driving force.The study doesn't claim to fully prove one mechanism; rather, it shows a robust association and suggests these as plausible explanations to test in future work.
How this fits with other research
This line of work connects to earlier findings that:- In some highly gender-equal countries (e.g. parts of Northern Europe), the STEM gender gap in study choices remains large, even when overall educational attainment and labor-market opportunities for women are high.
- Some cross-national studies have linked societal affluence and certain gender-equality indicators with larger gaps in STEM aspirations and choices, sometimes called the gender-equality paradox.
The new study adds a longitudinal perspective: instead of just comparing countries at one point in time, it tracks how changing affluence over time relates to changing gender gaps in STEM graduation.
Limitations and open questions
As with any large-scale cross-national study:- It shows association, not direct causation. Richer countries also differ in many other ways (culture, education systems, labor markets), so affluence may be part of a broader package of factors.
- The analysis focuses on graduation outcomes, not on earlier stages (high school choices, career aspirations, workplace progression).
- It doesn't fully disentangle which specific dimensions of affluence (e.g. GDP per capita, social security, inequality) are most important.
Future work is expected to look more closely at household-level resources, welfare policies, and cultural factors to explain why affluence is linked to wider gaps.
Why this matters
- It challenges the assumption that economic development alone will naturally close gender gaps in STEM.
- It suggests that policy interventions (shaping interests, reducing stereotypes, targeted support in education) may be necessary even in wealthy, seemingly "equal" societies.
- For anyone interested in the gender-equality paradox, this is a concrete, longitudinal piece of evidence that affluence and gender gaps in STEM can move in the same direction.