Inglesi-Lotz, RoulaBohlmann, JessikaOosthuizen, Anna MariaChitiga-Mabugu, MargaretBohlmann, HeinrichNjokwe, GetrudeCabalu, HelenInchauspe, JulianSuenaga, HiroakiTruong, N.T. Khuong2026-01-282026-01-282025-12Inglesi-Lotz R., Bohlmann J., Oosthuizen A.M. et al. 2025, 'Tailored paths towards gender equality: insights from South Africa and Australia', Australian Economic Papers, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 486-490, doi : 10.1111/1467-8454.70000.0004-900X (print)1467-8454 (online)10.1111/1467-8454.70000http://hdl.handle.net/2263/107636DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT : The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL : Figure S1. Gender Inequality Index in 2021.This study examines how context-specific gender equality policies address disparities by comparing South Africa's equity-based and Australia's equality-oriented approaches. Through a comparative lens, it analyses the effectiveness of tailored affirmative action policies, including South Africa's Employment Equity Act and Australia's Workplace Gender Equality Act, in addressing gender disparities. While South Africa emphasises redressing past imbalances and promoting equity for historically disadvantaged groups, Australia focuses on advancing workplace diversity and equitable pay. The analysis explores critical metrics such as the Global Gender Gap Index, employment-to-population ratios, and the Gender Inequality Index to highlight differences in progress and challenges each country faces. Findings reveal that although both countries prioritise gender equality, their approaches reflect distinct sociopolitical and economic priorities. South Africa's policies are deeply rooted in transformative justice and constitutional mandates, whereas Australia's initiatives integrate gender analysis into fiscal and corporate strategies. Despite progress, significant gaps persist, particularly in economic participation and societal gender biases. The study underscores the importance of evidence-based and context-specific policies in achieving Sustainable Development Goal 5. It advocates for exchanging insights and adapting strategies to local contexts, emphasising the limitations of universal solutions in addressing complex gender inequalities. By comparing these two cases, this research contributes to a broader understanding of how countries can advance gender equality while navigating unique historical and socio-economic landscapes.en© 2025 The Author(s). Australian Economic Papers published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License.Affirmative actionAustraliaGender equalityPolicy analysisSouth Africa (SA)Article