Gender Progress and Government Expenditure as Determinants of Femicide
Introduction
In its First Report on Violence and Health, the World Health Organization defined intimate partner violence (IPV) as “any behaviour within a current or past intimate relationship that causes physical, psychological or sexual harm” (1). This type of violence has become a priority in scientific research and in political and media campaigns because of an increasing incidence and mortality rates 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
Despite the increasing importance of IPV, there is a certain tendency to focus purely on developing measures to tackle the possible individual psychological or criminal causes, without taking into account other structural factors, such as cultural, economic, and political issues, which may also have an impact on this problem 7, 8, 9. The study of such structural determinants could help to develop useful new approaches aimed at preventing IPV (10).
Although IPV is an attack on women's rights and freedoms, both of which are widely assumed to have been achieved through politics, the political determinants of this problem are not clear. Social policies of the welfare state have been identified as a relevant determinant of homicide. For example, the cost-of-living-adjusted benefits paid to individuals with dependent children has a direct negative impact on homicide rates and an indirect negative relationship with homicide rates because of its association with household status 11, 12. However, no empirical studies have examined the influence of this type of political determinant on IPV in general and specifically on femicide rates.
The risk of homicide also seems to be determined by other macroeconomic variables, such as gross domestic product per capita, the GINI coefficient (a summary measure of the extent to which the actual distribution of income or consumption expenditure or a related variable differs from a hypothetical distribution in which each person receives an identical share) (13), percentage change in gross domestic product per capita, and female economic activity as a percentage of male economic activity 14, 15. Although such macroeconomic indicators are considered here and in other studies about the etiology of mortality caused by external causes 16, 17, 18, there is still no firm evidence to prove their relationship with IPV and femicide.
Certain studies have shown that gender inequality—in terms of education, economic level, and employment—increases the risk of women being subjected to violent acts 19, 20, sexual violence (21), and femicide (22). However, there is also empirical evidence concerning the relationship between women's higher socioeconomic status, especially in terms of income and employment, and an increase in the risk of IPV (23) and femicide 24, 25, 26. This contradictory relationship, born out of the “patriarchal backlash” against women's progress (27), proves that the combined effect of economic, political, and gender progress related factors should be taken into account when dealing with the issue of IPV and femicide.
Given the information concerning mortality attributed to external causes, sexual violence, and gender-based violence, by measuring the impact of economic, political, and gender progress factors on femicide, important contributions could be made to existing knowledge on the etiology of IPV. This paper explores the effect of economic and political factors and gender progress as universal determinants of femicide.
Section snippets
Methods
We conducted an ecological, retrospective study in which we analyzed the association between femicide and economic and political factors, as well as gender progress around the world during the period 1990–1999.
Results
Table 2 describes the central and dispersion tendency values for each variable included in the study. Both the femicide rate and macroeconomic figures fluctuate greatly, as do the mean urban population, RAFE, the GINI coefficient and freedom index. Only a very slight difference was observed between female and male employment figures.
The average femicide rate was 2.89 per 100,000 women, with a varying distribution between the different countries (Table 3). As regards to national income, femicide
Discussion
Economic, political, and gender progress structural factors all seem to have an impact on femicide rates. After studying these variables, reductions in government expenditure and democratic backwardness in terms of gender equality emerge as potential determinants of femicide. These results suggest that greater attention must be paid to structural responses of a political nature—such as government expenditure or the participation of women in political institutions—to tackle the problem
References (47)
- et al.
Recent history of the news coverage of violence against women in Spain, 1997-2001
Gaceta Sanitaria
(2005) - et al.
Gender based violence in the Spanish Parliamentary Agenda (1979–2004)
Gaceta Sanitaria
(2006) - et al.
Women's status and the health of women and men: a view from the Status
Socl Sci Med
(1999) - et al.
Relationship between economic development and suicide mortality: A global-sectional analysis in an epidemiological transition perspective
Public Health
(2004) - et al.
Community level effects of gender inequality on intimate partner violence and unintended pregnancy in Colombia: Testing a feminist perspective
Soc Sci Med
(2005) - et al.
Gender based violence in the Spanish Parliamentary agenda
Gac Sanit
(2007) - García-Moreno C (Coord.), et al. Estudio Multipaís de la OMS Sobre Salud de la Mujer y Violencia Doméstica. Primeros...
MacMillan HL Intervention for violence against women: Scientific review
JAMA
The socio-cultural context of rape
J Social Issues
Welfare and homicide
J Res Crime Delinquency
Social inequality and homicide rates in Sao Paulo City, Brazil
Rev Saúde Pública
Sex and gender specific relations between economic development, economic inequality and homicide rates in people aged 0–24 years: A cross-sectional analysis
Bull WHO
Income distribution and mortality: cross sectional ecological study of the Robin Hood Index in the United States
Br Med J
Relationship between economic development and risk of injuries in older adults and the elderly
Eur J Public Health
Sexual equality and violence against wives in American States
J Comp Family Studies
Gender Inequality, Violence against Women, and Fear. A Cross-National Test of the Feminist Theory of Violence against Women
J Interpersonal Violence
Gender inequality and violence against women: The case of murder
Cited by (28)
Gender norms and intimate partner violence
2020, Journal of Economic Behavior and OrganizationCitation Excerpt :Our results are robust to a battery of sensitivity tests. Recently, several researchers have studied the cross-country variation in IPV (Farmer and Tiefenthaler 1997; Garcia-Moreno et al., 2005; Fulu et al., 2013; Heise and Kotsadam, 2015; Cools and Kotsadam 2017) or in violence against women more broadly (Bott et al., 2005; Palma-Solis et al., 2008). These studies suggest an association between societal factors in gender-related domains and IPV.9
Heat wave and the risk of intimate partner violence
2018, Science of the Total EnvironmentCitation Excerpt :While the roots of IPV are clearly linked to gender inequalities, in recent decades, there has been intense research to identify factors that increase a woman's risk of experiencing IPV (Abramsky et al., 2011; López-Ossorio et al., 2017; Sanz-Barbero et al., 2018) and, in the most extreme terms, of being killed by her partner (Beyer et al., 2013; Sanz-Barbero et al., 2016; Stöckl et al., 2013). These factors, as pointed out by Heise's Integral Ecological Model (Heise, 1998), interact on different levels ranging from individual characteristics - age, birthplace, socioeconomic position, etc. - to other social and structural circumstances such as gender inequality and women's political participation (Bond et al., 2010; Gressard et al., 2015; Palma-Solis et al., 2008; Sanz-Barbero et al., 2015). Given the high number of women who report IPV and request support, it is of vital importance to open new lines of inquiry that permit continued advances in the identification of possible precipitating factors of IPV and their incorporation in police protocols to evaluate the risk of recurrence (López-Ossorio et al., 2016).
Gender inequality and violence against women in Spain, 2006-2014: towards a civilized society
2017, Gaceta SanitariaCitation Excerpt :Governmental stances on female equality and relative ‘backwardness’ or ‘progressiveness’ within a government are strongly related to IPV incidence. In fact, it is shown that low female participation in politics is the greatest risk factor for femicide.31 The incidence in reporting of IPV is consistent with higher levels of empowerment within AC supported by studies that suggest the protective nature of contextual factors related to engendered protective measures and IPV incidence.10,11
Cross-national and multilevel correlates of partner violence: An analysis of data from population-based surveys
2015, The Lancet Global HealthCitation Excerpt :This analysis builds on and extends the fairly undeveloped scientific literature about macro-level predictors of population prevalence of violence against women. So far, only nine studies13,16–23 have sought to explore country-level or state-level predictors of partner violence and all have weaknesses in the methods they have used, especially with respect to the outcome variable utilised. One study21 derives a numerical measure of partner violence on the basis of qualitative descriptions in human rights reports and the remainder rely on data from a range of studies that used different definitions and measures of intimate partner violence.
Patriarchy's Link to Intimate Partner Violence: Applications to Survivors’ Asylum Claims
2023, Violence Against Women