Elsevier

Annals of Epidemiology

Volume 18, Issue 4, April 2008, Pages 322-329
Annals of Epidemiology

Gender Progress and Government Expenditure as Determinants of Femicide

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2007.11.007Get rights and content

Purpose

We sought to explore the effect of economic/political factors and gender progress on femicide.

Methods

An ecological and retrospective study was undertaken that focused on 61 countries and analyzed the relationships of femicide with the following statistics from the period 1990 to 1999: economic indicators (domestic consumption, gross capital formation, imports and exports per capita, unemployment rate and percentage of urban population), political indicators (government final consumption expenditure, 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—civil liberties and political rights index), and gender progress indicators (female and male unemployment rates, percentage of girls in primary education, gender ratio for primary and secondary education, and percentage of parliamentary seats occupied by women). Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses (likelihood ratio) were performed to explore the relationships between these variables.

Results

The bivariate analysis revealed strong links between reductions in government final consumption expenditure per capita (odds ratio [OR] 20.83;95% confidence interval [95% CI] 5.622–77.205), domestic consumption and gross capital formation (both with OR 16.67, 95% CI 4.715–58.911), and the civil liberties and political rights index (OR 7.91, 95% CI 2.526–24.747). In the multivariate stage, statistically significant associations were only observed between government expenditure per capita (OR 61.75;95% CI 7.064–539.81) and occupation of parliamentary seats by women (OR 10.95;95% CI 1.26–95.06).

Conclusion

The reduction in government final consumption expenditure and democratic backwardness in terms of gender equality appear to be relevant factors in deaths caused by gender-based violence. To fight femicide effectively, gender-related structural, political, and economic responses should be considered.

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)

  • C.N. Wathen

    MacMillan HL Intervention for violence against women: Scientific review

    JAMA

    (2003)
  • Ramsay J, Rivas C, Feder G. Interventions to reduce violence and promote the physical and psychosocial well-being of...
  • P. Sanday

    The socio-cultural context of rape

    J Social Issues

    (1982)
  • García-Moreno C (Coord.), et al. Multi-country Study of the WHO on Women's Health and Domestic Violence. First Results...
  • J. DeFronzo

    Welfare and homicide

    J Res Crime Delinquency

    (1997)
  • V.P. Gawryszewski et al.

    Social inequality and homicide rates in Sao Paulo City, Brazil

    Rev Saúde Pública

    (2005)
  • Economic Growth Research. World Bank [homepage on the Internet]. NW Washington, DC: The World Bank Group [Updated 2006...
  • A. Butchart et al.

    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

    (2002)
  • B. Kennedy et al.

    Income distribution and mortality: cross sectional ecological study of the Robin Hood Index in the United States

    Br Med J

    (1996)
  • S. Moniruzzaman et al.

    Relationship between economic development and risk of injuries in older adults and the elderly

    Eur J Public Health

    (2005)
  • K. Yllo

    Sexual equality and violence against wives in American States

    J Comp Family Studies

    (1983)
  • C. Yodanis

    Gender Inequality, Violence against Women, and Fear. A Cross-National Test of the Feminist Theory of Violence against Women

    J Interpersonal Violence

    (2004)
  • W.C. Bailey et al.

    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 Organization
      Citation 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 Environment
      Citation 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 Sanitaria
      Citation 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 Health
      Citation 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.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text