IMF -亲密伴侣暴力与妇女经济赋权：来自印度各邦的证据 Intimate Partner Violence and Womens Economic Empowerment- Evidence from Indian States

IntimatePartnerViolenceandWomen’sEconomic

Empowerment

EvidencefromIndianStates

MoniqueNewiak,RatnaSahay,andNavyaSrivastava

WP/24/239

IMFWorkingPapersdescriberesearchin

progressbytheauthor(s)andarepublishedtoelicitcommentsandtoencouragedebate.

TheviewsexpressedinIMFWorkingPapersarethoseoftheauthor(s)anddonotnecessarily

representtheviewsoftheIMF,itsExecutiveBoard,orIMFmanagement.

2024

NOV

NAT

mAR

©2024InternationalMonetaryFundWP/24/239

IMFWorkingPaper

Strategy,PolicyandReviewDepartment

IntimatePartnerViolenceandWomen’sEconomicEmpowermentEvidencefromIndianStates

MoniqueNewiak,RatnaSahay,andNavyaSrivastava

AuthorizedfordistributionbyStefaniaFabrizioNovember2024

IMFWorkingPapersdescriberesearchinprogressbytheauthor(s)andarepublishedtoelicit

commentsandtoencouragedebate.TheviewsexpressedinIMFWorkingPapersarethoseofthe

author(s)anddonotnecessarilyrepresenttheviewsoftheIMF,itsExecutiveBoard,orIMFmanagement.

ABSTRACT:Domesticviolenceisaglobalphenomenon.Westudytheinterplayofdeterminantsofawoman’sriskoffacingintimatepartnerviolence(IPV)forthecaseofIndia—usinginformationfromupto235thousandfemalesurveyrespondentsandexploitingstate-levelvariationininstitutions,lawenforcementandattitudes.

Unlessinpaidandformalemployment,awoman’seconomicactivityisassociatedwithahigherriskofIPV.

However,householdandothercharacteristics,suchashigheragencywithinthehousehold,highereducationofthehusband,lowersocialacceptanceofIPV,andnormalizationofreportingincidencesofviolencecounterthisassociation.Atthestatelevel,thepresenceofmorefemaleleaders,betterreportinginfrastructurefor

victimsofIPV,andhighercharge-sheetingratesareassociatedwithalowerriskofIPV.

JELClassificationNumbers:

J01,J16,K14,O15

Keywords:

Femaleemployment;laborforceparticipation;intimatepartnerviolence;legalrights;institutions

Author’sE-MailAddress:

mnewiak@;

ratnasahay2022@;

nsrivastava@

INTERNATIONALMONETARYFUND2

WORKINGPAPERS

IntimatePartnerViolenceand

Women’sEconomicEmpowerment

EvidencefromIndianStates

PreparedbyMoniqueNewiak,RatnaSahay,andNavyaSrivastava1

1Authors’affiliations:MoniqueNewiak(DeputyUnitChief,InclusionandGenderUnit,IMF);RatnaSahay(ProfessorattheNationalCouncilofAppliedEconomicResearch(NCAER)inIndia;Non-ResidentFellowattheCenterforGrowthand

Development,WashingtonDC);NavyaSrivastava(ResearchAssociateattheNCAER).

WewouldliketothankStefaniaFabrizio,RishiGoyal,MaansiSahay,NiWang,andRobertZymekfortheirveryhelpfulcomments.WearegratefultoJorgeMondragonandUsamaZafarfortheirinputonthemacroeconomicimpactofreducinggenderinequalityinthelabormarketinIndia.Anymistakesareourown.

INTERNATIONALMONETARYFUND3

Contents

ExecutiveSummary 5

Introduction 6

Long-standingIssues,HoldingBackIndividualsandSociety 6

SignificantGovernmentAction 6

Yet,HighLevelsofIntimatePartnerViolenceandLowFemaleLaborForceParticipationPersist 7

TackleIPVHolistically,whileEmpoweringWomenEconomically 8

IncidenceofIntimatePartnerViolence 8

DriversofIntimatePartnerViolence:LiteratureandStylizedFacts 11

TheEcologicalModelofHealth 11

IndividualandIntimatePartnerCharacteristics 11

CommunityFactors 13

Socio-Economic(State-Level)Factors 13

EmpiricalAnalysis:WhatisDrivingIntimatePartnerViolence? 15

Methodology 15

BaselineResults 16

Micro-LevelIndividual,PartnerandHouseholdCharacteristics 17

State-LevelSocio-EconomicFactors 19

WhendoesFormalPaidEmploymentMitigateIPV? 19

GovernmentInitiatives:CurrentandPast 22

GovernmentInitiativestoProtectWomenfromViolence 22

GovernmentInitiativestoEmpowerWomen 22

LegalProtectionsandGeneralEmpowerment 23

HealthandNutrition 23

Education,Skills,andEntrepreneurship 23

PoliticalLeadership 24

INTERNATIONALMONETARYFUND4

Conclusion 24

AnnexI.DataDescription 26

AnnexII.State-levelEvidence 33

AnnexIII.RegressionLabels 34

AnnexIV.LogisticRegressionResults 36

References 42

FIGURES

Figure1.India:ShareofRespondentswhoExperiencedDomestic(Physical,SexualorEmotional) 9

Figure2.India:ShareofPopulationJustifyingWifeBeating 10

Figure3.IndianStates:ShareofWomenwhoSoughtHelpfromDifferentSources 10

Figure4.India:ShareofWomenwhoSoughtHelpfromDifferentSources,2005-2019 10

Figure5.IndianStates:Help-SeekingfromOfficialSources,2005vs.2019 10

Figure6.IndianStates:EducationandRateofIntimatePartnerViolence 11

Figure7.IndianStates:IntimatePartnerViolenceandMeasuresofEconomicEmpowerment 12

Figure8.IndianStates:IndianStates:AcceptanceofWifeBeating 13

Figure9.IndianStates:IntimatePartnerViolenceandProportionofVictimswhoSoughtHelp 14

Figure10:IndianStates:IntimatePartnerViolenceandCharge-SheetingRate 14

Figure11.India:AverageMarginalEffectsofEconomicEmpowermentandIndividualandState-Level

Interactions 21

TABLES

Table1.India:Pooled(Weighted)RegressionsbyTypeofIPV—RespondentCharacteristics 17

Table2.India:Pooled(Weighted)RegressionsbyTypeofIPV—IntimatePartnerandFamily 18

Table3.Pooled(weighted)RegressionsbyTypeofIPV—CommunityandSocio-EconomicFactors 19

AnnexTable1.DataSource 26

AnnexTable2.ResultsfromPooledRegressionsforEachTypeofViolence 33

AnnexTable3.VariableLabels 34

AnnexTable4.LogisticRegression(AllWaves) 36

INTERNATIONALMONETARYFUND5

ExecutiveSummary

Thispaperfocuseson,arguably,themostcomplexbarrierholdingbackmanywomeninIndiaandother

countries—intimatepartnerviolence.Intimatepartnerviolenceisaglobalphenomenon.WelookatthecaseofIndia,inlargepartbecausethecountry’sfemalepopulationrepresentsmorethanonesixthoftheglobalfemalepopulationanddataarecomprehensiveandconsistentatthenationalandstatelevelstostudytheincidence.

Weusebothmicro-levelevidencefromupto235thousandrespondentsfromthreewavesoftheNational

FamilyHealthSurveyaswellasmacro-leveleconomicandinstitutionalinformationfromIndianstatestopointtotheinterplayofmicroeconomic(individualandfamily)andsocio-economic(state-level)factorsthatrelateto

anindividual’sriskoffacingviolencebyherpartner—withafocusontheimpactofwomen’seconomicempowermentthatlinkscloselywithbettermacroeconomicoutcomes.

Inthepastdecade,thegovernmenthaslaunchedseveralinitiativesfocusingonwomen'sleadershipandempowerment,andarangeoflawsandinitiativesaimtoprotectwomenandgirlsfromviolence.

Notwithstandingnotableimprovements,widegendergapsremain,andtheincidenceofviolenceagainst

womenremainshigh,withsignificantcoststoindividuals,families,andtheeconomy.Theresultsofthispaperhighlightthefollowing:

First,attheindividuallevel,formosttypesofemployment,awomanbeingemployedandearningmore

thantheirpartnertranslatesintoahigherriskofintimatepartnerviolence.However,whencombinedwithspecificinterventions,women’sformalandpaidemploymentcanreducetheindividual’sriskofintimate

partnerviolence.Inparticular,empowermentandagencyatthehouseholdlevel,highereducationofmen,loweracceptanceofintimatepartnerviolenceinthestatethewomanisresiding,andnormalizationof

reportingofviolencecanturntherelationshipbetweenfemaleformalandpaidemploymentandintimatepartnerviolencetooneinwhichemploymentandlowerriskofintimatepartnerviolencegohandinhand.

Second,ahighershareofwomeninleadershippositionsatthestate-levelisassociatedwithalowerriskofviolencefortheindividuallivinginthatstate.Existingstudiesshowthatthepresenceofmorefemale

leaderschangeperceptionsofwomenasworkersandcontributorstothehousehold’sincome.

Third,stronginstitutions,andespeciallytheenforcementoflaws,matter.Weshowthatbetterreportinginfrastructureforvictimsofintimatepartnerviolenceandhighercharge-sheetingratesatthestate-leveltranslateintoalowerriskofviolencefortheindividual.

Ourkeytakeawayisthatthecomplexityoftheproblemrequiresamultiprongedapproachtoreduceand

eliminatedomesticviolence,includingbyempoweringwomenmorebroadly.Sucheffortswouldfosterbetterlivingconditionsforwomenandgirls,whilehelpingIndiareapitsmassiveeconomicdevelopmentpotential.

INTERNATIONALMONETARYFUND6

Introduction

"Canwenotpledgetogetridofeverythinginourbehavior,cultureandeverydaylifethathumiliatesand

demeanswomen?Women'sprideisgoingtobeahugeassetinfulfillingthedreamsofthenation.IseethispowerandthereforeIaminsistentonit."—NarendraModi,PrimeMinister.IndependenceDaySpeech,2022.

ThisspeechisnotthefirsttimethatthePrimeMinisterlaidouthisgovernment’spriorityonwomen’s

empowerment.DuringhisfirstIndependenceDaySpeechonAugust15,2014,heurgedeveryparenttotreattheirsonsanddaughtersasequalsduringtheirformativeyears.Inthepastdecade,thegovernmenthas

launchedseveralinitiativesfocusingonwomen'sleadershipandempowerment,andarangeoflawsand

initiativesaimtoprotectwomenandgirlsfromviolence.Notwithstandingnotableimprovements,widegendergapsremain,andtheincidenceofviolenceagainstwomenremainshigh,withsignificantcoststoindividuals,families,andtheeconomy.

Long-standingIssues,HoldingBackIndividualsandSociety

Gender-basedviolenceputsaheavytollonthewellbeingandhealthoftheaffectedindividual,herfamily,societyandtheeconomy.Insum:whengender-violenceishigh,everyoneloses.

Theindividualendurestrauma(pain,suffering,disability,death),withpossiblelonger-termpsychological

impacts(Elsbergandothers2008).Boysandgirlswhosemothersexperienceintimatepartnerviolencefaceasignificantlyhigherriskofdeathatinfancyorbeforeturningfive(Asling-Monemiandothers2003).Theyare

alsolikelytosufferfromarangeofphysicalandbehavioralissues(Artzandothers2014).ForIndia,Ackerson

andSubramanian(2008)highlightthatdomesticviolenceincreaseswomen’sriskofanemiaandbeingunderweight,andthatitcorrelateswithchildren’sriskofbeingstunted.

Violenceagainstwomenalsoresultsinsubstantialmacroeconomicandhouseholdincomelosses.Economic

growthsuffersfromlesshoursworked(absenteeism)andreducedproductivity(presenteeism)(Duvveryand

others2013)whichimpairsearningsforindividualsandhouseholds(UnitedNations2005).Aone-percentagepointincreaseintheshareofwomenexperiencingviolencecouldreduceeconomicactivity(asmeasuredby

nightlights)by8-9percentagepoints(OuedraogoandStenzel2021).InIndia,eachincidenceofIPVimpliesatleastfivepaiddaysofworklost(UNWomen2016),whileastudyforNagpur,acityinthestateofMaharashtra,foundthattheaveragehouseholdlosestheequivalentofalmosttwoweeks’incomeperoccurrence(ICRW

2000;WorldBank2009).Longer-termeconomicgrowthsuffersfromlowerhumancapitalformationand

diversionofinvestmentfromphysicalcapitaltohealth,judicialandsocialservices.Ontheotherhand,iflaborforceparticipationgapsinIndianarrowedtotheaverageofcountriesintheAsiaandPacificregion,thiscouldyieldGDPgainsofmorethan25percent(estimatebasedonOstryandothers(2018)).

SignificantGovernmentAction

TheGovernmentofIndiahastakenseveralinitiativestoreducegender-basedviolenceand,atthesametime,implementedpoliciestoempowerwomeneconomicallyandsocially.ThecurrentPrimeMinisterhasmade

reducinggenderdisparitiesanationalpriorityandhaschampionedthecauseonasustainedbasisforthepastdecade:

INTERNATIONALMONETARYFUND7

Measurestoprotectwomenfromviolence(UNWomen,GlobalDatabaseonViolenceagainstWomen):

TheProtectionofWomenAgainstDomesticViolenceAct(2005)aimstoshieldwomenfromdifferentformsofdomesticabuse,includingphysical,sexualandemotionalharm.TheprohibitionofChildMarriageAct

(2006)protectsminorsfromforcedmarriagesthatoftenresultinhigherratesofdomesticviolence.The

CriminalLawAmendmentAct(2013)mandatesallhospitalstoprovidefreemedicaltreatmenttovictimsofrapeandacidattack,whilethe2018amendmentincreasespenaltiesforoffensesofrapeandmandates

completionofinvestigationandtrialswithin2monthseach.Womenhelplinesseektoprovideimmediate

andemergencyresponsetowomenaffectedbyviolence.One-stopcentersaimtoprovideintegrated

supportbybundlingservices(emergencyresponse,medicalsupport,psycho-socialassistanceandlegal

counselling,shelter)(BhartiyaStreeShakti2017).Thegovernmentcreatedthe

CentralVictim

CompensationFund

withaone-timegrantin2016.

Schemestoempowerwomeneconomicallyandsocially:The

Stand-UpIndiaScheme(2016)

promotes

femaleentrepreneurshipbyassistinginstartinggreenfieldenterprisesinselectsectors.The

Pradhan

MantraUjjwalaYojana(2016)

schemeaimstoaddresssafetyandhealthconcernsbyprovidingclean

cookingfueltounderprivilegedhouseholds,while

POSHAN(thePrimeMinister’sOverarchingSchemefor

HolisticNourishment)Abhiyaan(2018)

putsemphasisonwomen’snutritionalstatus.

VigyanJyoti(2020)

aimstoboostgirls’representationinSTEM.

Yet,HighLevelsofIntimatePartnerViolenceandLowFemaleLaborForceParticipationPersist

Despitetheseinitiatives,theincidenceofIntimatePartnerViolence(IPV)1inIndiaremainshigh,whilewomen’sparticipationinpaideconomicactivityislowcomparedtoothercountriesintheAsiaandPacificregion.

AccordingtothemostrecentNationalFamilyHealthSurvey(2019-21),approximately1in3womeninIndia

experiencedphysical,sexual,oremotionalIPV.ThisrateishigherthaninmanyothercountriesintheAsian

andPacificregionandworldwide.Atthesametime,India’srateoffemalelaborforceparticipationislowerthaninmostcounties.2

Withbothhighlevelsofviolence,andlowfemalelaborforceparticipation,Indiaislosingoutonsignificant

developmentandinclusivegrowthopportunities,raisingtwokeyquestions:WhatiskeepingtherateofIPVup?Andhowdoesthisissuerelatetowomen’seconomicempowerment,includingcurrentlylowlevelsoflabor

marketactivity?

Toanswerthesequestions,weaddtoasubstantialliteratureonthedriversofIPVtostudythejointinfluenceofindividual,family,societalandeconomicfactorsonIPVincidence.Tothisend,werelyonthesocio-ecologicalmodel(Bronfenbrenner1978;Bronfenbrenner1987;Heise1998)todisentangleindividual,family,community

andsocietalfactorsthatarecorrelatingwiththeriskofIPVfortheindividual,andtheincidenceofIPVatthestatelevel.Wecontributetothisliteraturebyexploitingstate-levellevelvariationininstitutions,policiesandattitudes,suchasbycapturingtheavailabilityofandtrustinreportinginfrastructureandenforcementof

chargesagainstcrimes,state-levelfemaleleadershipandattitudestowardsviolence—wethuslabelthese

1Forthepurposeofthispaper,weusethetermsdomesticviolenceandintimatepartnerviolenceinterchangeably.

2AccordingtoWorldBankGenderStatistics,forevery10men,about4womenwork.However,discussionsaboutmeasurementandquantifyingtheshareofwomeninthelaborforceareongoing.

INTERNATIONALMONETARYFUND8

societal-augmentedfactorsas“socio-economic”factorstodistinguishthemfromfactorsthatarebasedonindividualandfamilycharacteristicsfortheremainderofthepaper.Wedonotclaimcausality.

TackleIPVHolistically,whileEmpoweringWomenEconomically

Byincludingbothindividualandtheaggregatesocio-economicindicators,ourfindingscontributetothe

literaturebypointingtotheinterplayofmicroeconomic(individualandfamily)andsocio-economic(state-level)factorsthatrelatetoanindividual’sriskoffacingviolence.

Attheindividuallevel,women’semploymentandhigherwagesrelativetoherpartnerincreaseherriskoffacingIPV.Indeed,whileemploymentcanimproveawoman’sbargainingpowerandmitigatetheriskof

violence(FarmerandTiefenthaler1997;Tauchen,Witte,andLong1991),thisresultisinlinewithexistingstudiesforIndiathatshowthattherateofviolencewashigherforworkingwomen(Dalal2011),andfor

thosewhoweremoreeducatedandinbetteremploymentthantheirhusband(Burtonandothers2000).

Weaddtothisevidencebasebyshowingthattheimpactofwomen’semploymentonIPVdependsonmultiplefactorsandcharacteristicsatboththehouseholdandstatelevel.Combinedwithspecific

interventions—empowermentandagencyatthehouseholdlevel,loweracceptanceratesofIPV,highermaleeducation,andnormalizationofreportingofviolence—women’sformalandpaidemploymentcanreducetheindividual’sriskofIPV.

Inaddition,weshowthat,atthestate-level,women’seconomicempowerment—ahighershareoffemaleemployers—isassociatedwithlowerratesofviolence.Thisislikelyas,withhigherfemalerepresentation,perceptionsofwomenasworkersandcontributorstohousehold’sincomechangeorwomenhavebetteremploymentopportunitiesoutsidethehousehold,raisingtheirpotentialwages(Pollak2005;MunyoandRossi2015).

Finally,institutionsrule,andenforcementmatters.WeshowthatbetterreportinginfrastructureforvictimsofIPVandhighercharge-sheetingratesatthestate-leveltranslateintoalowerriskofIPVforthe

individual,andlowerincidencesofIPVatthestate-level.

Thesefindingscallforanintegratedapproachtotacklebarrierstowomen’seconomicempowerment,while,at

thesametime,implementingmeasurestoprotectindividualsfromviolencethrougharobustreporting

infrastructureandstrongenforcementofcharges.Indeed,aswejointlyexaminethecomplexdriversof

violenceattheindividualandstate-wisesocio-economiclevels,wearguethatamultiprongedapproachthatinvolvesmultiplestakeholdersisneeded.

ThenextsectionprovidesanoverviewoftheincidenceofIPVinIndia,followedbyapresentationofthe

stylizedfacts,drawingontheexistingliteratureandtheecologicalmodelofhealth.Thesubsequentsection

discussestheresultsfromindividual-levelandstate-levelregressions,followedbyanoverviewofgovernmentinitiativestopromotewomen’seconomicandsocialempowerment,andmeasurestoaddressIPV.Thefinal

sectionsummarizesourstudyanddiscussespolicyoptions.

IncidenceofIntimatePartnerViolence

TheIndia-basedNationalFamilyHealthSurvey(NFHS)providesacomprehensiveoverviewofthestateofIPVinIndia.Thesurveyisrepresentativebothatthenationalandstatelevels.Itsdomesticviolencemodule

INTERNATIONALMONETARYFUND9

capturesever-marriedwomenaged15to49andincludesdetailedquestionsontheincidenceofviolence,

attitudestowardsviolence,reportingofviolence,andpartnerandhouseholdcharacteristics.WeusethethreelatestNFHSwaves:2005-06(NFHS-3,2007),2015-16(NFHS-4,2017)and2019-21(NFHS-5,2022)to

capturemorethan235thousandever-marriedwomen.3

Accordingtothesedata,theincidenceofdomesticviolenceishighanddecliningataslowrateinIndia,and

therearelargevariationsacrossstates(Figure1.1).ThelifetimeIPVincidenceinIndiawas31.8percentin

2019-21,downonlyby1.5percentagepointscomparedto2015.Theincidenceofphysicalviolencedeclined

from29.8percentin2015-16to28.2in2019-21,theincidenceofsexualviolencedecreasedfrom7percentin2015-16to6.1percentin2019-21.Ontheotherhand,theincidenceofemotionalviolenceincreased(+0.2ppt)to14percentin2019-21.Whiletheseratesarehigh,theseaveragesalsomasksignificantvariationofrates

acrossstates(Figure1.2):Forinstance,ratesarelowestinGoa,HimachalPradesh,andNagaland—wheretheincidenceisaround10percent—andhighestinKarnataka,Bihar,andManipur(upto50percent).

Figure1.India:ShareofRespondentswhoExperiencedDomestic(Physical,SexualorEmotional)

1.NationalLevel2.StateLevel(2005vs.2019)

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

39.8

33.3

31.8

200520152019

Sources:DifferentwavesofDHS.Source:NFHSwaves3and5.

Theshareofrespondentswhojustifywifebeatingissubstantial,withhigheracceptanceratesamongwomen,whilereportingratesofdomesticviolencearelow.

Theshareofwomenwhojustifywife-beatingforanyreasonhasbeenconsistentlyhigherthantheshareofmen(Figure2).Theacceptancebywomeninthelatestsurvey,at41percent,ishighbyanystandards.

Whilethefemalesharehasdecreased,theshareofmenwhojustifiedwife-beatingrose(+2ppts)between

2015and2019.Thereissignificantvariationofacceptanceratesacrossstates,whicharepositively

correlatedwithhigherincidencesofIPVinthesestates(Figure3):InAndhraPradesh,forinstance,as

manyas80percentofwomensurveyedbyNFHSin2019-21justifiedwife-beatingforatleastonereason,whileinTamilNaduandTelangana,thefigurewasaround75percent.InUttarPradeshitwasaround36percent.InHimachalPradeshandDelhi,thissharewasbelow15percent.

3Thethreewavescover83,703(2005-06),79,729(2015-16),and72,320(2019-2021)ever-marriedwomen(age15-49).

INTERNATIONALMONETARYFUND10

ThehighincidenceofIPVcontrastssharplywiththelowpercentageofwomenwhoreportedsuchviolenceorsoughthelpfromanysource—officialorunofficial(Figure4).ReportingofIPVtoanyoneisgenerally

low,decliningbetween2005and2019(Figure4).OnlyasmallshareofwomenwhoexperiencedIPV

soughthelpfromunofficialsources(forinstance,friends,family,neighbors).EvenfewerwomenwhowerevictimsofIPVsoughthelpfromofficialsources(police,doctors,lawyers,socialservices)—onlyonein100

did—thoughratesvarysomewhatacrossstates(Figure5).InManipur,forexample,wheretheincidenceof

IPVis40percent,only3percentofvictimssoughthelpfromanysource,whetherofficialorunofficial.Incontrast,instateslikePunjabandGoa,whereIPVratesarelowerataround10-13percent,morethan30percentofvictimssoughthelp.

Figure2.India:ShareofPopulationJustifyingWife-

Beating,2005-2019

(PercentofRespondents)

Figure3.IndianStates:ShareofPopulation

JustifyingWife-Beating,2005vs2019

(PercentofRespondents)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

femalemale

47.3

44.5

41.8

40.7

33.5

31.7

200520152019

Source:NFHS,wave5.

Figure5.IndianStates:

Help-SeekingfromOfficialSources,2005vs.2019

(PercentofRespondents)

Source:NFHS,waves3and5.

Source:NFHS,waves3-5).

Figure4.India:ShareofWomenwhoSoughtHelpfromDifferentSources,2005-2019

(PercentofRespondents)

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

w2005w20152019

25.024.5

14.113.813.613.2

1.00.81.0

anysourceunofficialsourceofficialsource

Source:NFHS,waves3-5.

INTERNATIONALMONETARYFUND11

DriversofIntimatePartnerViolence:LiteratureandStylizedFacts

TheEcologicalModelofHealth

Domesticviolenceisaresultofmultiplefactorsattheindividual,familial,community,andsocio-economiclevelsthatworksimultaneously.Thesocio-ecologicalmodelofhealthformalizesthisapproachthrough

concentriccirclesrepresentingdifferentsystems,withtheindividualplacedinthecenter(Bronfenbrenner

1977).Themicrosystemisclosesttotheindividual.Itrepresentsthecharacteristicsthattheindividualbringstothesystem(age,educationattainment,employmentstatus,personalhistory)andincludestheinteractionsandrelationshipsintheimmediatesurroundings.Themesosystemincludesmajorinteractions(withintimate

partners,family,peers)withtheindividualatthecenter.Theexosystemdoesnotcontaintheindividual—it

exertsinteractiveforcesontheindividualviacommunitycontextsandsocialnetworks.Themacrosystemreferstotheoverarchinginstitutionalpatternsofthecultureorsubculture,thatis,economic,social,legal,andpoliticalsystemsthatcontextualizeinteractionsobservedwithinthemicro-,meso-,andexosystem(Bronfenbrenner

1977;Bronfenbrenner1986).Heise(1998)adaptedthesocio-ecologicalmodeltostudydomesticviolence.

Inthispaper,themicrosystemreferstoindividual-levelfa