Domestic violence, decision-making power, and female employment in Colombia

Abstract

Using data from the Colombian Demographic and Health Survey, I document a positive association between intimate partner violence against women and the likelihood of women’s employment. This finding persists when I exploit the husband’s own childhood experience of abuse as a source of plausibly exogenous variation for the incidence of domestic violence. To explore potential mechanisms underlying this association, I use a mediation analysis in the presence of intermediate confounders. I find suggestive evidence that a woman’s decision-making power—measured by active input in household and healthcare decisions—as well as a measure for willingness to divorce are likely mediators. I argue that abused women may hold jobs to increase their economic independence and potentially exit abusive relationships.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    In the context of this paper, domestic violence is always directed against women. The terms “spousal violence” and “domestic violence” are used interchangeably in this paper.

  2. 2.

    The DHS program is funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Departments are the main political divisions of the country. Colombia is divided into 32 departments and a capital district, Bogota.

  3. 3.

    Another 1.06% of women were also excluded from the DHS because they could not be safely interviewed in private. Not being able to characterize this excluded part of the sample may be of concern if these women are affected the most by DV.

  4. 4.

    For the rest of this document, any mention of domestic violence refers to physical violence against the wife.

  5. 5.

    Departments are the first administrative division in Colombia. There are 32 departments, including the capital city of Bogota.

  6. 6.

    Primary sampling units (PSU) are the first stage of selection in a multi-stage sampling procedure. In the DHS data, these units typically correspond to an enumeration area or a segment of an enumeration area. In this sample, there are 3965 PSUs.

  7. 7.

    The instrument may have no effect on some individuals, but all those who are affected are affected in the same way, so that all individuals who change their treatment status as a result of a change in the instrument either get all shifted into treatment, or get all shifted out of treatment.

  8. 8.

    Household wealth is measured with the DHS wealth index readily available in the dataset and calculated using the methodology of Filmer and Pritchett (2001).

  9. 9.

    For full estimation results, please refer to Table A2 in the Supplementary Appendix.

  10. 10.

    To give this estimate some perspective, forced displacement in Colombia leads displaced women to work eight more hours per week and their wage rates are 1.8 times higher than their rural counterparts (Calderon et al. 2011). Displaced women are also about 5.1 percentage points, or 14%, more likely to work following displacement. Compared with interventions on employment, a randomized evaluation of the youth training program “Jovenes en Accion” shows that female trainees’ probability of paid employment 19–21 months after completing the program increased by 6.8 percentage points (12%) relative to the control group (Attanasio et al. 2011). The positive effect of the program was substantially larger for female work in the formal sector, with an estimated increase of 6.9 percentage points (35%).

  11. 11.

    The methodology is summarized in Supplementary Appendix A.

  12. 12.

    Controlling for other covariates in IV regressions is often important because the assumption of exogeneity may hold only after conditioning on all exogenous variables. In the Nevo and Rosen approach, the assumptions on the correlation structure do not change for the more general version of the model where there are additional covariates.

  13. 13.

    The estimations of the bounds were obtained with the -imperfectiv- Stata command.

  14. 14.

    Please refer to Supplementary Appendix B for details.

  15. 15.

    If an increase in a woman’s threat point increases her chances of leaving and lowers the violence when she stays, then she would seek employment to improve her alternatives.

  16. 16.

    Intermediate confounders are consequences of DV that also affect the intermediate outcome (willingness to divorce) and final outcome (employment).

  17. 17.

    To explain this methodology and its application, I rely on the causal language used by the authors. I, however, am not claiming that my results are causal.

  18. 18.

    Details of the procedure are explained in Supplementary Appendix C.

  19. 19.

    The estimations were obtained with the -ivmediate- Stata command.

  20. 20.

    In Colombia, there are 9 reasons to legally ask for divorce, being domestic violence one of them. No laws or norms were introduced in Colombia after 2005 that may explain a surge in the willingness to separate in 2009/10. I, however, acknowledge that willingness to separate may be capturing factors such as policies that facilitate divorce, which mostly affect the proportion of legally married couples (45%).

References

  1. Ackerberg, D. A., & Botticini, M. (2002). Endogenous matching and the empirical determinants of contract form. Journal of Political Economy, 110, 564–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Agüero, J. (2013). Causal estimates of the intangible costs of violence against women in Latin America and the Caribbean. Inter American Development Bank Working Paper No. IDB-WP-414. Inter American Development Bank. Washington, DC.

  3. Aizer, A. (2010). The gender wage gap and domestic violence. The American Economic Review, 100, 18–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Anderberg, D., & Rainer, H. (2013). Economic abuse: a theory of intrahousehold sabotage. Journal of Public Economics, 97, 282–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. S. (2008). Mostly harmless econometrics: an empiricist’s companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  6. Assaad, R., Friedemann-Sanchez, G., & Levison, D. (2017). Impact of domestic violence on children's education in colombia: methodological challenges. Violence Against Women, 23(12), 1484–1512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Attanasio, O., Kugler, A., & Meghir, C. (2011). Subsidizing vocational training for disadvantaged youth in Colombia: evidence from a randomized trial. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3, 188–220.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bhattacharyya, M., Bedi, A. S., & Chhachhi, A. (2011). Marital violence and women’s employment and property status: evidence from North Indian villages. World Development, 39, 1676–1689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Calderon, V., Gafaro, M., & Ibanez, A. M. (2011). The gender wage gap, weather, and intimate partner violence. Working paper, Documento CEDE No. 2011-28. Universidad de los Andes. Bogota, Colombia.

  10. Carrillo, R. (1992). Battered dreams: violence against women as an obstacle to development. New York, NY: United Nations Development Fund for Women.

  11. De Chaisemartin, C. (2017). Tolerating defiance? Local average treatment effects without monotonicity. Quantitative Economics, 8, 367–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dippel, C., Gold, R., Heblich, S., & Pinto, R. (2017). Instrumental variables and causal mechanisms: unpacking the effect of trade on workers and voters. Working paper No. 23209, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). Cambridge, MA.

  13. Evans, S. E., Davies, C., & DiLillo, D. (2008). Exposure to domestic violence: a meta-analysis of child and adolescent outcomes. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 131–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Farmer, A., & Tiefenthaler, J. (2004). The employment effects of domestic violence. Research in Labor Economics, 23, 301–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Filmer, D., & Pritchett, L. H. (2001). Estimating wealth wffects without expenditure data-or tears: an application to educational enrollments in states of India. Demography, 38, 115–132.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Flake, D. F., & Forste, R. (2006). Fighting families: family characteristics associated with domestic violence in five Latin American Countries. Journal of Family Violence, 21, 19–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Friedemann-Sánchez, G., & Lovatón, R. (2012). Intimate partner violence in colombia: who is at risk? Social Forces, 91, 663–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Graham-Bermann, S. A., Castor, L. E., Miller, L. E., & Howell, K. H. (2012). The impact of intimate partner violence and additional traumatic events on trauma symptoms and PTSD in preschool-aged children. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 25, 393–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Heath, R. (2014). Women’s access to labor market opportunities, control of household resources, and domestic violence: evidence from Bangladesh. World Development, 57, 32–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Heise, L. L., Pitanguy, J., & Germain, A. (1994). Violence against women. the hidden health burden. World Bank Discussion Papers 255. The World Bank. Washington, DC.

  21. Henke, A., & Hsu, L. C. (2020). The gender wage gap, weather, and intimate partner violence. Review of Economics of the Household, 18, 413–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Imai, K., Keele, L., Tingley, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2011). Unpacking the black box of causality: learning about causal mechanisms from experimental and observational studies. American Political Science Review, 105, 765–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jepsen, L. K., & Jepsen, C. A. (2002). An empirical analysis of the matching patterns of same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Demography, 39, 435–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Johnson, W. R., & Skinner, J. (1986). Labor supply and marital separation. The American Economic Review, 76(3), 455–469.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kalmijn, M. (1994). Assortative mating by cultural and economic occupational status. American Journal of Sociology, 100(2), 422–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kishor, S., & Johnson, K. (2004). Profiling domestic violence: a multi-country study. Measure DHS+ and ORC Macro Publication OD31. http://www.dhsprogram.com/publications/publication-OD31-Other-Documents.cfm. Accessed 7 May 2014.

  27. Lam, D. (1988). Marriage markets and assortative mating with household public goods: theoretical results and empirical implications. Journal of Human Resources, 23(4), 462–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lloyd, S. (1997). The effects of domestic violence on womenas employment. Law and Policy, 19, 139–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lloyd, S., & Taluc, N. (1999). The effects of male violence on female employment. Violence Against Women, 5, 370–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Martin, S. L., Moracco, K. E., Garro, J., Tsui, A. O., Kupper, L. L., Chase, J. L., & Campbell, J. C. (2002). Domestic violence across generations: findings from Northern India. International Journal of Epidemiology, 31, 560–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Meisel, J., Chandler, D., & Rienzi, B. M. (2003). Domestic violence prevalence and effects on employment in two California TANF populations. Violence Against Women, 9, 1191–1212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. MontielOlea, J. L., & Pflueger, C. E. (2013). A robust test for weak instruments. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 31, 358–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Morrison, A. R., & Orlando, M.B. (1999). Social and economic costs of domestic violence: Chile and Nicaragua. In A. Morrison & L. Biehl (Eds). Too close to home: domestic violence in the Americas (pp. 51–80). Washington, DC: Inter American Development Ban.

  34. Nevo, A., & Rosen, A. M. (2012). Identification with imperfect instruments. Review of Economics and Statistics, 94, 659–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Profamilia (2011). Encuesta nacional de demografía y salud 2010. Bogota, Colombia: Gerencia de Evaluacion e Investigacion Profamilia.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Rios-Avila, F., & Canavire-Bacarreza, G. (2017). The effect of intimate partner violence on labor market decisions: evidence from a multi-ethnic country. International Journal of Social Economics, 44, 75–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Staggs, S. L., & Riger, S. (2005). Effects of intimate partner violence on low-income women’s health and employment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 133–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: the conflict tactics (CT) scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41(1), 75–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2): development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Swanberg, J. E., & Logan, T. (2005). Domestic violence and employment: a qualitative study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Tolman, R. M., & Wang, H. C. (2005). Domestic violence and women’s employment: fixed effects models of three waves of women’s employment study data. American Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 147–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. UNICEF (2001). Domestic violence against women and girls. Innocenti digest No. 6. Innocenti Research Centre. Florence, Italy.

  43. Whitfield, C. L., Anda, R. F., Dube, S. R., & Felitti, V. J. (2003). Violent childhood experiences and the risk of intimate partner violence in adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 166–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. World Health Organization (2013). Global and regional estimates of domestic violence against women: prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. Geneva: World Health Organization Department of Reproductive Health and Research.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Marc Bellemare, Paul Glewwe, Jason Kerwin, Deborah Levison and Joseph Ritter for comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this paper. I also appreciate valuable comments by Shoshana Grossbard and anonymous referees. Special thanks to Juan C. Chaparro, Scott Cunningham, Camilo Dominguez, Rachel Heath, Anne Hilger, Giulia La Mattina, Juan Morales, Jorge E. Perez, and Carlos Sandoval for their comments and encouragement. I am grateful for useful feedback from participants at various international conferences and seminars. A previous version of this paper was part of my doctoral dissertation at the University of Minnesota, and I gratefully acknowledge funding from the University of Minnesota Graduate School. Any remaining errors or omissions are mine.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johanna Fajardo-Gonzalez.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fajardo-Gonzalez, J. Domestic violence, decision-making power, and female employment in Colombia. Rev Econ Household 19, 233–254 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-020-09491-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Domestic violence
  • Employment
  • Women’s decision-making power
  • Colombia

JEL classification

  • I10
  • J16
  • J22