Assets, Wealth and Spousal Violence: Insights from Ecuador and Ghana

1. Assets, Wealth and Spousal Violence: Insights from Ecuador and Ghana Abena D. Oduro, University of Ghana Carmen Diana Deere, University of Florida Zachary Catanzarite, University of Florida Prepared for the World Bank Workshop on Gender and Assets June 14 2012

2. Introduction • Numerous studies investigate factors that might increase women’s bargaining power and reduce the risk of abuse. • Very few have considered the relationship between women’s asset (i.e. land and home)ownership and spousal violence • Women’s homeownership deters physical and psychological abuse (Panda and Agarwal 2005, Bhattacharrya et al 2011) • Evidence on association of spousal abuse and women’s land ownership is mixed (Bhattacharyya et al 2011, Ezeh and Gage 2000, Panda and Agarwal, 2005,)

3. Introduction (contd.) • This study adds to the growing literature on spousal abuse in two ways: • It considers ownership of a wider range of assets, i.e. agricultural land, home ownership and ownership of other real estate such as another residence, commercial building and non-agricultural plot. • It investigates women’s ownership of assets relative to their partners. • Places emphasis on relative value of women’s assets as a measure of their fall back position • Controls for the fact that different assets may impact bargaining power differently. • Allow us to determine whether the preventive impact of women’s share of couple wealth varies along the wealth distribution

4. Context Ecuador • Population: 14.7 million • HDI rank: 83 • Law Against Domestic Violence Towards Women and the Family (1995) Ghana • Population 25 million • HDI rank: 135 • Domestic Violence Act (2007)

5. Survey Instrument • Designed to be similar in several respects. • Two sections • Household asset inventory • Individual questionnaire completed by 2 respondents in the household. • Domestic Violence Module in Individual Questionnaire- Respondents were asked: • How common domestic violence was in their community or neighbourhood? • Whether they had been abused physically, verbally or psychologically in the past year • Who the perpetrator(s) of the abuse was

6. The Data Ecuador • EAFF-Ecuador Household Asset Survey conducted in 2010 • 2,892 Households • Two-stage sampling procedure • Sample size for this study: 1,938 partnered women –married or in a consensual union, resident in the same household with their partner and who both responded to the individual questionnaire Ghana • GHAS-Ghana Household Asset Survey conducted in 2010 • 2,170 Households • Two-stage sampling procedure • Sample size for this study: 886 partnered women – married or in a consensual union, resident in the same household with their partner and who both responded to the individual questionnaire

7. Incidence of Spousal Violence During Previous 12 months (Currently partnered women aged 18-49 years)

8. The Models • The Dependent variables: • Physical violence in past 12 months • Emotional violence, i.e. verbal and psychological abuse, in past 12 months • Variable of Interest- Women’s asset ownership measured as: • Women’s ownership of any of the following real estate: agricultural land, place of residence, other real estate . Categorical variable that takes a value of 1 if owner, 0 if not • Women’s share of couple’s gross value of physical and financial wealth- continuous variable ranging from 0 to 1.

9. Other Explanatory Variables • Characteristics of the Woman • Age, education and number of children aged under 13 years • Characteristics of the Couple • Age difference, difference in years of education, employment status relative to spouse, woman’s report of earnings relative to spouse • Nature of the Relationship • Type of union (i.e. married or in a consensual union), occurrence of financial disagreements in past 12 months • Household Context • Socioeconomic status of household- gross value of assets, crowding, location • Community Context • Woman’s perception of the frequency of domestic violence in the community

10. Descriptives • Sources: EAFF (2010); GHAS (2010)

11. Methodology • Logistic regression • Physical abuse • Emotional Abuse • Baseline model: • Includes all explanatory variables except variable of interest. • Model I: • Adds woman’s ownership of asset variable to the baseline • Model II: • Adds woman’s share of couple wealth to the baseline • Model III: • Adds woman’s share of couple wealth plus interaction of woman’s share of couple wealth and household wealth categories

12. Logistic Regression Results for Physical Violence

13. The Odds Ratios of Physical Violence and Women’s Share of Couple Wealth by Tertile, Ecuador and Ghana

14. Other Significant Explanatory Variables Ecuador • Financial Disagreements (+) • Report of Community Violence(+) • Employment: Man is employed, she is not (-) (Reference: both are working) • Ghana • Financial Disagreements (+) • Age of Woman (-) • Years of education of woman (- )

15. Logistic Regression Results for Emotional Violence

16. The Odds Ratio of Emotional Violence and Women’s Share of Couple Wealth by Tertile, Ecuador and Ghana

17. Other Significant Explanatory Variables Ecuador • Financial Disagreements (+) • Perceptions of community violence (+) • Urban location (+) • Earnings: Woman earns more than partner (+) Ghana • Financial Disagreements (+) • Perceptions of community violence (+) • Urban location (-) • Polygamous union (-)

18. Discussion • Asset variables behave differently across models and between the two countries. • Being an asset owner has a significant and negative effect in Ghana for emotional abuse • In Ecuador woman’s share of couple wealth has a significant deterrent effect on physical abuse. • In Ghana woman’s share of couple wealth has a significant deterrent effect for emotional abuse only. • Context Matters.

19. Discussion contd. • The deterrent effect of women’s share of wealth depends on the socioeconomic status of the household. Women in different socio-economic strata face different risks. • Ecuador: • Woman in lowest third of household wealth with zero share of couple wealth is predicted to be at risk from physical abuse but is buffered from emotional abuse. • However, when she increases her share of couple wealth predicted likelihood of physical abuse declines whilst likelihood of emotional abuse rises.

20. Discussion contd. • Predictors of both types of abuse: • Both countries: • Financial disagreements • Perception of community violence • Deterrents: • Ecuador: • Only male is employed, reduces likelihood of physical abuse • Man’s years of schooling exceeds that of partner reduces likelihood of emotional abuse • Ghana: • Age, Years of schooling of woman reduces physical violence • Polygamous marriage reduces emotional violence

21. Thank you for your attention